"Every single case got struck down by judges" is not a new argument to my ears. Do you think most of those judges heard actual evidence, or were throwing cases out on procedural grounds? Have you considered that question?
Has Matt Braynard's work been heard and responded to?
What are the responses to these?
https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-elect...
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-m...
Look at this "fact check", does it seem reasonable to you? https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/12/fact-check-video-...
Here's a response to it: https://gellerreport.com/2020/12/no-the-georgia-vote-countin...
I think 90% of all these concerns are likely to be dismisable. But they haven't even been examined, and I have a deep and abiding fear of the remaining 10% actually having merit.
IIRC, there was an election case in Pennsylvania that made it up to the Federal appeals court. There it was dismissed for lack of evidence. (The opinion was written by a judge appointed by Trump.) You can think of that as "procedural grounds" and "not hearing the evidence", I suppose, but to me it looks like examining the evidence and finding it lacking at the most basic level.
Yes. And I even read complaints filed, responses to those complaints, arguments and rulings. And you can too (here's a summary of many of the cases, with links and citations to the actual court documents)[0].
I could tell you what conclusions I drew, but I won't. Don't believe me or anyone else. Read the court documents yourself. They are matters of public record.
[0] https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-electi...