Numerous cases had their merits scrutinized and soundly rejected, such as the one against Wisconsin Election Commission. Moreover you aren't entitled to have y

Numerous cases had their merits scrutinized and soundly rejected, such as the one against Wisconsin Election Commission. Moreover you aren't entitled to have your "evidence" heard when you're invoking non-existent legal rights (such as one state overturning the results of another state, or asking a state legislature to decide instead of letting the votes stand), and no one should take the word of random person in a comment thread over the collective consensus of 60+ cases rejecting every legal theory Trump's team put forward. There's a basic pattern with all of this. Someone insists Trump had a legitimate grievance, it leads down an obscure rabbit hole of tangled facts and interpretations that, when investigated, turns out to be a series of confusions, basic misundertandings, insane theories of law fundamentally incompatible with Democracy, and in some cases willful misrepresentation of the facts. Trump's legal team was largely incompetent, and invoked non-existent legal rights and authorities to challenge valid election results, and were appropriately dismissed.