> NONE of the courts have even looked at the evidence this time This is as incorrect a statement as one can possibly make. Multiple lawsuits did look at eviden

> NONE of the courts have even looked at the evidence this time This is as incorrect a statement as one can possibly make. Multiple lawsuits did look at evidence (Law v. Whitmer, Bowyer v. Ducey, and King v. Whitmer, for example), and the evidence submitted was found to be far from sufficient to support the complaint. > not just dozens, of sworn affidavits that certify that fraudulent activities were witnessed I just don’t understand why the fixation on the number of affidavits. The quantity of affidavits is rather meaningless on its own; it’s the quality that is far more important. There’s a good reason why defendants have won despite submitting far fewer depositions and/or affidavits in relevant cases: because ultimately it’s the quality of evidence that matters, and a few high-quality depositions/affidavits are worth more than an ocean of inadmissible fluff. > I have looked at even just some of the evidence and just alone the statistical data indicates extremely strongly that at least something was clearly wrong that would cause any good faith and rational person to at least want to look further at the data. What analyses did you look at? And that also begs the question: did you look further into the analyses? Because most, if not all, the ones I’ve seen tend to either fall apart as soon as one takes a closer look (e.g., 700+% turnout for a nonexistent county/township), are incomplete (Dr. Ayyadurai’s analysis), or are rather meaningless (the statistical analysis submitted in Texas v. Pennsylvania). > how is it that of the bellwether districts that have all, for the last 10 presidential elections essentially all gone to the winning candidate … both Democrat and Republican … all but two went to Trump this time. Because such correlation is not causation. They’ll be right right up until they aren’t. Same thing with statements like “Republicans need Ohio to win”. There’s no inherent reason why that must be the case, so when it isn’t you can’t draw strong conclusions from that.*