Wonder how many here realize that to get a court hearing, some semblance of evidence has to be provided in the filing itself

and courts don't have to look at any evidence to reject a case on standing, which almost all of them did. not a single case has 1) looked at the evidence and 2) said "this evidence isn't good or enough". once there's a bunch of cases dismissed because many judges all agreed the evidence wasn't compelling, then we can talk

Also know that Karl Rove stated that every election has minor hanky panky but there is simply no credible evidence of any kind to suggest that the "fraud" was at a level to change the outcome of the election.

karl rove is a uniparty globalist who hates americans so i don't care what lies he says