Lack of standing means that the people bringing the case, or plaintiffs, don't have a right to seek recourse. Which makes no sense to me
Standing is like the first basic hurdle you need to get over in any lawsuit. Basically you need to show that you have been harmed by something that the defendants have done, and that there is some kind of remedy the court could give you that would fix it.
This case is a little complicated as the Trump campaign is making a number of separate arguments which are being rejected by the courts for different reasons, and it has largely descended into procedural disputes due to Giuliani attempting to repeatedly rewrite his complaint and the district court telling him that he can't. But the basic problem is that even if all the allegations that the Trump campaign is making in this case are true, it still wouldn't create legal justification to overturn the election in Pennsylvania (all of them either involve far too few ballots, or fail to make a legal case for overturning any ballots). So it doesn't matter what evidence they have. I really would recommend reading the ruling from the 3rd Circuit. It's very readable, it clearly explains all the problems with the case, and it's written by a Trump appointee.
Standing is like the first basic hurdle you need to get over in any lawsuit. Basically you need to show that you have been harmed by something that the defendants have done, and that there is some kind of remedy the court could give you that would fix it.
This case is a little complicated as the Trump campaign is making a number of separate arguments which are being rejected by the courts for different reasons, and it has largely descended into procedural disputes due to Giuliani attempting to repeatedly rewrite his complaint and the district court telling him that he can't. But the basic problem is that even if all the allegations that the Trump campaign is making in this case are true, it still wouldn't create legal justification to overturn the election in Pennsylvania (all of them either involve far too few ballots, or fail to make a legal case for overturning any ballots). So it doesn't matter what evidence they have. I really would recommend reading the ruling from the 3rd Circuit. It's very readable, it clearly explains all the problems with the case, and it's written by a Trump appointee.