At least some, maybe most of those challenges were dismissed on procedural grounds, lack of standing, etc. They never got to the point of examining the "evidence." Maybe the retort to that is the challengers should have foreseen that. But the people filing these challenges were not unhinged randos from Twitter. They were elected officials, lawyers, educated people. They aren't going to go into court with something they know is frivolous.
Given that a sizable minority (and likely unprecedented number) of the voting public thinks there was fraud in the 2020 election, maybe it would have been better to have rebutted the evidence rather than the process.
The lawyers refused to lie in court, because their "evidence" was just the lies and empty allegations, which would be a crime to present in court. So they were summarily dismissed, by Trump appointed judges no less.
I'm not sure what you are trying to imply. Yes, they were going to have to present evidence. They didn't have any, and that's also why they didn't actually allege fraud. And that is why the cases were thrown out.
If you're asking why anyone paid them to file unwinnable cases: So there would be lawsuits to point to, and for the (minuscule) opportunity to have a (Trump-appointed) judge create some kind of win (again to point to it).
At least some, maybe most of those challenges were dismissed on procedural grounds, lack of standing, etc. They never got to the point of examining the "evidence." Maybe the retort to that is the challengers should have foreseen that. But the people filing these challenges were not unhinged randos from Twitter. They were elected officials, lawyers, educated people. They aren't going to go into court with something they know is frivolous.
Given that a sizable minority (and likely unprecedented number) of the voting public thinks there was fraud in the 2020 election, maybe it would have been better to have rebutted the evidence rather than the process.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...