You're keying in on the wrong parts of my post. I have clearly stated, on this board, multiple times, that the prosecution has a VERY difficult case, one that is going to require a substantial amount of evidence to overturn the election. That is a fact with established precedent. We agree there. All other sub-narratives MUST fall under that agreement.

Moving to the sub-narrative. There is clearly motive and opportunity for people to cheat during this election, and there is enough evidence via affidavits and irregularities to investigate these claims. I have been saying for MONTHS leading up to this election that the plan for mail-in ballots was not secure enough to implement on a massive scale, and that it was going to cause problems. Mail-in ballots have always been the least secure method for voting, and it makes sense that it would be the cause for many of the odd patterns and irregularities that we have seen. People are right to be suspicious. The claims you're making to not alleviate that suspicion. I am not saying the defense needs to prove Biden didn't cheat, That would be ridiculous. I am saying that the pattern of the irregularities, opportunity, and motive are all in line with possible massive fraud. You are just listing counterpoints to these claims as PROOF fraud didn't occur and mocking people who are suspicious of it. You don't have that kind of evidence.

There is a different standard of evidence required for the court of law than the court of public opinion. All that matters for the election is the court of law. I am making a distinction between your mocking of posters for suspecting fraud, and the burden of proof required by Trump's team.

As far as Trump's record in court, that's somewhat irrelevant. Not entirely, of course, but the whole goal of Giuliani is to try to get a case before the Supreme Court. He's got to file and appeal to get it there. Many cases get dismissed early, but have success in appeals courts. The primary goal of Trump's team is to show that the actions taken by the executive branches in PA, MI, and GA went against the laws of the legislature and therefore should be discarded. It's a tough battle. I was always reluctant to see this as the type of case that anyone wants to take on. This is functionally different than what Powell is claiming, which is criminal in nature. I will be curious, when all of the evidence has been presented, which parts of her case are irrefutable. It may be entirely made up, but I don't think that's a valid position to take at this point.

---