I can't speak to all the election fraud claims, ong, but the prominent ones were all tossed out summarily when the lawyers were directly asked by the judge if they had any direct evidence of fraud, and the lawyers had to admit they did not.
The lawyers can say whatever they want to the press, but when it comes to intentionally misleading a judge in a court of law... their credentials are on the line. They cannot intentionally mislead the judge and remain a lawyer.
The highest profile claims have already been before various judges and so far, all have been thrown out.
You can't simply "take a case to the supreme court." That's not how it works. You have to try and lose the case on the local and several appellate levels before the case is even under the noses of the SCOTUS. Then they decide which cases to rule on, and which to ignore. They don't have time for everything, and they get to pick what they rule on.
So no lawyer can "take a case to SCOTUS." That's simply not how it works. They can file local claims and the only way they can say with confidence that they have any chance to get to SCOTUS is if they already know they will lose in the local courts and on all appeals under SCOTUS to get there in the first place.
[EDIT]Oh, and FYI, the appellate courts do not look at any evidence, and no new evidence is allowed to enter at that level of the decision. The purpose of appellate courts is to determine if the original local court followed the correct rules of law. Since there were no juries involved, it's all just what did the lawyers say and do and what did the judge say and do and did anyone break the law during that whole process.[/EDIT]
Reply With Quote