Alright, I admit to being misinformed on that. I was totally wrong on that section. Hopefully I didn't screw up the rest quite as badly. (I heard Trump was angry at McCarthy for not doing a bipartisan panel and not putting pro-Trump folk on the committee. Didn't understand it was really Pelosi.)
In the next paragraph, you claimed there were judicial reviews, and they were thrown out due to lack of evidence. No, nearly all were thrown out due to lack of standing, without making any judgment on the evidence.
I feel like they were looked at and from what I understand found wanting, in presentation and in some cases with reference to substance and lack of evidence or solid claims as stated by some judges. (Which is not just all standing, I feel.) They also have had plenty of time to figure out standing and the like, I'd guess, and the results have been more or less the same in the 60+ total in like the entire year+ following.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/11/30/trumps-judicial-campaign-to-upend-the-2020-election-a-failure-but-not-a-wipe-out/ So that to me indicates that perhaps there were content issues as well.
I do not believe I made any reference to standing or where within the process precisely these attempts were thrown out originally, but if you lack evidence, whether of standing to present a case or that something happened... That's lacking evidence, to my mind. That said, maybe I'm using the definition poorly, and not doing a good job with it, in which case yeah, now that I think of it that's on me. EDIT: Looked back and my phrasing would affiliate with Pat's use of the term more than mine currently, so that actually was a bad statement on my part.
Regardless, I think my point is that it seems to me unlikely that so many courts, so many red or Trump affiliated too, would counter that many lawsuits, even after they had time to figure out how to bring standing, if the majority were not false or did not have proper and vigorous legal legs to stand on. And I do admittedly feel, even if all had been standing, standing matters. Especially when the right leaning judges in many cases had a political reason to rule in favor if they could, and assumably did not because they cared about the letter of the law among other things, which determines in part whether an election may be declared invalid or illegal or altered through court of law. From my perspective and admittedly pretty sketch legal understanding.
Not an expert, but that is my understanding.
Edit: I was kind of an ass in the first draft of this, and it shows even after I've tried to clean it up to be less hostile and jerkish over being called out on what was at a bare minimum somewhat my own mistake. What's worse, when you were calmly and reasonably pointing out a mistake I genuinely made in the statements I gave, after I more or less, looking at what you quoted there, asked what else I screwed up after point number one you rightfully called me out on. Anyway I don't think the kind of hostility and occasional language I used in emphatically "making my points" was needed, or deserved. But I was also an asshole, and that should be preserved through this edit, even as I issue an apology. (For the specifics, I used "and shit" instead of and the like, as an example, was a lot more emphatic in my stances and certain/thereby self-righteous in my assertions. Spammed capital letters, to give an idea of how obnoxious I was. That said... Never cussed you out, insulted you personally or the like, but was still unpleasant and not very diplomatic. Trust when I say that annoying though what I have may be, it reads better without the emphasis.)