This will be my last response because it's pretty clear we'll never agree, but what you're posting doesn't even follow the basic rules of court.
When you file a suit like these, included is at least some of your evidence and findings. The process is to put this under a certain level of scrutiny to determine whether or not it is a case that can proceed based on merit. Overwhelmingly, the judges have determined that the cases put forth do not meet those requirements.
As for the 1,000 affidavits, by all accounts, they are full of people making essentially signed complaints. Things like "I wasn't allowed to get close enough to see the votes" or "I wasn't allowed to go in a room that I wanted to go into" or "I saw a guy carrying out a box from the room and when I asked to see inside, they told me to fuck off." Of the claims that actually claim voter fraud, they cannot be verified or the source of information is not deemed trustworthy. Like I said, these affidavits are pretty much the same as the people who would swear they've seen big foot. While it's great they think they saw big foot, the reality is, they're not credible and they have no other physical evidence to backup their claims.
A lot of the Trump cases are not based on voter fraud. They're based on the legality of the changes made to the election process because of COVID-19. The arguments range from the verification of the mail in ballots, the verification of the dropped off ballots, whether they should have been allowed at all, and the timing of everything (for example, if a ballot was received after election day but mailed on election day or if a ballot was counted well after election day). Again, the vast majority of these cases have been dismissed, withdrawn, or denied.
The last point also is the basis of the case made by the Texas AG. Basically his argument was "Hey, we have rules in Texas we follow and other states followed different rules. How's that fair?" The answer is pretty simple: States run their elections and can determine how they want to do things. Texas has no right to tell Georgia how to run their elections. This was verified by the Supreme Court (including all of Trump's appointees). Alito and Thomas also agreed, but stated they would have allowed the case to be filed, but the results were a forgone conclusion.
In short, when you have a strong legal case, and you have money and power, you will not see the mass rejection by the courts like we've seen here. You can bring up left and right and liberal and conservative, but the reality is, these cases have been presented in front of Trump appointees more than once. They aren't interested because the case simply isn't good enough. You think they'd deny the President his day in court if there was a real case? That just doesn't make any amount of sense.
