I would imagine that the lack of evidence, is simply because it can’t be granted.

Ever.

The lawsuits are “theatrical” in a sense, because it establishes a significant series of burden, requiring the Supreme Court to “indulge their arbitration”

I.E. bullying the court is the only way to prosecute people for election performance or conduct because the court(s) can’t.

AFAIK The courts cannot collect evidence of election performance. It’s not their jurisdiction or mandate.

People seem to believe that the state courts can accept testimony or evidence.

They cannot accept evidence or suggest prosecution, no court can.

Fraud can’t be proven even if the action meets the definition and standard for fraud, if a court cannot be found or suggested.

They can only reject the motion, even if there is sufficient proof to investigate, affidavit or observation. Not that there is no evidence, but evidence can’t be collected and can’t be used, validated or collected until the Supreme Court is given the authority, agency and mandate to investigate the election.

It is a no-mans-land due to the lack of a court to prosecute those involved.

And it can’t be any other way.

A fundamental loophole exists because of the US constitution and the US court system during an election. It’s not new. It’s been there for centuries, and it can’t be patched over unless the elections are organised via a federal mandate, under a provisional government body with executive and/or legislative power.

The next few months are literally going to be noting that “the emperor has no clothes”, due to the hidden reality of the lack of legal consequence of people influencing the outcome, acting in a fraudulent manner.

And the resolve will be “the emperor has clothing, you just refuse to accept it”

It is a very long process of establishing that the “safeguards” have no meaning if the safeguards have no legal effect, and any election participant can’t provide evidence or audit results. That’s the theatre of the current process.

Especially if people know they can defraud the government, and communicate with others that they have done so, and avoid prosecution.

Only the Supreme Court can act during the election, and it is unwilling, because it can only intercept or accept cases that require the unburdened access to the undefined legal system to operate and arbitrate.

People seem to believe that these cases “lost”. They would never have “won”.

That’s the goal of the theatrical “losses” and attempts here, to show that the election process is vulnerable, and no legal domain exists, or can exist, so the Supreme Court is the intervention.

And it is prohibited from preemptive action for the reason that the Theatrics are legally necessary too.

There are no “Election Police”. There are no election courts / mandated legal bodies /commissions or state investigations that arrest people for election misconduct during or after election.

The role is absurdly and often temporary because of the partisan problems of establishing a “Neutral” body with the power to dismantle the US electoral system by degrees or by action, have the power to change the foundation and membership of the US Federal Government.

The mandate could only exist in a Supreme Court, with the power to arbitrate or commission an investigation, granted the domain to prosecute and perform this single task.

It’s fine to believe in Justice, but an Electoral Court would be the Arbitration of every future State and Federal Government. And they would require a mandate to act in the belief/service to a higher authority, perhaps the Constitution.

Perhaps not. Who would be appointed. Who would be compelled to attend or supply evidence. Who would be responsible for the decisions made, etc.

It’s far too late to implement an organisation with this epic mandate, one that could recreate or reshuffle an operating government.

Thus, There can never be Election Fraud. Because it cannot be investigated during the Election process, nor can evidence be collected, or interpreted/discussed under a legal action unless it exists outside of the election itself.

Something like “Purge” rules, the situation is generally grotesque if you try to process how the counter to the argument, that “of course the law exists”.

It’s also about applying the law. And enforcing the laws that exist. Think about the ramifications of not being able to process any evidence, because a court cannot exist in this domain.

You may believe a court could act, order, suggest or proscribe action, but if it cannot act, and it cannot compel or prove, what could a court order or interpret.

Who would apply the law. Who would determine the penalty. Who would apply that penalty, and who would defend the parties involved.

More importantly, can a court ever exist. Who determines the scope and power of a court to determine and act. The mandate to intervene.

What if that court does not exist, nor can it be created.

There is a degree of lawless agency because of the necessary expediency of counting and validating results.

If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s no record, did it even exist? This aphorism applies to the entire process of the US Election.

Unless evidence is collected outside of the Election, it’s not wilful ignorance, it’s entirely legally oblivious to any action or consequence during the conduct of an Election.

And to say that there’s any ability to “catch” indicates a lack of familiarity with the brokenness of the election process in the United States.

The AP and media likely feel comfortable being arbiters because the laws governing the collection of results are Anarchic.

AFAIK, anybody involved in the election could very easily commit fraud during the election process, because the process is not able to detect, investigate, prosecute or determine criminal action took place.

There is no police, no agency to record or investigate criminal or audit performance. There is no office or commission that could arrest people or provide testimony, and convert that testimony to evidence of misconduct.

The ability of a court to investigate requires a legal mandate to operate in (sic).

AFAIK this has never existed in the US. Most of the prosecution and criminal investigation happens before, after an election, because there has never been a criminal investigation of misconduct of election representation, nor the ability of a court to intervene during the election.

It may be that someone deliberately fed ballots into a machine over and over, meeting the requirements of impropriety and the action of fraud, but nobody can recover or remove that action with the current legal frameworks that exist, possibly even if that person acknowledges their action.

Their conduct may meet the burden of fraud, but criminal prosecution can’t or won’t be recommended or forwarded to local authorities for prosecution.

It may be that you can cheat the election process, but be arrested for stealing a paperclip, given the legal framework for election(s).

Without a National management of election performance, prosecution would be improbable within the timespan of an election period of 4 years, let alone 4 weeks.

The FBI or DOJ may appoint some organising body in the future, but I have no idea what the burden of proof is for a state election or “538 separate audits” of performance during an election.

Nobody is keeping the receipts if they don’t have to. Especially not with the standard of criminal investigation and audit of conduct.

It may fall to the FBI or adjacent investigation officers across states to have a granted license or authority to.

The courts aren’t able to investigate or interpret/ introduce evidence, Especially across the burden of State Courts who aren’t responsible for vetting or establishing the requirements for evidence of criminal or unconstitutional proceeding.

versus hearsay or other court-approved material would require a police investigation, or branch of government to intervene and provide a form of license for the provision of evidentiary material at the standard of proof required to allege fraud ie Communication, Payment or Beneficience of the act (whatever the legal burden for Fraud requires) versus the legal burden for defining Widespread Fraud, wherein it has to be a certain volume of Fraud, a co-ordinated action, a hierarchy or actor who provides facilities and mediation, or who would act on behalf of others to obscure evidence of Fraud as a signal of agency and conspiracy.

The likelihood of proving conspiracy and fraud, even with evidence and recordings, communications and affidavits, would take years and decades to process, not days or weeks.

If the standard of evidence requires an investigation, or, It requires a level above affidavit or hearsay, this would also require a court or official to “hear” or ponder the statements made.