> I have looked at even just some of the evidence and just alone the statistical data indicates extremely strongly that at least something was clearly wrong that would cause any good faith and rational person to at least want to look further at the data. And there are several instances like that, not even just one that I found.

Are you talking about something other than the Beneford's law stuff or the lead changing overnight in places that count in-person votes before they count mail-in votes or that finish counting rural areas before they finish counting urban areas?

If what you say is true, then didn't Trump appointed judges and Republican judges not evaluate the evidence and sworn affidavits? Why didn't Barr, a heavily partisan and biased Trump sycophant who meddled with prior investigations, not investigate all that being the head of the DoJ? If he somehow turned rogue, why didn't Trump fire him and replace him with someone who would investigate?

Do you have any reasonable explanation for the above? Mine is that all the evidence was hearsay and even Trump and Republicans knew it wasn't credible, he just did that to get this campaign to make even more money by fooling people, and for political gain.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundra...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/trump-rea...

> NONE of the courts have even looked at the evidence this time

This is as incorrect a statement as one can possibly make. Multiple lawsuits did look at evidence (Law v. Whitmer, Bowyer v. Ducey, and King v. Whitmer, for example), and the evidence submitted was found to be far from sufficient to support the complaint.

> not just dozens, of sworn affidavits that certify that fraudulent activities were witnessed

I just don’t understand why the fixation on the number of affidavits. The quantity of affidavits is rather meaningless on its own; it’s the quality that is far more important. There’s a good reason why defendants have won despite submitting far fewer depositions and/or affidavits in relevant cases: because ultimately it’s the quality of evidence that matters, and a few high-quality depositions/affidavits are worth more than an ocean of inadmissible fluff.

> I have looked at even just some of the evidence and just alone the statistical data indicates extremely strongly that at least something was clearly wrong that would cause any good faith and rational person to at least want to look further at the data.

What analyses did you look at?

And that also begs the question: did you look further into the analyses? Because most, if not all, the ones I’ve seen tend to either fall apart as soon as one takes a closer look (e.g., 700+% turnout for a nonexistent county/township), are incomplete (Dr. Ayyadurai’s analysis), or are rather meaningless (the statistical analysis submitted in Texas v. Pennsylvania).

> how is it that of the bellwether districts that have all, for the last 10 presidential elections essentially all gone to the winning candidate … both Democrat and Republican … all but two went to Trump this time.

Because such correlation is not causation. They’ll be right right up until they aren’t.

Same thing with statements like “Republicans need Ohio to win”. There’s no inherent reason why that must be the case, so when it isn’t you can’t draw strong conclusions from that.*