This may be a flimsy theory but I was just thinking, what if "standing" is just a red herring?
Is it possible that due to the influence of a foreign power in this case, the issue isn't that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing, but that the courts themselves lack jurisdiction?
Q always said the military was the only way--is it possible that military courts are the only way too when election fraud involves foreign actors?
Not too difficult to understand why the courts won't take the election fraud case.
It's much easier to just dismiss(make ONE BS excuse) the entire case than to actually try to dismiss each and every piece of fraud evidence(when presented) that's presented to them. There's hundreds of people's sworn affidavits WITH real actual evidence of fraud. No way a judge wants to deal with all that. BECAUSE THE JUDGE WOULD LOOK COMPLETELY BIASED TRYING TO DISMISS HUNDREDS OF PIECES OF EVIDENCE. If just a few of those pieces of evidence were allowed to stand then EVERYONE would know the truth...and those compromise lying cuck judges can't have that, can they?