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?
The military does not swear an oath to the CiC. If military has the proof the CiC is illegitimate, they are not going to consider him a commander.
The military is sworn to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. If concrete evidence exists that this election was worked in concert with foreign powers (which we know it does because of sworn affidavits in Italian court) then domestic actors (most in the battleground states) are considered traitors and that puts it completely in the purview of the military.
In the case of treason or foreign powers bear in mind that different evidence - gathered through military intelligence - may be used in tribunals but is usually not permissible in civil courts since it is gathered in a manner different than civil courts.
So, for example, if MILINT did in fact monitor the packets transferring back and forth between countries on the elections, they can use that in a tribunal but could not in civil court because of the method of intelligence gathering.
As Q had said many times, how do you introduce evidence. I believe this is one of the methods Q was referring to.
But its not, lady in texas got caught and is being criminally charged for ballot harvesting. Now that being said if they left a money trail and paid a bunch of people and Texas finds it thats going to open up another can of worms. I still can't believe the bitch was dumb enough to do it in Texas of all places TX doesn't fuck around im sure there are other cases that are getting pushed aside just like that in those other states.