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?
Hmmmm that’s actually a descent thought.
Don't you just wish they would have said it in court?
So I’m no lawyer, but there are major differences between criminal cases and civil cases. A criminal case requires a much higher burden of evidence, and it requires a much more lengthy amount of time to process... I think the reason you saw the lawyers back off when asked specifically if they are alleging fraud is because then they would need to specifically get into the details of exactly who did what and this it would turn into a criminal case.
The goal was to quickly get through the courts and the only possible way to do this was to try the cases as civil cases in the small amount of time they had. They probably didn’t care if the cases got thrown out at lower levels because the quicker they could get them to the SC the better, at least they thought that would be the case.
That doesn’t make any sense....how were they going to “get through it quickly” without showing their actual evidence if they had it? Weather it be a criminal infraction or not?
By get through it quickly, they had a very small window between when the election took place and when inaugurated took place. They had to move fast. Part of the strategy seemed to be to try to get to the Supreme Court where if the Supreme Court actually did their job, it would have been more meaningful than a lower level court ruling, plus conservatives should at least expect to not have a court that’s extremely biased against them at the Supreme Court level. That turned out to be false.