I am looking for a quick ELI5 explanation to tell my friends and family why the AZ forensic audit is needed if “all these previous judges said there was no basis for a hearing on election fraud” (Their words, not mine)
I don’t have a quick explanation for them and they throw this in my face constantly.
Thank you kindly.
The cases were a political hot potato. Not many judges would want that responsibility so if there was any technicality (e.g. no standing) that would allow the cases to be rejected then they would go for it.
Also, some of the cases could not be handled by the courts they were sublitted to. They have to be escalated but you still need to work your way up the chain. You can't just say your case should be heard by SCOTUS and expect it to happen. You need to progress through the system. So a case may be rejected and the MSM would say it failed when, in fact, it had just been re-directed to a higher court.
I don't know what all the cases were about but I suspect that some (many?) would not be about fraud directly. They would be about whether the people who made decisions regarding the election were empowered to do so. They would be asking for a decision about whether something was legal or constitutional rather than whether it was fraud per se.