Thread debunking "the judges didn't look at evidence" nonsense about election lawsuits

[ProfessorGAC]

2. I Read The Rolled Version

They didn't.
The entire thread doesn't debunk the evidence, it says the judges reviewed everything and couldn't find what could be reasonably called evidence.
The judges consistently say claims are not credible, plaintiffs offer no evidence, that evidence is "hearsay within hearsay", the "experts" are nothing of the sort, and so on.
What evidence that was included was consistently wild speculation & conjecture.
One judge mentions that the hearsay doesn't rise to the standard that would allow consideration of hearsay. I think that's judge speak for "You made this up!"
A couple of judges specifically say no evidence was provided. That seems even dumber than offering dumb evidence.
One also said that no harm was claimed, and the one in Detroit was plaintiff's confusion over procedures because they failed to attend the training session.
It's pretty damning & I wonder how many attorneys will get sanctioned over their involvement.