“evidence of election fraud for a given state has to be so specific and abundant that it is beyond a reasonable doubt”
Got the reference for that standard... requiring that elections have rights that require they are presumed to be uncorruptible ? LOL!!!
Reality is... the standard that applies IN THE ELECTION is whatever state legislators say it is... in their chosen exercise of plenary power, at any given moment.
Ask the legislators, when they have proper access to information, if they think the conduct of the election was legitimate, or if it was IN ANY WAY corrupt.
A little bit fraudulent... about like a little bit pregnant.
As far as process undertaken in gaining convictions for the violations of the law that occurred in imposing the fraud... that’s another matter... where the standards that apply should adhere to protecting the rights of defendants.
“evidence of election fraud for a given state has to be so specific and abundant that it is beyond a reasonable doubt”
Unless there is such strong evidence, a state or federal judge is unlikely to rule that enough Biden ballots need to be tossed or changed to Trump votes such that the vote totals would change from Biden winning to Trump winning the state electroal votes, especially if that change gives President Trump the needed 270 electoral votes.
Of course, if the judge is bribed or blackmailed, or totally corrupt by nature, even evidence beyond a reasonable doubt could be rejected.
Ultimate, I suspect the various cases will end up before the SCOTUS.