They certainly appear to be alleging fraud, and the evidence appears to support that. What exactly are you claiming they are alleging, then? Provide exact legal technical definitions if possible please, and why what they are alleging is not sufficient in your opinion, thanks.
In the PA case Giuliani argued the claim was insufficient access for poll watchers and different precincts having different approaches to letting voters cure ballots.
Neither of those are fraud but when talking to potential donors Rudy sure made it sound that way.
That's because there's no consequence for BSing in a press conference but there are serious consequences for doing so in federal court.
From the Third Circuit opinion (written by a Trump-appointed judge, BTW>:
"Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19–20, 137:18. Instead, it objects that Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more."
The other Trump team suits are similar, talking about administrative problems or errors, not fraud.
Even the Sidney Powell suits only rant about Dominion, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. and talk about the potential for corruption, but don't point to specific fraud.
One reason might be the evidentiary standard for fraud allegations is higher in federal court so the casses would only get tossed faster.