People have been screaming for 'evidence'. Mostly the maneuverings so far have been around pleadings that will survive legal procedure and appeals, which is very standard for the law. You have to have your pleadings correct to make sure everything you do subsequently will not be dismissed or rejected on purely procedural grounds.
Most people think you just walk in front of a judge and plop down evidence. That's not the way it works. There is a lot of jousting in air over procedure before the 'discovery' even starts. That would be stuff like the parties are who they say they are, that service is correct, that the parties have the 'right to sue', that the pleadings have the correct form, that the case is even in the right court venue for the pleadings and allegations etc.
Also, I believe that these cases are administrative law (i.e. the government deciding if its own legal rules and dictums are being followed), not civil or criminal, so they should be letter perfect.
I remember a guy i knew in the day who decided to sue somebody, and after $60,000 in legal fees, he was informed that all they had done was establish that he had a 'right to sue'. Welcome to the fleecing arena.
Administrative law allows more judicial 'discretion' than either criminal or civil, so there's more wiggle room for arbitrary decisions.
An interesting video on the Robert Steele site by Jerome Corsi. Cut to the chase, he says there is strong precedence for the Supreme Court making decisions based on probability and statistics rather than specific allegations of fraud. The problem with fraud is that it has to be proven by the evidentiary proceedings in lower courts (much too lengthy and time consuming while the election clock is running out on a tight schedule), whereas statistical and probability arguments do not. Statistical arguments cannot prove facts for criminal or civil prosecutions, but they can be used to determine if there was something so seriously wrong with the elections that the matter transcends the electoral college and needs to go post haste to Congress.
He also said that the Democrats know they will lose the Supreme Court decision, and they are already preparing to intimidate/blackmail the Republicans who might vote the states to Trump, and that guarantees of protection are being issued to make sure that Republicans are not blackmailed or intimidated when they submit each state's single vote in the House.
Corsi has the appearance and speech of somebody who has doused a few too many toddies in his lifetime, there may be some alcoholic brain damage, there, however. Whether his arguments have ultimate coherence is hard to tell, though it is nice to hear that issues of actual fraud can be bypassed entirely without proof as long as the persuasive statistical evidence can be presented, and there are already precedents established (including those by Justice Roberts, himself) for using statistics and probability analysis to make decisions. www.youtube.com/embed/9UGFFnJuwas
HOLY SHIT there was a lot of fraud! This is just a disgrace IMO what is happening to our country.