They almost all had hearings, where the lawyers stood up and explained why their case had merit. They included affidavits in the original filing. The issue was, the courts went through the affidavits and found they were meritless. I've gone through many of the judges decisions in previous posts -- where judges talk about specific affidavits and explain why they either show no wrongdoing (things like the "Sharpie" issue in Arizona or ballots being brought in a back door -- that was the door assigned to bring all valid ballots in through), where they are directly contradicted by other affidavits presented by the defense and don't show an issue that would change the vote count, etc.
As I keep stating, the judges looked at the evidence and determined there was not enough supplied by Trump's lawyers to go to trial. These decisions were appealed, and the Appeals Courts (and even the Supreme Court) looked at the issues and found that the original judge correctly dismissed the cases.
Again, Trump did have his day in court. He filed dozens of cases and then he appealed the decisions in those cases. None of the judges, even the judges directly appointed by Trump himself, found any evidence that supported any fraud, or that the vote would have been changed.
But from what I've seen, every state has done this (though there may be a few out of the 50 who haven't) -- it tends to be a normal part of a state's electoral process. We know
Georgia did it, it was widely reportered, and that they found almost no issues. The two issues they found were where two votes were cast in dead people's names -- one was cast for Trump and they are still investigating the second.
The "MSM" is reporting these facts but not in the sensationalist way, and full of half-truths, that some right wing sources are reporting it. They don't get a lot of press time because the facts don't support the 'grand conspiracy' that Trump is claiming.
Yes, we hear all the time about the "thousands of affidavits" but we don't hear from those same sources how hundreds of those affidavits are by people who were told to use a "Sharpie," when you can find guidance before the election, and from the machine manufacturer, that
Sharpie is the recommended way to mark the ballots (the YouTube video at the bottom of the link is from Oct. 24).
Hundreds of more affidavits are from observers in Michigan and Pennsylvania that weren't allowed to reserve. Now, most of these were from people who complained they weren't allowed in -- the issue was, there were already (in Michigan) over Republican observers in the room -- the room was too full and they weren't allowing more observers in. What the courts found is that there were always more than enough Republican observers to see all aspects of the vote count. The issue was, the Republican Party blasted over Twitter at a time when they didn't have as many observers as they would like -- so they asked Republicans statewide to come observe. When hundreds of Republicans showed up, obviously, most of those hundreds couldn't get in after close to two hundred were already in the room.
Next, you had complaints from observers who didn't want to follow Coronavirus protocols and wanted to get closer to the counters. Now, in one case, in one precinct in Pennsylvania, the original judge determined 10 feet was too far and it was decided that six feet would be close enough. In other areas, the judges ruled that the rules were fair, that observers could see enough of what they needed to, while still trying to prevent Coronavirus spread.
I also have to mention that the Trump campaign found many of the affidavits unreliable. In once case, in Arizona, a judge questioned the Trump campaign about the affidavits they did not submit, because the Trump campaign's investigations found that those affidavits were based on false claims. I've posted the video previously here, and can post it again. The point being, despite this claim that these were made "under penalty of law" or perjury, the fact remains that a number of these affidavits were false, to the point that the Trump campaign would not submit them in court.
