> they changed the rules without their legislatures (which is unconstitutional) ... not necessarily. executives have broad latitude in an emergency. a global pandemic, regardless of how you feel about it, will likely be upheld as it was broadly believed to be a national emergency at that time. there were also federal guidelines about distancing which, again, you might think are bullshit, but... were binding. the idea that there's "nothing to prove" is patently false, by the way. the dubious and contentious legality of arbitrarily assigned delegates based on a feeling of fraud does not actual constitute fraud in and of itself. in other words, unless you are actually arguing for arbitrarily stealing the election on a technicality... yes, you do actually still need to prove that the maybe-dubious legality of executive action for election laws materially impacted the election.  i'm not going to weigh in on the legality of the change. i will, however, maintain that the election law changes have not been found to have materially impacted the results of the election; especially to the point where literally just arbitrarily invalidating the results of the counted votes and sending electors to deliver the contrary result is still wrong. what you are arguing is that the fake electors were legal and therefore it doesn't matter what the people of those counties were found to have decided on their votes for president. that's just retarded.
United States