Not sure I trust those links.
Well, one of those links was a direct link to the text of the Constitution. You can read it yourself.
http://constitutionallawreporter.com/article-03-section-02/Constitution, Article 3, Section 2:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
The 'Travis Translation' of Article 3, Section 2:
"If an Ambassador or Minister from another country, or if a state is involved, the Supreme Court can hear the case first. In all the other cases, the smaller courts will hear the cases first, and the loser can appeal their case. The Supreme Court is the final authority. The Supreme Court can look at both the law and the facts of each case, with the rules Congress has passed."
If thst was the case, why hasn't Trump's lawyers taken it there already?
Discovery takes more than a week. They already have some minor judgements from PA judges, who agreed with their claims of irregularities/improper activity, which I am sure will be used as exhibits.
It’s not just liberal media. It’s not just media, even. It’s government agencies. It’s courts. It’s even Trumps own legal team. There hasn’t been a single credible suit that even approaches the scope necessary to shift the result to Trump’s favor.
They don't need to prove all fraud. They just need to convince the justices that there is enough widespread fraud to create doubt that the process isn't transparent or audited enough in a bipartisan manner to determine.
One of the assertions is that the voting machines are rigged, which does provide scope. Otherwise they are showing widespread irregulates.
WH Press Secretary has been claiming that they have been collecting lots of evidence of fraud.