You guys suggested that there was no evidence. Wrong. Witness testimony is considered to be a strong form of evidence.
*sigh*
Dude, please try and understand this. It really isn't complicated.
Yes, there's evidence. OK? And yes, witness testimony is a form of evidence
But, and this is a point I tried and apparently failed to explain to you before,
not all evidence is created equal.
How strong the evidence is depends on how good the witness testimony is
"I saw Tom Bishop shoot and kill Pete" is better than "I heard that Tom Bishop shot and killed Pete".
The first is direct testimony, the second is hearsay.
In public the Trump team are saying there's loads of evidence of widespread fraud.
They're doing it on Twitter, on News channels which will still listen to their ramblings and in press conferences.
They're waving piles of affidavits at the camera.
But time after time when they're in court they're getting nowhere. In many cases they're not even alleging fraud in court because they're under oath. There are no real consequences for lying on Twitter or in press conferences, there are real consequences for lying in court.
This is what a judge had to say about the affidavits
And as others have pointed out, it's interesting that you're suddenly interested in people's credentials when they happen to back up something you believe. When it's a load of scientists and astronauts saying something you don't like, you don't seem to think their credentials are that relevant. Those that do you claim are simply appealing to authority.