[Regulator]

He would have thrown out any challenge brought before the election due to “lack of harm”

[Lod881019]

He’s comprised you can probably look into his background and find some never trump ties as this was pretty clear what happened

[MikeyB806]

He would have thrown out any challenge brought before the election due to “lack of harm”

Exactly. "No evidence" that anyone would act illegally under the laws.

[Dr. Pritchett]

When someone is convicted of “attempted murder” they don’t just throw it out because the perpetrator “might not have actually killed the guy anyway”. Screw this. Our elections were fraudulent and untrustworthy.

[gw-ington]

Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge Explains His Ruling Against Trump Election Lawsuit

He would have thrown out any challenge brought before the election due to “lack of harm”

Of course, it's so obvious:

• Before Election: Lack of harm (i.e., wait til after the election).
• After Election: Laches (i.e., too late ... should have filed before the election). Can be combined with "lack of standing" which can also be used by judges as a reason for denying lawsuits filed before the election.

All of the Courts, judges, and Justices don't care how laughably ridiculous they sound to the American people. Lack of harm, laches, lack of standing, etc. Just like the Democrat Party Cabal doesn't care how laughably ridiculous it sounds to the American people throughout the Democrats' 2020 election-fraud year.

Basically, the Democrat Party Cabal (which includes the entire legal system) is saying: "Look, here's the deal. The fact of the matter is, We stole the election. For real. No joke. We have put together ... the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics. Are you taking cocaine? Are you a junkie? C'mon, man!"