Hey media, affidavits are considered evidence

Yes, in some cases affidavits are evidence, but in some cases they are inadmissible hearsay or merely conclusory statements that have little to no evidentiary value. And what Rachel Alexander is saying is mostly correct, to a point. But the problem that Ms. Alexander is also ignoring several factors. First, how the judges and appellate courts are ruling. In Georgia, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten Sr. noted that Powell had presented “precious little proof” despite all of the affidavits in the case. In one affidavit presented by Powell as "evidence", the expert claimed that there was massive voter fraud in a non-existent county.

The Attorney General of the United States, one of Trump's biggest allies, has stated that there is no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. That would include all of the affidavits that have been presented.

Yet in the meantime, Powell says that the President should declare those states that voted against him to be in "insurrection" and to use military tribunals to determine that Trump should remain president. And even Trump thinks that is too crazy.

Evidence of what? The affidavits that have presented in court don't show evidence of widespread fraud. The only thing that matters is what affidavits are credible enough to be used in court and what is being claimed they mean.

Inside court a few affidavits are being used to show some potential structural problems, but they are generally not being claimed to show widespread fraud.

Outside of court where they can lie their a$$ off, they say they have all kinds of affidavits that show widespread fraud, but no one has seen them.

Once again I've got 50 affidavits where people describe a three way between Ivanka Trump, Melania Trump and George Soros. Do you think just because I just said that, that constitutes evidence that three way actually happened?

The Alphabet Soup Gang at it's best "LIARS" all of them.