If I were Trump's lawyer now (for the sake of exposition), I would start with what could actually be achieved

The aim would be to delay/stop certification of the results at a State level

Once at Electoral College, too late

1.

So the first question would be could certification be delayed/stopped in enough States so that would effect the overall Electoral College votes

This would be far more than just Penn - it would need to be enough States/EC votes to get Trump over 270

So that would be a 'no'

2.

The second question would be whether, for those States, there was sufficient evidence to mean a decision could be reversed

No ultimate legal (even if political) point asking for a recount, if the recount gives just the same result

So, again that would be a 'no'

3.

And so if there are not enough States/EC votes where challenges could be brought to make a difference, and there is not sufficient evidence to disturb the result in enough States, then the advice would be that such legal threats would be legally futile

4.

We would then go to the 'non legal' reasons for bringing litigation - theatre, narrative-creation, leverage etc

But for each, there would be a legal health warning - weak cases can backfire badly, especially brought for non-legal reasons

That can create new problems

5.

Suspect the advice he will get over the next few days will be pretty much that set out in this thread, but at length and far greater expense (and the lawyers should insist on being pre-paid)

6.

In essence: weak legal case for the 'legal' objective and also could be counterproductive for 'non-legal' objectives

7 and fee note is on the post.

'Yes, Mr President, but even taking the failure of observers point at its highest does not evidence, still less prove fraud, and certainly not sufficient fraud to over-turn the overall vote. I am afraid, even this does can get you to the legal outcome you are seeking'

8. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1325194709443080192

'Yes, Mr President, but as we explained in 2016 to your advantage, the popular vote means nothing. It is the Electoral College. So this point I am afraid does not get you to the desired legal outcome. And we also face the problem of the other candidate getting more votes.'

9. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1325195021339987969

Indeed. - but before you get to evidential weaknesses, it is often better to set out the futility of a cause of action even taking the point 'at its highest'

Especially with a certain type of client

Wood for trees, etc

10 https://twitter.com/tehdrok/status/1325200241184796674