The pro-Trump narrative has been successful mostly because of Trump himself, and the thing that sets Trump above the rest is his skill on the mic. Mass media and social media let that mic reach the whole nation, but he's a classic demagogue. He told all these people who felt angry, excluded, frustrated, or afraid that he was one of them, and he would save them, and they followed him. A tale as old as time.
But they do extraordinarily poorly in court, when they have to prove their assertions with reliable evidence. Judges and courts threw out or ruled against more than fifty attempts to prove election tampering were thrown out or ruled against. Juries return results at least as definite: A grand jury indicted him in New York; a criminal jury found his organization guilty of fraud; a conga line of his lieutenants keep catching guilty verdicts; the RNC has had to spend millions to defend him; and now there's these guys. They seem to lose every case, which does not bode well for the five investigations going on into him at the moment.
Maybe I could buy a "It must have been the tainted jury" argument when it happens once, or possibly twice. But every time?
At some point, Trump supporters need to face the obvious alternative: That stuff isn't true, they've been fed a long, elaborate line of bullshit, and those people actually did those things.