Elections have rules, in this case constitutional, and supposedly a lot of rules weren't followed, which would invalidate the particular votes involved, all of which would turn the election. That's their argument. In a nutshell, they argue that only legal votes count, and once that is done, they win.

That's completely independent of the other accusations and possible prosecutions alluded to. Separate issues they were clear to emphasize.

And they have thousands of affidavits. In a Democracy, those sworn accusations are taken seriously, and if the person making those accusations is eventually proven to have lied, they go to jail. Not something to be taken lightly. In a functioning Democracy such accusations are dealt with seriously, to find out if they are true, or if the accuser is lying, and nobody is prejudged, ex post facto.