Then why hasn’t any of this been introduced in any of the lawsuits? You can’t introduce new evidence at the Supreme Court level. They rely on the record established in the trial court. How do they intend to use this evidence. If they are counting on state legislatures to do the right thing we are screwed.
I think with the lawsuits - they are showing that FRUAD was commmitted to the point that a reasonable person will conclude that an AUDIT needs to be conducted on what are legal votes and which ones are fraudulent.
The cyber information may help on back tracing the process of what are legal and what are fraudulent — but that supports the idea that an audit should be conducted to prove otherwise.
The CYBER portion is here to support that evidence that fraud took place. In a court of law - you have to weight what you are presenting to a judge - it has to be concrete and force the judge to accept what you are saying is the truth - because their job and rep is online... if you make them look compromised - all hell will break lose — but if the evidence is solid ( & it is) then a solid judge will go along with it... to do otherwise compromises the whole legal system...
I’ve testified alot when I was a civilian LEO and as a MP — as long as the rep of the one purporting the evidence and the sworn testimony is solid - most judges will have no choice but go with the findings...
IN THE END — this has to be stepped to a conclusion - and that means DEMOCRATS and their minions GO TO JAIL !!! It has to be made known that this behavior will now be prosecuted and finalized...
IF IT IS NOT — then we lose the Republic !