“Server” is both a clue and a misnomer. This is the problem.
I am dismissive of this story in the absence of valid details, particularly due to the facts that 1. Trump was (reportedly) in a SCIF on election night, 2. Our government has undisclosed cyber capabilities and has no need to deploy military in a foreign country to secure digital evidence of state crimes, 3. The scope & totality of electoral fraud is probably an order of magnitude greater than reported publicly and remains undisclosed due to active investigation(s).
To believe otherwise leaves me having lost all faith in our system of government, almost where I was 3 weeks ago before the ‘tsunami’ of evidence began rolling out.
I remain ‘hopeful’ that the fraud hearings will continue to expose the scope of local fraud and that the Trump administration only separated from Powell due to national security matters which will only be exposed in an evidentiary hearing at SCOTUS.
You refer to “national security matters which will only be exposed in an evidentiary hearing at SCOTUS.”
The Supreme Court almost never holds evidentiary hearings. Like other appellate courts in the federal system, and in every state system that I know of, SCOTUS handles appeals, in which the issue is whether a lower court’s decision is correct in light of the factual record that was made before that court. New evidence cannot be introduced on appeal.
The only reason I wrote “almost never” is that the Supreme Court has a very limited original jurisdiction. A border dispute between two states begins at the Supreme Court, which must therefore take evidence.
If Giuliani/Ellis/Powell/Wood want information about a Frankfurt server to be brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, there must be evidence introduced in the court that first hears the case. Evidence means someone with direct personal knowledge. If the witness says only “I heard this from someone whom I consider a reliable source,” that is inadmissible hearsay.