There's no such thing as "rock solid proof" in an audit of mail-in ballots like this. As I said earlier on this thread, there's no way in hell to prove voter fraud unless someone comes out and admits that they voted fraudulently or altered a ballot after it was cast.
Anyone who was expecting "rock solid proof" was obviously paying too much attention to dopes like Lin Wood and Sidney Powell. There was never going to be a "Kraken," folks.
Auditing mail-in ballots is like auditing a cash business. Unless the auditor is standing in the business establishment and watching every cash transaction, there's no way to "prove" anything except what shows up in the bank transactions. "ABC Restaurant did $20,000 of business through credit card transactions this month and deposited $5,000 cash in the bank. That's $25,000 of gross revenue for the business. They reported $20,000 of expenses for the month, all of which was paid through their own credit card accounts or by company check. So their profit for the month was $5,000.00 as reported. We cannot verify, however, that the $5,000 of cash deposits in the company's bank account represents all of the cash transactions for the business."
The auditor can then note that the owner of the establishment owns a Ferrari, a Lamborghini and a Porsche ... and lives in a $2 million home ... and has no other reported sources of income. So there's obviously a disconnect between what he's reporting for the business and what he's actually collecting in cash transactions. Nothing is "proven," but the facts themselves are all the evidence you need to know this.
Keep in mind that the information presented in Table 6.2 is all anyone needs to reaffirm any doubts about the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
Well, okay. But the whole exercise of having my doubts re-affirmed seems a little pointless. I don’t expect anything to come from that.
If only that were so.
Two things to consider:
1) The courts have not been our friend during this process.
2) One of the things that people look for when judging anything from an evidential/factual/scientific standpoint is whether or not results can be a) verified, and b) replicated. Ninjas are probably wise (from a business stand-point) to hold on to their proprietary procedures, but unless they are willing to let them go, the left will argue that this one report doesn't indicate anything at all. They are wise to do so. If the tables were turned, it would be the point I would make.