The public elects the officials who run the elections and determine the processes for voting and counting ballots.
If Kari can show those processes weren't followed she may have a case, but she can't just demand access to voter data, etc. unless that's part of the process.
The system would fall apart if every losing candidate could second guess the elected official's processes and judgment without evidence of wrongdoing.
If Kari doesn't like the election processes she should run for a position where she can change them - if the public wants to give her that power.
> The public elects the officials who run the elections and determine the processes for voting and counting ballots.
The process must follow the law, it must be explicitly shown to have followed the law, and the official is responsible for demonstrating this in a clear and explicable fashion.
If the election is corrupted at some point it can no longer be said the public elects the officials...comments mocking challengers stink of deflection from the details of the challenge, because they are intended to rebut the challenge by ad hominem instead of by presentation of evidence. Now we must question the probity of the public official who resorts to ad hominem, and call their acts into question. Otherwise we might remain unaware of misfeasance and risk disenfranchisement. Thus his comments deprecating Kari Lake offend our confidence in election veracity, inviting deep scrutiny.