He may not have proved what the data was but he proved what the data was not and it was not anything to do with election hacking and as another poster pointed out even one of Lindell’s own engineers stated the information was bogus
You’re not offering anything but opinions supported by nothing I’ve provided background on the person who sod Lindell the information and his shady dealings and two courts ruling against Lindell and Lindell could resolve this entire situation by providing the data and methodology used to gather the information and decipher it which he has failed to do
You cannot prove what it is not, without proving what it *IS*.
You’re not offering anything but opinions supported by nothing.
I am pointing out to you that by the simple standards of logic, you can't prove that the data is *NOT* election interference data unless you can prove what it *IS.*
What is an "opinion" supported by nothing is the claim that he solved the problem by declaring data he could not decrypt "gibberish", which is what data looks like to anyone who doesn't know what its for.
Mike Lindell does not have to prove his 23 gigabytes of data means anything. The challenger has to prove it doesn't, and he can't prove something just be declaring it so.
I'm not surprised idiot judges don't know what "proof" is. I've observed this problem in our courts for years. The "Innocence project" has over 100 people who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit.