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.
That’s just wrong, but we will have to agree to disagree, if Lindell offers a challenge to prove him wrong, gives some data to engineers that is bogus, he’s committed a fraud by any legal means you want.
To this day, Lindell has never produced any provable data, he was dealing with a con artist, even one of his own engineers said the data was bogus, two courts said he had to pay.
The only people still saying the opposite is you and Lindell.