>>161973
>but either way they couldn't trace or apprehend the perpetrators nor make a compelling enough case in court
That's because the cases filed before and during the election were thrown out because the election and the results hadn't happened yet; meanwhile the case filed immediately afterwards were tossed because somehow the "statue of limitations" had passed.
To give perspective, even the BEST court cases take half a year between filing to actual appearance before a judge, and they were demanded that the election cases have to be filed, read, heard, and judged all within a week. That's why the Maricopa audit was such a big deal. And, despite that investigation being stonewalled all the way, had their results tampered with, and every party hostile towards providing information, they still managed to prove that there was enough election fraud that caused a change in the victors; only for the state to fire back, "
Well, we investigated ourselves, and found that we did nothing wrong, it's the audit that was wrong":
https://archive.ph/Sn3YD
Which is a little ironic of a statement. Because, on the one hand, the auditors had their investigation blatantly tampered with every step of the way, which means that any audit results that prove the state to be at fault, and are actually incorrect, is solely the responsibility of the state by preventing the auditors from doing their job and giving them faulty evidence in the first place. Then, the other hand is that, assuming that they
DID manage to produce factual results, that are correct, that still shows that the state is at fault for allowing such tampering in the election process to occur.
Regardless, however, the entire 2020 election showed one thing for certain, and that is that no one actually knows who counts the votes, nor how the votes translate over to who decides the president. If the state governments collectively wanted to, they could dismiss the election results entirely and just send their electors to the feds stating that they wanted Bozo the Clown as the next president regardless of what people voted for or demanded. Which is their right, there is nothing in the Constitution dictating that states have hold an election in order to determine how the electors vote the next president.
However, by them insisting on the existence of an election process, thereby preventing the allowance for state actors to determine nor alter the results, and trying to keep up the image of the "
most secure election in history", all of it shows is that the voting process is almost entirely a scam that exists for no other reason than to court public image.