The existence of any fraud is a confession by the perpetrators of the fraud that fraud can change the results. By catching any fraud you proved that those who perpetrated the fraud admit there could be fraud that would change the result, and those who did the fraud know more than you about the extent of the fraud.

There's no such thing as people committing a meaningless fraud. It's contradictory to human nature.

I agree. I just want people to understand and emphasize the critical problem that led to everything else. Decentralized elections are a core important value in many democratic countries, and this is a very important point people need to realize. There were intentional actions to centralize the elections, and these actions were the ones that led to the steal. They were talking about how Zuckerberg paid for huge counting centers. This centralization IS the steal. The steal is the intentional actions by officials to entrust the election to as few people as possible. The action of centralizing votes is like the action of picklocking a door before stealing from a house. It is this action that allowed all this mess to happen. It should be the main talking point. It should be emphasized.

This had all the components of a good cover story. A good well explained overview of how things should have been done, when innocent and benign, while avoiding real answers as to how things were actually done, and placing the blame for missteps on the officials.

Good cover stories elaborate in detail how things are supposed to happen, hanging on to an alternate truth of what should've happened. He very carefully danced between explaining the hypothetical benign election, and describing unrelated faults in Antrim country, but he even said himself that hand-count would find problems - which it did, and that all the nonsense related to the change election programming should not have changed the top of the ballot.

The cover story of how vote tallies changed in the presidential election because of the "bad programming" with different ballots printed because of a mistake, doesn't explain the presidential election problems at all, and he said so himself - that it could not have changed the top of the ballot. Yet he gave the entire explanation when asked about how did the presidential election changed. It is as if when asked to describe a bank robbery happened, you would give a testimony about a different bank.

I think the biggest highlight is that he confirmed and corroborated Melisa Carone's testimony and her claims. He confirmed that the kind of mishandling described will effect the results - and confirmed she was there in their behalf on site and responsible for giving technical support.