About 20 years ago, the Canadian federal government made ID as a requirement to get a ballot. This was to minimize the chances of parties sending people to represent non-voters on Election Day. This cheating might have affected the result in close election, maybe 10 out of 300 constituencies.
The provinces and municipalities quickly followed that lead. The first election had about 5% of voters annoyed at having to produce an ID. Some vowed never to return. But after 3 or 4 election cycles, voters got used to the idea and it is no longer an issue.
I bring this up to show that I am non-partisan. The Democrats have resisted this change for years because some of their base does not have a driver's license. Voter ID is a good thing!!!!
It is my understanding that the US has been using machince to cast votes ever since I've been alive. I'm 61. I don't think the US has had a paper-and-pencil ballot for decades, except in a few low-number districts.
Now to address your points:
1) "were audited" requires more explaination. First 16 out of how many? Second, but how much did they tilt the final result? (You probably gave us the worst case). How was the audit conducted?
2) If there is a loophole in the system, zelous party workers will take advantage of it. It's not hard to imagine that some R-learning poll workers in an R-dominated county found ways to alter votes. However, there are limits as to what they can get a way with.
3) If 16 machines were audited, then that is in contrast to the D's blocking an investigation.
4) I saw one 41-minute clip of a Republican poll watcher eloquently testifying at cheating at her polling station. The story was too convoluted to make up. At the end, she said maybe two or three dozen votes could have been cast the wrong way.
I don't think anyone who has had some experience in this system believes that voting goes off 100% each time. There is always a little cheating. My experience is that the election authorities really don't like overturning election results when there is some cheating. However, they will try to put procedures in place for next time to reduce the chance of that kind of cheating.
Affidavits are still hearsay evidence. Too many Americans are too polarized to know whether the truth lies. And there really is no penalty anymore for lying under oath. Ask Mr. Clinton.
5) I don't have enough details to make a good ruling. But from what you have told me and my experience, I would go with the Nov 5 hand count. 16 days is too long for a tally to get certified. There is a big problem if that continues.
6) Again hearsay evidence. You need more testimony than from one "MI State Senator," who is probably a Republican. But let me debunk this one anyways.
It is my understanding that US election rules are developed with Election Commissions, usually composed of members of both parties. They agree on any rule changes beforehand.
In these days of polarization, the commissions might be coming to fewer agreements than usual. The Michigan consitution might have provision for the governor to make the decision if the Comission cannot come to agreement. That might be the reason why those machines were let in. If what I am saying is correct, then this action is constitutionally OK. The R's might not like it and will try to spin into something else, but it's still OK. I doubt any governor will overturn any decision when the commision disagrees.
This then leads to the D's not deliberately agreeing because the D governor will step in and make decisions to favor the D's. Which means the whole system is becoming one muck of a fess.
In the second part of your claim "laptops can alter the device", I can only ask how do you know this if the D's are blocking the investigation?
7) You could say that their attempt to block is proof enough--which is on the same credibility as my assertion than some R-leaning poll workers managed to scrape an extra 20 votes for Mr. Trump. Not good enough to prove in a court of law!
But it could be possible that if the machines are proven trustworthy, the "stop-the-steal" campaign will either claim that particular investigation is tainted OR will move on to another round of frivolus claims.
From where I sit, "stop-the-steal' will never be happy until Mr. Trump is returned to the White House. The winners cannot wait forever. The winners have give ample opportunity to prove the claims in a court of law. I see no oppression there. The legal team for the losers has failed miserably, which (in my opinion) is typical of this presidency.
The stop-the-steal campaign should just admit that this "ship has sailed." Rather put energy in trying to overturn the result, it should think about ways to prevent whatever wrongdoings it claims to have happened for the next time. I recommend that all Republican poll watchers have body cams in the next election. These cameras can be paid for by the $200m+ Mr. Trump received by "stop-the-steal" donors.