My apologies. In your lengthy responses, I seem to have missed a few things. And unfortunately, the comical approach of the stop-the-steal election campaign has tainted the more credible claims.
I did give a 10-minute read to your "Allied" report. I found the report very credible. If nothing else, it is a good reason for the USA to get back to paper ballot and pencil.
I totally concur that electoral fraud does happen by overzealous partisans masquearading as neutral poll workers. It looks like it happened here. This situation looks like (to me) two things happened: 1) Some partisans got hold of some high level software manipulations they should not have had and 2) they pushed the cheating boundary too far--AND GOT NOTICED. I really hope that these poll workers get charged for their manipulation attempt. There might even be evidence to go higher up the D ladder, but I doubt it.
This report should have been enough evidence to secure its place in the American legal system. And maybe it did. The wordings of many rulings has been something like: "Not enough evidence to prove enough electoral fraud to overturn results," not "Electoral Fraud." There is a big difference between these two statements.
So I have done some math. The Nov 3 tabulation gave Mr. Biden a 3,260 edge. The Nov 21 tabulation gave Mr. Trump a 3,788 edge. This is a swing of 7,048 votes.
The report says Michigan used 48 of these machines. 48 x 7,048 is 338,304 votes, which is more than enough to change the electoral votes for Michingan to Mr. Trump. This assumes that trained Democrat operatives were able to get their fingers on all these machines. I kind of doubt that happened.
But in a previous response, you said 16 machines were compromised. 16 x 7,048 is 112,768, which is also enough. But this figure assumes the other 16 stations were just as whacky as Anterim County. My 10-minute read suggests that other stations were affected by manipulation, but not at the 7,048 level. The Anterim County seems to be the worst case. The Allied Report does not provide a figure beyond Anterim County.
So the judge might have said something like: "This report is credible, but I need something that shows this fraud could have overturned the result." In other words, the judge is saying someone cheated but Mr. Biden still gets the votes.
Maybe the judge did not say something like that. But if the evidence had been presented in a way to prove the Michigan electoral college votes could have gone in the other direction, that then sets up an appeal process that could find its way to the Supreme Court. In other words, it really doesn't matter what a lower court judge says. If the evidence is good, channels are there to deal with it at a higher level. The 2000 election proved that point.
If the Trump legal team cannot take the election to the Supreme Court, either they are incompent or the evidence is just not good enough. Take your pick.
The Allied report is dated December 13. This is problematic. My experience with Canadian elections is that any irregularties are (and maybe "have to be") dealt within a few days of the election. Delays give the opportunity for "possible tampering" to be turned into "counter tampering". With almost 40 days, this report had enough time to be manipulated by skillful operators from the other side.
True it is that it is hard to investigate the machine(s) within a few days--especially if the other side is putting up legal roadblocks. And I have to admit that these roadblocks might have been deliberately set up to delay the report. Politics is sometimes a dirty business.
My experience with Canadian elections is that election results are seldom overturned by good evidence of electoral shehanigans. But the authorities will take those lessons and set up new procedures to thwart similar shehanigans for the next election.
I suspect this Allied report is going to find its way into the workings of many electoral commissions in the USA. In this way, the report will be doing its job to preserve American democracy.
I have been on Medium for two years. As you have probably surmised, it is a forum full of leftees and anti-Trumpers. I have read/seen at least 30 articles on the abolishment of the Electoral College mostly because it gave Mr. Trump the job in 2016. I often respond that the EC is not an overtly undemocratic process. It will not vault an unpopular candidate into the presidency. Ask George McGovern, Michael Dukacus, or George Bush 1.
Mr. Trump was a viable contender in 2016. He got most of his 62m votes on his own merit, not by Russian operatives. By the rules, he won that close election.
In a like manner, Mr. Biden was a viable contender in 2020. He got most of his votes on his own merit, not by errant voting machines. He won that close election by the rules.
When the race is that close, either side can win. And yes, the referees might have favored one side enough to effect the win. And unforeseen events before election day can also change the final results. But such a winner still has the support of a lot of people.
Sometimes the losing side needs to licks its wounds--and plan better for next time.
Stephen Harper was Canadian prime minister from 2005 to 2015. As time passed, he became more autocratic, making too many decisions from his office, not the cabinet, the Conservative caucus, or parliament.
In early 2015, polls were suggesting that he would win another majority government. So he called an election. Two months of compaigning and something happened. His party lost.
The most amazing thing about his defeat is how quickly he acknowledged his loss. He stepped aside for his adversary to take over. He could have used various instances of small electoral fraud to prove he was cheate. But Mr. Harper respected democracy.
In 2000, Mr. Gore stepped aside with more credible claims to the presidency than Mr. Trump currently has.