1) Trump had no such data that suggested consequential foreign interference in the 2020 election. If he had, he would have made a point of it. Instead, his entire dialouge was about supposed fraud in certain swing states. In fact, he was told by his experts that the 2020 election was the cleanest in US history
A statement for which Christopher Krebs, the director of the project, was fired.
"....Christopher Krebs, the Department of Homeland Security director who had spearheaded a campaign to counter rumors about voter fraud, has been fired, President Trump tweeted on Tuesday...."
President Trump, who has refused to accept the results of the White House race, tweeted that Krebs had been terminated "effective immediately."
"... On November 12, 12, 2020, CISA issued a joint statement of election security agencies stating: “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way
and, therein is the fundamental problem. Trump had no real evidence of any problem that comprised the outcome. Even if he did, it was out of his authority to do anything about. Now he is in apparent trouble for conspiracy to defraud the United States because 1) he knew better and 2) used his office to try to stop a righteous process, counting the votes. Trump had no basis NOR any authority to try to stop the January 6th federal certification of the vote, but he tired to anyway.
You really should read the pleadings that were filed last week before the US District Court of Central California, Southern Division. It outlines the case of conspiracy that Trump participated in and why it crosses the threshold of criminality. Until you read this, you will be ignorant of the issue. You may well read it and find fault / deficiency, that is great. That will make for intelligent argument, but until you read this, you have no intelligent argument.
Trump over stepped his bounds and abused the power of his office, which he did time and time and time again, getting impeached and investigated for such on more than one occasion. It is his nature not to play by the rules. That should be a deal killer for a voter: a president that lacks respect for the rule of law, but that is another discussion.
I particularly like this damning exchange between John Eastman and Greg Jacob, on Pence's staff. You will see this in the cite above. From Jacob to Eastman:
"...I have run down every legal trail placed before me to its conclusion, and I respectfully conclude that as a legal framework, it is a results-oriented position that you would never support if attempted by the opposition, and essentially entirely made up," Jacob wrote Eastman. "And thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege....." AND "... "Respectfully, it was gravely, gravely irresponsible for you to entice the President with an academic theory that had no legal viability, and that you well know we would lose before any judge who heard and decided the case. And if the courts declined to hear it, I suppose it could only be decided in the streets. The knowing amplification of that theory through numerous surrogates, whipping large numbers of people into a frenzy over something with no chance of ever attaining legal force through actual process of law, has led us to where we are."
Yes, Pompeo's statements were every bit as delusional as Trump's, except Pompeo was playing to his audience of one. Like all people that get too close to Trump, Pompeo's political future, except maybe in Kansas, is toast.