If the evidence presented is valid
Ok, fair enough, and WHO is going to determine if the evidence is valid?
Example: IF the report says that there was this flaw or that flaw or they found some "evidence" of fraud, do YOU take THEIR word for it, or wait for a court challenge (so wait another year) - and what if Fox says this looks genuine and CNN says it looks fake, are you going to believe one network over another?
Here is the rub: those on the Right keep harping about "honesty" and "openness" but have no problem with the fact that we still don't know who is paying for this audit? IF it was on the up and up, why not reveal the donors?
Private election funding is illegal, except ...
Let me say that again. The Senate – which earlier this year
approved a bill that would ban private funding for elections – is promoting a campaign to raise private funds to audit the election.
How many millions has the Arizona Senate and its dark money teammates in the private sector raised under the guise of conducting the election audit?
www.azcentral.com
Moreover, the people who live in the State don't trust the audit:
The poll found 56% of those who were informed about the audit felt that it could not be trusted, while those who had not heard much at all were unsure. But the more people learned about the audit, pollsters found, the less likely they were to trust it.
A poll of Arizona voters finds that more than half don’t trust the Arizona Senate’s audit of Maricopa County’s election, and almost half of voters say they’re less likely to vote for a senator who backed the audit.
www.azmirror.com
This is purely a partisan exercise, meant to deflect and deceive, there will be NO valid evidence presented, but I will bet my bottom dollar when "evidence" is presented, even if the evidence is couched in vague terms like "maybe, might have been, suspicious, unclear, requires further investigation",
that those who BELIEVE the election was stolen will believe the "evidence".