>>11684692 (pb)

>It's obvious we are headed to SCOTUS. But it can't be about counting votes

You don't "introduce" evidence at SCOTUS. SCOTUS only hears appeals based on a trial court case where all evidence has been presented and admitted into evidence. That admitted evidence becomes part of the total case "record" that follows the appeals process.

An appeal now about the 2020 election CAN BE about "counting votes" (or result in not counting them, rather) if the issue, e.g. prohibiting proper observation during a time period where hundreds of thousands of votes were counted without proper observation, in multiple states, will lead to throwing out enough votes to reverse wins to hit the 270 EC votes needed.