If you don't even know if there hasn't been an audit or not, you shouldn't really be talking about if they've actually done it or not. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually read through this thread that's documented several times exactly why these recounts (which aren't audits to begin with and are not suitable for uncovering fraudulent ballots) aren't up to par, where poll watchers are kept at a distance where they can't verify what the poll counters are doing, they're allocated to several counters at once, and if they raise objections or set aside ballots to scrutinise later on, those ballots are written off as "indefinitely confined" and aren't actually looked at. Also, when did I ever say I thought Trump's team was the best in the world?
And once again, you can't just claim "well it's already been investigated by all these groups so it's not a problem" because it's entirely irrelevant how many times you investigate a matter if none of those investigations are actually allowed or willing to analyse and discard illegal votes. I don't know why you're so obsessed with youtube videos by the way, though it's telling that you write if off based on that rather than its contents- for instance, is a statistical analysis nullified because it was posted on youtube?
At this point, it'd be easier to ask you to debunk the claims so far since you're so confident that there's no real evidence of fraud (and you can show off how much you know what prima facie means by doing so)- I've already linked to
this site before, but if you don't want something with a list of unverified claims included, then there's
this as well, pick either one. If you're going to ask me instead to prove all the irregularities I've been referring to so far, then again, you should actually read the thread, there's even a nifty highlight system to make it easier. Though it's already telling that you didn't even address the point about no standings and laches, which boils down to "no matter what you present I'm going to dismiss because I want to".
