Reply #16: Couldn't it start with "harmless error" and proceed from there?

[Sparkly]

Of *course* it's hard to make a certain claim right now that there were enough votes to swing the election. It seems to me the inquiry has to begin with evidence that IS there, for the sake of prosecuting any wrongdoing. If in the process of discovering tampering or other fraud, it's discovered that enough votes could have been switched or withheld to change the election, *then* wouldn't it proceed from there?

In other words, it seems to me it has to stay sort of "under the radar" right now. We just want all the votes counted, we just want public confidence in the results (and we're sure Mr. Bush does too, haha), we just want to ensure the process is accurate and fair in future, etc.. If they started hollering "fraud" now, the Repugs would be all over it with organized angry-white-men protests like in Florida 2000, Fox and hate radio screeching that Democrats were trying to "steal" it, you know the rest. If they did that now, it'd be overkill. ("What's their problem?" Democrats would calmly reply. "We're only trying to check out some problems, we know B* won...")

Anyway, I am not a lawyer, so I'm asking. Shouldn't they go one step at a time -- proceed to gather evidence they CAN gather to prosecute what they CAN prosecute now, and in the process perhaps show the election could have been corrupted to the point that its results were inaccurate?