No, he admitted at some point the “5 mil to prove me wrong” was a publicity stunt to drum up media coverage of his conference.
He thought it was impossible to prove a negative, but in this case the data was so clearly unrelated to any election, much less election fraud, the judge found that the confrence go-er had proved him wrong.
The fact that he did a “prove me wrong” instead of a “here’s the proof” tells me, at minimum, had a suspicion that the proof had no merit.
No, he admitted at some point the “5 mil to prove me wrong” was a publicity stunt to drum up media coverage of his conference.
He thought it was impossible to prove a negative, but in this case the data was so clearly unrelated to any election, much less election fraud, the judge found that the confrence go-er had proved him wrong.