That's the problem. It is evidence of what that person observed. Nothing more. We don't always observe things correctly, or interpret those observations appropriately.Listening to the GA witnesses speak, one thing stands out.
Someone working with one of the dominion machines encountered a problem, so they called dominion.
At which point dominion remotely accessed the machine via the internet and fixed the problem. This means that the machines were connected to the internet, while we've been continually told that they were not.
Please answer this question for me.
You're a lawyer, right? What would you consider the minimum bar to be for a piece of evidence you would consider?
I've not heard anyone describe exactly what that evidence would be. I was under the impression that sworn eye witness testimony, in combination with statistical improbabilities in the data would constitute sufficient evidence for anything.
Your anecdote about Dominion accessing a machine remotely is susceptible to that framework. That's fine that the person testifying believes that to be true. Which terminal? What representative of Dominion? What was the actual problem? Was there another observer to corroborate? There are more questions to be answered before that observer's testimony crosses over into persuasive evidence.
Some of the least reliable admissible testimony is that from eyewitnesses. That's why cross-examination exists.
And, frankly, that's why investigations look REALLY hard for physical evidence and any corroborating testimony.