the point is nothing can be proven now since there was no vote totals given and literally tens of thousands of votes were then added
Like how can you be so certain there's no way they'd leave any evidence? If they rigged the vote count I assure you they probably tripped up somewhere and left a trail, also witnesses will probably come forward, and that counts as evidence in court of law too. Don't be so paranoid and cynical. I assure you Democrats are not halfway competent enough to flawlessly stuff tens of thousands of votes with no evidence, and what's more hire a perfectly loyal team who unanimously completely keep their mouths shut about the affair.
The governor of Florida has the power to remove the elections board supervisor. Snipes predecessor got that treatment from Jeb. Rick Scott can do so here, and appoint someone he trusts to oversee the recount.
I have seen accusations that invalid votes were mixed in with valid ones in certain machines. But the physical ballots still exist, clearly we know what the invalid votes were if we know they were inappropriately mixed in with valid ones, and we can throw them out in the recount.
And also, by examining the physical ballots you could discover evidence of ballot stuffing anyway if you so wish. The fake stuffed ballots would, unlike normal ballots, have little to no variance in the style in which they were filled out, and be filled out with suspiciously identical and regular patterns of votes.
The senators are not going to be seated until January, I don't see why you are panicking and immediately rushing to extreme and autocratic solutions. You should probably at least try before declaring that it's impossible to prove therefore you know for certain tens of thousand of votes were added. There is a reason that the process exists, anatta. Do you honestly think that governors should have the sort of power, to just throw out a counties votes even though they can't prove in court of law that fraud actually did occur? Don't you think maybe that could be abused a bit?
OK let's imagine a world in which your scenario is totally true, the Democrats pulled some kind of amazing vote stuffing operations and left absolutely zero evidence. Then let's imagine a world where, in fact, all votes counted were valid, but the governor decided to lie his ass off, and claim that there was a huge fraud that can no longer be proven. As an outside observer, how am I supposed to tell the difference between these two situations? Either could be plausibly be inferred, they would, in fact, look exactly identical to the neutral outside observer with no inside knowledge. If you give the governor the authority to deal with the former, you also give him the ability to do the latter.
In general, if part of your conclusion is that the regular standards of evidence need to be relaxed, because of some perceived threat that you imagine too be too deceptive and hidden to be dealt with using the normal rules of law, there is something wrong with your thought process. That is 100% exactly how you get witch hunts.
Stop hyperventilating and give the system some time.
