What is a legitimate source or an election official? Both of these statements move the goalpost of the discussion. Anything I provide to you will be met with a request for a higher bar, or higher standard.
The list I provided has nearly 1700 sourced items on it claiming some form of election fraud took place. I'm not claiming they're all perfect, but you need to admit some of the stuff on that list is concerning for democracy.
This incident in particular is facing multiple felonies and 15 years in jail. Prosecution is underway, charges are being assessed. This means a judge will be ripping the asses of those who were caught in court. Is that legitimate enough of a source for you, or do you have another hoop you want to raise?
It's a waste of time to discuss this with you, because you are incapable of looking at this situation without your side's bias. Nothing I post is going to be good enough, because you need to "win" this discussion or some dumb shit. You asked for evidence, you got a full list. Then you admitted to looking at a few and not even reading it, claiming the standard of evidence wasn't good enough. You will morph your requirement for the discussion over and over again and move the goal-post when it's convenient for you. You aren't even trying to have a discussion at this point, you've got your hands over your ears screaming "no no no, it's not real, that's not good enough". And now you're about to fall into some dumbass response about the definition of evidence, as if sworn and signed testimony, mathematical data provided by doctors of philosophy in math, and other eye-witness accounts aren't
exactly that.