I have seen many contradictory posting on this topic so I thought I would summarize my thoughts and would like feedback on others opinions.
Shouldn't it be pretty straight forward if fraud is found in Arizona to compare the major discovery to the other states and determine if those states are legitimate or not? I would think this would be a pretty straight forward to overturn the other elections once the full audit is complete and it the evidence is conclusive of the ways and outlets they cheated and by how much.
An analogy of this for example is if a thief is caught in the act robbing a bank and the way in which that thief robbed the bank is in line with a dozen other banks that were robbed. That is usually enough probable cause to charge the thief with those crimes as well, even though he wasn't caught in the act of those robberies.
So when the evidence is conclusive in Arizona that says overwhelming fraud was discovered and this is the way in which they cheated and by how much. The election should either be overturned due to fraud or it should be easy to cross check the fraud in the largest of democrat cities and find the very minimal amounts of votes needed for Trump.
I am also thinking about the comment made in Arizona over the weekend stating the Securities exchange commission and military fraud departments are involved in the audit. If the SEC is involved, my guess is they are tracing some transactions that took place and following the money. If that is the case and they can identify the source they could easily extend that source to other possible culprits involved in the other elections, thus ruling those states are all corrupt as well.
Part of the methodology used generally in audits (and Quality Control, generally) is that of a "representative sample" for example in a high-volume production environment, a sample rate of X percent for the inspection & testing of the product is an acceptable quantity to ensure the overall quality of all products.
If the current audit reveals a general or systemic method has been used, it is acceptable to apply these findings to other geographies.
a specific example would be, If the machines were all delivered with software that is designed to allocate votes at a ratio of 75% to one candidate and 125% to the other (as has been claimed) then it is a safe assumption that this was not isolated, but a systemic example of fraud that has been used in other geographies. Thus a full audit might not be needed in other States.