A Special Counsel has the authority given from the Judge to use whatever means available to the state (indictment, subpoena, etc.) to find matters of fact for the Court to use.

So, say some people extort a company, and they have a few of the people involved, but everyone is pointing at everyone else saying "they are the masterminds and I'm the patsy".

A Judge assigns a Special Counsel to investigate and work without having to check back in with the Judge to get warrants or ask for permission to investigate someone because just filing that paperwork would inform the defendants who the Special Counsel is targeting, giving them a chance to fluff up their story against the "most likely" one to go down as the mastermind.

So, the Special Counsel is permitted to get any documents he wants without constantly asking the Judge or having to file all sorts of paperwork, leaving a trail for the defendants to exploit.

What the Wisconsin Special Counsel said yesterday had to be phrased as non-biased, because he isn't a Prosecutor -- he is an Investigator looking for MATTERS OF FACT so that the Judge and Jury can know what is objective and subjective, so the case doesn't spend months at a time arguing over an objective fact by saying "in my opinion, that's not true" over and over again. It's fact, shut up, move on, and prove you're not guilty.

What he said ended with the objectively arrived conclusion: "There are grounds to decertify."

BOOM. There you go.

Now, any case brought in Wisconsin (and other States, granted they include this case as a precedent considering the systems involved are the same) doesn't need to spend ANY time trying to prove whether or not there are grounds to decertify.

It is now a proven Matter of Fact, which is the next best thing to getting Court Discovery Proceedings, which is why we haven't yet made any headway since the elections, because the court keeps screwing around talking about standing and jurisdiction and not about the MOUNTAIN OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF THE CASE!

All that's left to discuss now is what to do now we know there was a proven, objective opportunity to rig the election. The Special Counsel doesn't point fingers, because he isn't a Prosecutor. Instead, he offers up, as a Matter of Fact, that the election could be rigged and that players were in place (Zuckerberg) that could have done the rigging, as well as the fact that the WEC (Wisconsin Election Committee) has been negligent in its capacity to provide information to his investigation and to the American People to whom the WEC swore an oath to.

TL;DR: Yes, there is bite here, but it would take a Prosecutor with balls to use this pseudo-discovery to pursue actual discovery and submit the evidence we've had for a year into a Court of Law and seek remedy for the damages (remedy to fraud is total vitation of the results of that fraud, which includes decertification.)