Let me summarize the article and see if I can make a conclusion:

   - Former Trump official (irrelevant)
   - Could not find anything in the article to support corruption. I agree with this, since charging corruption is very strong.
   - 68% error rates are not really errors. OK
   - Does not look like anyone actually went in there and set a zero. The specific picture is blacked out, so I cannot tell what was happening (I seem to remember an earlier version where it wasn't blacked out, but probably just human memory playing tricks.)

Did I summarize and comment fairly?

Fortunately for you (aha!) I actually was not looking at these things. What I found interesting were the following:

   - Instances of verifiable high rates of adjudication not just here, but elsewhere. There is a clip of an official in some county where they said their adjudication rate was 60% which is excessive and means x% of votes were decided by people in a room somewhere.
   - Deleted log files for 2020 but not 2016 (this was the big one for me, should be unacceptable.)
   - Same ballots giving different results. Admittedly, this could be user error.

Aside from the particulars in 2020, as far as I'm concerned, every single election should be audited to the highest standards possible and I cannot understand why anyone would disagree. This (to me) means adversarial parties trying to convince a third party of their version of the truth with opportunity for rebuttal. I don't feel that actually happened here which worries me overall. What we seem to have is one party says something, the other party takes to the news to offer a rebuttal and no one will be able to fairly hear both sides without piecing together bits of information.

It's for this reason I wish the Supreme court had taken up the case.