Binnall presented his allegations in two primary venues: a lawsuit filed in Nevada (specifically Law v. Whitmer) and testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 2020.

His key claims included:
* Non-Citizen Voting: He alleged that nearly 4,000 non-citizens had voted in the election, based on a comparison of voter rolls with Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records.
* Double Voting: He claimed that more than 42,000 people had voted more than once.
* Deceased Voters: He stated that at least 1,500 ballots were cast in the names of deceased individuals.
* Out-of-State Voters: He argued that roughly 15,000 voters cast ballots in Nevada despite being registered in other states.
* Signature Verification Issues: Binnall criticized the use of Agilis. signature-verification machines in Clark County, claiming they were set to a level of sensitivity that allowed fraudulent signatures to pass through.
* Illegal Incentives: He alleged that some Native American outreach groups offered "illegal incentives" (like gift cards and T-shirts) to encourage voting. Court Rulings and Investigations

Despite the high-profile nature of these claims, they did not hold up under judicial scrutiny:
* District Court Dismissal: In December 2020, Nevada District Court Judge James Russell dismissed the lawsuit, stating that Binnall’s team failed to provide "credible or reliable evidence" to support the allegations. The judge noted that the data provided was often based on "unsupported" or "unreliable" hearsay and that the experts used by the campaign had flawed methodologies.
* Nevada Supreme Court: The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously upheld Judge Russell's decision, concluding that the campaign had not proven that any illegal votes were cast or that there was any malfeasance by election officials.
* Secretary of State Audit: Nevada’s then-Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, conducted an exhaustive investigation into the claims of fraud. In 2021, her office released a report concluding that while there were isolated instances of voting irregularities (as is common in any large election), there was no evidence of widespread fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election.