There was no conclusion. There was no presentation or examination of evidence. There was only abdication of responsibility. Mathematical analysis alone is enough to demonstrate that vote counts are off. Deeper dives into the math make the question laughable. That's before you get into legal issues, one of which the Supremes Court flagged for observation (in Pennsylvania) before the election.

At the very least, anyone who doesn't understand math and doesn't find it odd that ballot dumps occurred in four cities simultaneously without observers and when the counting was supposedly paused (more statistical impossibilities in those ratios, by the way) should be eager to lay the matter to rest with transparent analysis, no?

Strangely, no one on the Left has argued for this. Instead, they have argued against allowing evidence and processes to be examined. If you think the evidence backs your claim, you welcome analysis. You don't destroy evidence and refuse court orders if you think you won honestly.

If Trump has won in this way, your "different political viewpoint" would have you howling for transparency. The difference is that I would be standing beside you, because I value the Constitution and truth more than I value the results of any particular election.

Very few people will benefit from the post-Constitutional era we seem to be entering. There are a fair number of people who have been moved to unfocused hatred by the same slanted media that has refused to report on the laughably fraud in this election, but there is nothing for them in our glorious new globalist technocracy.

I suspect that fewer still will recognize how they participated in bringing it about, either.