...because obviously if the election were corrupted, then there would be nothing wrong with contesting it to the nth degree. So, I'll just address the first point.

Both the laws governing the election and the Constitution (state and federal) were violated in every single swing state (as well as in other states). This fact is not in dispute -- it is simply excused with nonsense.

You can argue -- in other words, you would not be "lying" to claim -- that so far no one has conclusively proved that the illegality and unconstitutionality of the election led to enough illegal ballots being counted to change the result. You can claim that, but you can't prove that due to the fallout from the exact lawbreaking that occurred. Irony abounds. The fact that you can't prove it, though, doesn't mean you are "lying".

By the same token, it's also not a "lie" to claim the opposite -- that a clearly corrupted election led to the wrong man being inaugurated on January 20 -- because the actual result is still in doubt and probably always will be due, again, to the lawbreaking that occurred.

The intellectual, logical and factual hoops that one must jump through to believe that the election was NOT corrupted are almost too numerous to count. The Occam's Razor answer to everything that occurred leading up to, during and following the election is simply that it was tainted by corruption.

But even if all of the above were incorrect, the appearance of corruption would still be undeniable, and there would be no reason for Trump and his supporters to trust the outcome, at least based on what we know right now. Therefore, the efforts to challenge it were reasonable. In contrast, the efforts to prevent transparency, however, were unreasonable and, in my view, telling.

[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 02/20/2021 7:09PM]