The quality of the evidence presented by challengers to the election is what is being examined in the courts. You can certainly assert that there hasn't been any concrete and sound evidence, but someone else can come along and assert the opposite. You're both making the same mistake of making an assertion and accepting it as fact while we are currently undergoing the process of determining the validity of the evidence.
Such proclamations come off as either "Nothing to see here" or "Lock her up" rhetoric to me. Too much, too soon.
Some of us are trying to be open-minded about the evidence being presented, while others accept the first argument that supports their bias. I think it's wiser to take the first tack.
How much more research do you do on any particular piece of evidence after some media outlet tells you that you don't need to worry about it?
Such proclamations come off as either "Nothing to see here" or "Lock her up" rhetoric to me. Too much, too soon.
Some of us are trying to be open-minded about the evidence being presented, while others accept the first argument that supports their bias. I think it's wiser to take the first tack.
How much more research do you do on any particular piece of evidence after some media outlet tells you that you don't need to worry about it?