I think you're giving some people more credit than they deserve. When the election was going down, Trump, who was claiming months before that if he was losing it must be fraud, started the fraud claim. People believed him. Coach is an example. At each checkpoint, i.e. the Republican Attorney Generals, Election officials, local judges, state judges, supreme courts, priot to each ruling against Trump they group would proclaim "This is where we prove fraud!" yet when the decision wasn't what they wanted they claimed coercion or some other reason that decision wasn't the right one and the NEXT checkpoint would prove them right. When it made it all the way to the supreme court and still they made excuses why a republican majority court was somehow afraid to do the right thing it was clear no decision by anyone anywhere that didn't agree with them would satisfy them. So I'm curious why you think if a Republican judge, or Republican official etc couldn't change their mind, that an "impartial" panel would restore faith if they too found no significant fraud?
Because Republican judge/court refusing to hear a case doesn't address any of the complaints, and isn't an exoneration. A thorough audit would be.
Yes, there will always be a faction of folks who are going to believe what they want regardless. But I know many, professional, well adjusted, normal, productive people who feel something appears off. It's easy to try to paint everyone with a broad brush who has questions on election integrity, but it's just not the case.
And, given the way the left acted in 2016, the right having a similar reaction in 2020 should have been expected, and it's hypocritical of those who look down at them. History shows they'd probably be acting worse.
Off topic, but the fact that the "republican" supreme court didn't rule along party lines makes all the incessant crybabies on the left look even more foolish in the way they behaved during the last few appointments.
