So, ignore evidence of fraud (including eyewitness testimony from dozens of witnesses sworn under oath) because you and others summarily deem it not widespread or systematic?

However, Congress spends years investigating sketchy, anonymous claims about Russian interference in 2016 elections?

> So, ignore evidence of fraud

Who is ignoring evidence? Courts?

> because you and others summarily deem it not widespread or systematic

"and others" includes every court presented with such evidence. As luck would have it, those weren't courts that could be said to be exactly "hostile" to the administration either. That would have been problematic.

I'm not trying to claim there is no substantial evidence of fraud. Anyone who has that evidence is free to present it in legal processes. If it has any merit, there could even be a case. There has been no such examples. That means either a) there was no significant fraud, b) there was fraud but it left no evidence, or c) there was both fraud and evidence but courts across the country rejected it because they are hostile to the administration. Which one do you suggest happened? Or put more clearly: what should happen before you believe a)?

Not one eye witness has been in, under oath, in front of a US Federal Judge and claimed they saw voter fraud. It has all been in hotel conference rooms. When the judge has asked for evidence they essentially get a shrug of the shoulders from Rudy G.