Holy crap. Listen to what you just wrote. You are talking in hypotheticals, what-ifs, and "may nots".
And you are criticizing ME? Are you serious? You are going to argue with me over something when your own response disproves your own intent?
"...evidence that should, at the very least..."???? SHOULD?????? SHOULD????? Something either IS or it IS NOT. If the evidence exists then it SHOULD have and WOULD have been used already. You don't think that if tRUMPf had evidence that he wouldn't use it? Are you that stupid.
So by your own admittance, there is ZERO evidence. And if there is ZERO evidence, then do you think it is still fair to accept tRUMPf at his word that there was "massive fraud?"
Or, if several years go by and no evidence of "massive fraud" is ever found, what will you say then?
Either way, there is zero evidence because there was zero fraud. Prove otherwise or show us who has. Stop talking in hypotheticals.