What denying election fraud accomplishes

 Mark Dwyer explains  What denying election fraud accomplishes.

There were voluminous reports, from eyewitnesses and experts, of widespread election fraud in the so-called battle states and beyond. Specific allegations were made, and evidence of election rules violations and statistical anomalies were collected. Yet the courts refused to listen to virtually all witnesses and experts, rejected most of the evidence, and refused to subpoena more evidence requested by the plaintiffs. Many state government officials and some top representatives of companies supplying voting machines and software categorically denied any election fraud.

So, on the one hand, there is plenty of evidence strongly suggesting that the widely observed election fraud took place during the 2020 presidential elections. On the other hand, all we have are assurances of the election fraud–deniers that there was no election fraud, which were later changed to admissions that although election fraud did take place, it wasn't large enough to sway the results. No verifiable facts that would clearly invalidate the specific election fraud allegations were presented to the public as of time of this writing, while quite a lot of obstruction of investigations, like denials to subject the vote-counting software and hardware to examination by independent experts, took place. Some of this obstruction had all appearances of a cover-up.

I must say that anyone who, knowing the above, claims that Joe Biden has received required majorities of legitimate votes to become a duly elected president is either stupid or willing to cover up the truth about the rigged elections that we have allowed to continue in America.

He goes on to offer a number of reasons, most of which are craven or cowardly or nakedly opportunistic. I can almost, if not admire, at least understand such motives. The craven ones however, such as those afraid that even hearing the evidence of election fraud might cause Leftists to unleash their violent arms such as Antifa and BLM.

Reason 3: The election fraud–denier was afraid of violence that investigation of election fraud may lead to.

Unfortunately, many of those in positions of power who could order serious and impartial investigations of the alleged election fraud and possible overturning of the results, if proven fraudulent or invalid, were concerned with a threat of violent riots of left's militant organizations, like BLM and Antifa. Some could have been trying to save our country a civil war or something equally horrible, while others were afraid for their own safety. As much as I disagreed with their decision to support the cover-up of election fraud, their position had a dose of rationality.

...snip...

The above realization implies that we are seeing a dawn of mobocracy in the U.S. as a replacement for our Constitutional Republic as a form of government. That spells out bad news for virtually everyone, including even the mobsters. We need brave leaders who will put the safety of law-abiding Americans in front of these leaders' personal safety and political interest.

Please go read the entire article and check out the other 4 reasons, or excuses as the case may be for denying what we can all see plainly in front of our eyes. Dwyer concludes with yet another excuse, that we must maintain trust in our elections. But this is to beg the question. Trust in free and fair elections is not gained by asserting a free and fair election. We have trust when election fraud is ferreted out, and those who commit fraud are punished. Until then, at least half the electorat wil feel cheated.