My best analogy is this:
Walmart gets looted during a riot. However, the looters are in California and smart (LOL) and not a single one takes more than the $950 limit.
Anyone viewing the store can tell it was completely looted of every single item, and suffered a loss.
The insurance company won't "pay out" because in order to recoup the losses, Walmart has to point blame at someone with evidence.
Since no single looter took enough to be charged by the court system, in the eyes of the legal system, there is no looter.
All of the voter fraud evidence is different than election fraud, and both types are easily overlooked by the system for the exact same reasons. Even though, collectively, there is obvious evidence of fraud, there is no person that did it, and (((nobody))) is willing to look deep enough to challenge the system.
(post is archived)