Latter part is probably true, yes, but former is again a logical error.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, that the courts refused to hear the evidence on standing is not proof that the election was free and fair, no matter how much Jake Tapper tells you it is.
That's not the right answer to the very legitimate questions and statistical impossibilities/discrepancies. The answer is, going forward, let's make elections we can trust.
Bill Derrin'gton there seems to care about that, the rest of you, demonstrably, don't. Why? Well, because your guy "won," feels good man or orange man bad, he out, feels good man. That's all you are saying, and again, that's not good enough.