Reply #87: You're standing for truth as you perceive it -

[SicTransit]

very well. If your perception matches the Senators' perception, they should stand for it as well. If it doesn't, though, why should they?

Since there is no hard proof presented of widespread fraud, such as physical evidence or someone confessing to the crime, the "truth" here is that there were irregularities in the election (as there are in *every election*). Whether these irregularities constitute "proof of fraud" is each Senator's decision to make. Not seeing it as "proof of fraud" is a legitimate opinion and I would not fault any Senator for having it.