Sour grapes from the WSJ means absolutely nothing. The recount was objectively conducted in a fair and non partisan matter.
As for the other thing, you're making some pretty big assumptions here. One is that the assertions made by "conservative journalist John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky" and "a conservative group called Minnesota Majority" are accurate. For the sake of argument, let's assume they are. Secondly, the article itself states that only 243 people were either convicted or awaiting trial for voter fraud. Even if all those people voted for Franken, it wouldn't have changed the result since he won by 312 votes. Third, the only way you can make the case for this is if you assume "the 1,099 possible examples" (again, assuming this claim is even accurate to begin with) are all guilty despite not having been prosecuted, which is an extremely dubious claim. Fourth, even if you make yet another assumption that all of those 1,099 examples are real, they would've had to have voted for Franken by a very large margin in order to be decisive. That's even less likely when you take into account the strong third party candidate in that race and undervotes.
And finally, if by some wild scenario all of the above actually did happen, it still wouldn't be stealing the election, since none of these supposed "bombshells" were dropped during the actual recount or litigation. Unless you're implying Franken or his campaign personally knew the entire time that his vote margin was padded entirely by fraudulent votes.
Poll
