I am among those persuaded that the presidential election was stolen. I am a reasonable guy, not a Conspiracy Theorist. George Bush did not plan 9/11, and Obama was born wherever. Armstrong and Aldrin really landed on the Moon. I do wish so very much that Jews control the world, but my mortgage lenders, utility suppliers, insurers, and other persecutors roundly disabuse me of that slight longing every month. So I do not easily get excited by UFOs in Area 51. Roswell that ends well.
My sense of the Big Election Steal is a subtle thing. David Catron and Paul Kengor in particular have written persuasively in these pages, many times over. Other equally truly sensible people have published a great deal of data on respected conservative websites augmenting those arguments. By now, we all have heard the accounts of the dead voters, the non-citizen voters, other non-registered voters or voters who have registered in several states, the failures to properly check signatures on envelopes against those in registrar rolls, the multiple voters, the harvested voters and their harvesters, all the Dominion hardware and software stuff, the poll watchers being sent home and then huge lopsided vote surges appearing, the sudden stop of late-night counting throughout the Midwest. All the extraordinary curiosities and anomalies: that Trump broke percentage barriers with Blacks and Hispanics that were so significant that those increases alone were expected to have won him the election. That he won bellwether states like Ohio and Florida, and that he won something like 18 of 19 bellwether counties — locales whose winners virtually always win the national election — yet somehow lost? That kind of anomaly has not happened in more than half a century, not since 1960 — the year when Cook County in Mayor Daley’s Chicago reported for JFK.
And there were more anomalies: That Trump had coattails that saw significant Republican gains in the House, Republicans winning every one of the 27 races that Cook Political Report and the New York Times rated as toss-up. That — except for the ones in Arizona (McSally) and Colorado (Gardner) that were goners — that Republicans held all those heavily contested U.S. Senate seats throughout the country that looked catastrophic in the polls (Ernst in Iowa, Graham in South Carolina, Daines in Montana, etc.) The one that particularly rankles me: the remarkably, even absurdly, low percentage of disqualified absentee ballots, as compared to the usual percentages of absentee mail ballots that get rejected — all the more striking because this time there were record numbers of first-time-ever mail-ballot voters, so larger numbers of rejections should have been inevitable as first-timers would mess up on signing their envelopes, properly filling in the circles, and just following basic instructions.
I recognize that it is in the nature of the beast that honest returns indeed can see early large Republican leads at the on-site polling sites later overwhelmed by legitimate Democratic surges in mail-in ballots. There are many honest, legitimate reasons for that. For example, Republicans are more suspicious of the mail-in procedure, so are more inclined to vote in person. And, yes, certain other indicators can reflect that the final numbers could be reconciled with honesty. Add to that my own fury that the Libertarian Party idiots seem to have done to Trump what Ralph Nader did to Al Gore in 2000, costing Trump so many battleground states. In Arizona, with a published 11,000-vote difference, the Libertarian meanwhile got 51,465. In Georgia, with a published 12,000-vote spread, the Libertarian got 62,229. In Wisconsin, with a 20,000 gap, the Libertarian got 38,491. Even where the Libertarian Party candidate did not single-handedly account for the difference, that impact made the difference between a razor-thin gap that the courts would have had to look at versus an ostensibly wider gap that made other challenges seem legally inconsequential because not enough, in themselves, to swing the state result. No, I don’t believe that all the Libertarian Party votes would have gone to Trump. Of course not. Certainly, if presented with only two choices, some of those voters would have voted for Biden. Some would have written in Ayn Rand or, if frisky, Nathaniel Branden. Others would have stayed home. But every libertarian I know who is not a “Libertarian Party” fanatic voted for Trump. Of course, to the degree that the election was being stolen, arguably the absence of a Libertarian Party candidate simply could have induced cheaters to find some additional missing envelopes, to push some more Dominion buttons, to “cure” some more ballots, to harvest some more votes, to find some extra envelopes without postmarks.
Beyond all, for me, the matter goes deeper: Neither America nor most countries, if any, is set up to handle a mass mail-in-ballot election of this dimension. Yes, countries allow certain absentee voters to request ballots. In Israel, whose news I follow with extra interest and curiosity, they allow mail ballots for four population groups: diplomats assigned to overseas posts, people on military service stationed far from home, patients in hospital beds, and certain locked-up prisoners. Here, it was a free-for-all that we Americans never before tried. Mail-in ballots were mailed to everyone in many states. Of course many state rolls, no matter how honest, would have included people who had moved and not yet left a forwarding address with the election commission. Of course there would be those who had registered once with a middle initial, another time with a full middle name, perhaps a third time without the middle name. Of course there were harvesters who would have gotten in the way of the secret ballot. We all know that states have rules that restrict campaigning near election sites. You may not even wear a shirt with a political message within a certain distance from the site. Why? Because everyone knows that certain gullible and easily influenced or easily intimidated people can be lured into changing their intended vote at the last moment. So, think about it: We believe that a person would change his or her vote because he or she sees a t-shirt or a political button 50 feet away — but we are not concerned that he or she will be intimidated by a harvester who walks into his or her home and stands over the voter as the ballot is being filled?
We have learned that there is almost no way the states check the signatures properly. To the degree that they even make the effort to check honestly — which, after all, many apparently did not — the signatures are being checked by amateurs. Any courtroom litigation never would leave handwriting analysis to amateurs. But our election committees do? And then all the lost-and-found envelopes, like kids searching for the Easter eggs or the Afikoman at the Passover Seder. “Look, Ma, I just found an envelope with, uh, let’s see, 5,000 votes. Can I get a prize?” System errors. Suspicious voter rates. Poll watchers kept outside viewing distance of the counting. “Curing” of ballots. Accepting late-arriving envelopes that lack a postmark.
The whole thing was a mess. And the whole thing remains a mess. Nothing has been fixed for next time. That is why virtually no real democracy does it this way, nor did America ever do it this way before — and precisely why the Democrats pushed for it. We all know the old saw that the way you know when a politician is lying is when he or she starts moving the lips. In the same way, you know electoral cheating is afoot when the Democrats push for a new voting “innovation.” Let’s have felons vote. Let’s have 18-year-olds vote. Now, let’s have 17-year-olds vote. Let’s grant an amnesty to millions and make them citizens eligible to vote. Let’s ban photo ID. Let’s have voting begin a month or two before Election Day, before the debates and the issues even are aired. Let’s try harvesting. Let’s try new machines — y’know, the ones that Texas investigated, tested … and rejected.
Then add to the mix the social media election engineering by which extreme Leftists in Silicon Valley literally worked to swing the news, to censor pro-Trump and anti-Biden news like the Hunter Biden laptop. Under their Section 230 protection, they convinced Congress years ago that they are incapable of spotting defamation in order to censor it, so Congress legislated that internet service providers cannot be liable for defamation posted on their platforms. Yet they can spot a pro-Trump post and ban it a galaxy away. One look at that Jack Dorsey of Twitter and the others of Facebook and Google and such, listening to their arrogant Peter Strzok–like tones while testifying in Congress, tells that the social media monopolies are run by people who absolutely do not care what others think about them, people who are determined that they are above all — and, as things stand now, rightly so. Jack Dorsey indeed stands above us all, above the U.S. senators who question him, above all of us. These social media magnates are the John D. Rockefeller monopoly barons of the age, completely in control of social media’s information flow. Our Department of Justice is worried about the flow of oil from a century ago but not about those who can open or shut the flow of information instantaneously like a spigot. The Dorseys knew they could not be stopped before Election Day and that afterwards all they would need to do is to say “Oops. Sorry. I promise I won’t do it again.” Until next time. And, indeed, we now see yet another example of how psychological projection works: They did on social media precisely what they spent four years falsely claiming that Putin did in 2016. Putin never had an iota of the conniving or control that Silicon Valley’s CEOs had.
Sometimes the practicability of a situation is what it is. As I was warning in these pages with the concern of a litigator who had litigated complex multi-million-dollar business-fraud cases for a decade and more, there almost surely never was going to be enough time for Team Trump to document adequately the evidence of fraud needed not only to get into court but to stay in court. Consider: a fraud case plaintiff in California, as in most states, is entitled to three full years, under the limitations statute, to bring a case with enough initial evidence to justify going forward with the litigation and discovery. Legislatures understand that is how long it can take to document fraud sufficently for a plaintiff to withstand a demurrer or a Rule 9(b) motion. Here, the Rudy Giulianis and Sidney Powells and Jenna Ellises others had basically only a month to marshal such evidence. Only a month — when the whole idea of fraud, at its core, is that the perpetrator goes to some serious lengths to cover up the finagling, the chicanery, the duplicity, the hoodwinking, the flim-flam, the fourberie. That is — the cheating. Team Trump did come up with a bunch of stuff and hundreds of sworn affidavits, but just not enough to satisfy the courts. Remember: Under our system of criminal justice — as good a justice system as any that humans have created — O.J. Simpson is innocent of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson. OK? He always will be not guilty of murdering her. No double jeopardy either. Right. And the election increasingly seems destined to be upheld under the rule of law, with the only remaining obvious cheating still proceeding in New York’s 22nd Congressional District, where 12 votes separate the candidates, and each day someone else finds a new envelope of votes. More Easter eggs. More Afikomans. Right.
The Republicans in Congress should have been on to this half a year ago. President Trump was warning everyone that no good would come of mass-unsolicited-mail balloting. They better address it before Georgia’s January 5 runoffs. And they better address it in every state where Republicans have sway in the legislature, which are the majority of states. Because, while Trump is being adjudged one court at a time not to have won, his coattails somehow carried Republicans down-ticket to great successes in the majority of states, too.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.
The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $79.99.