Ignoring Evidence, by Pretending it is Not Evidence

This article was submitted exclusively to the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by the distinguished jurist Judge John H. Wilson (ret.)

If you paid attention to the mainstream media and their supporters, you would believe there is no evidence in existence whatsoever that voter fraud occurred in the 2020 election, or that voter fraud even exists on anything but a minor level. Before the election even occurred, the Brennan Center for Justice issued a report claiming that, “(s)ensationalist claims have circulated this election season about the extent of voter fraud, with some politicians going so far as to tell voters to fear that this November’s election will be ‘rigged’…putting rhetoric aside to look at the facts makes clear that fraud by voters at the polls is vanishingly rare, and does not happen on a scale even close to that necessary to “rig” an election.”

After the election, other statements were made in the same vein. “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised,’ according to a joint statement issued by the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council.”

According to Newsmax, “(t)here is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. In fact, election officials from both political parties have stated publicly that the election went well and international observers confirmed that there were no serious irregularities. The issues Trump’s campaign and its allies have pointed to are typical in every election.”

According to the New York Times, “(e)lection officials in dozens of states representing both political parties said that there was no evidence that fraud or other irregularities played a role in the outcome of the presidential race.”

Well, that must be the end of the issue – if the New York Times says so, then it must be true!

Yet, why do allegations of fraud continue to surround this election? More important, is there any actual evidence of fraud, or could the mainstream media be telling us the truth this time?

Kamagra is a one trusted name available buy viagra in the form of Shilajit Gold capsules worldwide, the rare herbal concoction is an affordable elixir for health. You should be able to choose the sildenafil professional packaging according to your requirements. There can be a blood clot formed in the major blood cialis cipla vessel supplying blood to the liver. Other influences on your ability for getting a viagra properien reasonable market in the competitive market.

To understand the disconnect between the left and the right on this issue, we first need to comprehend what actually constitutes evidence that would be admissible in a court of law.

According to the American Bar Association, ‘(t)he heart of (any) case is the presentation of evidence. There are two types of evidence — direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence usually is that which speaks for itself: eyewitness accounts, a confession, or a weapon. Circumstantial evidence usually is that which suggests a fact by implication or inference: the appearance of the scene of a crime, testimony that suggests a connection or link with a crime, physical evidence that suggests criminal activity. Both kinds of evidence are a part of most trials, with circumstantial evidence probably being used more often than direct. Either kind of evidence can be offered in oral testimony of witnesses or physical exhibits, including fingerprints, test results, and documents. Neither kind of evidence is more valuable than the other.”

Based upon this definition, there is clearly evidence, both direct and circumstantial, for the allegations made regarding voter fraud in the 2020 election.

According to Newsmax, “Republican National Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo that the RNC has collected 12,000 incident reports of election-related irregularities and malfeasance. What might constitute even stronger evidence are the 400 affidavits submitted by eyewitnesses in swing states whose vote results are in dispute. These affiants have placed their observations on paper, from the fishy to the fraudulent.”

These affidavits have been gathered at a website called Here is the Evidence.

Judge Wilson’s analysis concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/