Voter Fraud Happened, But This Fight Is Over
The Republican Party is split over whether to challenge the electoral college vote on January 6th. Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who vigorously opposes the maneuver, claims there may be well over 100 House members ready to override certain state electors. Last week, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri gave the challenge legs by announcing his intention to demand debate on the issue.
I don’t give a darn what the gaslighting crowd at CNN or MSNBC or the rest of the media says, there was indeed a great deal of voter fraud throughout this presidential election. President Trump and his supporters have every right to pursue justice and expose the extent of voting chicanery.
But suggestions like General Michael Flynn’s to implement martial law to force a revote are batsh** crazy. Likewise, any attempt by Republican Senate and House members seeking to invalidate a state’s presidential votes at the January 6th official electoral college certification is way out of bounds.
Ironically, I find myself siding more with hardline Republicans who refuse to just shut up and move on than I do with the spineless GOP establishment, which is buying into the talking points shoveled out by the media establishment that the claims of fraud have been debunked.
It is beyond me how it could be said that there is no evidence of voter fraud when we see with our own eyes a video of Democratic poll workers removing pallets of votes hidden under a curtain-covered table and beginning to count them after they had cleared the room by announcing the polling place was shutting down.
To this day, law enforcement has not properly explained this sequence of events. The media took the word of the Democratic operative in charge that they never told people to leave, even though an announcement was heard by numerous individuals who swore to it in affidavits, and media and GOP watchers were seen leaving. Imagine Woodward and Bernstein stopping their investigation once they heard from Nixon agents that there was nothing to see in the Watergate burglary.
Likewise, there has been no adequate explanation as to why tens of thousands of completed ballots were shipped by the Post Office from Bethpage, New York to Pennsylvania on the night of the election.
Meanwhile, one of the most underreported stories of the year was the compelling testimony of Trump Administration lawyer, Jesse Binnall, who claims his team uncovered 130,000 voter irregularities in Nevada. Joe Biden‘s margin of victory there was approximately 34,000 votes. They state analysis uncovered that 1,500 dead people voted, as did 4,000 non-citizens.
After cross-referencing the names of those who voted to databases for voter registration, motor vehicles and change of address forms, Binnall calculates that 42,000 people voted twice. While normally this wouldn’t be possible, the potential of this occurring was increased dramatically by the actions of Nevada’s government, which affirmatively mailed out a massive number of ballots, even though they weren’t requested by the voter.
In other cases, since signature verification was so diluted, it wasn’t very difficult for potential fraudsters to simply send in these extra ballots in circulation, hoping that the people in whose name they were sent would not show up at the ballot box.
Many individuals who moved out of state received their mailed ballot at their new residence, while also receiving one from Nevada, since there is such an inadequate purging of the voter rolls.
Was there a double count? It would be nice to know, but according to the Trump attorneys, the courts denied them the ability to conduct forensic investigations. Throughout many of these voting challenges, courts often based their decisions on a lack of standing or on generic statements that widespread fraud was not established. Yet, say the petitioners, they did not allow the time or the forensic means to verify whether the case-by-case allegations of fraud were accurate. You can’t prove fraud if you are denied the opportunity to show your proof.
This was judicial cowardice on a massive scale. The most egregious example was the Supreme Court’s unfathomable position of refusing early on to hear the challenge to Pennsylvania’s unconstitutional changing of its election laws. The Constitution clearly states that the making of election law is solely within the auspices of state legislatures. This means that a governor or a Secretary of State cannot unilaterally override the actions of the legislature. Pennsylvania’s legislature rejected the governor’s attempts to loosen mail-in safeguards and deadlines. Not satisfied, the governor asked a court to enact legislative changes, which it gladly acceded to, given its 5-2 Democratic majority. It was an action that clearly violated the black-letter law and the Constitution. Yet the Supreme Court let it stand.
Despite the fact that the courts failed us in this instance, we must accept their decisions. Many Democrats were furious over the Supreme Court in 2000 stopping the recount of Florida‘s election, thereby certifying George Bush as the winner. But the decision, regardless of how controversial, was ultimately accepted by the American public.
As furious as I am at the unwillingness of courts to do their job and strike down illegalities, we have to agree that they are the final arbiters. Members of Congress should not be overturning the votes of individual states at the electoral college because they are frustrated over the terrible decisions made by the judiciary. Such extreme action would set our future elections into even further turmoil.
Steve Levy is President of Common Sense Strategies, a political consulting firm. He served as Suffolk County Executive, as a NYS Assemblyman, and host of “The Steve Levy Radio Show.” He is the author of “Solutions to America’s Problems” and “Bias in the Media.” www.SteveLevy.info, Twitter @SteveLevyNY, email@example.com.