The Fraud Begins Where the Fraud Ends

signorelli-antichrist-featured

Quite reasonably, Jonathan Tobin attempts to chart a middle course between declaring the 2020 election fraudulent and denying that nothing was amiss, in an essay for the New York Post titled, “No, the 2020 election wasn’t stolen — but yes, it was underhandedly tilted“:

If you read the headline of a blockbuster, 6,000-word-plus story in Time magazine, you might think former President Donald Trump wasn’t so wrong about the election, after all. …

As the magazine reports, a secret alliance of left-wing activists, union leaders and corporate CEOs worked together to help craft unprecedented changes in the rules governing the way America votes. They did their best to encourage and facilitate mail-in voting on an unprecedented scale. …

That means the challenge facing the country is not what to do about Trump’s sore-loser tantrum, which resulted in a disgraceful riot (swollen into an “insurrection” by Democrats and media keen to discredit all Republicans). The real problem is whether Americans are prepared to let the same forces that tilted the 2020 election in Biden’s favor get away with it again.

Tobin’s analysis may be correct, but in striving not to throw in with conspiracy theorists, he avoids a relevant question:  If a national (nay, international) cabal went to these lengths, which are fraudulent at least in the sense of social expectations, why should we trust that they would draw the line at outright election fraud, if it was necessary to bring to fruition the arguably much more profound deceits that preceded it?

Of course, we shouldn’t.  Of course, they would have massive incentive to cheat so as not to be out on that limb of blatant disregard for fair play and still lose.  This is why it’s been impossible to find anybody on the anti-Trump side who will say that they actually care whether there was electoral fraud.  They’re happy to insist that there was not, but if there was, oh, well; all’s well that ends well.

This is also why — of course — they’ll do it again, even doubling down if they have to.  Cheating is an addiction; there is always some reason why it must be done, once it is accepted.  Even now, the cheaters are laying groundwork, banning and maligning people who question the election results, so that when they cheat again, they’ll be able to bully people who’ve gone this far with them lest they draw any lines against their brazenness.



  • Mario

    I’d care if there were election fraud. If only there were some massive campaign to scour the country and find evidence to support the theory. It could have changed my mind unless, of course, the allegations were all made up and the hunt for evidence came up hilariously short. I mean, wouldn’t it be embarrassing if there were more evidence that Kavanaugh were a sexual predator than that the election was stolen, and people who rightly dismissed the former kept harping on the latter because they couldn’t cope with the reality of the alternative?

    • Justin Katz

      Two-thirds of the related cases that have actually been adjudicated went for Trump/GOP, and some are still pending. Meanwhile, the very same people now acknowledged to have twisted the narrative to win the election have been instrumental in promoting the idea that there could not have been fraud. We’re in two different worlds, with each thinking the other is failing to see that which is obvious.

      • Mario

        You do know that that figure ignores the ones thrown out for having no basis, right? Now the question is, of the battles he won, which had the effect of undermining the results in any given state? Which, of the cases still pending, could do that? What case is there that actually supports the contention that Trump won? If he can win all of those cases and come no closer to actual victory, that seems to undermine the idea that there is anything wrong with the result. It certainly doesn’t comport with the bombastic claims made by the Trump legal team outside of the courtrooms.

        People are quick to dismiss his claims that the election was full of fraud because he said that’s what he’d say if he lost. He was claiming fraud back in 2016 and saying that he really won California because he couldn’t accept that he got so many fewer votes that Hillary. There was a reason why a year before the election people were asking if he would accept the results. The Trump people were all up in arms over the accusation at the time, and yet here we are.

        • Justin Katz

          Note that I said “have actually been adjudicated.” So yes, you’re correct, provided you include in “no basis” the quite different category of “no standing,” which means a judge said, “There may very well be earth shattering fraud, here, but nobody before me has a right to contest it in this court.”

          Again, I’m not sure what discussion will accomplish, here. You emphasize that “people” were asking if President Trump would accept the results. In your mind, somehow people asking that question implicitly means they were correct to be concerned, so much so that the simple fact that they asked the question is evidence that it was correct of them to ask it. In my mind, I note that those “people” were at the time engaged in a broad, coordinated effort (as documented by Time) to manipulate the law and censor the information going out to the public so as to ensure their preferred outcome. In that light, asking him the question was simply laying the groundwork so that when he called out their actual fraud, folks (like you) would be able to dismiss the possibility by telling themselves, “See! They were right to be concerned that he would accept the result.”

          • Mario

            Dumping the cases for lack of standing or lack of jurisdiction is adjudicating them. You can’t just ignore the slew of meritless cases and declare that they are having a lot of success in court. The meritless part of their actions is the point. “Of the cases that weren’t baseless” is a horrible standard to start an argument with.

            Again, what success are they actually having? If you actually look at the cases instead of the manipulated numbers, they are not proving the existence of fraud. In Iowa, they got a county to not pre-populate the absentee ballot application for the voters. In Nevada, they got a voting time extension (which, if this were Democrats, you would cite as evidence of mOaR fRaUd). In Wisconsin they got an inaccurate Facebook post removed. In Minnesota they failed to get the state to use received by date instead of a postmark, but because they got one appeals court decision in their favor before they withdrew, it counts as a win, somehow. In Texas, again, they ultimately lost, but one court remanded so the whole thing is counted as a win. In Pennsylvania the 10,000 late arriving absentee ballots were segregated in case their was found to be a problem with them later, and Biden won the state by 80,000 votes. In Virginia they worked out a deal where the state would accept a late-arriving ballot with an illegible postmark if the USPS barcode was still good. Excellent victory. One win was a Wisconsin rando suing in the wrong court whose case was simply tossed. Big win. What did I miss? A Colorado case that’s actually about petitions and not the election and was decided back in September?

            There is no proof of fraud, and nothing here suggests otherwise.

  • Rhett Hardwick

    I think anyone with more than a “civics class” knowledge of history, knows that election fraud is as American as apple pie. For myself, I have always thought the Kennedy Library should be in a Chicago cemetery. The question is really would discovery and cancellation of that fraud alter the results?

    • Christopher C. Reed

      Kennedy didn’t need Illinois, though it was nice of Daley to deliver.
      Congressman LBJ was better at vote theft, when it counted.

      The Kennedy boys really shouldn’t have p.o.’d Sam Giancana.

      • Rhett Hardwick

        As I understand it, Illinois and Texas put Kennedy over, and either state by itself would have done it. Faced with the choice, Nixon decided not to contest Illinois, as that would still have left Texas. I noted in a movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis that Kennedy would only accept calls from Daley. I thought that telling.