Was There Fraud in the Election or Not?

Was There Fraud in the Election or Not?

An idea that is highly credible today may be questionable tomorrow and not credible at all the next day, as new information arises. If we value truth we must be alert for such changes, and if we value integrity, we must change our view when the information demands doing so.

As I write, an idea I accepted has changed from being highly credible to being questionable. That idea is that the Trump legal team has solid evidence of significant fraud in the 2020 election. One reason it was considered so credible was the stature of the senior members of the Trump team who were unlikely to risk their impressive reputations on a badly flawed claim. President Trump named these members in a November 14 tweet:

“I look forward to Mayor Giuliani spearheading the legal effort to defend OUR RIGHT to FREE and FAIR ELECTIONS! Rudy Giuliani, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Sidney Powell, and  Jenna Ellis, a truly great team, added to our other wonderful lawyers and representatives!” [Emphasis added]

On November 19, the team held a press conference in which Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and Jenna Ellis spoke at length about their charges of irregularities in various states and referred to the evidence they would present to the appropriate courts.

A few days later Rudy Giuliani stated, “Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own,” and Jenna Ellis confirmed it, saying “She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity.” As if those statements were not strange enough, Powell herself responded, “I agree with the statement today. I will represent #WeThePeople and seek the Truth. I intend to expose all the fraud and let the chips fall where they may. We will not allow the foundations of this great Republic to be destroyed by abject fraud.”

“WAIT A MINUTE,” millions of people said to themselves and one another, “Trump says she is a team member, Giuliani and Ellis confirm the statement by sharing the ‘team’ stage with her and treating her as a team member.” Next, out of the blue, the two suddenly announce publicly that she is not a team member.  Then, wonder of wonders, POWELL AGREES!”

Note that the team didn’t say, “She was a member but is no longer one.” Instead, they gave the impression that she never was a member and that they didn’t understand how anyone could have drawn that conclusion. It all sounds like a bad episode of ‘The Twilight Zone.’”

Let’s turn our discussion back to saner considerations. Readers might reasonably ask why I have decided the idea in question should only be downgraded from “highly credible” to “questionable. ”Why not downgrade it all the way to “not credible at all”—or, for that matter, to “too wacky to be credible?” The reason is simple: the evidence that the Trump team has claimed to have documented and will present in court seems very plausible. Here are the two most serious items of evidence:

First, as constitutional authority Mark Levin has noted, “The Democrats have gone into state after state . . . and brought over 300 lawsuits during this election to change the election rules and states, and they did change a lot of them.” Moreover, he adds that they did so in the courts rather than in the legislatures, which violates the constitution and could therefore  disqualify the election results in those states.

Secondly, as attorney Lin Wood argues, “the election was stolen,” explaining that “Donald Trump won by such a large margin that in the middle of the night they had to stop counting. And you’ll see in key states, they started bringing in ballots by the truckload, all of them for Biden, many of them in these mail-in ballots with little bubbles for you to circle over the person you selected, all of them for [Biden] with perfect circles,” adding “I believe upon examination you’re going to find those perfect circles were made by a computer. This election was stolen, but they got caught.” 

If the courts decide that these claims are valid and rise to the level needed to overturn the election results, the claims will not only be proved credible, but confirmed. In that case, President Trump could be awarded the victory. On the other hand, if the claims are not proved credible, Biden will be the next President.

The main point I am making, however, is not what the election results will finally be, which only time will reveal, but how reasonable people should respond to the gradual process of finding out. As I have shown, they should not engage in wishful thinking or make instant judgments which they refuse to alter, as careless thinkers such as mainstream journalists and other partisans are in the habit of doing. Instead, they should remain flexible as the evidence is revealed and alter their view if and when the evidence calls it into question.

That kind of responsible behavior would have been taught in nation’s schools and colleges in recent decades if educators hadn’t engaged themselves in promoting their pet agendas. Thankfully, it is not too late for them to embrace genuine education, though the time is growing short.

Copyright © 2020 by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero. All rights reserved

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Written by
Vincent Ryan Ruggiero