The mainstream media have uniformly dismissed claims about widespread voter fraud as baseless from the moment they prematurely declared Joe Biden President-elect. The claim that there is no evidence is itself totally baseless requiring that the Trump legal team irrefutably prove their case before a complaint has even been filed in court much less thoroughly tested and adjudicated.
Of course these are the same journalists and media companies that had no problem prosecuting the Russian collusion case against Trump every day for four years despite any evidence of wrong doing whatsoever. Today the mainstream media and social media companies are actively censoring the Trump legal team. The hypocrisy is so brazen it is no wonder America is deeply divided. That is a story for another day.
The basis of Trump’s claim is that mathematics and statistics show a number of anomalous results happening in this election which, while not evidence of fraud, are nonetheless red flags of possible electoral fraud, which give weight to the claims of thousands of witnesses that have produced written testimony alleging widespread illegal or non-compliant electoral activity (which I will call traditional voter / electoral fraud) bringing into question the integrity or accuracy of the election result. The Trump legal team are also asserting criminal, systemic electoral fraud relating to Dominion / Smartmatic software. Specifically, they allege Smartmatic software contains a backdoor and other design features that enable third parties to manipulate and alter the votes entered into the system, they claim whistleblowers will testify that that is what occurred in crucial precincts and states, especially those states that mysteriously stopped counting on election night, and further add that it can be demonstrated mathematically and statistically beyond a reasonable doubt. We’ll see.
While we do know the underlying basis of Trump’s claims, what we don’t know is the strength of Trump’s case. Until it is filed (much less tested in court) know one can say for sure. Given the high bar one would expect a court to set in order to override or invalidate an election result, and in the process disenfranchise millions of voters (no small thing) a degree of scepticism is entirely valid. However, to dismiss Trump legal team’s claims out of hand and censor any discussion or analysis about the merits of the claims is the sort of partisan media reporting one would expect of a third world dictatorship. It’s pretty easy to say something is baseless when you censor and forbid any examination of the claims of possible fraud being made. This is a truly dangerous political development because absent an unbiased fourth estate misinformation and disinformation spreads like wildfire on all sides, public trust in a free and fair election is seriously eroded, and society risks becoming dangerously fractured. Regardless of the outcome there are still over 70m people who voted for Trump.
The probability of Trump prevailing in a traditional fraud case in my opinion is arguably pretty low. Statistical anomalies might be suggestive of fraud but does not constitute direct evidence of fraud. Much of the direct evidence will be in the form of sworn affidavits of persons alleging to have witnessed irregular or fraudulent activity, but how much of this can be corroborated? Is a judge likely to disenfranchise tens or hundreds of thousands of voters based solely on some statistical anomalies and a few eye witnesses claiming to have seen things no one else can verify and others may dispute? For Trump to be successful in a traditional fraud case he literally has to win hundreds of small battles along the way involving a few hundred votes here, and a couple of hundred votes there, that all add up to enough votes sufficient to cast doubt about the election result. And he has to do this across multiple states. That is a pretty tall order given the margins involved. While the sheer volume of witness allegations may seem to strengthen the case of widespread fraud (and may aid in the court of public opinion if it gets reported) it also adds to the complexity and difficulty of winning and the corollary is that the more claims that are struck out the more Trump’s claims look ambit or frivolous.
Presumably this is why Trump attorney Sidney Powell is zeroing in on Smartmatic. This narrows the issues and points of contention significantly, making for a simpler case to argue and hence win, while simultaneously raising the level of fraud (or potential fraud) if proven to a threshold equal to, or in excess of current margins in each of the states in question, casting sufficient enough doubt about the results so as to trigger some kind of remedy. Moreover, because Smartmatic software is used in 30 states (or more) if it were found to be corrupted (or open to corrupt interference including possible foreign interference) in one state it could invalidate the election results everywhere it was used. This greatly simplifies the path to victory. Powell is also raising questions pertaining to the national security and foreign influence implications of Smartmatic. To say that it is a simpler case is not to say it is an easy case to win. Powell has made very big claims and will need a lot of compelling evidence to substantiate them. If her argument were to prevail it would throw America into a constitutional, political and social crisis. That said, Powell is a highly distinguished attorney, a former federal prosecutor, has been the lead attorney on over 500 appeals (including at Supreme Court) with a 70% reversal record and claims she has the evidence. This will be interesting to watch.
To dismiss all this as baseless is thus itself a fraud on the American people, designed to condition or intimidate or denigrate the public into meekly accepting the result. Trump’s case is not baseless and at a starting point asks how did a cognitively challenged 78 year old candidate, who was struggling to win his own party’s nomination, pull off the greatest turnout in history, by barely getting out of his basement to campaign, and mangling his words in front half of a dozen people standing in circles when he did. That much of the turnout was from a late surge in mail-in ballots after Election Day would would set off a red flag anywhere.
Trump’s language is overblown for sure but his claims / suspicions of electoral fraud are not unreasonable and deserve to be taken seriously. Yes they need to be fully substantiated and rigorously tested and we will know more about the strength of his case/s after it has been filed and evidence discovered. Until then claims his case is baseless is itself baseless. Moreover, given the tight timeframes and massive effort required to pull a case like this together the notion that everything would be laid out on day one is nonsense. The basis of his claim is clear, how well he can substantiate it is unclear.
If Biden won an honest election he should have nothing to fear from litigation that by his reckoning will prove the election was free and fair. Indeed Biden was being advised by Hillary Clinton not to concede in the event he lost before he had pursued his legal options. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And if you want to assume the mantle of Leader of the Free World a good starting point is proof you won a free and fair election.
Whichever way Trump’s litigation goes it has highlighted that the US voting system is seriously broken and in chronic need of reform. For a country that routinely self proclaims to be the “world’s greatest democracy” its voting system is an embarrassment and disgrace and no amount of censorship can hide the fact.