The below editorial is brought to you by a contributor for Law Enforcement Today.
Widespread coordinated fraud appears to have occurred during the 2020 election. I say “appears to” instead of “definitely did” for a reason.
A definite conclusion requires the kind of evidence submitted in a court of law, not press releases and commentary released by the media. What we have seen is highly suspicious, but even videotapes of incidents can be misleading.
As the media should know by now, jumping to conclusions can be unwise.
For instance, one video
of the Jacob Blake incident, in which suspect Jacob Blake was shot multiple times by police officers, shows the shooting but not whether the shooting was justified.
of the same incident provides more information. It shows that Blake resisted officers, ignored their lawful commands, and attempted to elude capture. After witness testimony and other evidence was gathered, it became clear that the shooting was justified and that Blake was reaching for a weapon inside of a vehicle when he was shot.
There were children in the car, alluding to the possibility that he could have menaced the children and/or the police. That detail is not clear in either video.
This has happened many times in police shooting cases, almost all of which are either fully justified or unintentional. In other words, the evidence does not support the automatically assumed media narrative that any police shooting of a dark-complexioned person is an example of “systemic racism” or police brutality.
That said, the common element is not the inherent unreliability of videotaped evidence, but rather the inherent unreliability of the sources who publish it.
The constant narrative for police shootings, if we choose to believe what most media sources report, is that the police are systemically racist and the shootings are never justified. This view seemingly resides on every reporter’s computer as a form to be filled out.
Just type in the date, location, and the names of the people involved, and they are done.
The media never tires of using the word “murder” to describe shooting incidents involving the police. There is no evidence of murder at the time they release their stories, nor have investigations been completed, or even begun in some instances.
The way these incidents are reported, the audience is given the impression that the legal term “murder” refers to any death involving force, negligence, or a police officer.
False media reports of police-related racist “murders” have led to serious riots where true murders
have been committed. Murders that stand up as murder even after evidence collection, presentation in court, and conviction of the murderer.
The media has treated the 2020 election in the same way.
According to the media, no fraud occurred. They say the election was fair and honest. According to them, Joe Biden is our president-elect.
Anyone who disagrees is a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Even worse, they might be a fanatical Trump supporter, willing to use any dishonest means to fraudulently convey victory to the president. That is their template for every election story, regardless of the facts.
To ensure that the American people get the message, the media either ignore or make every effort to discredit anything that might cast doubt on their story. Social media provides a valuable assist by censoring or suppressing material on the subject to exactly mimic the media narrative.
The tag-team effort by traditional and social media to bias the election in Biden’s favor has been so successful that it is very difficult for an average independent or Democrat voter to learn anything about voter fraud allegations. That is, anything that goes deeper than what the media is willing to report.
What this amounts to is concealment or destruction of evidence, also called “spoliation.” In legal circles, spoliation of evidence creates an adverse inference of guilt.
The reason destruction of evidence is taken seriously by our legal system is that serious crimes can go unpunished because of it. On the other end of the spectrum, innocent people might not be exonerated as they should be. If you destroy enough evidence, the guilty go free and the innocent are harmed. Just ask Carter Page or General Michael Flynn what happened to them after evidence in their cases was hidden or destroyed.
They lost careers, money, and their reputations. Now we know their prosecutions were based on
fraud. Of some interest, those prosecutions were initiated by the same people who benefit from a Biden presidency.
Biden, himself, is alleged to have instigated
both fraudulent investigations.
With very few exceptions like Fox News (in the old days) and small Internet-based news sites, this is the same media that gets it wrong every single time there is a police shooting.
Not “sometimes,” not “occasionally,” but always, at least since Donald Trump was elected president. Coincidentally, the media invariably includes negative references to the president in their stories about police shootings.
These incidents occur in locations that are geographically distant from the president, among people he does not know, and in circumstances unique to the individuals concerned. In no way are they connected to the president. At their heart, they are the individual reactions of police officers to unique and dangerous circumstances.
Still, according to the media, the police officers are guilty of “murder” and they committed it because the president encouraged
them with “racist” rhetoric. That too, is a provable
False reporting, when it comes to police shootings, happens so often that it appears to be intentional. Why should we believe that the media is more trustworthy when they report on Trump’s re-election bid than when they falsely report he is a racist during a false account of a police shooting?
They are obviously biased against him, given their habit of reporting prejudicial material and ignoring stories that reflect well on the President.
One thing President Trump said after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville didn’t get much attention. While the media busily tried to smear
him as a white supremacist for saying things he didn’t say, and not saying things he did say, they also condemned him for not condemning “white supremacists” quickly enough after the rally.
To his credit, the president pointed out that he wanted to know the facts
before he said anything. In other words, unlike the reporter who interviewed him, he preferred to avoid jumping to conclusions, particularly when an error could be harmful.
If only the media had such scruples!
One aspect of the election fraud story, if there is election fraud, is that it is on-going. Unlike a police shooting incident, where there is plenty of time to deal with the aftermath, the election remains a preventable crime.
The results haven’t been certified yet, nor has the Electoral College met to vote. It is like Superman arriving after a gun is fired but before the bullet hits its target. The bullet continues moving but Superman is fast enough to deflect it. The question is, will he see it in time?
First, one needs to ascertain whether fraud was committed. Or to put it another way, whether the bullet was fired. The only way to do that is to investigate the allegations.
The press and social media don’t want to have an investigation. They want Americans to unite behind Biden, who they prematurely refer to as “President-elect Biden.” They tell us to ignore allegations of fraud, to discredit them (without an investigation), cause the allegations to be dropped, and in so doing, award Biden the presidency by default.
According to the President’s legal team, many witnesses who have come forward, and some brave whistleblowers who have intentionally
appeared in Project Veritas videos, a great deal of fraud occurred during the election. Some of it, those incidents linked to the use of ballot counting software made by the Canadian company Dominion
, has the potential to sway any or all of the elections where those devices were used.
That fraud, if it happened, would have created the false appearance of a Joe Biden victory. Any attempt to conceal or destroy evidence related to the fraud would constitute spoliation and create the adverse inference that the people who did it are guilty of election fraud.
It is here that America’s traditional and social media giants could get a free pass if we let them. Yes, they have censored, hidden, and suppressed evidence of fraud committed during the election.
However, they have done this in the press and on social media by suppression and censorship of stories on those subjects. They have not (as far as we know) made any attempt to destroy original documents or conceal them from any courts.
What they have done has an effect regardless. Their censorship, suppression, and efforts to discredit evidence of fraud affects the will to investigate evidence of fraud among those who have the responsibility and authority to do it.
It also creates the dangerous and false impression that any attempt to investigate is, perversely, an attempt to “steal the election.” The net effect is that these media outlets have power and ability to prevent legitimate investigations by spoiling them in advance.
The press is allowed to do this, thanks to Constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press. This extends to the freedom to lie, suppress, censor, distort, and fraudulently influence the public. They can be sued for libel but not for ignoring important stories.
Public figures like President Trump cannot easily
sue for libel, particularly if journalists are careful to quote others when making libelous statements.
Social media are granted immunity from legal action related to content published on their platforms because they are not treated as publishers. This assumes neutrality on the part of the social media platforms. In recent years it has become clear that they are not neutral. On that basis they should not be protected by rule 230
of the FCC’s Decency in Communications Act.
Election fraud, when it involves the presidency of the United States, is not the same as election fraud in a race for city council. The type of actions taken may be similar but the scale is much greater. A city councilman cannot initiate a war, but a president can. A city councilman is unlikely to deal with as many life-or-death decisions as a president.
This is why the penalties for election fraud, which tend to be a moderate fine or a short term in jail, are inadequate for an attempt to fraudulently install an unelected candidate into the office of President.
Or, as Joe Biden likes to call it, “Office of the President-elect.”
Control of the White House would give Biden the authority to disguise past crimes even as new ones are committed.
The type of crimes suspected of past Democrat politicians and political appointees, including Biden, include bribery as part of treasonous acts.
Other crimes, such as those associated with the Russia Hoax and the Ukrainian impeachment, involve attempts to simultaneously divert attention and resources away from Democrat malfeasance and subvert President Trump’s authority for the purpose of usurping his office.
In their attempts to accomplish those goals, many lesser crimes were allegedly committed, destruction of evidence (FBI text message
records), fabricated evidence (forged
document in Carter Page case), malicious
of private IRS records, and much more
These are not small things.
In this situation, the danger posed by an unelected infiltrator into the office of President of the United States is so grave that no American can afford to treat allegations of fraud lightly.
The allegations related to the 2020 election are backed up by evidence and solid analysis, with more arriving every day. We ignore it at our peril. Unlike the story promulgated by the media, the people who have come forward are credible, reasonable, and in a position to know.
Anyone who tells us otherwise is either a fool or a malicious actor. The traditional and social media have done this and for that reason cannot be trusted.
This brings us to a difficult question. If election fraud was committed, and evidence of this fraud was concealed or destroyed, who is responsible?
The postal supervisor who allegedly asked his reports to back-date
mail-in ballots has a certain level of responsibility for his actions, as do the so-called “ballot chasers” such as the one caught on camera by Project Veritas.
What of the people who enabled and coordinated the effort? Do the CEOS of traditional and social media companies share any responsibility if it is discovered they enabled the fraud by concealing evidence of it on their platforms? Do they receive a fine? Or do they go to jail?
What of the Biden campaign? Normal examples of election fraud in America are small-scale. They involve double-voting by small numbers of individuals, all the way up to more coordinated fraud involving as many as hundreds of ballots in a local election.
The scale of alleged fraud in the 2020 election, and the coordination required to cause it, may not have been possible without active complicity of the Biden campaign.
If they were involved in any of the fraud, they should be disqualified. No recount, no do-over, their vote count drops to zero and stays there.
Unlike a city council election, the presidential election concerns an office with tremendous influence and, in some cases, autonomy. The office of the President deals with matters concerning enormous sums of money, public safety, health, and war, among other things.
Any attempt to subvert that, even if for one’s own ends rather than in support of a foreign government, is traitorous if not treasonous, and should be treated accordingly.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Read the Full Article