RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/04/ignoring-and-ridiculing-election-fraud-concerns-will-not-make-them-go-away/

Restoration of trust in due process is the central goal of the statement issued by Sen. Ted Cruz on election integrity. He and the 11 other senators who signed it understand something that few officials and pundits—particularly many self-described conservatives—are willing to admit: to certify electors without a comprehensive investigation into thousands of allegations of fraud in the 2020 election would be a betrayal of Americans’ trust as well as an egregious violation of their oath to protect the Constitution.

Whether or not you agree there was massive electoral fraud in the 2020 presidential election does not really matter at this point. Every American should be deeply concerned if nearly half of all voters are convinced that large-scale fraud handed the election to the Biden-Harris ticket. Some may hope the conviction will fade with time, but more likely the distrust will deepen, especially since it comes despite non-stop denials and censorship about fraud by both Big Tech and Big Media.

Rasmussen’s poll indicates that 47 percent of voters believe fraud swayed the election (and 75 percent of Republicans). Some dismiss Rasmussen as leaning to the right. But even standard left-leaning pollsters such as Quinnipiac and Reuters consistently claim that half of Republicans believe there was massive fraud.

The BBC and other mainstream media went into meltdown today over a phone call on Saturday in which, they claimed, President Donald Trump had pressured Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to alter Trump’s election defeat in the state.

https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/the-trump-raffensperger-phone-call?token=eyJ1c2

This allegation came from a Washington Post “exclusive”, a leaked audio recording and transcript of the hour-long call. The paper reported:

The Washington Post obtained a recording of the conversation in which Trump alternately berated Raffensperger, tried to flatter him, begged him to act and threatened him with vague criminal consequences if the secretary of state refused to pursue his false claims, at one point warning that Raffensperger was taking “a big risk.”

Throughout the call, Raffensperger and his office’s general counsel rejected Trump’s assertions, explaining that the president is relying on debunked conspiracy theories and that President-elect Joe Biden’s 11,779-vote victory in Georgia was fair and accurate.

The media zeroed in on this in particular:

At another point, Trump said: “So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/election_2020_the_consequences_for_the_courts.html

Unlike committed partisans on both sides of America’s political divide, I have no fixed belief about which of the two major party candidates actually won our recently concluded presidential election.

Two things that I do know are that:

1.  Significant and obviously plausible questions have been put forth about the announced results, the manner in which the election was conducted in certain key states, and how the votes were counted in those states, and

2.  Our courts, on technical and procedural grounds, have refused each and every one of a great many efforts to have the above-mentioned questions resolved through an established legal process. 

The desire of judges to avoid jeopardizing the prestige, standing, and stability of the courts as an institution by avoiding involvement in the ugly political mud brawl is understandable.  However, the inevitable consequences of their insistence on remaining above the fray will do the opposite of safeguarding the judiciary, the nation’s institutions, and a peaceable civil society. 

The courts and common law of England — the forerunner and basis for our judicial system — were established and developed to provide a peaceful way for aggrieved individuals to obtain justice without resorting to violence.  Now, as a result of the refusal of the courts to objectively and transparently examine and adjudicate the disputes about the election and its outcome, roughly half the country is being left enraged without any legal way to have the issues adjudicated.  Thus, a very large number of Americans are in the same position as were Englishmen when violence was the only means for resolving strongly held grievances prior to the establishment of a legal system.

That, I submit, does not bode well for the country.