Why is everyone arguing that President Trump has to ‘find’ enough fraud to actually overturn the election? That is not how the law in cases like this is supposed to work. All Trump should have to show is that there was systemic fraud in the elections. At that point, it falls on the Democrats to prove Biden actually received enough legal votes to win. And guess what? Trump has more than met this requirement!
Pinned to the top of this page is a growing list of stories that present overwhelming evidence of systemic voter fraud in more than just the six battle ground States currently in the national spot light. These stories are more than sufficient legal reason to perform a recount of the vote in every one of these States. And here is where the legal problems start for Biden.
Let’s start with the fact that the election laws in all six of these States are written for the old system of voting where there were paper ballots. These laws mandate a hand recount of ballots when there is sufficient reason to perform a recount. However, several of these States are using electronic recounts because they do not have paper ballots. Dear reader, this is illegal! If you don’t have a paper ballot, but the law says you have to recount the paper ballot, you cannot just substitute the electronic record in its place. You have to re-write the law to meet the current practices., Until that happens, you either re-count paper ballots or you cannot recount. This leads to the second problem.
Several of the battle ground States have separated the envelopes from the absentee and mail-in ballots. So, once again, these ballots cannot be recounted because they cannot be validated. This is especially important when the allegations demanding the recount are associated with accusations of failure to verify the legal requirements for mail in ballots. This may seem trivial, but it is still a matter of law. So, what we have is yet another case where the recount cannot be performed. This time it is because there is no chain of custody for these ballots.
This then leads to a technical matter of the law in all of these States. When President Trump shows sufficient cause to warrant a recount, and that recount cannot be conducted because there are no paper ballots, or the chain of custody cannot be provided for those paper ballots, there can be no recount. If there can be no recount, the law says that the plaintiff should be favored in any subsequent finding. In short, either Biden has to now prove his votes are legal or Trump is assumed to have made his case of fraud. This is because, if the defendant — now Biden — cannot prove the plaintiff — Trump — wrong, it is assumed the defendant — Biden — cannot prove the plaintiff — Trump — wrong because they are guilty. Yes! This is true and it is actually the law in these cases. This is why Biden’s people are fighting so hard to dismiss the fact that trump has made successful challenges against the vote in these six States: because Biden cannot legally prove they are.
So, why are we looking to see if we can ‘find’ enough ballots to change the result of the election when, by law, the point is to recount the whole vote. However, in all six cases, this can no longer be legally accomplished. At this point, the only legal remedy is to declare the election to be hopefully corrupted in these six States and throw this election to the 12th Amendment. This is how the law is supposed to work, so why are we all trying to parse votes in a system that is hopelessly corrupted?
4 thoughts on “It’s NOT About Finding ‘Enough Fraud To Overturn The Election’”
Makes logical and legal sense! Thank you. Share with @SydneyPowell1 and @LLinwood.
Joe, thanks for another great post. Thought you’d find this interesting about Barr, who is a Marxist wolf in sheep’s clothing. https://newswithviews.com/attorney-general-bill-barrs-criminal-coverup-background/ I hope this gets through to you because it’s a great article that you will find valuable. Best,SAF
Be informed, not just opinionated. – Fr. James Altman
thanks for the link. I’ll read it.
Trying to control the narrative… at some point the dam will collapse … the events after that will be interesting to observe… who / what will be swept away