I keep hearing people argue that, even if there is evidence of vote fraud, the question would be whether or not there is enough evidence to over-turn the election. This is not the legal way to look at this issue.
First, vote fraud happens in every election and, to be honest, I doubt there is enough vote fraud to over-turn this election. But the question is not about vote fraud; the question is about election fraud!
Vote fraud is when individuals cheat in an election. Election fraud is when there is a co-ordinated effort to throw an election. So, if we can show evidence of election fraud (and we can prove election fraud), then it is no longer about how many votes can be found or taken away. If the election, itself, was fraudulent, then there was no election!
In this case, the people behind the election fraud need to be arrested and prosecuted (and the charge would be sedition/subversion and, if it was done in connection with a foreign power, treason, as well), and the election set aside. Accepting the result of a fraudulent election would be like saying we have to let a bank robber keep whatever money he claimed he had in his pocket before he robbed the bank and then let him go. There is no way to figure out how much was stolen and how much was in the robber’s pockets because the robber is not to be trusted. Furthermore, you do not let the robber go.
So, please, do not accept the fallacious and deliberately confusing arguments being floated out there. They are wrong, and they are intentionally trying to deflect away from the truth (mostly because the people pushing these fraudulent lies are part of the coup, and they are trying to secure their theft of the country).
One thought on “Once Again: It Is NOT About Whether Or Not There Is ‘Enough’ Evidence To Over-Turn The Election”