Newsline , Society

Trump Suits are Real – Promoting Ignorance Dangerous

Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2020
by AMAC, Robert B. Charles

trumpIn a bid to declare Trump’s presidency over, the media are throwing around terms they do not understand.  Anchors often pose as instant experts, feeding knowledge they do not have – on everything from medicine, law and legislation to national security, intelligence, and foreign policy.  Often, pretending knowledge is harmless; but promoting ignorance can also be dangerous.

Promoting ignorance about the law, as our nation works to resolve a contested election, is especially dangerous.  Pushing false information, seat-of-pants assessments, false definitions, and politically motivated shading creates false expectations, misinforms on process, and erodes public trust.

So, let us stop the merry-go-round.  Let us define some terms, describe real facts, reference real laws, and get a real understanding of what electoral fraud is, how uncovered, presented, and resolved.

For weeks, we have heard things like:  The Trump team has “no evidence of fraud,” “affidavits are not evidence,” “suits are frivolous,” “irregularities are common” or alternately “not widespread,” “statistical algorithms” do not matter, “interference was minimal,” and Trump cannot “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” anything that would flip the election.

All this chatter may comfort the media but is gibberish – and misleading.  Whether from wishful thinking or intent, these statements misrepresent the law.  Here is what all Americans should know.

First, lawsuits filed now in half a dozen states, alleging “voter fraud,” “electoral fraud,” material mistakes and unexplainable anomalies in ballot distribution, collection, validation, counting, and certification are not “frivolous.”  A frivolous claim aims to harass, no basis in law or fact.  Every Trump suit filed – as voters can read – rests on sound laws and facts, that if proved are significant.

Second, suits filed to remedy a significant “wrong” – and miscarriage of an election is one – begin with a complaint, asserting facts, laws, reasoning, and remedy.  Sworn affidavits are attached.  Contrary to media statements, affidavits are – in fact – evidence.  While affidavits can be challenged, they verify claims which – if proven – justify a remedy.  Here, most affidavits are eyewitness accounts, not hearsay.

Third, “voter fraud” and “electoral fraud” are different things.  They can both change an election.  Sworn allegations must be investigated.  “Voter fraud” relates to illegal activity by voters, rather than those counting.  It includes intentional acts, such as duplicate voting (that is, voting for another person, more than once, falsifying a signature, completing ballots for others), voting in a district where the voter does not live (or is ineligible), non-citizen voting, improper influence, and false registration.

“Electoral fraud” involves illegal interference in ballot collection, counting, recording, or certification, perpetrated by hand or machine.  Electoral fraud can affect multiple ballots, and usually does.  It includes illegal disposal of registration cards or ballots, counting of fraudulent, deficient, or incomplete ballots, forging signatures, disallowed ballot harvesting, misinforming voters, and other illegalities.

Fourth, as a general matter, voter and electoral fraud may relate to persons, groups, states, or a nation. Whether candidate-specific, coordinated, or “widespread” is not a legal matter.  Returning to affidavits – and there are hundreds – these are likely to prove or disprove whether fraud was “widespread.”

Fifth, proving “criminal fraud,” of the kind Attorney General William Barr has allowed US Attorneys to pursue, requires “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”  But “civil fraud” – that is, dishonest, deceitful, or unfair behavior damaging, for example, an election – is must only be proven “more probable than not.”  In other words, a court assesses affidavits, photographs, statistics, to see if probabilities support fraud.

Finally, a step back. Beyond potential fraud, big constitutional principles are in play.  As in the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision, two arguments stand out.  The first centers on the US Constitution’s “equal protection” clause, found in our 5th Amendment, applied to the States through the 14th.  The argument – in 2000 and now – is that voters must be treated equally in voting and were not.

In 2000, the High Court found lack of uniformity – county to county – caused votes to be unequally weighted.  Accordingly, it shut down the recount, and declared President Bush the winner.  Here, disparate treatment of voters – country-by-county – is again alleged.  That claim, as in 2000, may go to the US Supreme Court.

A second argument is that state legislatures, under the US Constitution, are essential to the process, under Article II.  They have all the power – not election officials – to decide how Electoral College votes are awarded.   In Bush v. Gore, a concurrence by Chief Justice Rehnquist highlighted this all-important fact.  He made clear state officials who issued election-related orders deviating from legislatively provided election rules, improperly usurp legislative authority.

This is where things get interesting.  While the Supreme Court locked 4-4 and was unable to stop Pennsylvania’s non-legislative authorities from extending when votes would be accepted, four justices made clear they thought Rehnquist was right, and that this was an impermissible act.

Now, comes a suit, using this argument to throw out late and co-mingled ballots in Pennsylvania – or anywhere else.   If this case gets to the High Court, Amy Coney Barret sits in robes. That could produce a 5-4 ruling that bars thousands of Pennsylvania ballots, potentially affecting other states.  Unknown is whether the case will get to the High Court, how they will rule, and how many ballots would be affected.

Main point: As we await lawsuits, certifications, recounts, and resolution of this contested election, do not trust media muckety-mucks.  Most are not lawyers, objective, or interested in patience.  They are awaiting Trump’s departure, coronation of Biden, and rise of the Left.  Those things may happen, or not.  The media may be disappointed – misled by their own ignorance.  Promoting ignorance is dangerous.

Share this article:
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
3 years ago

What reminds me of the Mainstream Media’s ignorance is the old saying that “Ignorance is bliss!” and in this case, the Media has ignorance in spades! Regardless of the outcome, 74 million voters for President Trump WILL NEVER ACCEPT JACKASS JOE BIDEN AS PRESIDENT ELECT!!! We all know that if Jackass Joe is allowed to steal the Presidency, he will never be accepted and civil war may result and the Mainstream Media will be mainly responsible for the carnage that results. And I wouldn’t be surprised if they were to be one of the first to be targeted. I do petitioning in Darkest Blue California and I am threatened or in argument daily. These Progressively Communist Democrats are certifiably nuts and their hatred for President Trump and any of his supporters is beyond belief. I don’t back down but I now make sure I have a weapon close by if necessary. It’s gotten crazy and the Mainstream Media is responsible for most of it!

3 years ago

The basic premise of the article is that the media is somehow acting out of shear ignorance and not fully aware of what they are doing. This is of course not the actual case. The media, from the very top of the corporations that own them to the on air anchors that mouth or print the words, are fully knowledgeable and aware of what they are saying. The media in this country hates what President Trump stands for and the 73 million people that voted for him. They have made no bones about that since it first became readily apparent that he would win the Republican nomination in 2016.

The article is correct that they want President Trump gone ASAP. However, it is NOT out of ignorance. The media, which has been the propaganda arm of the Democrat party for decades, wants a Democrat, any Democrat permanently situated in the WH. They also want both houses of Congress to be permanently controlled by Democrats. The objective is and has always been one party rule, so they can enact policies and regulations that will convert this country from a representative republic into their dream of a socialist Utopia. So the media will say and do virtually anything that will further that goal. To them, the ends do indeed justify virtually any means necessary to accomplish that. Ignorance is certainly not the cause of their current rants against President Trump and the people that voted for him. They simply seek to manipulate the weak-minded percentage of society in order to try and bolster public support for their end goals.

Judy Jamison
Judy Jamison
3 years ago

I haven’t even finished reading the article, and am already wanting to commend Mr. Charles. We need more people with his wisdom and intelligence in the news/commentary media. Don’t let this get ignored by the MSM. As the poll comments this week show, there is a tremendous amount at stake. Please pray for our President, his administration and our country and people.

Larry Mace
Larry Mace
3 years ago

If Justice prevails in this matter (and we should ALL hope that it will), Trump will take the Oath of Office again on January 20, 2021. But, there is no doubt in my mind that the Left will renew its/their violence of the spring and summer out of their determination to destroy this country. We should be prepared.

Trending News

time is short

Stay informed! Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter.

"*" indicates required fields

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x

Subscribe to AMAC Daily News and Games