1. Voter/Election Fraud is Real

Thread.

2. It's become a favorite retort of many liberals that "there is no evidence of widespread fraud." First of all, nobody is alleging 'widespread fraud.' That is a media concoction. Republicans are alleging highly 'targeted fraud' in specific cities in specific states.

3. On election night, when President Trump was leading in swing states, it was clear where the fraudsters needed to strike surgically to overturn the election. Where is the need for 'widespread fraud' when you have the tools and people in place to surgically do what is needed?

4. Did they? I don't know. But to pretend that it's not even legitimate to investigate when tens of thousands of "Biden Only" votes suddenly appeared in multiple states around 4:00am is beyond the pale. Nothing will please me more than to know for sure there was no fraud.

5. Then there is this trope about past investigations showing there is no widespread voter fraud, hence there was no fraud in 2020. First of all, there has never been the volume of mail-in ballots, the kind most prone to fraud, that was involved in 2020 election, so past is moot.

6. Secondly, it is not even true that past investigations showed little fraud. Who conducted those investigations? The history of America is littered with all kinds of election fraud going back centuries. We have constantly been updating our election processes to combat with it.

7. And forget about long past. Take a look.

"A former Judge of Elections has been convicted for his role in accepting bribes to cast fraudulent ballots and certifying false voting results during the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections in Philadelphia." https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-philadelphia-judge-elections-convicted-conspiring-violate-civil-rights-and-bribery

8. Then there is the claim that there is no problem with massive mail-in voting because some states have had it for a long time. Oh, really?! No large state has had it for a long time. And all the smaller states that have had it took their time to sort out the kinks, unlike 2020.

9. No swing state in 2020 has had past experience with large scale mail-in ballots. This was their first time. And they not only hadn't perfected the processes, they were also using newly acquired technology that had never before been used in a general election in the U.S.

10. And for decades there was a bipartisan consensus, based on the findings of a commission that was co-chaired by Jimmy Carter, that universal mail-in voting is most prone to fraud. This year's election has demonstrated it in elaborate testimonies from the election workers.

11. "Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” It’s the conclusion of the bipartisan report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III. https://www.wsj.com/articles/heed-jimmy-carter-on-the-danger-of-mail-in-voting-11586557667

12. Intimidation and vote buying were key concerns of the commission: “Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation. Vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect."

13. "The report provides examples, such as the 1997 Miami mayoral election that resulted in 36 arrests for absentee-ballot fraud. The election had to be rerun, and the result was reversed."

14. "There are more recent cases too. In 2017 an investigation of a Dallas City Council election found 700 fraudulent mail-in ballots signed by the same witness using a fake name. The discovery left two council races in limbo and the fraud turned out to be much larger."

15. Election fraud is real. Gathering evidence and proving fraud in a court of law takes a long time. Many cases take years to resolve. Only a rabid partisan would deny fraud simply on the basis of "no court case has been won in five weeks since the election."

16. Arguing for the need for evidence that holds up in a court of law is fair and legitimate. I insist on it myself. What is not legitimate is to say that since it has not been done already, that is proof of the opposite, that no fraud could possibly have taken place.

17. When all else fails, many liberals accuse Republicans of filing voter fraud lawsuits that are purely for partisan purposes. No frickin' kidding! Aren't all lawsuits partisan? All lawsuits have opposing parties to the lawsuit. That is where the word 'partisan' comes from.

18. Partisan though it is, the Texas lawsuit also serves a much higher purpose. SCOTUS needs to weigh in and clarify the limits of what States can and cannot do as per the U.S. Constitution. Can executive branches in the States flout the U.S. Constitution with impunity?

19. Facts in the Texas case are not in dispute. Executive branches in defendant states took it upon themselves to change election rules that are only to be specified/changed by state legislatures per the U.S. Constitution. That opened up floodgates to potential fraud.

20. Professor Eastman, who is now helping President Trump with the Texas lawsuit, has argued that we don't even need to have evidence of fraud having taken place to rule the swing state elections invalid, because their election rule changes violated the U.S. Constitution.

21. Of course there are thousands of pages of eye-witness testimonies of irregularities in the vote-counting centers that render the integrity of the ballot processing in specific vote-counting centers in swing states suspect. That is over and above the Constitutional violations.

22. We should wait patiently for SCOTUS to review the arguments and the evidence in Texas lawsuit, joined in by 19 other States now, and render a verdict. The issues involved are larger than Trump and Biden, as they pertain to the constitutional workings of our republic.

The End

Acknowledgment: The above thread is based on a protracted twitter exchange I had over the course of the day with my twitter pal @fakecoatesy. He claims to be politically agnostic, but shows distinct signs of being allergic to Trump. Follow him for challenging civil exchanges.