>> I also understand that fraud and corruption must be demonstrated to have occurred to be considered fraud and corruption. Otherwise the charge is just a smear.
Corruption has been blatantly proved. Fraud isn't a measure of whether cheating and unfairness in an election has occurred.
There were what, a 100 or more lawsuits after the election? And none was able to prove fraud. What do you think that is? Because there was no fraud? Of course not.
Have you ever heard of a fraud case being developed over the course of two months? Having been involved in a few of them on side or another, I can tell you that hasn't happened at least in the last 50 years. You simply cannot prove fraud in that period of time. So, is fraud a valid metric for determining whether an election process was fair? It clearly cannot be.
So, the system is rigged in a sense by the laws governing it -- the necessity of proving fraud makes it impossible to have a finding that results in a reversal of an election outcome. First, because fraud is almost impossible to prove in the first place in such an environment. And second, because you cannot put together a case and get to court with it before Jan 6, which you have already established is a deadline which cannot be protested -- and the losing party will turn the day into a riot in which cops are killing citizens in cold blood over.
The system depends on honesty of the Democrat party, which just doesn't exist. The party will lie, cheat, steal or whatever to secure an election "win". The party is unscrupulous.
So, you can what you want about fraud, but it is nonsense at the end of the day.
If a far left billionaire can walk in and spend 500 Billion to buy selected votes in selected counties -- and that is acceptable to you, you have not a shred of integrity left on which to even build. |
