Skip to main content

Why Does the Right Ignore the Rulings about 2020 Election Fraud 'Evidence?'

  • Author:
  • Updated date:

In surfing at my favorite news service at Yahoo, I spied an opinion article submitted to the Panama City News Herald titled, 'Letter: It is time to set the record straight on the 2020 elections.'

I was hopeful to find someone standing up for the 2020 elections as the most secure, but was saddened to see the many tired claims that the courts never ruled on the affidavits or videotapes (who uses videotapes any more by the way) and that people have concerns still because of that.

This kind of misinformation demanded a response so I wrote my own opinion letter.

Letter to the Editor:

I recently read the letter submitted by George Norris of Panama City and have some major disagreements with his claims.

While, technically, he is correct that the Supreme Court has not denied all allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election, the point remains that even the courts that did analyze the ‘evidence’ determined that the affidavits and videotapes when scrutinized more closely, were all easily debunked. Judge Timothy Kenny went so far as to state that affiants were not credible and did not have a full understanding of the process. Another judge noted that affidavits were “rife with speculation and guesswork about sinister motives.” Matthew Brann, a noted conservative and member of the Federalist Society, stated that the suit he ruled on was filled with “strained legal arguments” and “speculative accusations” that were “unsupported by evidence.”

Indeed, there are many other examples from all across the country where courts analyzed the affidavits that the Trump Campaign presented. In stating “the Supreme Court and virtually every other court in the land have worked very hard to prevent any evidence of election fraud from being entered,” is to deny the reality of numerous rulings by the judiciary.

Mr. Norris seems to believe strongly in such speculation as he presented just such flawed ‘evidence’ in his letter when he compared Trump’s rally attendance, which has nothing to do with voting, to Biden’s appearances that were more modest during the height of the pandemic when modesty was the Presidential course of action. His speculation also tends to ignore basics such as Donald Trump being the least popular President in modern history or that after telling his followers to vote in-person on Election Day that that would lead to post-election mail-in voter dumps heavily favoring Biden.

As to the point about non-citizens and the courts, perhaps Mr. Norris should read our Constitution. Article III grants federal jurisdiction to cases where the parties are residents of different states or where one party is a U.S. citizen and the other party is a citizen of another country. Based on his misunderstanding of rulings pertaining to the 2020 election cases, it really comes as no surprise that he did not understand that non-citizens also have various rights in our country.

Scroll to Continue

Read More From Soapboxie

This is the third time I have seen such misinformation being spewed online in opinion pieces originating from the once great state of Florida. It's becoming very clear that there is a right-wing information vacuum surrounding many in that area that shields them from well-known facts.

It's unfortunate, but not uncommon across the country, as you can tell by the diverse nature of those arrested for offenses on January 6 at the nation's Capitol.

One thing that might help is if the government would bring together the various groups and let them present and counter the information they have in making their case for and against the voter fraud. It cannot be Congress as most Americans believe any action originating from that branch of government to be partisan.

Perhaps a debate run by the Commission on Presidential debates, but instead of the Presidents, they supply their election experts and they have at it. That could be prize fight worthy ratings with how polarized the country currently seems.

This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.

© 2022 JOC

Related Articles