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."
justice.gov/opa/pr/former-…
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.
wsj.com/articles/heed-…
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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Bansi Sharma

Bansi Sharma Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @bansisharma

10 Dec
1. WSJ Asks A Question of Some Importance

Let me build up to it appropriately.

Tax questions about Hunter’s income raise again the question of how he earned it.

Hunter Biden may have wanted to hold 10% for the “big guy,” but did he forget to set aside 37% for Uncle Sam?
2. A tax investigation focused on the Biden family’s highly questionable sources of income may finally force them to answer precisely how such income is generated in the first place.
wsj.com/articles/hunte…
3. Exactly one year ago, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and six Democrats chairing House committees unveiled their plan to charge President Donald Trump with impeachment articles which did not claim he had committed any crimes.
Read 5 tweets
10 Dec
1. Meet Katalin Karico

It is an inspiring story. And a most relevant one for now and going forward. It's my honor to introduce you to Katalin Karico, if you have never heard of her. I hadn't until yesterday.

There is no doubt in my mind she will win a Nobel Prize some day.
2. The pioneering Dr. Katalin Kariko — who fled Communist-run Hungary at 30 for the US in 1985 with $1,200 hidden inside her 2-year-old daughter’s teddy bear — isn’t as powerful or rich as Moderna’s Stéphane Bancel or BioNTech’s Ugur Sahin. Nor has she ever been celebrated.
3. Kariko’s obsessive 40 years of research into synthetic messenger RNA was long thought to be a boring dead-end. She said she was chronically overlooked, scorned, fired, demoted, repeatedly refused government and corporate grants, and threatened with deportation.
Read 21 tweets
9 Dec
1. Covid Vaccine Price is Too Damn High

A $20 charge for Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine is tantamount to price gouging.

I am a free marketer to the core, and normally I would be the last person to quibble with market pricing a product.

But ...
finance.yahoo.com/news/former-al…
2. In this case, I must object. None of the traditional arguments for why a pharmaceutical company should be allowed to price its product based on what the market would bear, as the company has to recoup its R&D costs, and it should be rewarded for risk taking, etc. apply here.
3. Pfizer's total investment, including a hefty premium for risk-taking, on the development of this vaccine was probably no more than $1 billion. Pfizer should be thanked for rising to the occasion and rewarded handsomely for their contribution with something like a 100% profit.
Read 13 tweets
9 Dec
1. WSJ: Twitter Has a Competitor

Free speech platform Parler performs well enough to earn hostile media coverage.

Twitter has never been a money machine but Twitter has completely dominated the market it created for 280-character political commentary. Until now.
2. WSJ: Having chosen to use its power to advance a partisan agenda, Twitter seems to have attracted a formidable competitor—so formidable that other media outlets backing Twitter’s agenda are now taking aim at the upstart.
3. WSJ: The upstart is called Parler, founded in 2018 and lately adding millions of users because it promises an open platform. According to Parler’s latest Community Guidelines, published last week: Image
Read 5 tweets
8 Dec
Thank You Texas!

Finally, a high quality and principled lawsuit.

Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.
Thank You Texas!

Texas's reasoning in this lawsuit is impeccable.
Every state should join Texas in this lawsuit. At least all the red states should. We are a nation of laws. Blue states cannot flout the constitution with impunity. The issue here is much bigger than Donald Trump. Key question is: Are we a constitutional republic or are we not?
Read 6 tweets
8 Dec
We have 26 GOP governors. Is there any reason for any red state not to join Texas in this lawsuit? We are a nation of laws. Blue states cannot flout the constitution with impunity. The issue here is much bigger than Donald Trump. Are we a constitutional republic or are we not?
Seventeen states have joined Texas in its lawsuit against MI, WI, PA, GA for unconstitutionally changing election rules thereby negatively impacting voters in all other states. Image
Seventeen states that have joined Texas in their lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court regarding 2020 election:

Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
West Virginia
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!