Proving President Trump Right, Or, The Value Of Honesty

Casting a Vote. Image by Lenny Ghoul.

President Trump is alleging widespread voter fraud by the Democrats. He’s lying about that, but millions of people believe him, because he’s been proven right.

Taking a look at only a small portion of the evidence in his favor, we’ll begin with the New York Post and an article “Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots.”

The article ran in the end of August and was one of many designed to undermine confidence in the integrity of mail-in votes. The operative in question claimed to have been working for Democrats for years, undermining New Jersey elections.

“But it’s the New York Post,” some might say. “They’re not reputable.” That’s fine… but, why? They’re not reputable because they have a known bias and they’ve been found, on rare occasions, to have run falsified stories. Keep that in the back of your mind and let’s press forward.

There are obvious issues with the validity of the story presented by the political operative. He claims to have submitted false ballots, created by copying machines (later, printers) using security envelopes which had been ballot harvested, steamed open and then distributed throughout mailboxes around the state.

It is a possible, but implausible, story. Steaming open envelopes results in moisture damage to the envelope, and election officials would likely notice such… but, on the other hand, all one would need is a single decent rainfall over the last week or so to provide cover for that discrepancy.

The Post story references a case of vote fraud in Patterson, NJ from earlier this year in which 900 fraudulent mail-in ballots had been discovered and the election overturned. The link above goes to the CNN story; there were also article in the New York Times and elsewhere. The vote fraud happened, taking advantage of mail-in ballots. Likewise, vote fraud was attempted a few weeks later in Texas, where a Carrollton Mayoral candidate was found with dozens of false ballots.

The obvious comment is that both of these incidents were discovered… but then, the obvious next point is that both incidents were conducted on the local level and that a national organization like the Democratic Party would have more experienced and knowledgeable people, less prone to discovery.

Then we have individual testimonials, like that of Olivia Rondeau, a self-described pro-Trump Libertarian-leaning independent who went to work for the Republican Dulce Ritter campaign in Pennsylvania and found evidence of PO Box tampering. She presents evidence in the video and has links to news agencies to which the tampering was reported… but it received no attention from any media source which wasn’t Trump-leaning. This has a variety of aspects which feed into the theory of widespread fraud: media failing to report discrepancies, and then the notion that one case of such fraud suggests the possibility of widespread fraud (except that the improper closure of the mail box and two other Republican-connected boxes was quickly discovered, and it would suggest nationwide ineptitude on the part of all other Republican agencies to fail to discover it.) and the notion that if an operative were willing to interfere with mail in this way, they might be willing to destroy Republican ballots (except that blocking the mail is something regularly done when people fail to pay their box upkeep fees, and a biased worker could easily claim a mistake… while destroying mail would likely send them to jail. The vastly different punishments available make the second course of action unlikely.) Still, it’s a testimonial of plausible mail interference, and it increased fear.

Then there were the handful of discarded ballots in Pennsylvania, discovered during September and made famous by allegations that valid votes for Trump were being thrown out. The investigation showed nothing of the sort… but the investigation needed to be performed because the ballots existed and were found in the trash.

Then there was the case of William Bradley, discovered by the head of Students for Trump as he cross-checked public voter registration names against public obituary records (drudgework which would have taken months in the past, now possible over the course of seconds due to computer searches.) The man died in 1984, but a ballot was sent to his house in 2020… and William Bradley, from that house, voted. It’s a clear example of voter fraud… except that the one who voted is the son of the deceased, and he inherited the house.

In both events, the initial issue was broadcast all over Trump-friendly networks and newspapers. The eventual resolution was covered, so they have evidence that they performed due diligence as a news agency, but the findings were mentioned in passing. Most of their viewers and readers were left with the impression that the offenses were real.

This string of incidents – and there are more examples to bolster this case – seems to demonstrate that there is validity to Trump’s allegations of voter fraud. The case looks very strong, in fact; it is not, upon close examination… it is the Blazing Saddles’ Rock Ridge of cases, where looking at the evidence in the way it is presented by one group makes it seem like a full-sized town, while looking at it from another perspective demonstrates it as a fraud, merely a painted prop of thin boards.

This is where the value of honesty comes into play. The sources which have been pushing this narrative are not reputable because they have a known bias and they’ve been found, on rare occasions, to have run falsified stories. But they are reputable to the people who’ve been listening to them, and that’s not because those people are ignorant or stupid. By comparison, CNN has a known bias and admitted to repeating without question Saddam Hussein’s propaganda for years in order to maintain access to Iraq. Jayson Blair wrote an entire book about how he provided false stories to the New York Times, not to pursue a political agenda but because they’d give him money without making him work… and how the stories he wrote weren’t significantly challenged because of fears of racial bias. There have been retractions and false stories from just about every major news outlet. Discounting “Faux News” is the same as discounting “Communist News Network”.

This was even seen earlier this year, when multiple reports about sorting machines being disassembled under DeJoy led to widespread belief in manipulations of the mail to undermine ballot delivery. There were immediate and obvious problems with the story… the decision had been made months before DeJoy was nominated to the position of Postmaster General, the removals had been ongoing for years because of diminished first class mail, the machines in question were not used for the mail in question at the time (as was later pointed out, many states used them for the actual ballots, although not the initial sample ballots and mailing instructions… but the outcry happened when the sample ballots and mailing instructions were initially scheduled to go out, which was why they were described as “election materials”.) There were many problems with the narrative… but few wanted to consider them. It was more important to echo the story as presented, and pushed hard, by prominent Democrats.

There were, as one would expect, some small discrepancies with the mail balloting system, just as there were some small local attempts at voter fraud. The existence of those has been taken by some to “prove” that their earlier suspicions of DeJoy were correct. (They were, in that he’s likely a fraudster and criminal, but that’s due to falsely divesting interests in his company and directing mail contracts to his business, not some conspiracy to suppress the vote.)

It’s very difficult to step back from what you’re being told by trusted sources and try to make an honest assessment of the situation. It’s only going to happen for many people when other trusted sources help them, guiding them through a reasonable analysis of the situation and presenting them with questions that they can answer for themselves. Those sources are not going to be the ones they currently use, and they’re not going to be the ones which lied to them for years and told them things like Bush never bothered to fulfill his military obligation. They’re going to have to be people they know. Waiting for them to come out of their bubble, particularly when we’ve got people like AOC warning the “incompetent” Democrats that they need to accede to her demands, is not going to be fruitful… and writing them off merely guarantees that nativism will find a permanent home in the American political system.

Many of the Trump voters, even if they’re not Trumpists, have what appear to be very good reasons to believe the election might have been stolen. That misconception needs to be fought at the ground level, by people they know and, at least on some level, trust. And it needs to be done with an eye toward being as honest and informed as possible, so we are ready to find and refute the implausibilities as they are presented rather than simply tick off the expected talking points they’ve been told they will hear. When that happens, rather than doubt the fictions they’ve been fed they feel validated and better informed, and it becomes harder still to pull them back to reality.

About the opinions in this article…

Any opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website or of the other authors/contributors who write for it.

About AlienMotives 1991 Articles
Ex-Navy Reactor Operator turned bookseller. Father of an amazing girl and husband to an amazing wife. Tired of willful political blindness, but never tired of politics. Hopeful for the future.