Claims that Trump would have won but for cheating are dismissed as “unproven”:
All claims, including those made by President Donald Trump, that the official 2020 presidential election’s results were invalid (that is, that without fraud, cheating, interference, and rigging, President Trump would have been declared the winner) have been summarily dismissed — without meaningful in-depth analysis of all the evidence, witness testimonies, and observed statistical anomalies during the counting process — as “unproven.”
But those whose jobs it would be to “prove” or “disprove” such claims refuse to do so:
But how can one prove that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” (if it was “stolen”), when the courts mostly refused — based on such technicalities as a lack of standing of the plaintiffs or a lack of jurisdiction of the respective courts — to evaluate the presented evidence based on its merit, and FBI and other law-enforcement agencies mostly refused to seriously and thoroughly investigate numerous claims, supported with evidence and eye-witness testimonies, indicating wide-spread election fraud, cheating, and other significant “irregularities”?
It appears that those who had the authority to investigate complaints related to elections, and the so-called “mainstream” media, just did not want to see the voluminous evidence that might likely constitute the proof invalidating the official results of 2020 presidential election.
There is no right of the aggrieved that the authorities must investigate — the ruling class has found the logical flaw in the system:
Although the First Amendment confirms the peoples’ right to petition their government for a redress of grievances, said right — apparently, in opinion of the government — does not imply the right of the people to be listened to by their government. …
On the other hand, all claims that the 2020 elections were “the most secure” in American history, that there was no “outcome-determinative fraud” (a quote from President Trump’s third indictment), and that claims made by President Trump and others that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” were false, have been accepted as true with no proof whatsoever. …
The categorical claims that there was no systemic fraud, or that if there was any, then it was so “rare” that it was not “outcome-determinative,” were supposed to suffice in lieu of hard proof — at least in the government’s and “mainstream” media’s opinion. But how could they possibly know it for fact without thorough investigation?
In one sentence, all claims that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” were rejected as “unproven” despite voluminous — even if not verified by the courts — evidence suggesting wide-spread election fraud and cheating, and all claims that the 2020 presidential election was not “stolen” were accepted despite being actually unproved.
No attempt to persuade us that the results were correct. No investigation of the numerous irregularities. Troops around the capitol and a dubious “insurrection” (but by whom?). Buyer beware.