The Election fraud deniers at the Wall Street Journal

A number of election fraud deniers, including the Editors of The Wall Street Journal, have been committing serial cognitive dissonance. In a series of editorials, the Journal's Editors have, on the one hand, claimed there is "no evidence" of massive voter fraud and that everyone questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election should be quiet and stop indulging in the "big lie". On the other hand, however, they have admitted that there were numerous irregularities that need to be addressed, in particular the fact that in State after State, including all the crucial swing States, the rules were changed at the behest of the Democrats without the approval of the State legislatures. Bypassing the legislatures is illegal and unconstitutional. By what logic is the conduct of an election by illegal rules not massive election fraud?

An analogy may be helpful. Suppose the home team got together with the referees before a game and agreed to change the rules without NFL approval. They could agree, for example, that the home team would get five downs to gain ten yards, that each of their punts would automatically net sixty yards, that the home team would receive unlimited replay challenges, and that the time clock would be managed by the home team. If despite such changes the home team should somehow happen to be behind, they could agree the referees would blow the whistle, throw the pause flag, and award the home team just enough extra points to ensure victory.

If the visitors objected, by what logic could/should they be told to shut up because there is "no evidence" of massive football fraud?

"...in particular the fact that in State after State, including all the crucial swing States, the rules were changed at the behest of the Democrats without the approval of the State legislatures."

Which was specifically outlined in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Supreme court said no one, other than State Legislatures, can change election law. The court should have heard those cases that specifically dealt with the arbitrary changing of the rules without the involvement of State Legislatures, based on that past decision. The fact that they didn't destroyed any credibility the court may have had.

The problem as I see it is many so-called “Deniers” do not differentiate between the blue states that IGNORED the court’s decisions ( e.g. counting fraudulent ballots ) and those like ( sadly ) Sidney Powell who accuse voting machine providers (e.g. Dominion ) of perpetrating fraud via their network and software without showing adequate proof that this was happening.

With this, the papers like the WSJ lump those who have legitimate concerns with the conspiracy theorists.

His analogy is wrong. They did illegally change the rules in several states. That part of the analogy is correct. But his hypothetical football rules are different for each team. There were no election rules put in place that only applied to one party. For example if a rule was put in that a mail-in ballot arriving after election day is counted if they are a registered Democrat but not a Republican.

The illegal rule changes were more likely to benefit the Democrats (which is why they did them) but that’s totally different than his analogy. The rules, while illegal, were still the same for both sides.

" ...in particular the fact that in State after State, including all the crucial swing States, the rules were changed at the behest of the Democrats without the approval of the State legislatures. Bypassing the legislatures is illegal and unconstitutional."

And the legislatures in these states were controlled by RINOs. This is how RINOs were in on the Steal. They did NOTHING to stop the Rats from illegally introducing the cheat-by-mail-in ballots. They did nothing to enforce election law. RINOs were every bit as guilty as the Rats.

Once the election fraud deniers admit there is fraud and press states to:
1) Pass election integrity laws including voter ID.
2) Investigate and prosecute anyone involved in voter fraud with stiffer penalties

We will have made progress towards achieving first rate election integrity that a modern society deserves.

So, conducting elections by illegal rules is not fraud?

No, not necessarily.

Fraud involves deception. The changes made to election processes in the states were done transparantly and in the open. In fact, many of them were challenged in court at the time they were made.

An administrative disagreement about the process for changing rules is in no way fraud.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.