Posted by Curt on 13 November, 2020 at 3:30 pm. 4 comments already!


By Brent Hamachek

On Thursday, the New York Times continued its full scale assault on the truth by publishing a story under the email heading of “Top U.S. government officials declared the election to be ‘the most secure’ in history, saying there was no sign any voting system was compromised.”  The story opened with:

The statement, attributed to a high-ranking official at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — part of the Department of Homeland Security — along with several top elections officials, amounted to a strong rebuke of President Trump’s repeated baseless assertion that the election had been stolen from him through widespread voter fraud.

A close read of the piece shows that the Times once again is relying on unnamed sources and asking readers to believe that they actually exist, b) really said it, and c) are accurate in what they are saying.

This is a long-standing pattern with the Times with regard to having “anonymous” sources making unsubstantiated claims.   Most recently it was revealed that an anonymous op-ed they published back in 2018 claiming widespread dissent within the Trump administration was in fact a hoax penned by bureaucrat Miles Taylor.

Apparently while they were fishing for either real or contrived anonymous sources, they missed speaking to Federal Election Commission Chairman Trey Trainor who was willing to say on the record that there are credible reports of election fraud in key states.

The Times has run similar pieces since the election including one in which they say they called election officials in differing states and found no evidence of fraud.

The Times is not alone in contending that the claims of election tampering are without evidence.  Every one of the MSM outlets, and the weaker cable members like CNN and MSNBC, have been using the “no evidence” line in their news reporting, as have all MSM political guest experts who are seeming to work from the same set of talking points.

Human Events news thought it would be interesting to ask the question:  What exactly do you mean by no evidence and how are you defining and judging evidence?

In a criminal proceeding, arguably the kind where the nature of evidence is most important because of what is at stake, there are four types of evidence: real, demonstrative, documentary, and testimonial.  Beyond the types of evidence, there are then three criteria for admissibility: relevance, materiality, and competence.

In the case of The People of the United States v. Democratic Party of the United States, what exactly would be the case regarding the types and admissibility of evidence in a mock court convened to take a look at a mockery of an election?

In Pennsylvania and in Michigan, there is documentary evidence that dead people have voted in this election.  While the numbers may or may not reach the level of materiality, without further investigation it is impossible to know whether or not they do.  Certainly there is evidence of a demonstrative nature based on the work of Public Interest Legal Foundation where they have proven that dead voters remain on the rolls in states across the country.

There appears to be real evidence, evidence that is the equivalent of the knife used by Mr. Mustard in the library, that the voting machines provided through Dominion Voting Systems have been somehow altering votes.  This includes a case in Michigan, where a Dominion “software glitch” in voting machines caused enough votes in one district to go to a Democrat instead of a Republican to momentarily flip the results until discovered.

Dominion machines are used extensively in the disputed states.   This real evidence uncovered in Michigan should be enough to satisfy all criteria for admissibility.

In terms of testimonial evidence, we have sworn statements from the state of Michigan alleging they witnessed widespread voting fraud using several different methods.  Over 130 sworn affidavits have been signed by people who witnessed vote fraud in that state.  This is an extraordinary amount of evidence from this category that meets all three criteria for admissibility.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x