For what it is worth, those of us who agree with taking action to verify the election results also believe that the process should be moving faster than it is. The entire county is in a state of limbo, whether it is because they are fearful that President Trump will ultimately succeed in proving fraud, or they are fearful he will not.
It does not matter which side you are on, in that regard. None of us have wanted to wake up and spend each day wondering what the outcome will be. Especially in a world where we have come to realize that almost no independent source of information remains; where there is a constant question as to whether what we hear is:
- Entirely based on truth and transparency.
- Partial truth, or
- A calculation measure of distortion, with which the bearer may manipulate our puppet strings.
Each day has been a rollercoaster of thought. For me, it began sometime just before the hour that marked November 4, 2020. Like most of the country, we watched televised coverage of the count. [Probably] like most of the country, there came a moment where we thought “What am I doing? We’ve known since before casting our vote that there would be no call tonight.” With that, we went to sleep.
Unlike some, I did not go to bed with the belief that President Trump had won re-election. I simply believed that there would be no decision while I slept. Beyond that, I was only sure of two things. The first was that I hoped for a second term. The second what that, for every person like me, there was another who prayed for the opposite.
The following week, I worked during the day and avoided too much time spent dwelling on the news. However, each evening I sat there (for more time than I care to calculate) trying to “catch up” on anything that occurred that day. For the most part I was just disgusted. Disgusted with places like Georgia (who were not, and should not have been, anticipated to be the cause for delay). Who, apart from the idea of “what does it matter?”, as far as I can see, had no legitimate excuse to hold us all captive the way they did. While some had already begun to panic, I thought “This will end up in court. Nothing I read today is going to tell me anything of use.”
The passage of time has blurred, but at some point, my dad called to ask: “What do you think of your new president?”. I had yet to see the news. But, what indeed? What I thought of it remained, “This will end up in court.”
It is now November 21, 2020. In the days since November 3rd, I did not imagine I would be sitting here discussing the [still] wildly debatable election results. I certainly did not anticipate being hopeful one day and angry the next. It has been a constant barrage of “BREAKING” and “EXPLOSIVE” only to realize it’s “SAME OLD” and “NOTHING NEW”, with a fervent desire to be “LEFT ALONE” if real news was nowhere to be found.
It has been 19 days and for most of those we have been in the dark. At least, that is how I feel. One article declares it has been one loss, after another, for the Trump team. Another shouts, “BIG VICTORY”. Yet, neither one provides any substantial information beyond the stinch of personal belief. By now we are thinking, “Would you stop playing with us?!”
All of that was a lot to say to bring me to this point. We have seen a lot of reports saying the accusations of fraud are “completely untrue”, “wildly inaccurate”, “false”, “lacking evidence” and so on. A lot of which comes from female reporters. Mostly stemming from disregarding sworn affidavits as “evidence”. And so, I would like to ask them: “[Do] you know what else is hard to prove?” Rape.
Some cases of rape are obvious. Those that are usually involve brutal assaults. An immediate reporting and forensic evidence. What about the rest? The instances of date rape. The cases where “she” was too ashamed to come forward in the moment. Those where “she” retreated to her home and washed away the evidence. Wherein she blamed herself before she found the strength to say “no!” and take a stand. Those cases – when the accusation is made – there is nothing remaining but her word? She does not have video. She does not bear markings or possess forensic evidents. She does not have a written admission of guilt. In fact, all she HAS is her word against his, which will undoubtedly claim that she is a liar.
I think those same female reporters would be a bit more hesitant to rush on air and say things like “completely untrue”, “false” and “lacking evidence”. It is more likely that they would insist the victim be taken at her word and that the alleged perpetrator prove his innocence. In any outcome, whether proven guilty or presumed innocent – the accusation would [almost] never go away.
What, then, makes this sort of claim believable, while a Sworn Affidavit concerning fraud is not? Because some people lie? It has been proven that some accusations of rape have also been a lie. Yet we have the #metoo movement and the insistence that we should ALWAYS assume the accusation is TRUE.
I, for one, believe it is possible that in 900 affidavits – at lease one person embellished or lied. That does not make 899 other statements untrue. Any more than one false accusation of rape means that 899 other women lied when they reported their rapist. You would not tolerate intimidation, threat, and abuse by the alleged perpetrator, yet you participate in the same activity here. To argue that there is no evidence here is a basis for arguing that there can be no crime committed behind closed doors. It implies that in order to be guilty of rape, one must have been caught in the act or left tangible proof. While those things may be required in order to secure a conviction, their absence is not proof that a crime did not occur.
The way I see these affidavits is such that a third party could attest to having seen [this man] rape [that woman]. And sure, once again, this world is not without evil – two people could conspire to make false accusations. But you could neither prove that to be “always the case” or “never the case”. These statements are evidence. If you believe all of them to be false, then do your job and prove it.
Otherwise, your journalistic statement of ‘no-proof’ is about as meaningful as a sworn affidavit that you declare is ‘not evidence’.