Rand Paul: 2020 election fraud never fully reviewed by courts

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (Video screenshot)

President Donald Trump and his supporters filed dozens of legal cases challenging the 2020 election results, submitting volumes of evidence and sworn testimony from eyewitnesses to fraud.

Legacy media personalities are very fond of saying all of those cases failed.

In fact, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos earlier berated Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., with, “No election is perfect. But there were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court, all were dismissed. Every state certified the results. Can’t you just say the words, this election was not stolen?”

The senator pointed out at that time that the problems simply weren’t addressed.

“There were lots of problems and there were secretaries of state, who illegally changed the law and that needs to be fixed, and I’m going to work harder to fix it and I will not be cowed by people saying ‘Oh, you’re a liar,'” Paul told the anchor.

“Let’s talk about the specifics of it. In Wisconsin, tens of thousands of absentee votes had only the name on them and no address. Historically, those were thrown out. This time they weren’t. They made special accommodations ’cause they said, ‘Oh, it’s a pandemic and people forgot what their address was.'”

The senator now is doubling down.

The Washington Times said Paul, in an event held by the Heritage Foundation, said it was simply “untrue” that “the courts fully heard this.”

He pointed out, “Courts have been hesitant to get involved in elections.”

But when issues like state officials making “changes to election law without permission from the state legislatures” arise, they need to be taking a role.

Paul said states now need election laws that specifically say a secretary of state can’t mail ballots out or make unilateral changes if the law doesn’t expressly give them power to do so.

According to the Washington Examiner, the facts are that “many state officials made changes to election laws, citing the safety of voters. Widespread use of mail-in balloting was encouraged in many areas of the country, while deadlines for mail-in ballots were extended, oftentimes without input from state lawmakers.”

The report noted that even the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to arbitrary changes made by state officials in Pennsylvania for the election, a political move that drew Justice Clarence Thomas’s reaction.

“One wonders what the court waits for,” he charged. “We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us…”

He continued, “That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

WND previously reported that American courts twisted justice in challenges to the 2020 election, including at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which decided lawmakers didn’t mean “shall” when they wrote “shall.”

At the Federalist, a commentary explained in the Pennsylvania case, Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elections, the court acknowledged the election code explicitly states each voter “shall fill out, date, and sign” the declaration on the outside envelope of mail-in ballots.

But the court, ruling on the validity of 2,400 ballots, insisted the general assembly’s use of the word “shall” in that context means “of necessity that the directive is a mandatory one.”

Consequently, wrote Bob Anderson, a former aerospace engineer who worked on the International Space Station, Americans remain divided over the integrity of the election.

He argued “the losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn’t the outcome they wanted.”

“That did not happen after Nov. 3. Despite a stack of cases that worked their way through the legal system, we remain bitterly divided,” he wrote.

After the Supreme Court rejected, without comment, the last of the 2020 election challenges Anderson pointed out the courts are needed in such matters because “wise judges can help to bring peace and healing.”

“Surely, for a nation reeling after a tempestuous presidential election filled with strange occurrences, the courts were needed to bring us together,” he said.

He pointed out that nearly two of three Republicans believe Joe Biden did not win fairly.

A recent poll noted a majority of Americans still believe there was “cheating” in the election.

Multiple cases were killed because of deadlines, or judges’ demands that they go through lower courts first.

“So we are left with the memory of the videos of vote counters clapping as Republican observers were evicted and of covers being placed over windows,” Anderson said.

He concluded: “In the end, should we be surprised that voters retain a strong sense of skepticism over the outcome of the presidential election? That a man who largely campaigned from his basement, who exhibited signs of age-related mental decline, could handily defeat a vigorous incumbent who drew immense crowds is naturally hard to believe.

“The election of 2020, which included more than 155 million votes, was decided by approximately 300,000 votes in six states, or 0.2 percent of the electorate, all of which came by an unnatural flip of results late on election night. … The reality is that millions of others may have been disenfranchised, and they instinctively suspect so.”

But the left isn’t finished yet with efforts to impose its opinion across America.

A progressive activist is pressing American businesses to adopt his opinion and declare to the public that the 2020 election was legitimate.

Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor who is now an analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, is promoting his “Democracy Pledge,” the Huffington Post reported.

The pledge states, “The 2020 presidential election was free and fair, and produced accurate, reliable results.”

Kirschner warned that he will publicize the names of companies that decline to adopt his opinion or don’t respond.

Consumers then “can make their purchasing decisions accordingly.”

The Legal Insurrection blog said Kirschner wants every business in America to adopt his opinion or they “will presumably be subjected to the cancel mob.”

Paul earlier had explained, patiently, to an irate Stephanopoulos: “George, where you make a mistake is that people coming from the liberal side like you, you immediately say everything’s a lie instead of saying there are two sides to everything. Now you insert yourself in the middle and say that the absolute fact is that everything that I’m saying is a lie.”

Paul said, “You’re saying there was no fraud and it’s all been investigated, and that’s just not true.”

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts