(Please note: I officially began this blog on March 31, 2011. On that date, I started it all by posting 4 essays at once. Today's essay below is the 1300th essay I have written for publication on this blog since that beginning. I thank HaShem for helping me get to this point. I also thank HaShem for helping me to learn and improve my craft. May His blessings to me and my family continue.)
In case you've been on vacation on Mars, Donald Trump, the current President of the USA, ran for re-election on November 3, 2020. Since that date, two things have happened. First, US news outlets have declared Trump's opponent, Joe Biden, to be the winner. They said, Trump lost.
The second thing that's happened since November 3rd is that Trump has refused to concede. He says he was robbed. He claims Biden won only because of voter fraud.
Therefore, on November 19, 2020, the Trump election campaign held a live-broadcast press conference in order to lay out its position about these claims (here). This press conference ran for app 1.5 hours.
It was a big deal.
The purpose of this particular event was to have three of the campaign's top lawyers--Rudy Giuliani, (Ms) Sidney Powell and Ms Jenna Ellis--present a brief (note the word, brief) outline of evidence of election fraud so far gathered by the Trump campaign since the election (see 0:29-0:33 of the video cited above). The first--and main--speaker was lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani began by stating that their work for the campaign did not focus on one voter fraud case in one state, but on a series of voter fraud cases. These cases appear to form a pattern of fraud that was repeated in a number of states--unfolding in each state with almost exactly the same pattern (above, at 1:35-2:05). This pattern, Giuliani said, seemed to center on big cities..and on big cities controlled by Democrats...and particularly on big cities that have a history of corruption (2:03-2:20).
As evidence, he presented sworn and signed affidavits (written under penalty of perjury). (Note: in an American court, a sworn, signed affidavit is accepted as evidence, unless if it is not first-hand knowledge). Giuliani said most of those who wrote these affidavits did not want their names announced before the campaign went to court, for fear of being harassed and, possibly, threatened. He would discuss only 'a few'.
He focused on two kinds of allegations. First were ballot fraud allegations. He described the details of those allegations (03:17-22:43).Then, he turned to allegations regarding how, he said, Democrats failed to observe what we might call tabulation transparency issues--which, by the way, are primarily illegal and contrary to UN guidelines for holding an honest election (here, chapter 19, p. 250). This section of his presentation begins at 23:44.
He spoke for app 38 minutes. Attorney Sidney Powell followed him, and spoke for app 16 minutes. Her focus was the computerized election software that, she alleged, was used by Democrat election officials to commit voter fraud by 'flipping votes" electronically from Trump to Biden. She explained how that worked, or was designed to work (begins at 38:16). She said the campaign will present proper evidence in court.
The final speaker was attorney Jenna Ellis, senior legal advisor for the Trump campaign. She began, interestingly enough, by saying that she expected the US "fake news" media (her words) to report that the Trump campaign at this press conference did not provide "sufficient" evidence of their case--or, that the lawyers spoke "too long".
She was half right. I don't think any anti-Trump (that is, mainstream media) news outlet accused these attorneys of speaking too long. They were too busy mocking and pretty much "cursing" the Trump campaign as "bizarre"and "insane", and for offering up nothing more than "pathetic bat guano conspiracies".
Nice people, eh?
Attorney Ellis' role, she said, was to explain what the campaign was going to do moving forward: it would go into court with evidence to support the campaign's allegations--and to prove the campaign's case. She described what the audience had heard as 'an opening statement' (52:21-52:40). This case is not, she affirmed, a "Law and Order" episode (referencing a TV program by that name which ran for 20 years,1990-2010). She suggested that those in the room "clearly" had never been court reporters. She said, "trials take time, evidence takes time; this is just an opening statement so that the American people can understand what the networks have been hiding...because all of your fake news headlines have been dancing around the merits of this case and are trying to delegitimize what we are doing here (52:33-52:46).
She spoke for app 8 minutes.
After the press conference, it seemed--to some at least-- that, at that point in time (November 19, 2020), no one knew if Trump's fraud allegations were correct--or, to what extent they might be correct. That will be for the courts to determine.
You see, contrary to what the US media might have led you to believe, these Trump campaign lawyers did not use this press conference to present any major proof for their allegations. They might have even hinted that they had no obligation, interest or requirement to do so out of court. Their stated purpose was not to prove their case in front of a hostile press cohort, but to give a glimpse of what their court case would focus on. Period.
The media in the US failed to grasp this. With its poorly educated and ignorant analysis, the media (within hours of the news conference), reported only their outrage that the Trump campaign was alleging something they--the media--refused to believe.
In fact, from US news headlines, one could get the impression that the media in the US failed even to see that the campaign was refusing to try its case in the anti-Trump 'court of public opinion'. This was ironic: the media itself has been trying Trump in the 'court of public opinion' for the last four years. Now they were angered: how dare Trump's lawyers deny the media the ability to continue doing that?
Not to worry. The media in the US has spent so much time "trying" Trump on TV (instead of in court), they appear to have forgotten what the courts are for. This, in part, may explain why the media was so outraged by the press conference: the media took the campaign's refusal to present its proof to them as proof positive that the allegations were totally baseless.
Nonsense. The media has failed its public responsibilities so horrifically it no longer realized that it is not the campaign's obligation to hand anything over to 'them'; its only obligation is to do that in court--which, by the way, is exactly what the lawyers clearly stated as their intent. The media missed that point. Perhaps they didn't understand what that point meant.
Given the lawyers' intention, it is patently absurd for the media to term what they heard that day as "baseless"..."insane"... pathetic allegations...that are nothing more than a 'bat guano conspiracy'.
Such reactions are not journalism. They are temper tantrums--or schoolyard bullying. They are certainly not professional journalism. Perhaps they're examples of journalistic malpractice.
The message of these three lawyers was clear: they had presented a broad outline of what they ultimately intended to prove. The details for that proof would be presented to the courts.
A proper press reaction to such a legal plan should therefore have been simply to report the allegations. A proper response should have been also to state clearly that no one right now can assess the credibility of the allegations.
The only responsible decision the press could have made after the press conference would have been to tell their audiences that 'we must now wait to see what the Trump campaign presents in court as evidence, and how the courts respond'. That's it. There's nothing else to say.
But no one in the US mainstream media did that. Instead, they screamed their outrage.
Now--November 22, 2020--we learn that the first significant court response to the campaign's allegations came from Pennsylvania, where perhaps some of the most serious fraud allegations occurred. That response was as swift as it was clear: an Obama-appointed Federal judge refused to accept the case. He refused even to hear the case. He rejected it.
Giuliani's reaction was noteworthy. He announced the court's rejection--and thanked the judge for acting so swiftly.
Why? Because now the campaign can move up to the Third Circuit Court--an important step in taking this case to the US Supreme Court before time runs out (the election must be settled before January 20, 2021; if it isn't settled by then, the selection of the next US President will be determined by the US House of Representatives).
The court's rejection didn't surprise Giuliani. He had already said that Democrat-friendly judges were not averse to offering judgments in favor of Democrats (see the news conference above at 3:00-3:17).
I have a prediction for this 'first-election-fraud-legal-decision-in-Pennsylvania: the US press will scream that this court response to Trump's allegations finally shows us proof that those allegations were 100% baseless--and shows us all Americans needs to understand in order to see that Trump intends to steal the election with baseless claims: a Federal court wouldn't even allow the Trump campaign's nonsense to get through the door of the courthouse, let alone into a formal court hearing!
Of course, getting one case of many-to-come tossed doesn't prove a thing. It just takes the Trump case closer to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, the media will not let up. Don't be surprised to see headlines that scream, "Trump fraud claims tossed out of court! He must concede NOW". How long must you wait to see such headlines? Five days? Five hours? Five minutes? Never?
Stay tuned. This movie isn't over.
UPDATE: here's a post-news conference video to update your view of the Trump allegations (here) . Do not overlook this video.
No comments:
Post a Comment