To the consternation of many for whom their ideological view relies on the ability to raise questions and be taken seriously, even though the only basis for their claims is their own belief system, the presumption of regularity keeps rearing its nasty head. I know, you don’t want to give the benefit to people you hate, whomever that might be, but that nasty presumption just won’t go away. This election, with spiraling claims of “biblical” voter fraud, is either over or just beginning.
Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell:
“Georgia is probably going to be the first state I’m going to blow up … [the filing in the state] will be Biblical”.pic.twitter.com/pU8PVOobzr
— Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) November 22, 2020
Sidney Powell may be persona non grata as of the end of business Sunday, but she’s made a great many “shocking” claims, with evidence always a day or two away. To many, this is more than sufficient to raise questions.
To clarify: I do not know if there was widespread voter fraud, and neither do you. There may have been, and that may yet be seen (in time or too late). There may have been and that may never be seen (it could have been hidden well, or Trump’s team may lack the required evidence).
Seems entirely reasonable on its face, much like I don’t know if space aliens walk among us, and neither do you. But this time, the question is different. This time, the question is raised by the person holding the right honorable position of President of the United States of America. Surely it has to be taken seriously when the president raises the question?
As an aside, it’s curious that a stable genius holding the most powerful position in the world was outsmarted and outgunned at every turn, claiming to be victim-in-chief to appeal to the emotions of his adoring and heartbroken fans. So very sad to see the president reduced to such weakness and helplessness.
This is where the presumption of regularity demonstrates both its vitality and necessity. Even the president needs to have some evidence to raise a question that the election did not proceed in its ordinary and normal fashion. His own party’s state officials say it went fine. His own federal staff said it went fine, which put Chris Krebs on the unemployment line. Even the dreaded Federalist Society judge was unmoved. This, of course, proves to believers that they’re all on the Soros payroll, because why else would they be so wrong?
There are always some platitudes that come to mind when people prefer to believe in outliers, black swan events, to justify why they see them while the masses, those poor sheep or lemmings, according to your preferred animal, march blindly off a cliff to their demise. And, indeed, it’s always possible that something horrible happened, something far outside the norm and was done with such skill as to defy detection.
But a society cannot function when every move can be stopped dead in its tracks by claims of voter fraud or space aliens. The nation is an ongoing entity. It can’t be put on hold while every claim of malfeasance is given the investigation someone demands, or believes is due, just because the specter is raised.
This is why we have a process, with actual time frames, to enable the peaceful transition of power that has stood as a hallmark of our democracy for as long as there was a president familiar with such details as governance, law and constitution, and a disinclination to be a shameless and flagrant liar because he is who he is, a vulgar, amoral, deceitful, ignoramus. Oh, we can add “weak” to the list of foibles, if that’s what he insists.
But, you reply, you still haven’t faced the big question, Greenfield. “I do not know if there was widespread voter fraud, and neither do you.” What if the election was stolen? What’s the answer, Greenfield?
There is an answer, and it’s not only clear but necessary. There was no widespread voter fraud unless and until competent evidence proves there was widespread voter fraud.* This isn’t an argument about tactical advantages or excuses, about when it would be best to show one’s hand or when to protect the identities of the witnesses. Conclusory claims aren’t evidence. Don’t tell us there was voter fraud. Show us. Show us the evidence.
There have been a few attempts made to at least put some meat on the bones of claimed fraud, and they’ve not merely been debunked, but proven an embarrassment. Some might even say a “national embarrassment.” Is it possible they have really strong evidence, beautiful evidence, but they’re just not letting anyone know yet because they’re playing 8D chess? And if only the evil judges let them have their day in court, their trial on the evidence where they can tell the American people how this election has been stolen from the weak victim president, we will finally see? Can we not believe long enough to let this play out so we know whether or not there was widespread voter fraud?
We know. The presumption of regularity tells us that the election proceeded normally and properly unless and until there is evidence to prove otherwise. If there was evidence, show it. If there was good evidence, show it. If you don’t show it, you’ve got nothing but empty complaints, whining and open questions. The presumption of regularity answers those questions. The answer is no.
*Some will share things they’re read or heard, even internalizing that they somehow personally divined it from the ether, raising what they believe to be serious issues with the election. The Trump Dream Team, inter alia, have filed complaints in 34 cases nationwide. These complaints are required to include allegations of fact to show a plausible claim to the relief requested. If you believe with all your heart and soul that there is some secret damning evidence, but it’s never appeared in any complaint, any allegation of fact, and never come before a court for determination, it doesn’t exist. Let it go.