Thank you for this extensive list of sources.
I would like to take one source and look at the implications, to see how one can go about evaluating its veracity.
AG William Barr’s claim: “the Justice Department has not found evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the vote.”
Assumption: The election was rigged.
Let us assume that there was in fact massive fraud and that Attorney General William Barr’s statement that ‘there was no fraud’ is false.
Background: William Barr is a staunch conservative Republican, a big supporter and personal friend of President Trump. President Trump gave William Barr the highest legal office in the country, the office of Attorney General. It is known that President Trump values loyalty above all else and it is reasonable to assume that William Barr would do everything within his power and conscience to support the President.
Implications of Barr’s statement that the election was fair when the election was in fact rigged:
- AG William Barr must be either misinformed or he is lying.
Trump won. The AG is misinformed, therefore he is incompetent
- If the AG acted based on misinformation then he is incompetent.
- It is unlikely that the AG would be this incompetent because what he says goes against his boss’s perception, his boss's wishes, his own Republican Party, his own career and legacy, and his loyalty to his President and friend. Failing to do everything he can to find election results that reflect the outcome that his boss says are the true results, results that would benefit his boss, his party, and the AG himself would be a ridiculously incompetent omission of his duties as the AG. For the election to be rigged as to turn a Biden-defeat into a Biden-win — of 306 to 232, and 7 Million more popular votes — the evidence can not be hard to find. Even a child would be able to find the true election results if they were there or at least find evidence of massive fraudulent activities to invalidate the official results.
- If he is misinformed then why would the AG not have done his best to ensure that he has the true information for his boss and friend who gave him the highest legal office in the country? Why would he not try to do his utmost to get the information that demonstrates that his boss, his friend, his political party did in fact win the election and he would keep his job, the most coveted legal job in the country? Why would he simply express some ill-informed judgment that his boss and his party lost the election fair and square at the expense of his own ambitions without turning over every stone to demonstrate the opposite?
Trump won. The AG is well informed and therefore he is lying about the results.
- If the AG is not incompetent (not basing his judgment on misinformation), then he is lying to the President, the Republican Party, and to the American People.
- In this case, as he is not misinformed, he has in fact all the correct certified data showing that Trump, his boss and friend, and his Party had in fact won the election. He can show this information to the President, Congress, and the American People. He can show that Trump won the election, or at least that there was fraud to such an extent as to invalidate the elections. Yet he lies about this.
- He has the results that Trump won, but he lies about this whilst he knows that all the people who worked to put together the certified election data know that he is lying and they have the data to back it up. The AG is now hostage to a big group of people with certified election data that show that the President and the American People were defrauded and that the AG lied about it.
- Why would the AG, a staunch Republican, and Trump acolyte willfully deny Trump and his Party their election victory? Why would the AG curtail his own job? Why would he lie about something impossible to keep hidden from the People. At some point, the true data that Trump won the election and AG William Barr lied about it would come out. He would be indicted and probably charged with treason. To what benefit?
If Trump won and AG William Barr’s statement that Biden won the election, is false, then the AG is misinformed or lying. You decide how likely this is.
You can apply this reasoning to all of the other sources that Sen. Jeff Jackson listed in his article.
We can do even more.
We have analyzed the likelihood of the AG’s statement being false based on its implications.
If we conclude that it is highly unlikely that AG William Barr would be incompetently misinformed or willfully lying when making a public statement that hurts his boss, his party, the nation, and himself, then we must consider that he is telling the truth. If he tells the truth then the election was fair and Biden won.
Massive election Fraud, other implications.
If we conclude that the election was a landslide victory for Trump, but massive fraud reversed this into a 232–306 Trump defeat, this also means that the complete Republican political and legal machine — obsessed with winning this election — was unable to find a single shred of evidence of what should be the greatest electoral fraud in the history of the world (source).
On the other hand if this fraud is true, then the Democratic Party has been able to create the biggest democratic election fraud, involving thousands of computers, mail-in ballots, computer hardware and software, electors, volunteers, judges, Democrats and Republicans to all conspire in sync with a specific plan that only those tens of thousands of election personnel have seen and executed to perfection to generate an artificial outcome that changed tens of millions of Trump votes into Biden votes without anyone speaking out, and all holding back evidence which they could show in Court/TV/on-line/Newspapers.
This would make the Democratic Party the most effective and efficient organization ever (and the Republican Party the most incompetent).
Assumption: the elections were fair.
What evidence do we have that the elections were indeed fair?
We have the credible sources (use your analysis by looking at all the implications of the source to evaluate the credibility) as listed by Sen. Jeff Jackson and we have the glaring lack of evidence of any substantial voter-fraud (in fact here and there there were a few voters fraudulently voting multiple times for Trump - source). We also have the ability to evaluate the sources by analyzing the implications such as we have done above:
What are the implications of the sources being false? What if they are true?
All we have is claims by the losing party that there was massive fraud, but no evidence. Nothing. We have already established that a fraud this size, with so many players all acting perfectly to a script and never blabbing about it would be most unlikely. Besides it being highly unlikely the lack of any evidence makes it completely ridiculous. As the US is a democracy, it must adhere to the rule of law. The Law does not recognize claims without evidence, regardless of who brings the claims.
If we assume that the election was in fact rigged, this means:
- that Biden has in fact lost, but that the fraud has turned the results into a 306–232 win, and 7 Million more votes for Biden, all without anyone noticing.
- that thousands of people and computers and software were all finely attuned as to hide a scheme that made it possible in multiple states to overturn millions of votes without anyone noticing, or all of them staying quiet about it.
- that nobody outside of the tens of thousands involved in the elections has ever seen this detailed, perfect plan to change millions of votes.
- that election observers from the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and Independents are all in the scheme to defraud the American public and the Republican Party and they do so diligently and according to a very precise plan so that the numbers add-up and no-one can ever see where the votes have been changed.
- the election officials from both parties certify the results knowing that they are false.
- the Governors of both parties certify the false election results.
- Congress (Democrats and Republicans) certify the false victory to Biden.
The alternative, that the election was in fact fair and that AG William Barr’s statement confirming this is true, is consistent on all fronts, because all the evidence tells us that the elections were fair and all parties, including the losing party agree with the election outcome.
The above should give pause to the idea that AG William Barr’s statement was false.
