2020 election

Prominent Conservative Notices How BADLY the Left Wants Him to Say the Election Was Fair

Former Trump Administration national security official and conservative scholar Michael Anton has a question for Biden supporters. Why do they require his agreement that the November presidential election was free and fair?

In a recent op-ed published on American Greatness, he wrote:

Recently, I appeared as a guest on Andrew Sullivan’s podcast. Sullivan is vociferously anti-Trump, so I expected us to disagree—which, naturally, we did. But I was surprised by the extent to which he insisted I assent to his assertion that the 2020 election was totally on the level. That is to say, I wasn’t surprised that Sullivan thinks it was; I was surprised by his evident yearning to hear me say so, too.

Which I could not do.

Sullivan badgered me on this at length before finally accusing me of being fixated on the topic, to which I responded, truthfully, that I was only talking about it because he asked.

After Anton was pressed on this by two other pundits, New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait and The National Review’s “conservative” (but not really) writer, Ramesh Ponnuru, he gave the issue some thought.

He wrote:

At any rate, why [Andrew] Sullivan or anyone else should care what I think of the 2020 election I find difficult to understand. Surely no one can seriously (as distinguished from crocodile fears) fret that my disbelief is a threat to the regime? If my opinion carried any weight at all, then my 406-page book and dozens of articles last year would have had some impact. They manifestly did not.

Or are they concerned for my soul, that I not be plagued (as Plato put it) by a “lie in the soul”? If that’s the case, let me worry about my own soul…

Machiavelli says in chapter six of The Prince that for a founder-prophet to be secure, “things must be ordered in such a mode that when [men] no longer believe, one can make them believe by force.” Does this regime currently possess that power? Is it seeking it? Chait would no doubt like to think so; would Sullivan agree? Is forced “belief” really belief?…

Sullivan repeatedly demanded that I explain how Our Democracy™ can survive as a democracy if something like half the country doesn’t believe in it anymore. The question was rhetorical. Sullivan knows the answer: it can’t. His purpose in asking was to shift blame from those who rig everything, refuse to explain anything but instead gaslight, gaslight, gaslight, onto those who, in response, decline to believe.

What I’ve noticed from liberals and anti-Trumpers is they frequently present the high number of state judges who declined to review Trump’s lawsuits as evidence that no fraud occurred.

For example, a headline in The Washington Post on this topic read: “From a presidential commission to Trump-nominated judges, here’s who has rebuked Trump’s voter fraud claims.”

Well, one can’t find something if they refuse to even look.

Rather than being proof that no improprieties occurred in the election, it could very well be they chose not to review the cases because what if, God forbid, they actually did find evidence of fraud?

If Sullivan, Chait and Ponnuru are so sure the vote was counted fairly, why are they so concerned that Anton doesn’t think so?

Anton’s position is that he really does not know if the election was stolen or not. None of us do. Below, he produces a list of “oddities” that make him skeptical.

The 2020 election came down to a narrower margin than the 2016 contest: fewer than 43,000 rather than 77,000 votes in just three states. In 2016, nothing fishy in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin—the states on which 2016 turned—was detected. Certainly nothing like:

  • Counting shutdowns in five states, in which one candidate was ahead, only to lose after the counting resumed;
  • “Found” tranches of ballots going overwhelmingly—sometimes exclusively—to one candidate, the eventual “winner”;
  • Sworn affidavits alleging the backdating of ballots;
  • Historically low rejection rates—as in, orders of magnitude lower—of mail-in ballots, suggesting that many obviously invalid ballots were accepted as genuine;
  • Mail-in and absentee ballots appearing without creases, raising the question of how they got into the envelopes required for their being mailed in;
  • Thousands upon thousands of ballots all marked for one presidential candidate without a single choice marked for any down-ballot candidate.
  • The absolute refusal to conduct signature audits—indeed, the discarding of many envelopes which alone make such audits possible—i.e., of the kind of recounts which are performed not merely to get the math right but to evaluate the validity of ballots;
  • Other statistical and historical anomalies too numerous to mention here.

All of which, and much more, did occur in 2020. Any one of these things would have caused Hillary Clinton to march into court in 2016 with an army of lawyers larger than the force Hannibal brought to Cannae.

On Thursday, I posted the results of a survey of Democratic voters. They were asked to rank their greatest political concerns. The top spot went to “Donald Trump’s supporters.”

Why do Trump supporters pose a threat to Democrats? Why is it so important to them that we all move on?

Maybe they know something we don’t know – yet.

Leave a Reply