2020 election, Constitution, Dona;ld Trump

What Is the Standard of Proof to Show Voter Fraud? What Should be the Standard?

Sorry, this will be long. But I would like to write it all down in one fell swoop, for what will end up in the Supreme Court’s lap about the 2020 election will be of a magnitude unparalleled in American legal history. And it all has to be completed in under 20 days from “where the sun now stands”.

I prefer to say that it all “begins” within 20 days, for the Court’s decision with either, Door #1– write a new legal history going forward for perhaps 2-3 years, using the Nuremberg Trials as a good yardstick, or, Door #2– it will define American political and social history for the next half-century, during which there will much blood shed, and the High Court’s role in the “Constitutional affairs” of the United States minimized to become marginal at best, not to mention our nation’s future as an ex-Constitutional republic, while the rest of the world cackles and breathes a 250-yearlong sigh of relief. “Finally.”

At least six members of the Court know this to true. All that remains to be seen is will they be able to take those bold steps to open that first door when the case(s) are presented to them. While Door #1 may be painful, Door #2 could prove catastrophic.

Gore v Bush, 2000

First, I need to give perspective to Gore v Bush for it may be more instructive than you imagine in determining the Court’s direction in this Trump-Biden election disaster. Decided in December, 2000, it settled that election by deciding (7-2) to stop the Florida recount, and it did no specifically on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution…a clause that will stand much taller in this new case(s) going forward.

In Justice Scalia’s words:

“The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether “counting every legally cast vote can constitute irreparable                                                                         harm.” One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have                                          been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, “legally cast vote[s].”

“The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to                                       the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.

“Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires. “

In Gore v Bush the issue were just four counties in Florida, still it took four days, Dec 9-12 to present the case to the Court to decide, after a full month, from 8 November, of legal wrangling and a State Supreme Court decision, before Florida Secretary of State Harris certified George Bush to have won the election. Finally, the Court heard oral arguments on Dec 11, by Ted Olsen representing Bus, and David Boies for Gore.

The Court voted and reported its decision next day, just in front of  the statutory Electoral College deadline.

(I suggest you read the Wikipedia account of “Gore v Bush”, then compare with the information the general public had been fed by national media in those heady days before instant social-media, Twitter and Facebook, neither of which existed in 2000. And the smart phone was not developed until 2002. Most of what you will read there was never reported to the general masses. The general population knew very little of the issues that actually turned the Court toward Bush. Media told them nothing. But we did know about the drama of “hanging chads”, which was a very photogenic series of events. But SCOTUS only mentioned chads once, while it laid out faults in the 4 county-counts, all of which will be very relevant in the coming case on a much broader scale:

  • Palm Beach County changed standards for counting dimpled chads several times during the counting process;
  • Broward County used less restrictive standards than Palm Beach County;
  • Miami-Dade County’s recount of rejected ballots did not include all precincts;
  • The Florida Supreme Court did not specify who would recount the ballots.

These same issues to be re-presented to SCOTUS in coming days, only on a much larger, multi-state basis.

(Note: The Wikipedia account of this event is a textbook example of what might be called “academic gaslighting”, which I go on to suggest below, may have reached the point of being an instrument of a larger media conspiracy, itself a part of a giant conspiracy which I believe the current Trump-Biden election evidence will prove to have been criminal.

(Like all Wiki-recitations of history, it begins with an opening paragraph or two of the actual event, factually correct, but then breaks the events into several categories. ALL of these can be edited by readers, this process not unlike opening a Facebook or Twitter account, which now use tech (algorithms) to pinpoint assertions that may be factually or politically objectionable. More often or not, a human then approves or deletes the content. Every submission is subject to some sort of behind-the-curtain review.

(Result? If you scroll to the bottom of the Wiki page on Gore v Bush, you will see the heavy hand of left-wing media citations in shaping Wikipedia’s attempt to reshape History for future generations, beginning with the generation who were under 17 or perhaps not even born in 2000, for these are the ones who most use Wikipedia, a modern crib-sheet version of Cliffs-Notes. This is their secret Mission Statement.

(I point this out now because “gas-lighting” of the public has reached epidemic proportions since 2000….and now this gas-lighting inside American media may have reached criminal levels…and therefore merits investigation. One of my suggestions, below, is that the Court in this current Trump-Biden matter, suggest (or even order, if so disposed) that RICO-like criminal investigations into various media entities and individuals be included in its order.)

 Mayor Giuliani has stated they have lots of proof. So what should the Court’s standard of proof be?

If you were able to watch the Pennsylvania Senate hearing yesterday (Nov 25) you saw the evidence in the form of live testimony; I’m sure scads of affidavits, and several poll officials from around the state, via Zoom. Mayor Giuliani and Trump attorney Jenna Ellis (who interestingly does not have a Wiki page) appeared on behalf of the President. Most of the witnesses were Republicans, both chambers of the Pennsylvania legislature controlled by Republicans.

Only Americans who have Newsmax or OAN (One America News) actually saw this live. Bits and pieces are now making the rounds via social media. So are a slew of negative dismissive comments from the main stream media and their news-magazine toadies. Easily 80% of Americans never knew it occurred.

But public knowledge or interest have no bearing once these kinds of presentations are in the official world of Courts, as “Gore v Bush” proved. What the general population know and do not know has nothing to do with their decision. The Left has been gas-lighting Democrats for 20 years that the 2000 election was stolen from them, as well as the 2016 election, thereby psychologically justifying this 2020 theft. Payback is a word every 21 year old bratling instinctively understands and approves.

The Trump team is up against a daunting series of deadlines, the Safe Harbor deadline being December 8, the Electoral College meeting December 14th. Every step in the process must work its way through 7 states; PA, GA, NV, MI, WI, AZ, VA, amounting to 92 electoral votes, (all noted here) before working its way to SCOTUS. Most of those states’ election apparatus are attempting to stall and derail these attempts, but in the past, SCOTUS and some Appeals court jurisdictions have granted expedited relief when time is of the essence, so I can only assume the Trump team has it ducks in order.

I think SCOTUS, as I mentioned in the “Can SCOTUS Throw out all Dominion Votes” piece just cited, will accept all the evidence presented, but may also allow the various states’ attorneys-general to participate. But I doubt if corporations such as Dominion and Smartmatic (if they can still be found in-country) though their attorneys, and various county-election officers will be allowed testify “They lie!”, since the Court will use the Gore v Bush standard (above), not allowing this to turn into an evidentiary trial.

In my view:

SCOTUS does not have to make a finding of fact about every scintilla of evidence offered to it by the Trump teams

As Justice Scalia wrote in 2000: ” One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have                                          been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, “legally cast vote[s].

If a pattern in a state that the votes counted may not have been “legally cast ballots” the Court can cast them out….whether a few hundred, or a few hundred thousand. That rule is stare decisis.

 The burden of proof facing the Trump team is in being able to show the court that hundreds of thousands of vote has been cast that may not have been “legally cast”. This standard of proof is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” as found in a criminal trial, but rather “competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof…” which is the standard a prosecutor must establish before a grand jury in order to gain an indictment. (Civil lawsuits are similar, where a plaintiff must must meet a minimum standard of proof, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. Either theory works.)

As Justice Scalia also mentioned in 2000, irreparable harm would be done if they waited for all that evidence to be adjudicated, namely, allowing Joe Biden to become president. It cannot be allowed.


We’ve all been treated to wonderful doses of evidence, much of it criminal, by officials inside the vote-processing areas, ranging from $15/hr counters who in all likelihood were acting on orders, all the way up the command line. We have admissions (or confessions) by several. Of course, their higher-ups have not yet stepped forward (to my knowledge) but there is testimony by authorized Republican poll watchers about their mistreatment and general denial to be able to observe. Their names and ranks we can know. A future investigation would cause that list to grow.

*There are also upper-management white collar crimes which must be ferreted out, since it can’t just be coincidence that several states should act in such similar ways, often at seemingly coordinated times; at county, city and state political establishment level. These never make news headlines in elections, although everyone seems to know who they are, including the media. If you don’t know the name of that “dog that didn’t bark”, and “hasn’t barked” in over 70 years, in all these instances, we at least know its genus, Media, but which goes by several names, from CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, Twitter, Facebook, et al, all mongrels, some mastiffs while others are just yapping mutts. A few are mad.

*These are the curs who refused to report that several states simultaneously shut down counting at around 10 PM election night when Donald Trump was well ahead, then resumed and reported several hundreds of thousands of votes having been


Graphs from several states prove giant spikes for only Biden in the wee hours of the morning, each of these state suspending counting at around 10 PM, and then resuming reporting at around 3AM-4AM. Georgia reported a water main break, (while noting the votes were secure, and only the counters had to be removed from the area. It has since been established that there was no water problem there.

Some votes were switched, only the media and reporting agencies never noticed, as this flip of almost 20,000 votes from Trump to Biden in PA (which I’m prohibited from picturing here, showing Trump and Biden before -and-after:

                                                                                           Trump 1,690,589                               Trump 1,670, 631                                                                                                                                                                        Biden 1,252, 537                              Biden   1,272, 495

Of course you know all this, anecdotally from social media, and if reported, with the notice that is “without evidence”, Twitter even adding disclaimers to any accounts of these kinds of doings. (In my view, this is evidence of a conspiracy, sort of like being a getaway driver in a bank robbery, but criminal nonethe less…a key point to my discussion here.

Then there is the mathematical evidence of probabilities which strain credulity, much like trying to establish before a Court that Yes, one can slip a coin a thousand times and it is entirely reasonable to believe it can come up heads each time.

Finally, I’ve already dealt with both Mail-in Ballots and Dominion- Smartmatic as inherently defective, in the Equal-Protection sense of the Constitution, and SCOTUS should have no difficulty in outlawing both systems across the board.

So, Don’t let the Media tell you otherwise. It does not have to swear in every deponent to authenticate statements or signatures, nor require an opportunity for cross examination. Individual defendants will have that opportunity in coming months.

Chasing the Conspiracies

Actually several ways to do this, I prefer federal, but the Court will enjoin its sense of credulity to see that several elements of interstate conspiracy be pursued criminally.

In fact, I think Trump’s lawyers should approach the Court as a federal prosecutor might a grand jury; with enough evidence to show that several crimes have been committed, and ask the Court to invoke the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in requesting follow-up investigations and indictments. A RICO pre-sanction by SCOTUS.

If this is already on the Trump team’s mind, as I suspect it is, then for you Barr-haters, his quietude as well as DOJ and FBI, may be their laying in wait for the Green-light from the re-certified President Trump.

Criminalizing Gas-lighting (Under Certain circumstances)

This leaves us only with “What to do about all those mongrel-Getaway drivers?”, who much like the royal houses in Europe in 1918, possess all the diseases and mental disorders associated with inbreeding, but who also seem to be able to ditch the car and back into their “free press sanctuary garage”  before they are nabbed with Adam Schiff’s last call on their burner phone.

I also recently wrote about “gas-lighting” as a crime, with just this metaphor. They both enable and protect crime, and possibly are even in on the planning.

I already suggested SCOTUS, while granting the Trump’s campaign its 2020 election victory, to also order healing legislation by Congress to insure uniformity in federal elections, from top to bottom.

I also urged that the Court “encourage” federal law enforcement to clean house, much as the Nuremberg Trials cleaned house, by bringing all the key players to answer for their crimes, including perhaps sitting members of Congress. Personally, as a citizen, I think it a healthy thing for at least a generation if all members of government go to work knowing the People are holding Damocles’ Sword over their heads. It took over a century for them to forget that the first time it was tried, and in many ways, we produced our best people and had our best years. We can do it again.


The Trump campaign bill of particulars to the Court will show that these days if states are left to their own devices, they will cheat and that curative legislation will be required to correct it. And some few years of getting used to.

Right now that cheating party are the Democrats. But it was once the Republicans a century ago. Both believed that just by being of the government class they are generally beyond the reach of criminal law, and believe, through the evidence proved shown the Court in this case, if they can gain and maintain election control, they can remain beyond the reach of criminal law forever.

The massive turnout for Donald Trump proves that the voters are energized and will not allow this to endure.

Historically, this moment is a place, time and a bridge America eventually would have to cross. It is only for the Court to choose the correct door mentioned in the opening paragraph.



4 thoughts on “What Is the Standard of Proof to Show Voter Fraud? What Should be the Standard?

  1. Thank you for this. I had googled “how much evidence is enough to prove voter fraud is true” and your post was the only one in 15 pages to even suggest it might be happening in this election. You were the last site and the only one I could read that wasn’t bashing Trump. There is so much evidence that it is very discouraging to see judges so dismissive. You need to write an update on your opinion of the video out of Detroit. These days if the news is older than 24 hrs it’s old news.

    1. Thank you. Having been a trial lawyer I know that legal definitions such as “fraud” are different to the letter-of-the-law court and the jury, who use a different common-sense definition. Fraud was proved to the public very early, the recent Detroit video only icing on the cake. But ONLY for the public who saw at, as the Media totally blacked it out.
      Going forward Donald Trump will likely win as the Supreme Court will see it without a media lens, and once he is secure in the office criminal investigations, from top to bottom, will proceed.

  2. I concur with much of your analysis….its so distressing/sad to see how wrong your “forecast” of events turned out to be…especially after the Time magazine article admitted to “fortifying” the election and the Senate is impeaching a private citizen for a riot someone else planned …”gaslighting” anyone?

    1. Feb 19 may be (I say that guardedly) a reversal of the maybe’s. We’ll soon see. Could make this “impeachment” as forgetten as the last one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *