Election claims should be investigated
Washington, D.C., is famous for kicking the can down the road for another day, and unfortunately, Jan. 6 was a prime example of that. The powers that be — and sometimes it’s hard to say who’s actually in charge — by ignoring the concerns of over 35% of the legal voters in this country set the stage for the events on Capital Hill on Jan. 6. Transparency could have settled this weeks ago.
I’ve watched hours of public testimony before state legislatures on the types and scope of irregularities that a large percentage of Americans feel should be fully investigated. The state legislatures of five states sent requests to Vice President Mike Pence requesting that their electors be sent back for review due to the information they eventually were able to see and hear. Seems reasonable as we’ve been repeatedly told that the state legislatures are the ones that make the final determination. Congresspersons that spoke up to protest the chosen electors under the terms of the Constitution were called traitors and worse, but no one said a word when the Democrats did that three times in recent history.
On the word of one anonymous whistleblower, the House tried to impeach the president. Hundreds of whistleblowers have publicly come forward to testify, and they’ve been blown off as “conspiracy theorists.” All that needed to be done was allow an audit of the machines in question and a true examination of the actual ballots. But instead, they’ve hired attorneys and fought it tooth and nail.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” — Shakespeare
Why aren’t other disturbances treated same as Capitol riot?
Wondering and curious ... Do investigators of civil disturbances in Minneapolis, Austin, Chicago, Seattle, Portland and other locations work within the same parameters of urgency, accuracy and due diligence as their peers delving into the recent Washington D.C./U.S. Capitol disturbance?
If so, what might prevent public sharing about suspects’ information, other than already known facts? It seems as if there is a different standard of reporting, as demonstrated by the Capitol probe.
Where are the ‘boatloads of evidence’ on election fraud?
It was with interest that I read the article “Minister who attended D.C. rallies says he’s received death threats” in the Saturday, Jan. 9, Messenger-Inquirer.
In it, he is quoted as saying, “I 100% believe the election was a sham, and I’ve seen boatloads of evidence.”
Evidence basically is an available body of facts or information indicating whether something is true or valid. My question: Where are these boats located?