Why is an investigation of a point in dispute an issue? George Stephanopoulos asked Rand Paul “… This election was not stolen, do you accept that fact?” Senator Paul most definitely did not accept that fact. Paul responded.
The Paul opening
“Well, what I would say is that the debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur… We never had any presentation in court where we actually looked at the evidence. Most of the cases were thrown out for lack of standing… [It] is a procedural way of not actually hearing the question. There were several states in which the law was changed by the Secretary of State and not the state legislature.”
“To me, those are clearly unconstitutional… I think there’s still a chance that those actually do finally work their way up to the Supreme Court. Courts traditionally and historically don’t like to hear election questions. But yes. Were there people who voted twice? Were there dead people who voted? Were there illegal aliens who voted? Yes… we should get to the bottom of it,”
“I’ll give you an example. In my state… we had a Democrat Secretary of State… she refused, even under federal order, to purge the rolls of illegal voters. We got a Republican Secretary of State and he purged the rolls.”
The Stephanopoulos dogma
Stephanopoulos broke in, saying: “I have to stop you there. No election is perfect. But there were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court, all were dismissed. Every state certified the results… The Department of Justice led by William Barr said there’s no widespread evidence of fraud. Can’t you just say the words, this election –”
Rationale for investigation
Paul broke in to say, “no… What I would suggest is that if we want greater confidence in our elections, and 75% of Republicans agree with me, is that we do need to look at election integrity, and we need to see if we can restore confidence in the elections… Hey, George. George. George. Where you make a mistake is that people coming from the liberal side like you… you immediately say everything’s a lie instead of saying there are two sides to everything. Historically what would happen is if said that I thought that there was fraud, you would interview someone else who said there wasn’t. But now you insert yourself in the middle and say that the absolute … fact is that everything that I’m saying is a lie.”
Does certification answer the integrity question?
Stephanopoulos responded, “Hold on a second… [Trump] said the election was stolen. This election was not stolen. The results were certified in every single state … after count and recounts.”
There are issues that remain without resolution
To which Senator Paul said not so. “You’re saying that absolutely it was — you’re saying there was no fraud and it’s all been investigated, and that’s just not true… You say we’re all liars. You just simply say we’re all liars.”
“In Wisconsin, tens of thousands of absentee votes had only the name on them and no address. Historically those were thrown out, this time they weren’t. They made special accommodations because they said, oh, it’s a pandemic and people forgot what their address was.”
“So they changed the law after the fact. That is wrong, that’s unconstitutional. And I plan on spending the next two years going around state to state and fixing these problems and I won’t be cowed by liberals in the media who say, there’s no evidence here and you’re a liar if you talk about election fraud. No, let’s have an open debate. It’s a free country…”
Let me quote a government official
Stephanopoulos said: “There is no widespread evidence of election fraud that overturned that results. That was stated as well by the Department of Justice led by President Trump’s attorney general. In Wisconsin, there were counts and recounts.”
Why is investigation of a point in dispute an issue? Who is investigating and who is accepting assertions?
What harm is done investigating the allegations?
Paul came back saying: “It was never studied. Even that’s not true. Even that’s not true. Even that’s not true… There’s been no examination, thorough examination of all the states to see what problems we had and see if they could fix them. Now, let me say to be clear, I voted to certify the state electors because I think it would be wrong for Congress to overturn that.”
“But at the same time, I’m not willing just to sit here and say, oh, everybody on the Republican side is a liar and there is no fraud. No, there were lots of problems and there were secretaries of state who illegally changed the law and that needs to be fixed. And I’m going to work hard to fix it. And I won’t be cowed by people saying, oh, you’re a liar…”
“That’s the problem with the media today is they say all Republicans are liars, and everything we say is a lie. There are two sides to every story. Interview somebody on the other side, but don’t insert yourself into the story to say we’re all liars, because we do think there’s some fraud and the election needs to be fixed.”
The left denies there are not two sides to the story
Stephanopoulos responded, “Sir, there are not — there are not two sides to this story. This has been looked in every single state.”
If you are a leftist can you be a journalist. Why is investigation of a point in dispute an issue? Shouldn’t there be a disclosure of facts? Wouldn’t that help resolve the area of dispute. Is simply saying a government official told me so; is that enough?
What is the job of a journalist?
Paul said, “Sure there are… There are two sides to every story. George, you’re forgetting who you are. You’re forgetting who you are as a journalist if you think there’s only one side. You’re inserting yourself into the story to say I’m a liar because I want to look at election fraud and I want to look at secretaries of state who illegally changed the voter laws without the permission of their state legislatures. That is incontrovertible, it happened.”
“And you can’t just sweep it under the rug and say, ‘Oh, nothing to see here, and everybody is a liar and you’re a fool if you bring this up.’ You’re inserting yourself into the story. A journalist would hear both sides and there are two sides of a story…”
“I believe in Pennsylvania, they broke the law, and I believe if that ever will get a real hearing in the Supreme Court, it was denied for standing. It wasn’t actually taken up. If it were taken up, I do believe that the Supreme Court would overrule and say that they did break the law illegally.”
Time for some common sense… Which side are you on?
Stephanopoulos said at the end of the exchange. “I asked you a very simple question, was the election stolen or not?”
Paul said, “I think there was a great deal of evidence of fraud and changing of the election laws illegally. And I think a thorough investigation is warranted…”
So the question remains. Why is investigation of a point in dispute an issue? Unless you are a believer. A believer is someone for whom there is no need of investigation. You accept things as an article of your faith. For believers what you believe is your truth. No investigation is ever required. So, which side are you on?