I can’t comment on the substance of this subject specifically.
But I will clear a few things up:
1. iirc, shon signed for Rader and was a senior on the first Burns team. Regardless of his opinions, we all appreciate the pain and sweat that went into playing back then. It wasnt easy, losing, I’m sure. But that effort helped save Tulsa football. When it was on the brink. I’m sure we all understand we owe a special debt to the guys that played then. Their opinions are not greater than ours simply because they played, even on subjects related to football. But we should respect their contributions to the university. I don’t think its fair to attack someone over that and I think y’all will regret it later.
2. I’ve actually litigated election fraud cases in state and federal court. Unlike 99.9% of the lawyers who comment on it. I’ve won and Ive lost. In both cases there was an expedited discovery schedule due to the time sensitive nature of the subject. I haven’t followed these lawsuits during this cycle closely, but what little I’ve heard most of the motions seek lengthy discovery which isn’t really appropriate in this case. Gold alluded to the discovery process earlier and said you state a rational basis for what you want and you get it or the judge orders it. Some of the cases, what they want would take months to get. And that’s not really realistic in these cases. Whether that’s by design to extend the deadline for finalizing the election, I can’t speak to because I don’t know. I’m just pointing out that discovery deadlines that would take months to enforce in a regular case don’t work in election law. They are measured in hours and sometimes minutes. And that’s why some of these are bouncing quick. State authorities don’t have investigations open and one side is asking for broad authority snd document requests to essential start an investigation to determine if allegations they’ve received from third parties is true. That’s not really realistic in an election fraud case. And they are being bounced as fantastic not because there might not be evidence to support them but because there isn’t time to order that without causing chaos and not having proof in affidavits is a good excuse to boot it out of court.
Election fraud does exist in this country. I’ve proven it multiple times and I’ve proven it changed the outcomes of elections. Vote buying, absentee ballot theft, voter intimidation, dead voters, voting in multiple statesyou name it.
I’m not saying that happened here because I don’t know. I simply don’t. A lot of people think the claims are fake. They said the same things in 2017. Then a Republican got caught red handed in 2018 and went to prison. Suddenly election fraud existed.
The election was stolen in 1960. No reasonable person disputes that. Senior Democratic Party officials admitted it to the FBI and Congress in the late 60s once the statute of limitations had run. The fraud was in two states. In Texas, the fraud was direct and involved the manufacture of votes, vote buying and dead voters. In Illinois the fraud was more subtle and involved such gross incompetence in administration that local races could be controlled and in such a way that no colorable claims of fraud could be brought. It was run so poor in parts of the state you could tell 56 votes came from one house but not who cast them or how, etc. Fraud which deprived the public of a clear winner and therefore defrauded the declared loser. It’s the latter fraud that is most prevalent today, though both exists. The absence of direct proof early in an election review or the inability to present a concise evidentiary narrative of purposeful fraud that directly changes the outcome of the election at any point in the review doesn’t mean you didn’t have election fraud. You can defraud by depriving the loser a fair count and an ability to audit that count. It does make it easy to suggest it doesn’t exist to those who don’t want to believe that the American system might be flawed. Snd the protestations of government officials of both parties saying there’s no evidence of tampering is not dispositive. In my own personal experience I’ve seen government officials go on TV and say there were no irregularities when they knew there were. Nobody wants to say they screwed it up. No matter who benefits from it. Especially when they know they won’t be given the money to prevent it from happening next time. And the fact of the matter is that 2020 might be that next time. We won’t know for a while. The judicial and legislative and journalistic reviews of the 1960 election lasted seven years. And arguably continue to this day amongst a small group of academics. We may very well discover that some, maybe not all, of the President’s claims are true some day. The same network that told me Richard Jewell was 100% guilty and a crazy person who was delusional for denying it came back several years later snd said they were wrong. They were relying on the same institutions then that are their sources for saying this election was free from irregularities. Color me skeptical. Based on experience. It’s unlikely, I get that. But we’ve all seen the unlikely turn into truth down the road. Sometimes in court, sometimes not.
