Levin: ‘The Quantity of Fraud Is Not the Test’

 By Lucy Collins | November 20, 2020 | 4:30pm EST – for CNS News

My cmnt: Mark Levin raises a very important point here. It is not the quantity of fraud committed it is the fraud itself. Systematic election fraud, even if it supposedly is not enough to overturn the election results, is a serious crime. It presupposes that what is provable is enough to qualify for remediation by the courts. The fact of any systemic fraud suggests widespread fraud may be found once the courts start looking into it. It is a big deal!

CNS News) — Conservative radio host Mark Levin criticized media coverage of election fraud lawsuits being brought by the Trump campaign on “The Mark Levin Show” Thursday. 

“There’s a lot of confusion here,” Levin said, noting that the media have changed their narrative from “there’s no fraud” to “there’s not enough fraud to matter.”

Levin attacks the latter point, saying “the quantity of fraud is not the test.”

“You have sworn affidavits by American citizens, also election officials, under penalty of perjury. You didn’t have that in the Russia hoax case. You didn’t have that in the Stacey Abrams case in Georgia; you’ve got it up the wazoo here! So the quantity of the affidavits and the seriousness of the affidavits is unparalleled in American history, in American history! The fact of fraud can raise serious, even grave concerns of voter disenfranchisement. That’s enough!”

Below is a transcript of the segment.

Mark Levin: There’s a lot of confusion here, and unfortunately, it’s being given by former prosecutors and law professors. Really absurd: “the quantity of the fraud.” First, “there’s no fraud. You can’t prove it.” Now, “there’s not enough fraud to matter.” And they know it, sitting in their studios in Washington, in New York and elsewhere in the country, they know there’s “not enough fraud.” How do we know? Because Giuliani and the hundreds of volunteers they have, haven’t shown us enough fraud. 

Number one: The quantity of fraud is not the test. You have sworn affidavits by American citizens, also election officials, under penalty of perjury. You didn’t have that in the Russia hoax case. You didn’t have that in the Stacey Abrams case in Georgia; you’ve got it up the wazoo here! So the quantity of the affidavits and the seriousness of the affidavits is unparalleled in American history, in American history! The fact of fraud can raise serious, even grave concerns of voter disenfranchisement. That’s enough! That’s enough to get a positive ruling from a court, and the court can fashion a remedy, doesn’t have to accept the remedy that’s proposed by the judges. A court can fashion a remedy, including transparency, that is, “protect those ballots, we want to take a look; protect that software, we want to take a look.” That should be enough. 

Nobody walks in the court and says, “I have 150,000 ballots here, Your Honor, all of which are problematic.” What kind of stupid commentary are we getting? It’s not a numerical test. And yet these instances of fraud can lead to evidence of widespread fraud. And that’s usually how it works. When you’re prosecuting the mob, you get a ratfink, you get a source, you get information, and you build from that. You don’t have to go in front of a federal court and say, “look, I need all these warrants, I need all these wiretaps because we have evidence that — we have 73 members of the this or that family, that–” You don’t need that. 

And yet, the report was that Giuliani’s team did not credibly explain their path to victory. They have credibly explained their litigation activity, which could well be a path to victory, and this litigation strategy in these various states where the laws have been changed, in many cases illegally, where they’re tracking down 30, 40, 50 different types of voting activity; even with the states, there’s different activity in different counties; it’s a very difficult and complicated business. 

And she said they didn’t reveal enough fraud to affect the election. They didn’t reveal enough fraud to affect the election? How do we know that? “Well, they haven’t presented it.” No, they’re not going to present it. It’s not possible to present it. They’re bringing lawsuits about fraud. They need access to information. They need a court to assist if it sees fraud. They don’t have a grand jury; they don’t have subpoena power; they don’t have the FBI or the state equivalent behind them; they’re litigating cases in civil court, or civil cases, not criminal cases.

Lucy Collins is a CNSNews intern and a student at Columbia University.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s