The Hill has posted How Jack Smith can prove Trump knew he lost the 2020 election, by Cornell Professor Dana M Radcliffe, right, September 12, 2023.
The essence of this remarkably obtuse argument is:
The prosecution will almost certainly call witnesses who will swear that Trump privately acknowledged losing the election. Cassidy Hutchinson, former assistant to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, testifying before the January 6th House Select Committee described conversations in which Meadows and other White House staff reported hearing Trump admit he lost.
Of course, the reality is that in 92.16% Biden-voting and 41.4%% Black D.C. and 72.57% Biden-voting and 42.07% Black Fulton County (Atlanta) the prosecutors could accuse President Trump of being a hippopotamus and win. (Being a hippo is not a crime? You have not grasped the mendacity of Democratic lawyers.)
By now, anyone who is awake has realized that being anywhere near Trump in these matters opens one up to financially ruinous legal pressure. Even if no charge is brought, your lawyers’ bills will be horrific. At VDARE, we know all about this.
Any testimony by these terrified people might just as well have been extracted in the Lubyanka.
I think that most Trump advisors telling him the election was legitimate were indirectly saying they were not willing to dive into the boiling water which would have been generated by admitting the truth.
Because the irrefutable fact is that the 2020 result was fraudulent.
I laid out the case for this in Yes, Virginia (Dare): The 2020 Election WAS Fraudulent—And GA GOP Leadership (Among Others) Are Complicit.
This essay was largely based on Joseph Fried’s extraordinary and definitive book Debunked?: An auditor reviews the 2020 election-and the lessons learned. No one who has labored through this very tough read can doubt that the 2020 election was rigged.
But I opened by discussing a much simpler but effective proof that 2020 was questionable: 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms, by J.B. Shurk, The Federalist, November 23, 2020.
Among several glaringly improbable anomalies Shurk highlighted:
Biden is set to become the first president in 60 years to lose the states of Ohio and Florida on his way to election … The Wall Street Journal and The Epoch Times independently analyzed the results of 19 counties around the United States that have nearly perfect presidential voting records over the last 40 years. President Trump won every single bellwether county, except Clallam County in Washington … Donald Trump was pretty much the only incumbent president in U.S. history to lose his re-election while his own party gained seats in the House of Representatives.
Radcliffe appears ignorant of all this. Instead he trumpets that President Trump’s
…attorneys will have to show that he had credible evidence his claims were true … Unable to point to such evidence … it is very unlikely his attorneys can rebut the prosecution’s powerful case that Trump knew his incendiary claims were false.
What is very unlikely is that the D.C. and Fulton County juries will pay any attention to the facts.
The fragility of Radcliffe’s intellectual processes is exposed by his Gotcha! approach to the question of whether Trump ever wavered in his certainty that the election was fraudulent.
I have just finished LBJ’s 1968: Power, Politics, and the Presidency in America’s Year of Upheaval, by Kyle Longley. A striking fact emerging from the book is how constantly President Johnson vacillated about decisions which externally appeared to be prompt and firm.
Faced with such a volatile crisis, it might be thought normal that a man would sometimes wonder, even aloud, if he was right. And then decide he was.
In any case, coerced testimony about the President’s inner mind has no place in a court of justice.
Radcliffe cannot plead ignorance for another false claim:
Trump was aware that he and his allies were losing state and federal lawsuits alleging election fraud, the total reaching 61 by early January.
Fried points out:
A review of ninety-two cases by the organization, Promoting American Election Integrity, shows that only thirty were decided on merit, and Trump and/or his supporters won twenty-two of these cases.
[See https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm (p. 267)]
As Radcliffe must know, in most of Trump’s cases, including to its eternal shame at SCOTUS, judges simply refused to give him a hearing on contrived procedural grounds.
It comes as a surprise to laymen that judges can arbitrarily refuse justice. But they can and do. Trump’s cases mostly foundered on judicial partisanship or cowardice. As I remarked in my essay:
Perhaps the most important service of the 2020 Presidential Election: demonstrating that the state and Federal judiciary is packed with unrestrained Leftist partisans.
Most of the GOP establishment, of course, was as anxious to get rid of President Trump as were the Democrats. But many were probably simply afraid of starting WWIII.
Tell Professor Radcliffe to sharpen up: email him here.