After following the flood of evidence of election thievery in 2020, Prudence leads one to wonder many things, posit many questions. These are questions to Americans who love our nation, our history, our traditions and the ideals embraced by the Constitution. Asking the same questions of people who are willing to riot, loot, burn and destroy the properties of others, or who are so consumed by hatred for any individual or group that they are unable to consider any ideas with which the objects of their hatreds may agree, or of those who think they are communists and Marxists or fundamentalist Muslims or anyone else whose core beliefs and loyalties are antithetical to our constitutionally limited democratic republic, will result not in thoughtful response or discussion, but in restated hatreds. Let us not waste that time. Prudence dictates that we place these concerns before those who want to strengthen our present, defend our heritage and who will build a better future than what appears to be gathering force, as I write, against our highest ideals.
With these caveats in mind, then, a question: given the growing list of sworn witnesses to malfeasance in the prosecution of elections of presidential electors in multiple states, and given the corollary existence, therefore, of dozens or hundreds of electoral criminals, should not the worst and most significant bad actors be prosecuted?
In other words, crimes against state, county and federal interests – defined by laws at each level – and against states’ and the U. S. Constitutions, were committed. This fact means that there are criminals guilty of committing those crimes. Neither Jonah Goldberg nor Joe Biden nor Chief Justice, John Roberts can deny those simple facts. By some sleight of magic, however, the three Jays and a host of lower-court judges, elected and appointed, are able to determine without reviewing evidentiary specifics, that none of the witnessed crimes – civil rights violations of the highest order – were of sufficient consequence to matter to the declared outcomes of the states’ electoral votes. Maybe there is a perspective to this that escapes the hapless U. S. citizen who trusts the upholding of his or her Constitution, state or federal.
It’s Friday at 3:00 PM in downtown Philadelphia (or Milwaukee, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Phoenix or Raleigh) and people are streaming out of the city for the weekend. A well-planned robbery of the Republic Bank branch at 1601 Walnut Street is executed with the perpetrators making off with six bags of cash just delivered by the armored-car service at 2:54. They exit by a rear door, setting off alarms, and they casually drive away in a sedan, changing cars at Franklin Hospital visitors’ parking and disappear. Total take: $510,000, all insured.
City police and the Philadelphia FBI “SAC” are all over the case. The Bank, which handles several millions of dollars every week, is deeply concerned and cooperates in every way possible, sharing video tape and testimony from every person who witnessed anything of the event. Bank personnel are carefully questioned, since these crimes often have an “inside” component. Newspapers publish articles and photos, local radio and TV decry the ease with which the terrible criminals made off with, well… money. By 6:00 PM the insurance carrier has been alerted, coverage processes begun and it sends its own investigator to check out the nature of the incident. For a while, the whole city seems concerned.
On Monday morning, however, the FBI and City police make a joint statement that since the acquisition of the cash was so very important to the thieves, and since the amount of money is not enough to threaten the continuation of the bank, itself, they have decided to drop the case and congratulate the criminals.
Another question: What sort of reaction would other banks, the Department of Justice, the FBI Director and the governor of Pennsylvania have to that announcement? Do you think they would accept that since the investigators didn’t have all the evidence or “proof” necessary to win a case in court, that the matter should be dropped and the thieves congratulated for such a smooth operation? Do you suppose that someone, a Republic Bank depositor, say, could file suit in state court demanding that the various investigatory authorities be enjoined from dropping the case?
Another question: If tens of thousands of votes, not dollars, were questioned by witnesses to their tabulation being performed illegally, possibly disenfranchising the same number of legal voters – effectively stealing their fundamental, unalienable right – is not an investigation that might restore their rights and provide the evidence for a trial of criminals who stole them be justified? Should not the co-conspirators be enjoined from destroying evidence or from dropping the investigation, the theft being so well-executed, after all?
And, if the bank robbers were to use their ill-gotten gains to buy a beautiful, white house with servants, do you think they should be allowed to keep it? No?
So, if dishonest people steal money we will chase them to the ends of the earth and convict them, but if dishonest people steal as many as a Million votes in an election we should let them keep them and enjoy all the fruits of their crime?
Tell me again, about what the Constitution means.