The Wisconsin State Journal’s coverage of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty’s examination of the 2020 election in the state is headlined, “Conservative law firm’s review of 2020 election: No ‘big steal,’ but plenty of problems” and says in part,
“10-month review of Wisconsin’s 2020 elections conducted by a conservative Milwaukee law firm… found no evidence of the kind of fraud being alleged by allies of former President Donald Trump… who falsely contend last year’s presidential election was ‘stolen.’ At the same time, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty found ‘it is almost certain’ that ‘the number of votes that did not comply with existing legal requirements exceeded Joe Biden’s margin of victory.’ With the country’s two major political parties sharply at odds over whether the 2020 presidential election was legitimate, the review, released Tuesday, walks a fine line in asserting there were serious problems with the way elections were run in Wisconsin in 2020, but that it’s very unlikely those problems denied a Trump a second term….
The news media just can’t play it straight, particularly where Trump is involved.
Note that the story has to note that it was a “conservative law firm” performing the study, so its results are in question from the start, or at least that’s what the Journal wants readers to assume. Then notice that the claims of a stolen election are unequivocally described as “false,” though the report being discussed found that it’s only “unlikely” that the irregularities their research uncovered “denied a Trump a second term.” Yet if it is indeed “almost certain” that ‘the number of votes that did not comply with existing legal requirements exceeded Joe Biden’s margin of victory,” then it is possible that such votes—just illegal, I guess, but not “fraudulent”?—did “steal ” the election.
Nothing to see here…move along.
1 It is almost certain that in Wisconsin’s 2020 election the number of votes that did not comply with existing legal requirements exceeded Joe Biden’s margin of victory. This does not necessarily mean that Biden did not win a majority of the votes of those eligible to vote, but the questions of fraud and unlawful processes are related.
2. There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. In all likelihood, more eligible voters cast ballots for Joe Biden than Donald Trump. We found little direct evidence of fraud, and for the most part, an analysis of the results and voting patterns does not give rise to an inference of fraud.
3. Widespread abandonment of proper procedures raises questions regarding the fairness of the process and the possibility for voter fraud that might not otherwise be detected.
4. We found areas in which processes are not secure, and that reasonable reforms might make such exploitation less likely without unduly burdening the right to vote.
5. Although there may be little evidence that these vulnerabilities were exploited in 2020, reform is no less imperative.
6. We also found that private funding of election operations had a partisan bias and impact.
This is essentially what I would expect to find in an election where methods of voting were employed that are inherently insecure. I also assume that a similar examination of other states,including those where Trump lost by narrow margins, would justify similar conclusions. I do not find it reassuring that “It is almost certain that in Wisconsin’s 2020 election the number of votes that did not comply with existing legal requirements exceeded Joe Biden’s margin of victory” or that “widespread abandonment of proper procedures” occurred raising “questions regarding the fairness of the process and the possibility for voter fraud that might not otherwise be detected.”
Who could, unless they were committed to avoiding the obvious inference that the results of the election were not trustworthy, even if the ultimate result was not altered?