|
Edited on Thu May-26-05 03:40 PM by Kurovski
On May 23 I was watching the Republicans' opening statements in the Washington State trial in which Republicans are contesting the outcome of the Governors race. ( Democrat Christine Gregoire was sworn in as governor.)
This is one of the statements made by the Republican side; "Circumstantial evidence is more potent than direct evidence."
If that is so, why do we have so many individuals, including Democrats, saying you can not possibly prove fraud in the 2004 presidential election? Furthermore, why is it only Republicans who want to raise a ruckus and use our system to address an important issue, even if the odds are stacked against them?
The evidence in the 2004 presidential election fraud is a Tsunami compared to the evidence being brought up by Republicans in Washington State.
I don't know much, but am I wrong in thinking that proving election fraud is going to be more difficult than getting a guilty verdict in a murder trial as the evidence does not consist of a body, a weapon and DNA?
This isn't stopping the Republicans. Why the frickin' hell is it stopping the Democrats?
I won't buy the argument that it is the presidential election and will cause undo turmoil in our nation. That will only underscore its importance.
As if the turmoil created in five months by this administration alone weren't enough reason to forge ahead.
I will give this to the Republican Party, aside from the requisite amount of "whining" about election fraud, they went ahead to make their case in a courtroom in Washington State, and that is their right.
In fact, I applaud them.
|