WHAT in the Heck does this RFK, Jr. guy WANT anyway?? Man-o-man!!!

[Land Shark]

It's about launching an investigation.

The whole RFK Jr thing is about probable cause to get a 'warrant', so to speak (a big investigation). Apply this reality TO every piece critical of the Rolling Stone Article and you'll learn a lot about the critics of the Rolling Stone Article.

The primary and almost exclusive INTENDED effect of such a warrant is not to change the election result, (it can't) but the primary effect of such an investigation would be to change the voting system, through a democratic conversation that follows.

"Election reform" is something supposedly everyone agrees on, though not perhaps in all the particulars. SO then why *strenuously* oppose an application for an investigation?

To undermine this request for a "warrant" is to undermine any FUNDED attempt and presumably responsible attempt at the truth. Contradicting this purpose, most of the critics say they oppose the warrant request because we need to have a more responsible truth seeking process, we shouldn't make "bad" arguments that are open to attack, they chant.

Though standards vary from state to state and country to country, the general standard for a warrant is "reasonable suspicion".

Does Rolling Stone reach that reasonable suspicion standard needed to launch an investigation?

In THEORY, there could be another probable cause or reasonable suspicion application for a warrant. But history is being created here, a future application for a warrant would have to distinguish itself from this one, because this one will be remembered, perhaps with discomfort created by those who miss the point of what's needed at this particular stage: reasonable suspicion.

In light of this reasonable suspicion standard, it is clear that the application for an investigation should be granted.

If granted, and the investigation develops further and perhaps better standards and proof we may have a trial.

In such a trial, (whether literal or figurative) as is commonly true with prosecutors, the case for election crimes will be based on a "totality of the evidence standard". The defense will deceptively point out that each individual fact has one or more alternative explanations and therefore isn't "proof." This is true many times but only so far as it goes. The deception is in forcing you to look through a microscope at the facts. All microscopes make you see flaws, ridges, and errors.

But we'll never get to the "trial" level, or even the investigation level, if misguided opponents keep insisting that a microscope be taken to the reasonable suspicion standard.

But on the other hand, if it is election reform you seek to oppose, then I recommend the following:

Apply purported rigorous standards of 'proof' to a system that isn't designed to create a lot of evidence, it's designed in significant part to eliminate the evidence in favor of unimpeachable "Confidence" in elections. Even though confidence is the critical element of a fraud, while legitimacy fears no proof or investigation.

Since the system is designed or for whatever reason creates little evidence, let your central argument be "no proof here on exit polls" and focus on the small picture.

Ignore the reality that we are only giving thumbs or thumbs down on an investigation and on MSM coverage of these issues, and instead kill this baby while it's still in its crib, before it grows big enough to fight.

On the other hand, if you want to promote an investigation, then:

Remind everyone that this is a probable cause application, the relief requested is just an INVESTIGATION. Using, presumably the highest investigatory standards we have if the investigation is ever allowed to occur.

The standard is reasonable suspicion, which includes lots of room for flaws now to be replaced by better evidence later (or a change of focus)

Insist that critics answer the question: Do you GRANT the application for an investigation, or DENY it, when the standard is only the equivalent of probable cause to believe that a crime may have been committed?

Do they want the truth, then, to come out? Yes or no?

IT just doesn't make sense to say: The truth isn't in the Rolling Stone article, when the Rolling Stone article states facts for the more limited purpose of launching an investigation and a conversation.

Just because Rolling Stone did state an opinion that the election appears to have been stolen isn't a flaw: a warrant would say "hey, there appears to have been a murder committed, we need to investigate."

I can tell you what the answer would be in every court of law I know of (IN MY OPINION), and it's the same answer whether THE CRITICS STATE the gospel truth, or not. You GRANT Kennedy's application and let the truth come out.

If this application fails, for better or worse, the "judge" is going to be a bit jaded so it's no use to dream of a more perfect warranty application.

Manjoo, Liddle, Lindeman, and other critics say that they want election reform and transparency, but when it comes time for the best chance to meet the reasonable suspicion standard and get media coverage plus a real and funded investigation, these guys are ALL OVER OPPOSING IT, by using microscope methods on individual facts, instead of looking at the totality of the facts, i.e., the big picture.

In the big picture, under a reasonable suspicion standard, Kennedy's Rolling Stone request for an investigation is easily granted.

So ask everyone: "I'd like to know your answer: Do you grant the application for a warrant of investigation, or not?"

The reply may be "Do you want me to just "shut up" and silence my free speech and thinking? Or do you want me to pursue the truth?"

To that, I would say:

Some of the greatest intellects, thinkers and defenders of the First Amendment were justices of law. As such, they've many, many, times reviewed probable cause applications or warrant applications on the "reasonable suspicion" standard for searches and investigations. These judges and justices did what amounts to the smell test. They don't go back to old warrant applications with regret or a microscope and look for mistakes. They know it's all about lifting the veils of "privacy" to find out the truth.

So, are these judges famous in the first amendment "stifling truth" by not insisting on the microscope approach at this level?

Each person in a society is the judge of whether this issue continues on to the media and to a full investigation. It's not "You be the judge" it's "You ARE the judge."

Make the critics answer the question in the proper context: Do they, or do they not, support an investigation to find out ALL of the real facts?

In the end, listening to the summation of weeks of testimony in a trial, many a juror thinking that each step of the way was riddled with alibi and plausible explanation, realizes that only one thing is consistent with ALL of the evidence put together: Guilt.

The critics are not only ignoring their duties as democratic judges, but as jurors as well: They are not waiting until the end to make up their minds by keeping the inference of a stolen election open in their minds.

Bad judges, Bad Jurors, Bad Justice. WE THE PEOPLE must insist on the proper PROCESS at this point in time.