Things we have learned
Late last night, after I laid my weary head to rest, the results of the election audit in Arizona were released.
Let’s not attempt to bury the lede here: The vote totals affirmed that Joe Biden received more votes that Donald Trump.
What did we learn?
A few things. First, and most importantly, there was not widespread fraud as was suggested by Trump and some of the folks in his orbit. And, to make it clearer: The election system worked as designed, and there should be less concern about the voting system in place in Arizona. Will the audit, in fact, restore confidence in the voting system? Probably not.
Second, the audit itself was not proof of fraud. The audit was an investigation to determine if there was fraud. The audit determined there was not widespread evidence of fraud.
Third, we learned that there are people who will do and say anything, as long as they get paid. I don’t know the history of the “Digital Ninjas”, but I infer this: When the call went out for a fraud investigation, they offered to fill the bill (as long as they got paid). Let’s get more subtle for a second. And this requires a nuanced understanding of reality, but here goes. When someone (like let’s say the US President) says that there is fraud, several groups of people get excited to action. The folks who believe it’s true. The folks who don’t believe it’s true. The opportunistic folks who can complete the requested work (as long as they get paid). And, the news media salivates because they can write compelling stories about all three groups, and thus attract eyeballs to their sites.
Remember, please, item two. The fact of the AUDIT does not prove the existence of FRAUD. The fact there was an audit means that there was a request to do an audit, a group that was qualified to do the work was hired to do it (as long as they get paid), and they investigated whether there was fraud (by doing an independent recount, or somesuch).
Fourth, I think we are learning some things about the depth of understanding of the American people. Now, please understand I am myself an American. I have been duped in the past, and sometimes even cheated out of hard earned money. So, I’m not holding myself aloof of this concemnation. There are words that have intense connotation, which lead many folks to draw conclusions at the very mention of them. “IRS audit”, “criminal indictment”, “crack whore” (RIP Norm Macdonald), for example.
Yet, getting audited by the IRS does not mean that a person has cheated on their taxes. It is instead the result of the IRS saying “This deserves a second look.” Getting indicted by a grand jury does not mean someone was convicted of a crime. It means that a grand jury of folks were able to conclude that there is enough evidence to bring a person to trial. Being a crack whore… well, people make choices in their lives. The Point is, the General Public misunderstands these outcomes based on a shared misunderstanding of what certain words mean.
Fifth, we learned that even the highest echelons of the US Government can be rolled into this nonsense of openly, brazenly exploiting the misunderstandings of the General Public to advance their own ends. President says “FRAUD”. State election officials say “Um, no.” President again says “FRAUD”, and this time a group of people qualified to investigate fraud says “We can do the fraud audit (so long as we get paid)”. And the President, pleased that someone took his claims seriously (or you know, at least made it look like he might have a claim to be investigated), uses the third-party’s agreement as evidence to support his claim (It was not evidence). It’s just a fucking audit. Work for Hire (as long as they get paid).
Relatedly, a series of memos emerged showing that SOME GUY in the Trump Administration has laid the potential groundwork for a vice president to decertify, or partially certify, election results to benefit the incumbent.
I do not know the person who wrote it. I do not agree with his supporters. I do not agree with his detractors. What I see, though, is someone who used their skills and abilities to try to get into the President’s good graces, without any negative consequences to himself. The memo suggested that the VP could certify the election, based on the outcomes and contested outcomes in specific states, in the favor of the President. This is not a Constitutional argument. This is an extremely conditional scenario (and all the connotations attendant to that word), only applicable to one particular set of circumstances. That if X, Y, and Z are true, A, B, and C could be true, and thus outcome F could potentially work out, given further conditions J, K, & L. I don’t think that writing such a memo would even lead to concerns about a person’s fitness to practice law. It was just a fucking memo. But a useful memo for the President to delude himself into believing that he could stay in power.
The auditors in AZ, and the memo writer were merely useful hired guns, in other words. Useful, because their existence at a given point in time helped (whether legitimately or not) to support a position or argument that was being held up by the President (even though that position was inaccurate, just plain wrong, or deliberately false and misleading).
OK, this has gone on longer than I would have liked. Ultimately, the President wanted to retain power (nothing wrong or unusual in that), and made some claims that would support his beleif that he should retain power (nothing wrong with that, if the claims can be supported). The errors in thought emerge when folks infer that the Audit was proof of fraud, or that the memo itself was support that the President should be allowed to stay in power. Until, you know, all the evidence can be carefully scrutinized… Or even that the Vice President is a traitorous coward. He may in fact be a traitorous coward. This information is not evidence of that, however. Though the fact that he went against the President and certified the vote to remove himself from power might be evidence to the contrary. It’s rare to find someone who would act against their own interests.
Sixth, there are perhaps more people than expected in the GENERAL PUBLIC who would be willing to literally take up arms and attack an innocent institution, solely because there was an audit and a memo. These folks weren’t even paid. Which in the terms of the former President, means they are suckers and losers. Useful suckers and losers. Suckers and losers, nevertheless. How many of those folks who stormed the Capitol on January 6 has Donald Trump advocated for personally to have their charges reduced, or vacated, or anything? I don’t know the answer, but it probably hovers closer to 0% than might otherwise be expected, given what they did to support him.