10 points addressing why you don't "have to have hard evidence" before making voter fraud allegations
Dated: November 7, 2020
by Sharyl Attkisson

The following is a news analysis.

It’s confusing to hear reporters & others claim “You have to have hard evidence before you make accusations” about improprieties in the 2020 election.

That’s untrue. Here are ten relevant points.

Accusations are made all the time, spurring investigations that may or may not turn up hard evidence.

Evidence doesn’t walk up, knock on your door, and present itself.

Those guilty of malfeasance or crimes tend to try to hide their acts.

Some evidence can only be gathered if the accusers are granted access to it.

Lack of evidence in hand is not proof that no crime occurred.

It’s reasonable and important to ask the questions and investigate.

Claiming it’s irrational to even ask the question only generates more suspicion.

Fraud doesn’t have to be “widespread” to make a difference.

Those who claim there was “no fraud” are making that statement without evidence. It’s impossible for anyone to know.

Ultimately, if no convincing evidence is presented, no charges will be filed and the question will have been answered.

There was a time not long ago when reporters would search for evidence, firsthand, rather than demand someone give it to them.

There’s no dispute there were, at the very least, errors involving many thousands of ballots in the 2020 race.

Considering the facts that have been revealed over the past four years, it would be irrational not to ask questions and suspect that bad actors would continue to do all they can to negatively impact President Trump.

Thorough investigations will presumably flag improprieties, if any occurred, by either side.

It is not wrong for both sides to fight for every legal vote. Allowing the process to be thoroughly fleshed out, rather than villainizing those who are asking questions, will allow for greater confidence in the final result during a very divisive time.

https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/11/10-p.../#comment-76607


Why did no one demand hard evidence from Hitlery's many claims of election interference ?