Gingrich Says These 4 Outrages Gave Biden a Fraudulent 'Win,' But He's Not Giving up
Newt Gingrich doesn’t believe Joe Biden’s win is fraudulent because of hacked Dominion voting machines. There is no kraken to be released, he says.
But make no mistake: The former House speaker from Georgia believes Joe Biden’s presidential victory was absolutely helped along by fraud — and not only in the way votes were counted.
In a post to his personal website last week, Gingrich argued liberals and conservatives were living in “alternative worlds” — one constructed by the mainstream media and the establishment, and the other fueled by a “populist rebellion which believes we are being destroyed, our liberties are being cancelled, and our religions are under assault.”
“Now, people in my world are told it is time to stop resisting and cooperate with the new president,” Gingrich wrote. “But we remember that the Democrats wanted to cooperate with Trump so much that they began talking about his impeachment before he even took office.”
Gingrich’s screed isn’t a short one and contains plenty of reasons why he’s convinced the 2020 election won’t be remembered as a high point of democracy. However, he pointed out four specific reasons why.
The first: “Officials in virtually every swing state broke their states’ own laws to send out millions of ballots or ballot applications to every registered voter. It was all clearly documented in the Texas lawsuit, which was declined by the US Supreme Court based on Texas’ procedural standing – not the merits of the case. That’s the election.”
The Texas lawsuit against swing states accused them of abrogating their own election laws in the face of the pandemic. As Gingrich points out, the reason it was dismissed by the Supreme Court was a matter of standing. In brief, the law requires you to have suffered some injury in order to press a suit; if not, our already beleaguered court system would be swamped with cases. That injury is referred to as “standing” — what allows you to press a lawsuit.
As Thomas A. Berry pointed out in an article at the Cato Institute, Texas’ argument for standing was that “the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate.” However, Berry wrote, “Texas could argue only that vice president‐elect Kamala Harris might break a 50–50 tie in the Senate in the next four years, and that Texas’s senators might be on the losing side of that vote. That possibility does not have the ‘imminence’ required to ensure that judicial review is limited only to those with a particularized injury.”
This still has nothing to do with the fact swing states decided the old rules didn’t apply — something the high court didn’t rule on due to Texas’ standing.
“In addition, it’s clear that virtually every swing state essentially suspended normal requirements for verifying absentee ballots,” Gingrich wrote.
“Rejection rates were an order of magnitude lower than in a normal year. In Georgia, rejection rates dropped from 6.5 percent in 2016 to 0.2 percent in 2020. In Pennsylvania, it went from 1 percent in 2016 to .003 percent in 2020. Nevada fell from 1.6 percent to .75 percent. There is no plausible explanation other than that they were counting a huge number of ballots – disproportionately for Biden – that normally would not have passed muster. That’s the election.”
Gingrich cited an article at Just the News by Daniel Payne, in which Payne pointed out that “mail-in ballots are rejected at around the rate of 1%. For first-time absentee voters, the rate can go as high as 3%, the higher number reflecting the unfamiliarity first-time voters have with the mail-in process.”
Instead, rejection rates were at historic lows — unusual given the chaos surrounding the election. The implication, of course, is that the rules went out the window when it came to what election officials would accept.
And then there were issues that went beyond how the vote was tabulated and conducted.
“The entire elite liberal media lied about the timeline of the COVID-19 vaccine,” Gingrich wrote. “They blamed President Trump for the global pandemic even as he did literally everything top scientists instructed. In multiple debates, the moderators outright stated that he was lying about the US having a vaccine before the end of the year (note Vice President Mike Pence received it this week). If Americans had known the pandemic was almost over, that too was likely the difference in the election.”
Finally, he noted: “The unanimously never-Trump debate commission spiked the second debate at a critical time in order to hurt President Trump. If there had been one more debate like the final one, it likely would have been pivotal.”
The second debate was canceled after Trump tested positive for COVID-19. The Commission on Presidential Debates wanted to move the debate to a virtual one; the Trump campaign refused, given the Biden campaign’s conspicuous reliance on electronic aids for their candidate. Both men were seen as healthy enough to conduct in-person town halls on the day the debate would have been held.
While the first debate was an affair best described as unusual — the real loser seemed to be moderator Chris Wallace, who came across as a dinghy tossed about in a nor’easter — the final debate produced a decisive win for Trump.
“This is just the beginning. But any one of those things alone is enough for Trump supporters to think we have been robbed by a ruthless establishment – which is likely to only get more corrupt and aggressive if it gets away with these blatant acts,” he wrote.
Gingrich had other serious issues with how those in the alternative world of the media spun the 2020 election.
“When Twitter and Facebook censored the oldest and fourth largest newspaper (founded by Alexander Hamilton) because it accurately reported news that could hurt Biden’s chances – where were The New York Times and The Washington Post?” Gingrich wrote, referencing the New York Post’s Hunter Biden story being spiked on social media and the paper being locked out of its Twitter account.
“The truth of the Hunter Biden story is now becoming impossible to avoid or conceal. The family of the Democrat nominee for president received at least $5 million from an entity controlled by our greatest adversary,” Gingrich wrote, referring to the China deal purportedly engineered, in part, by Hunter and James Biden.
“It was a blatant payoff, and most Americans who voted for Biden never heard of it – or were told before the election it was Russian disinformation. Once they did hear of it, 17 percent said they would have switched their votes, according to a poll by the Media Research Center. That’s the entire election. The censorship worked exactly as intended.”
And no, this isn’t the kind of fraud the mainstream media wants to talk about — because they perpetrated a great deal of it. What they’d prefer to focus on, instead, are nefarious allegations from the fringes.
The media rigged this election. They made sure we knew who was supposed to win and, now that Biden’s won the Electoral College, we’re all supposed to move on. Anyone who says otherwise, according to the narrative, speaks from the fringes.
“When I watch story after story about election fraud being spiked – without even the appearance of journalistic due diligence or curiosity – I know something is sick,” Gingrich wrote. “The election process itself was the final straw in creating the crisis of confidence which is accelerating and deepening for many millions of Americans.”
As he neared his conclusion, Gingrich sounded an optimistic note.
“You have more than 74 million voters who supported President Trump despite everything – and given the election mess, the number could easily be significantly higher. The truth is tens of millions of Americans are deeply alienated and angry,” he added. But, as always, hope endures: “If Biden governs from the left – and he will almost certainly be forced to – that number will grow rapidly, and we will win a massive election in 2022.”
Of course, it would help to start in Georgia.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
