In Mike Hulett's Jan. 2 column where he would likely wish to reattach Jack Zaleski's hinge , even though the unhinged are more interesting to watch, he offers the testimony of two individuals contesting the authenticity of the voting results in the last general election: Jesse Binnall and James Troupis.
I would like to believe Hulett's sources; I have read the testimony of each witness. Not one word of either transcript lists a single, specific, authenticated, enumerated, named individual, time or location by which, in which or through which these violations occurred. I wish they had. To make accusations and allegations stick, as Hulett must know as a senior professional in human resources, one must present precise examples, resplendent with specificity.
This has been the problem with virtually every case ultimately dismissed by the courts. Democrat- and Republican-appointed jurists alike have uniformly rejected testimony in which the witness "believes," "has received reports," "rejects the credibility of recently enacted absentee voting laws," or otherwise laments that the current president is not taken seriously after three years and 10 months of an ego-driven attempt at autocracy.
You have to have proof. So far, not so much.
Bob Seigel lives in Moorhead.
ADVERTISEMENT
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.
