- Banned
- #1
Democrat Lyndon Johnsonâs 1948 U.S. Senate campaign in Texas, which I wrote about the day before the Trump-Biden election, is instructive. Johnson won that election by 87 votes out of almost a million votes cast.
Johnsonâs position was the same as that of the mainstream media today. Immediately after the election, he was asserting that there was no evidence of fraud. But as I indicated above, oftentimes election fraud is hard to ferret it. It takes an investigation to do so.
Even with an investigation, Johnsonâs opponent, Gov. Coke Stevenson, was unable to prevail in his election contest. Does that mean there was no fraud? No, it doesnât. In fact, many years later, after Johnson had served as John Kennedyâs vice president and then as president, his electoral fraud rose to the surface.
It turned out that Johnson had told a South Texas crony named George Parr to keep his poll tabulations open after the election, just in case Johnson needed more votes to win. Several days after the election, when Johnson was losing, Parr delivered 200 votes to him, which gave Johnson the win.
Whatâs Wrong with Trumpâs Investigating Election Fraud?
This New York Times article, which is worth reading, details Johnsonâs election fraud, which became known as the âBox 13â scandal (Google âBox 13 scandal.â) In 1977, after Johnson and Parr were dead, an election judge in charge of Jim Well Countyâs Box 13, Luis Salas, came forward and confessed that he was part of the fraud. He said that Johnson told Parr that he needed 200 more votes to win the election. Parr instructed Salas to produce the additional 200 votes, which Salas did. The last 200 signatures on the election tally were all in the same ink, which was different from the ink of the other signatures, the signatures were in the same handwriting, and the names were in alphabetical order.
Johnson went on to become U.S. Senator. If he had lost the race, there is no chance he would have become president in November 1963.
Itâs certainly possible that Joe Bidenâs election is legitimate. But itâs also possible that itâs not. Whatâs wrong with Trump investigating it now rather than have the fraud surface 30 years from now, as it did in the case of Lyndon Johnson? Surely, the mainstream media wouldnât want another illegitimate Democrat president, would it?
MY OPINION MS. QUESTION MARK AVATAR: It seems to me, Harris, er, Biden fans (Party acolytes) would enjoy learning an investigation had cleared their conscience- of course, one has to remember US official investigations rarely reveal the truth-
Johnsonâs position was the same as that of the mainstream media today. Immediately after the election, he was asserting that there was no evidence of fraud. But as I indicated above, oftentimes election fraud is hard to ferret it. It takes an investigation to do so.
Even with an investigation, Johnsonâs opponent, Gov. Coke Stevenson, was unable to prevail in his election contest. Does that mean there was no fraud? No, it doesnât. In fact, many years later, after Johnson had served as John Kennedyâs vice president and then as president, his electoral fraud rose to the surface.
It turned out that Johnson had told a South Texas crony named George Parr to keep his poll tabulations open after the election, just in case Johnson needed more votes to win. Several days after the election, when Johnson was losing, Parr delivered 200 votes to him, which gave Johnson the win.
Whatâs Wrong with Trumpâs Investigating Election Fraud?
This New York Times article, which is worth reading, details Johnsonâs election fraud, which became known as the âBox 13â scandal (Google âBox 13 scandal.â) In 1977, after Johnson and Parr were dead, an election judge in charge of Jim Well Countyâs Box 13, Luis Salas, came forward and confessed that he was part of the fraud. He said that Johnson told Parr that he needed 200 more votes to win the election. Parr instructed Salas to produce the additional 200 votes, which Salas did. The last 200 signatures on the election tally were all in the same ink, which was different from the ink of the other signatures, the signatures were in the same handwriting, and the names were in alphabetical order.
Johnson went on to become U.S. Senator. If he had lost the race, there is no chance he would have become president in November 1963.
Itâs certainly possible that Joe Bidenâs election is legitimate. But itâs also possible that itâs not. Whatâs wrong with Trump investigating it now rather than have the fraud surface 30 years from now, as it did in the case of Lyndon Johnson? Surely, the mainstream media wouldnât want another illegitimate Democrat president, would it?
MY OPINION MS. QUESTION MARK AVATAR: It seems to me, Harris, er, Biden fans (Party acolytes) would enjoy learning an investigation had cleared their conscience- of course, one has to remember US official investigations rarely reveal the truth-
