The commentary provided by Martel Maxim critiques a recent opinion piece by The Wall Street Journal, which dismisses claims of irregularities in the 2020 election. The author takes issue with the Journal’s assertion that the election was “the safest and most secure” in history. This narrative, in Maxim’s view, raises questions about the integrity of the publication itself.
The crux of the argument centers around evidence presented by VoterGA, an organization dedicated to uncovering electoral fraud in Georgia. The author references Garland Favorito, a co-founder of VoterGA, who highlights several discrepancies pointed out in the Journal article. Notably, Favorito emphasizes missing tabulator tapes that correspond to over 315,000 ballots. This is a staggering number, nearly equivalent to the total ballots cast during the early voting period in Fulton County. Favorito argues that without these tapes, there’s a lack of authentication for those ballots, fundamentally undermining the election’s integrity.
In addition, the analysis points to a critical failure of the Journal to address findings from a recount by VoterGA volunteers, which discovered issues such as double-reported and double-scanned ballots. The mention of Georgia Governor Kemp’s own study, which corroborated the claims of misreporting without standing in opposition to the general consensus, further strengthens Maxim’s argument against The Wall Street Journal.
The op-ed also draws attention to the anonymity of the authors behind the Journal’s piece. The phrase “Editorial Board” obscures accountability, raising concerns about transparency in reporting. Readers are left questioning how seriously to take the claims made when no individual is willing to stake their name on the argument.
Maxim goes further, linking these issues to a broader narrative around the erosion of electoral control since the rise of electronic voting systems. He voices a sense of betrayal, asserting that the will of the people is no longer represented; rather, it is manipulated by what he calls the Deep State. This notion is underscored by the troubling case of Tina Peters, a former election clerk who faced severe legal consequences for her whistleblowing activities regarding election integrity. Maxim’s portrayal of Peters as a martyr for truth adds a layer of emotional weight to his critique, suggesting that the pursuit of transparency can come at a grave personal cost.
In summary, Maxim’s analysis presents a firm stance against The Wall Street Journal, accusing it of obfuscating facts and failing to uphold journalistic integrity while addressing one of the most contentious topics in recent electoral history. The author’s comments build on the foundation of emerging evidence and present a call for accountability and honesty in reporting, especially regarding the vital matter of election integrity.
"*" indicates required fields
