The Wall Street Journal Punts on Election Integrity

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily have the best editorial pages in the country.

It was with some disappointment we read their main editorial in the WSJ on December 31, 2020.


Like many in the “legacy” Conservative movement, they just want to sweep signs of election fraud under the rug and move on with a Democratic President. They don’t seem to appreciate that fully half or more of the country believes the results were fraudulent.

Election fraud is serious stuff. It is more important than any legislative act because election fraud undermines faith in the entire democratic system we have. Why engage in politics at all, if the whole game can be rigged?

We readily admit the process to solve this is quite complicated and we urge readers to sit through the entire interview conducted by The Epoch Times and reproduced in our video section.


Perhaps Democrats should have appreciated all this before they launched their fraudulent actions.

What we don’t buy is the insinuation by the WSJ that there is nothing to the charges of fraud. We think they are substantial enough to warrant some kind of judicial inquiry, Congressional hearings, or commission.

The WSJ passes out the canard that there is nothing to the fraud claims because no court has ruled as such, including some conservative justices. We say canard because the WSJ knows full well that suits have been rejected on technical grounds like standing, or time frames, and no court has actually seen any evidence and ruled on it.


Courts have repeatedly interfered in the election process, but now that they are being asked in this case to interfere, they act like this is something they should never get involved in. Gee, you can’t have it both ways, can you? Some legal consistency from the courts would be appreciated.

So, if the courts demur, then the Congress has to be involved. That is what Trump is calling for.

The WSJ says Republicans should be embarrassed “by Mr. Trump’s Electoral hustle.”

How do we know its just a hustle unless evidence is developed and then presented? As we have suggested before, if Trump has this all wrong and there is no evidence, then shame on him. However, the WSJ has resources to investigate. That is part of their job. Why do the resent citizens who have developed evidence and are begging for their case to be heard?

Near the end of their piece, they drop what may be the real reason legacy media and some Republican officials shy away from demanding election integrity.

“…what do Republicans think would happen if Mr. Pence pulled the trigger, Mr. Biden were denied 270 electoral votes, and the House chose Mr. Trump as President? Riots in the streets would be the least of it.”

So, let’s see if we get this straight. Democrats systematically cheat (or not, depending on the evidence), but we should not use the Constitutional and Judicial processes we have, because the outcome would cause Democrats to riot.

There is no right to riot. Why is only one political party given a pass on the use of violence to advance their political agenda? Why is the use of violence permitted at all?

Likely because they noticed that Democrats were rioting most of the summer, devastating cities like Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle.

Democrats will have their say in court and they will have their say in the Congress. Why the assumption that violence will be the outcome? If the claims of election fraud are a “hustle”, Democrats will easily prevail in the process. That should be a reason they should support the process.

Further, what do they mean that rioting “would be the least of it.” Do they mean like packing the court, enlarging the Senate, or perhaps impeaching a President based on opposition party research? Democrats are quite brazen right now and capitulating would seem only to encourage them. What makes them think that looking the other way on electoral cheating and street violence will promote better behavior from Democrats?

We cannot let stand election fraud. We cannot let stand acts of violence by political parties to advance legislation or determine electoral outcomes.

We cannot accept violence as a way to get what you want. If we do, our republic will be badly damaged.

Let us have a peaceful process to determine whether or not fraud took place.

But let’s have the process proceed and not act like nothing was strange in the last election.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email