sonora2sonoma

When CNN’s Jake Tapper noted to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, as quoted in today’s Washington Post, “that there’s no evidence of widespread voter fraud,’ Meadows could respond only, “There’s no evidence that there’s not either. That’s the definition of fraud, Jake.”

What on earth, I wondered, was this man talking about?

Meadow’s definition of fraud left me scratching my head. The definition of fraud, he seemed to be saying, was, while there’s no proof of widespread voter fraud, there’s no proof there isn’t either. Do I have that right? And just how, please explain, does that constitute fraud?

In fact, how is that really saying anything, I pondered? And, if it does contain a coherent meaning, I wish someone would show me the key to unlocking it!

Lacking the means to decipher the opaqueness of Meadow’s assertion, I turned to my usual online dictionary resources to determine if I could shine more light on this puzzling conundrum.

Fraud, according to Microsoft’s obscured dictionary resource, is defined as 1) “a wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain,” or 2) “a person or thing intended to deceive others typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.”

Not wanting to rely solely on anything Microsoft has its wandering fingers in, I broadened my search to include other sources.

Merriam-Webster said of fraud, “deceit, trickery: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right,” and “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting.”

At that point in my investigation, the words “deceit” and “deception” appeared to be deeply involved in this mess, as did the idea of creating a false narrative for the purpose of “deceiving” people toward a given end.

But, I thought, just to make sure I was on to something, I should delve a little further.

Cambridge, it turns out, painted a similar picture: Here, fraud was described as “something that is not what it appears to be and is deliberately used to deceive people.”

The word “deceive, which is the active form of the word “deception,” lined up nicely with the theme expressed in the other definitions of fraud described above. Additionally, the word “deliberately” also had an air about it that seemed to fit uncannily with Meadow’s assertion.

It appears that Meadows’ would have us believe that either proof of something, or its absence, is sufficient “evidence” to conclude something is fraudulent: Could it be, ironically, that his artless dodging of Tapper’s question in itself constitutes a fraudulent claim?  

Overlooking for a moment the deceit inherent in Meadow’s word-mangling postulation, if one were to accept his circular reasoning as valid, cases could also be made for the existence of the abominable snowman, alien mind-control and overwhelming public support for the president’s coronavirus response.

I had originally intended to end this piece by saying “It’s all just so confusing!”

Actually, it’s all become quite clear!

Tim Konrad

2020.08.17