By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Wisconsin man has been convicted of election fraud and identity theft for illegally requesting absentee ballots for prominent local officials. Jurors found Harry Wait guilty of two misdemeanor election fraud charges and one felony identity theft charge. Wait admitted to the actions, stating he aimed to expose vulnerabilities in the state’s voter registration system, a stance that has drawn both criticism and praise. His conviction follows a similar case where another individual also claimed to be testing election system integrity.
Read the original article here
It seems a rather compelling narrative has unfolded, where an individual who vocally championed claims of widespread 2020 election fraud has himself been convicted of election fraud. Jurors in Racine County recently found Harry Wait, aged 71, guilty on two misdemeanor election fraud charges and one felony identity theft charge, following a two-day trial. He was acquitted of a second identity theft count. This outcome raises significant questions and highlights a peculiar irony, as Wait’s actions appear to have been an attempt to “test the system” and demonstrate its supposed failures, ultimately leading to his own downfall within that very system.
The conviction stems from Wait’s efforts to obtain absentee ballots for politicians, an act he apparently believed would expose vulnerabilities in the election process. He reportedly stated, “I tested the system and the system failed,” implying that his ability to procure these ballots was proof of inherent flaws. However, the legal system, as it turns out, did not see his actions as a mere test. Instead, it viewed them as criminal behavior, resulting in misdemeanor and felony charges. This is a stark contrast to the notion of a “white hat hacker,” a term sometimes used for those who ethically test security systems with permission. It’s noteworthy that some prominent figures, like U.S. Senator Ron Johnson, had previously referred to Wait as a “white hat hacker” in 2022, a label that now appears to be a gross mischaracterization given the jury’s verdict.
The situation strongly suggests a phenomenon often observed in political discourse: projection. The idea that “every accusation is a confession” seems particularly relevant here. Those who loudly proclaim the malfeasance of others often find themselves implicated in similar wrongdoings. In Wait’s case, his fervent assertions of election fraud appear to have culminated in his own conviction for committing it. This pattern suggests that the very tactics he claimed his opponents were employing were, in fact, the ones he himself engaged in. The conviction only occurred after he was able to commit what the court deemed fraud and then, ironically, brought his actions to the authorities, perhaps believing he had proven his point.
Wait now faces potential consequences that could significantly impact the remainder of his life. The felony conviction carries a possible sentence of up to six years in prison, while each misdemeanor conviction could result in up to a year in jail. This outcome is a tangible and severe result of his actions, far removed from the abstract claims of widespread corruption he propagated regarding the 2020 election. His conviction serves as a stark reminder that such claims, when unsubstantiated and followed by illegal actions, carry real legal weight.
The broader implications of this case extend beyond Wait himself. It underscores a recurring theme in discussions surrounding election integrity, particularly the distinction between “voter fraud” and “election fraud.” While individual instances of voter fraud, such as someone voting improperly, are statistically rare and unlikely to sway election outcomes, “election fraud” – where those within the election system manipulate processes like vote counting or ballot handling – poses a more significant theoretical risk. However, the narrative often promoted by some, focusing heavily on individual voter fraud, has been criticized as a tactic to erect barriers to voting, particularly for marginalized communities.
In this instance, Wait was convicted of committing a form of election fraud. The irony is that he appears to have been so convinced of the existence of election fraud that he felt compelled to engage in it himself to prove his point. This suggests a profound disconnect between his perception of reality and the legal and factual evidence presented in court. The outcome in Racine County might be seen by some as a vindication of the electoral system’s ability to hold individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of their stated intentions or political affiliations. The system, in this case, did not fail him; rather, it caught him.
Furthermore, the case brings to mind broader societal observations about partisan accusations and the tendency for such claims to be rooted in projection. The idea that a political group’s most fervent accusations against opponents are often reflections of their own behaviors and desires is a cynical, yet frequently observed, dynamic. The conviction of an individual who actively pushed for election fraud claims, only to be found guilty of election fraud himself, fits this pattern all too neatly. It’s a scenario where the accused becomes the perpetrator, and the claims of wrongdoing are turned inward.
Ultimately, Harry Wait’s conviction on election fraud charges provides a real-world example that challenges the narrative of a deeply compromised 2020 election. His attempt to expose alleged flaws by committing what he claimed were demonstrations of those flaws has resulted in his own legal culpability. The system, it seems, worked as intended, identifying and prosecuting illegal activity, regardless of the perpetrator’s ideological motivations or their claims about the integrity of the electoral process.