By John Q. Hosedrinker 
David Brouillette, a licensed real estate agent and veteran with past law enforcement experience, reportedly sought to have his former wife, Ashley Brouillette, lie for him and cover up his character following an incident he described as a “justified shooting.” Ashley Brouillette refused, stating she did not believe his account of the events, particularly his claim that the shooting was justified because the individual attempted to hit him with a car. She further noted his unusual calmness regarding the situation and had previously alerted his military superiors to his mental health issues, describing him as abusive.
Read the original article here
It’s rather striking when someone closely associated with promoting claims of election fraud, someone deeply entrenched in that narrative, ends up admitting there’s no actual proof to back it up. This is precisely what has happened with John Solomon, a journalist who has carved out a significant niche amplifying allegations of electoral malfeasance, particularly concerning the 2020 election. When directly pressed on whether votes were actually changed, Solomon’s response was telling. He conceded that the intelligence community has found “zero evidence” of foreign powers flipping votes in recent elections.
The starkness of this admission is amplified when considering the specific claims made by former President Trump himself. Trump, in a recent primetime speech, leveled accusations against China for the “illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files” and alleged a plot involving Venezuela’s Maduro regime to influence the election. These are serious accusations, painting a picture of widespread, foreign-orchestrated deception. Yet, here was Solomon, a figure often seen as a mouthpiece for such claims and a member of Trump’s own election task force, unable to validate even a sliver of these specific allegations when directly questioned.
This lack of corroboration is particularly notable given the context. Trump’s own declassified documents, released alongside his speech, reportedly confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election in his favor, primarily through the dissemination of disinformation regarding Hunter Biden and the reliability of mail-in voting. This suggests that while foreign interference in American elections is a documented phenomenon, it hasn’t manifested in the way Trump and his allies have repeatedly claimed for the 2020 cycle, at least not according to the intelligence Solomon acknowledged.
The admission raises a fundamental question: if the intel community, even the parts that might be inclined to look for such things, finds no evidence of foreign powers changing votes, and if individuals like Solomon can’t back up the specific claims being made, where does that leave the broader narrative of a stolen election? It points towards a reliance on rhetoric and unsubstantiated assertions rather than concrete, verifiable facts.
It seems the core of the issue here is the disconnect between deeply held beliefs and demonstrable evidence. For some, the notion that an election could be lost through legitimate means is harder to accept than the idea of widespread fraud. This perspective often leads to a reinterpretation of any lack of evidence as proof of a cover-up, or as a sign that the fraud was simply too well executed to be detected.
This pattern of accusation without proof is a recurring theme. When confronted with the absence of evidence, the response often shifts. Instead of acknowledging the lack of proof, some proponents of election fraud claims suggest that the silence or lack of findings is itself indicative of a massive, successful conspiracy to hide the truth. This creates a circular argument where the absence of evidence becomes evidence of a cover-up, a particularly difficult claim to engage with on a factual basis.
Furthermore, the very individuals who claim to be investigating or fighting voter fraud are themselves sometimes implicated in attempts to subvert election processes. There’s been documented evidence of attempts to influence election officials, such as the phone call to Georgia election officials seeking votes. These actions, when undertaken by those promoting fraud claims, create an ironic situation where the accusers become the accused.
The effectiveness of these unsubstantiated claims often relies on a receptive audience, a “cult” of believers for whom loyalty and belief trump factual verification. In such environments, the pronouncements of a leader or trusted figures are accepted without the need for independent validation. The idea that “if Shitler says there was fraud, there was fraud” encapsulates this dynamic, where the accusation itself is sufficient for believers, regardless of supporting evidence.
The situation highlights a broader challenge in contemporary political discourse: the erosion of trust in institutions and the proliferation of alternative narratives that thrive outside the realm of verifiable facts. When established processes, intelligence assessments, and judicial rulings are dismissed in favor of anecdotal claims and gut feelings, it becomes increasingly difficult to have a shared understanding of reality.
Ultimately, the admission by a prominent figure in the election fraud movement that he has found no proof is a significant moment. It underscores the persistent lack of credible evidence supporting the widespread claims of a stolen election and suggests that the narrative is being sustained more by assertion and belief than by demonstrable facts. The challenge for all of us is to continue to engage with these issues critically, demanding evidence and logic, and resisting the allure of narratives that offer simple explanations for complex realities.