Time Exposes Secret Conspiracy to Rig the Election

Now that Joe Biden has been safely installed as president, the Left feels that it is safe to brag about how they rigged the election for his benefit. On February 4, Time magazine published a shocking exposé on the Left’s conspiracy to rig the 2020 Presidential election with the Orwellian title of The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election.

In the article’s own words, it was “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.” The participants in this cabal deny the reality of what they were doing was rigging the election by claiming, instead, that they were “fortifying it.”

The article is full of such Orwellian language, designed to portray this election interference as “saving democracy,” but a close examination shows that their actions had nothing to do with ensuring a fair election, but instead was intended to tilt the election in the direction of their favored candidate, Joe Biden.

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.

The article openly and brazenly documents a wide-ranging conspiracy to illegally change election laws, eliminate voting integrity safeguards, and to manipulate social media platforms to control the information that American voters were allowed to see.

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.

According to the Time article, the conspiracy had its start in the fall of 2019, when Mike Podhorzer, a senior adviser to the president of the AFL-CIO, became alarmed that normally Democrat-voting union members were moving toward President Trump.

Trump’s election in 2016–credited in part to his unusual strength among the sort of blue collar white voters who once dominated the AFL-CIO–prompted Podhorzer to question his assumptions about voter behavior … It was only after months of research that he introduced his concerns in his newsletter in October 2019 …. “We desperately need to systematically ‘red-team’ this election so that we can anticipate and plan for the worst we know will be coming our way.”

To counter this threat, Podhorzer assembled a coalition of far-Left groups who shared his desire to secretly influence the election. Although Time couches this effort as “saving democracy,” the list of the members involved makes it clear that this was a coalition of groups more interested in achieving a victory for the Democrat Party candidate than in ensuring a free and fair election.

In his apartment in the D.C. suburbs, Podhorzer began working from his laptop at his kitchen table,holding back-to-back Zoom meetings for hours a day with his network of contacts across the progressive universe: the labor movement; the institutional left, like Planned Parenthood and Greenpeace; resistance groups like Indivisible and MoveOn; progressive data geeks and strategists, representatives of donors and foundations, state-level grassroots organizers, racial-justice activists and others.

Private philanthropy stepped into the breach. An assortment of foundations contributed tens of millions in election-administration funding. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative chipped in $300 million. … McReynolds’ two-year-old organization became a clearinghouse for a nation struggling to adapt. The institute gave secretaries of state from both parties technical advice on everything from which vendors to use to how to locate drop boxes. 

The Time exposé also confirms the role that social media oligarchs played in censoring the views of conservatives on the internet and suppressing the dissemination of news stories, such as the New York Post story on Hunter Biden, that could damage the Biden campaign.

The solution, she concluded, was to pressure platforms to enforce their rules, both by removing content or accounts that spread disinformation and by more aggressively policing it in the first place. “The platforms have policies against certain types of malign behavior, but they haven’t been enforcing them,” she says.

[snip]

Quinn’s research gave ammunition to advocates pushing social media platforms to take a harder line. In November 2019, Mark Zuckerberg invited nine civil rights leaders to dinner at his home, where they warned him about the danger of the election-related falsehoods that were already spreading unchecked. “It took pushing, urging, conversations, brainstorming, all of that to get to a place where we ended up with more rigorous rules and enforcement,” says Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, who attended the dinner and also met with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and others.

Not mentioned in the article was that Gupta, a former U.S. assistant attorney general for civil rights under Obama, was also serving as a member of Biden’s criminal justice task force during the 2020 campaign. This makes her a direct link between the Biden campaign and the censoring of conservatives by Facebook and Twitter. Biden has rewarded Gupta by nominating her for associate attorney general, the third highest position at the Department of Justice.

In addition to ensuring that any discussion of voter fraud or the questioning of the security of mail-in voting was suppressed, the cabal flooded social media with coordinated messages that calling for the counting of all votes, regardless of their legality. One can only guess the role that Zuckerberg and Dorsey had in amplifying these messages on their platforms.

The Voting Rights Lab and IntoAction created state-specific memes and graphics, spread by email, text, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, urging that every vote be counted. Together, they were viewed more than 1 billion times. 

At the same time, the cabal was coordinating its efforts with the violent far-Left terrorist groups that had organized the riots in American cities during the summer.

The racial-justice uprising sparked by George Floyd’s killing in May was not primarily a political movement. The organizers who helped lead it wanted to harness its momentum for the election without allowing it to be co-opted by politicians. Many of those organizers were part of Podhorzer’s network, from the activists in battleground states who partnered with the Democracy Defense Coalition to organizations with leading roles in the Movement for Black Lives.

These groups were used, among other things, to harass and intimidate urban voters by surrounding them at the polling stations with militant activists.

They created a force of “election defenders” who, unlike traditional poll watchers, were trained in de-escalation techniques. During early voting and on Election Day, they surrounded lines of voters in urban areas with a “joy to the polls” effort that turned the act of casting a ballot into a street party.

In anticipation of a possible Trump victory, the coalition even had plans for massive demonstrations (and riots?) across the country. The centralized nature of the planned nationwide protests was so strong that they were able to order a stand down during an 11 p.m. Zoom call.

More than 150 liberal groups, from the Women’s March to the Sierra Club to Color of Change, from Democrats.com to the Democratic Socialists of America, joined the “Protect the Results” coalition. The group’s now defunct website had a map listing 400 planned postelection demonstrations, to be activated via text message as soon as Nov. 4.

[snip]

The liberal alliance gathered for an 11 p.m. Zoom call. Hundreds joined; many were freaking out. So the word went out: stand down. Protect the Results announced that it would “not be activating the entire national mobilization network today, but remains ready to activate if necessary.”

After the election, the cabal enacted a plan to intimate canvassing boards to ignore questions about election fraud. It was all meant to appear as a grass-roots effort, but it was centrally planned ahead of time.

As they mapped out the steps in the election-certification process, activists settled on a strategy … They flooded the Wayne County canvassing board’s Nov. 17 certification meeting with on-message testimony; despite a Trump tweet, the Republican board members certified Detroit’s votes.

This centralized intimidation strategy was also extended to the state canvassing board.

When the meeting began, Reyes’s activists flooded the livestream and filled Twitter with their hashtag, #alleyesonmi. A board accustomed to attendance in the single digits suddenly faced an audience of thousands.

This Time article shows fragility of our democratic electoral process, but not in the way the author intended. The story laid out is not one of stalwart defenders of democracy saving an election, instead it is a tale of the lengths at which anti-democratic forces will go to pervert the outcome of an election and to ignore the will of the people. The fact that they feel no shame in admitting their actions, but instead actually brag about it, should stand as ominous warning that this will become standard practice for the Left in future elections.

Biden Signals ‘Anti-Terrorism’ Campaign Against Political Opposition

During a remote address on Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast, Joe Biden abandoned his sham call for ‘unity’ and instead exploited the January 6 mayhem at the US Capitol to label opponents to his regime’s totalitarian policies as terrorists driven by extremism and racism.

“We just have to open our eyes. We’ve just witnessed images that we’ve never imagined — images that now we’ll never forget: a violent assault on the U.S. Capitol — an assault on our democracy, on our Capitol, a violent attack that threatened lives and took lives,” Biden said. “We know now we must confront and defeat political extremism, white supremacy, and domestic terrorism.”

It is clear to whom Biden was referring, and it was not to the far-Left Anitifa and BLM terrorists who were burning down American cities all summer.

Biden unveiled his strategy to use the charge of “white supremacy” to demonize the pro-Liberty opposition during his divisive inauguration speech.

Biden’s addition of “domestic terrorism” to his rhetorical assault against the pro-Liberty opposition is even more ominous. His statement followed last week’s abuse of the National Terrorism Advisory System to issue a warning of a “heightened threat environment” despite the Department of Homeland Security admitting that it “does not have any information to indicate a specific, credible plot.”

In the past week we have been seeing a growing disinformation campaign to link support for Donald Trump with an increasing threat of domestic terrorism. For example, earlier this week, Robert Grenier, former head CIA’s counterterrorism center, went on NPR and explicitly named former president Trump as the leader of domestic insurgency:

Another, I think, very important element that we haven’t talked about yet is what I would refer to as insurgent leadership. The fact of the matter is that the most violent elements that we are concerned about right now see former President Trump as a broadly popular and charismatic symbol.

Grenier ominously argued for the need to treat “domestic extremists” using the same counterinsurgency tactics used during the War on Terror.

Why all of this talk of domestic terrorism linked to Trump and his supporters? The January 6 chaos at the Capitol Building was a singular event. There have been no other violent events that can plausibly be set at the foot of Trump supporters.

This is in stark contrast to the hundreds of riots conducted during the past year and continuing by far-Left Antifa and BLM terrorists. Even in Capitol Building chaos there is strong evidence that far-Left extremists were involved.

The only logical conclusion that can be made is that the Biden regime and his far-Left allies are deliberately creating a predicate to unleash the coercive organs of the state against their political opponents.

Biden is no stranger in using intelligence agencies and law enforcement to target his political enemies. The evidence is overwhelming that President Obama and then Vice-President Biden knowingly exploited the false ‘Steele dossier’ to unleash the CIA and the FBI first to spy on then candidate Trump and then to attempt a silent coup d’état against President Trump.

House Prosecutors Use Inflammatory Rhetoric to Accuse Trump of Incitement

The House impeachment managers on Tuesday released a written brief of their case against former president Trump. The main charge the Democrats have against Trump in next week’s Stalinist show trial is that his use of inflammatory language is tantamount to a call for violence. It is beyond ironic and hypocritical then that in its brief that the House managers used extremely inflammatory language (highlights added) in its own arguments:

The only honorable path at that point was for President Trump to accept the results and concede his electoral defeat. Instead, he summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue.

The only honorable path: the house prosecutors would have us believe that publicly stating one’s honest beliefs is now dishonorable. They actually have the audacity to state that even if Trump’s belief that he won the election was true, it would not be a defense:

His belief that he won the election—regardless of its truth or falsity (though it is assuredly false)—is no defense at all for his abuse of office.

Summoned a mob … exhorted them into a frenzy … aimed them like a loaded canon: these terms are blatant appeals to emotion, not sober legal arguments. Using the House managers’ own logic as applied to Trump’s speech, these statements could be interpreted as incitement to violence.

This passage is only one of many in the brief that makes an emotional appeal. For example, the House managers would also have us believe that asking Congress to use its constitutional authority to examine the legality of the selection of electors is equivalent to advocating for overthrowing the government:

No one would seriously suggest that a President should be immunized from impeachment if he publicly championed the adoption of totalitarian government, swore an oath of eternal loyalty to a foreign power, or advocated that states secede from and overthrow the Union.

In the brief, the House managers spend many pages discussing the rhetoric that Trump used in his speech on the Ellipse on January 6 and try to connect this to the actions of the mob that swarmed the Capitol. This despite the fact that actions at the Capital occurred 20 minutes before Trump had finished his speech.

The brief tries to deal with problem by saying the riot was started by an “early wave” who left the speech before it ended. But the Ellipse is some 1.5 miles away from the Capitol, a 30-40 minute walk. Thus the attack on the Capitol would have been made by protesters who left Trump’s speech at least an hour before its end.

This timeline shows that Trump’s speech could not possibly have been the trigger of the assault on the Capitol, which begs the question of how can the House managers plausibly claim it was Trump’s exhortations created the frenzy in the crowd that led to breech of the Capitol?

The answer is that they can not logically make that connection.

The brief also uses the terms “insurrection” and “armed mob” numerous times. Calling the assault on the Capitol an “insurrection” is a gross overstatement of what occurred. However unruly it was, there has been no evidence presented that the rioters at the Capitol intended to overthrow the government.

As for “armed mob,” this assertion is an outright lie. The House managers do not cite a single example of anyone at either the speech on the Ellipse or the mob at the Capitol being armed.

So why is the House managers’ brief laden with so much inflammatory language of the type that they themselves condemn? It is because it is designed to appeal to the emotions of Senators and the American public rather than to present a logical case. They need to obscure the fact that there is no basis to the claim that Trump incited an insurrection against the government of the United States.

NBC News Censors Guest to Cover Up NY Gov. Cuomo’s Role in Coronovirus Failure

The establishment media continues to prove that it is the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and not a reliable source of information. Modern ‘journalism’ now sees its role as shaping public opinion rather than informing the public. This includes suppressing any information that is contrary to the approved narrative.

One of the most scandalous recent examples of this has been the media’s cover up of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s disastrous, if not criminal, nursing home decision that led to at least 11,000 coronavirus deaths in the state.

In March, Cuomo signed a directive requiring nursing homes to admit coronavirus patients. That directive, which was contrary to CDC guidelines, was later deleted from the New York State Department of Health website to hide the governor’s role in the nursing home deaths.

In a tweet on Saturday, Fox News senior meteorologist Janice Dean, who lost both of her in-laws to the coronavirus in New York nursing homes, charged NBC News with muzzling one of her friends to protect the reputation of Cuomo:

So @NBCNews @LesterHoltNBC @TODAYshow censored one of my friends who lost a loved one in a nursing home. She wanted to say ‘@andrewcuomo failed us’ in the interview and they told her to say ‘New York failed us’ instead. The mainstream is STILL protecting this guy. Disgusting.

In a follow-up tweet, Dean called NBC anchorman Lester Holt a “disgrace” for his role in suppressing the criticism of Cuomo:

Shame on you @LesterHoltNBC @NBCNews @TODAYshow. New York State did not fail us. The governor, his administration and his health department FAILED US. You are a disgrace to all families. Just like @andrewcuomo.

This latest journalistic outrage comes after New York Attorney General Letitia James released a report, largely ignored by the establishment media, that showed that the state underreported coronavirus deaths in nursing homes by as much as 50 percent.

Instead using the NY attorney general’s report as an opportunity to examine Cuomo’s role in the nursing home disaster, the establishment media provided Cuomo with sympathetic TV interviews where he was allowed to place the blame on the federal government.

Biden Regime Equates Political Opposition to Terrorism

The Biden regime is now linking opposition to its dystopian political agenda to terrorism. Yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security issued a National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin warning of a “heightened threat environment across the United States.” What is remarkable about this warning is that DHS also said that department “does not have any information to indicate a specific, credible plot.”

So if DHS does not have any intelligence to support this warning, why did they issue it? According to the bulletin, the department is:

concerned that individuals frustrated with the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances and ideological causes fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize a broad range of ideologically-motivated actors to incite or commit violence.

DHS went on to specify anger over COVID-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and opposition to [illegal] immigration as drivers to the increased potential of violence. In other words, the Biden regime is now saying that political views of Trump voters have turned them into violent extremists.

To give its timing of this ‘warning’ a facade of credibility, the DHS linked this ideological discontent to the the violent riots that have occurred recently. The riots that have occurred in Portland and Seattle in the past week, however, were done by far-left Antifa and BLM extremists, not by Trump supporters. This is classic disinformation were ‘facts’ are twisted to justify state-sponsored propaganda.

Now that DHS has equated Trump supporters to domestic terrorists, we can expect the Biden regime to use it as a justification to suppress its political opponents. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told the press:

The rise of domestic violent extremism is a serious and growing national security threat. The Biden administration will approach this threat with the necessary resources and resolve.

Psaki’s statement follows former CIA Director John Brennan preview last week how the Biden regime will use the threat of domestic terrorism to mobilize the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies to root out its political opponents:

I know looking forward that the members of the Biden team who have been nominated or have been appointed, are now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of a country, and they gain strength, and it brings together an unholy alliance, frequently, of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians. … And so, I really do think that the law enforcement, Homeland Security, intelligence, and even defense officials are doing everything possible to root out what seems to be a very, very serious and insidious threat to our democracy and our republic.

How far will they take this? Former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) on Sunday warned that Brennan’s definition of domestic terrorism will be stretched to target anyone who opposes the current government:

What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? Where do you take this?

You start looking at obviously, have to be a white person, obviously likely male, libertarians, anyone who loves freedom, liberty, maybe has an American flag outside their house, or people who, you know, attended a Trump rally… A targeting of almost half the country…

ABC News Falsely Reports on Sen. Rand Paul’s Interview

Proving that that it has absolutely no shame about its misreporting, ABC News headlined its article on Sen. Rand Paul’s appearance on This WeekSen. Rand Paul continues making false claims of 2020 election fraud.” This headline is fake in that Sen. Paul did not make any claim that the fraud was sufficient to change the results of the election, only that the fraud needed to be investigated. Nonetheless, ABC News continues with its baseless claim that there was no fraud in the election.

To support its fake headline, the article’s lead sentence included that factually false claim that Rand didn’t provide any evidence of election fraud.

Days after President Joe Biden took office and the Democrats took control of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., would not unequivocally say Sunday that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen and called for an investigation of fraud, without providing evidence.

As own transcript of Sen. Paul’s interview with host George Stephanopoulos clearly shows, Paul did provide an example of election fraud.

In Wisconsin, tens of thousands of absentee votes had only the name on them and no address. Historically those were thrown out, this time they weren’t. They made special accommodations because they said, oh, it’s a pandemic and people forgot what their address was.

So they changed the law after the fact. That is wrong, that’s unconstitutional. And I plan on spending the next two years going around state to state and fixing these problems and I won’t be cowed by liberals in the media who say, there’s no evidence here and you’re a liar if you talk about election fraud.

Stephanopoulos tried to counter this by changing the goalposts, one of the Left’s favorite tactics, by claiming that there was no ‘widespread evidence’ of election fraud. Sen. Paul correctly pointed out that there has been no investigation of the allegations of fraud.

Both the original Stephanopoulos interview and ABC News’ report clearly part of effort to create a narrative rather than a journalistic exercise to discover the opinion of the show’s guest. ABC News’ framing the interview as Stephanopoulos presenting ‘facts’ against the ‘lies’ of Sen. Paul is a classic example of the journalistic malpractice that Paul pointed out in the interview itself.

The establishment media now becoming more flagrant in its corruption of journalistic standards. It is becoming clearer to the American public that the establishment media sees its role not as informing the public, but instead as forming public opinion. It is this perversion of the role of journalism, not any mean tweets from Trump, that has created so much distrust of the media.

Senator Rand Paul Takes George Stephanopoulos to Task for Forgetting his Role as a Journalist

One of the pernicious problems we have in the establishment media is the plethora of Leftist partisan hacks pretending to be journalists. Their constant slanting of the news to present only one side as being factual and the other side as nothing but lies distorts their role, which should be just to report on the events of the day so that the American public can be fully informed. Instead, these ‘journalists’ believe their role is to referees on what is the truth, or role for which they are woefully equipped.

One of the worst practitioners of this false journalism is George Stephanopoulos, a former press secretary for Bill Clinton who now masquerades as an objective political analyst for ABC News. For the past 15 years, Stephanopoulos has used his lofty perch as the host of ABC’s This Week gab fest to frame the news to fit the political narratives of the Democratic Party and the radical Left. His interviews with Democrat politicians are invariably filled with sympathetic questions while Republican politicians are approached with skepticism and browbeating to pressure them to concede to Democrat premises.

On this Sunday’s broadcast of This Week, Stephanapoulos used his old trick of trying to force his Republicans to accept his framing of the news. He started his interview with Sen. Rand Paul by calling for him to concede that it was a ‘fact’ that the presidential election was not stolen.

Refreshingly, Paul refused to accept Stephanopoulos’ bullying tactics and presented numerous actual facts that showed that there was indeed widespread evidence of fraud in the election that needs to be investigated. The interview became fiery as Stephanopoulos tried to talk over Paul and prevent him from presenting this evidence to the viewers.

Just as important, Paul called out Stephanopoulos for his distortion of his role as a journalist:

That’s the problem with the media today is they say all Republicans are liars, and everything we say is a lie. There are two sides to every story. Interview somebody on the other side, but don’t insert yourself into the story to say we’re all liars, because we do think there’s some fraud and the election needs to be fixed.

There are two sides to every story. George, you’re forgetting who you are. You’re forgetting who you are as a journalist if you think there’s only one side. You’re inserting yourself into the story to say I’m a liar because I want to look at election fraud and I want to look at secretaries of state who illegally changed the voter laws without the permission of their state legislatures. That is incontrovertible, it happened.

And you can’t just sweep it under the rug and say, ‘Oh, nothing to see here, and everybody is a liar and you’re a fool if you bring this up.’ You’re inserting yourself into the story. A journalist would hear both sides and there are two sides of a story.

One of the greatest lessons that President Trump has given to America is the need to counter the false narratives that are constantly being pushed by an establishment media that is allied with the Democrats. If the media ever wants to regain the trust that they lost with American public, they will have to return to reporting both sides of the story instead to just parroting the talking points of one side.