Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Time Magazine: “Well-funded Cabal Of Powerful People” Secretly Conspired To Defeat Trump

Time Magazine: “Well-funded Cabal Of Powerful People” Secretly Conspired To Defeat Trump

“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”

In a bizarrely congratulatory, even boastful, article entitled “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” Time sketches a chilling portrait of a “well-funded cabal” of Democrats, activists, the media, Never Trumpers, unions, Big Tech, and Big Business who conspired to ensure that President Trump lost his reelection bid and was unsuccessful in his efforts to challenge the results.

According to Time, a collection of ‘bipartisan’ anti-Trump forces mobilized across the country to “protect” the election, presumably from the great unwashed who seemed intent on reelecting an effective president beloved by the people but despised by the elitist establishment.

Who was involved

Time details the wide range of actors involved.

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 handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.

. . . . Protecting the election would require an effort of unprecedented scale. As 2020 progressed, it stretched to Congress, Silicon Valley and the nation’s statehouses. It drew energy from the summer’s racial-justice protests, many of whose leaders were a key part of the liberal alliance. And eventually it reached across the aisle, into the world of Trump-skeptical Republicans appalled by his attacks on democracy.

The first task was overhauling America’s balky election infrastructure–in the middle of a pandemic. For the thousands of local, mostly nonpartisan officials who administer elections, the most urgent need was money.

. . . . 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.

What they did

Time explains the great lengths these plotters went to.

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.

They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.

. . . . In March, activists appealed to Congress to steer COVID relief money to election administration. Led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, more than 150 organizations signed a letter to every member of Congress seeking $2 billion in election funding. It was somewhat successful: the CARES Act, passed later that month, contained $400 million in grants to state election administrators. But the next tranche of relief funding didn’t add to that number. It wasn’t going to be enough.

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. “It was a failure at the federal level that 2,500 local election officials were forced to apply for philanthropic grants to fill their needs,” says Amber McReynolds, a former Denver election official who heads the nonpartisan National Vote at Home Institute.

. . . . At the same time, Democratic lawyers battled a historic tide of pre-election litigation. The pandemic intensified the parties’ usual tangling in the courts.

. . . . 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. (Gupta has been nominated for Associate Attorney General by President Biden.) “It was a struggle, but we got to the point where they understood the problem. Was it enough? Probably not. Was it later than we wanted? Yes. But it was really important, given the level of official disinformation, that they had those rules in place and were tagging things and taking them down.”

. . . . 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. Protect Democracy’s election task force issued reports and held media briefings with high-profile experts across the political spectrum, resulting in widespread coverage of potential election issues and fact-checking of Trump’s false claims.

The organization’s tracking polls found the message was being heard: the percentage of the public that didn’t expect to know the winner on election night gradually rose until by late October, it was over 70%. A majority also believed that a prolonged count wasn’t a sign of problems. “We knew exactly what Trump was going to do: he was going to try to use the fact that Democrats voted by mail and Republicans voted in person to make it look like he was ahead, claim victory, say the mail-in votes were fraudulent and try to get them thrown out,” says Protect Democracy’s Bassin. Setting public expectations ahead of time helped undercut those lies.

. . . . Podhorzer, meanwhile, was warning everyone he knew that polls were underestimating Trump’s support. The data he shared with media organizations who would be calling the election was “tremendously useful” to understand what was happening as the votes rolled in, according to a member of a major network’s political unit who spoke with Podhorzer before Election Day. Most analysts had recognized there would be a “blue shift” in key battlegrounds– the surge of votes breaking toward Democrats, driven by tallies of mail-in ballots– but they hadn’t comprehended how much better Trump was likely to do on Election Day. “Being able to document how big the absentee wave would be and the variance by state was essential,” the analyst says.

How they plotted on Election Day and beyond

Time explains how this cabal of conspirators reacted on Election Day and through January 6th.

. . . . Election night began with many Democrats despairing. Trump was running ahead of pre-election polling, winning Florida, Ohio and Texas easily and keeping Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania too close to call. But Podhorzer was unperturbed when I spoke to him that night: the returns were exactly in line with his modeling. He had been warning for weeks that Trump voters’ turnout was surging. As the numbers dribbled out, he could tell that as long as all the votes were counted, Trump would lose.

The liberal alliance gathered for an 11 p.m. Zoom call. Hundreds joined; many were freaking out. “It was really important for me and the team in that moment to help ground people in what we had already known was true,” says Angela Peoples, director for the Democracy Defense Coalition. Podhorzer presented data to show the group that victory was in hand.

. . . . 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.” On Twitter, outraged progressives wondered what was going on. Why wasn’t anyone trying to stop Trump’s coup? Where were all the protests?

Podhorzer credits the activists for their restraint. “They had spent so much time getting ready to hit the streets on Wednesday. But they did it,” he says. “Wednesday through Friday, there was not a single Antifa vs. Proud Boys incident like everyone was expecting. And when that didn’t materialize, I don’t think the Trump campaign had a backup plan.”

. . . . Activists reoriented the Protect the Results protests toward a weekend of celebration. “Counter their disinfo with our confidence & get ready to celebrate,” read the messaging guidance Shenker-Osorio presented to the liberal alliance on Friday, Nov. 6. “Declare and fortify our win. Vibe: confident, forward-looking, unified–NOT passive, anxious.” The voters, not the candidates, would be the protagonists of the story.

The planned day of celebration happened to coincide with the election being called on Nov. 7. Activists dancing in the streets of Philadelphia blasted Beyoncé over an attempted Trump campaign press conference; the Trumpers’ next confab was scheduled for Four Seasons Total Landscaping outside the city center, which activists believe was not a coincidence. “The people of Philadelphia owned the streets of Philadelphia,” crows the Working Families Party’s Mitchell. “We made them look ridiculous by contrasting our joyous celebration of democracy with their clown show.”

. . . . In Podhorzer’s presentations, winning the vote was only the first step to winning the election. After that came winning the count, winning the certification, winning the Electoral College and winning the transition–steps that are normally formalities but that he knew Trump would see as opportunities for disruption. Nowhere would that be more evident than in Michigan, where Trump’s pressure on local Republicans came perilously close to working–and where liberal and conservative pro-democracy forces joined to counter it.

. . . . By standing down, the democracy campaigners outfoxed their foes. “We won by the skin of our teeth, honestly, and that’s an important point for folks to sit with,” says the Democracy Defense Coalition’s Peoples. “There’s an impulse for some to say voters decided and democracy won. But it’s a mistake to think that this election cycle was a show of strength for democracy. It shows how vulnerable democracy is.”

How thrilled they are with the results of their perfidy

The Time article is a victory lap for these malignant forces that treated the American people and every facet of our society—up to and including federal, state, and local government—like pawns in their own personal “get Trump” game.

This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–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. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

Read those last two paragraphs again. This cabal of anti-Democracy conspirators started organizing long before the Democrats even had a nominee, so what was their idea of “the proper outcome of the election”? Every attempt by those pesky voters to undermine that proper outcome was defeated, they crow. Why bother spinning this clear effort to subvert the will and votes of the people as “fortifying” the election, specifically noting “they were not rigging the election”?

Neo has a great take on the final sentence quoted above (emphasis hers):

I want to doubly highlight the last sentence of that quote from Ball’s article: “And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.” In other words, they have to continue to manipulate and massage the way information gets to you, as well as to use the legal system, in order to “protect” you from yourselves and the ugly populist democracy you’d like to vote for. So get ready for more of the same, and even an intensification of the control they will wield now that they are in power.

The piece is long and infuriating, but do read the whole thing.

In light of the massive effort to ensure “the proper outcome of the election,” it is remarkable that Trump did so well.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Eastwood Ravine | February 6, 2021 at 8:25 pm

“In light of the massive effort to ensure “the proper outcome of the election,” it is remarkable that Trump did so well.”

Well they did have to shut down on election night. Trump won the legal vote.

    alaskabob in reply to Eastwood Ravine. | February 6, 2021 at 8:42 pm

    When China Joe said he didn’t need your votes, he was correct. That they “elected” a Trojan Corpse place holder for Harris proves the point. If anything shows how absolutely broken the election system is… this is it. A reminder to Time… cock of the walk in the morning … in the stew by dinner.

Time Magazine: “Well-funded Cabal Of Powerful People” Secretly Conspired To Defeat All that the Country Stands For


of course they did. Time was part of it.

and that’s why we are in the beginning stages of a civil war that will soon turn hot, and be *very* bloody.

you wanted it bitches, but you had no idea what you were asking for.

    Dantzig93101 in reply to redc1c4. | February 6, 2021 at 8:48 pm

    Let us hope that there is still enough law to bring the guilty parties to justice without “what they were asking for.”

    If there isn’t, then the results will be doubly tragic because they were unnecessary.

      Milhouse in reply to Dantzig93101. | February 6, 2021 at 9:22 pm

      The thing is that nothing described in this article was against the law. This isn’t about the fraud that won them the election, it’s about the operation to cover for that fraud. Without the fraud none of this would have helped. And the writer pretends not to understand that (though it is only a pretense). The article is written as if there was no fraud, and therefore nothing to cover for, and the whole point was to prevent false allegations of fraud from being heard. Which of course made it easy for the actual fraudsters, whose non-existence we are supposed to take for granted, and if we think they exist we must be crazy.

        alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | February 6, 2021 at 9:45 pm

        Nailed it. The narrative of only legal avenues used to win the election is used to reinforce “settled” facts. Taken one step further as stated by Penn’s Lt. Governor… any further discussion of fraud is grounds for removal from social media. “Question Authority”? Definitely in the 60’s but not now.

        For a lie to take hold, it has to be coated with some truth. “Mostly” is the keyword for 2020. Most peaceful… mostly free, fair and transparent elections.

        All that it took was an above-board audit of votes to prove Biden won.

        maxmillion in reply to Milhouse. | February 6, 2021 at 9:58 pm

        They know there was fraud, and they’re tacitly admitting it, but they want to maintain plausible deniability, so they can position themselves to be on either side depending on how things play out. They would look really stupid if they denied any fraud, when everybody knows there was, and it’s later proven. This way they look like the smart guys. So they think. They look corrupt is what I think.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 6, 2021 at 10:38 pm

        That “changing of the law and rules” bit, however, resulted in the unconstitutional appointment of electors (whose votes should never have been counted and certified) by someone other than the legislatures of certain states making rules for their appointment. This was done in direct contravention of the US Constitution and with the intent of directing the election, a role in which no level of government should have a hand and for which no elected official has any authority. (This is why, for instance, gerrymandering is a not permitted.)

        Violating the Constitution is about as “breaking the law” as you can get in this country.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2021 at 2:30 am

          Whether it’s unconstitutional is in dispute. But gerrymandering is permitted.

          mark311 in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2021 at 2:55 am

          My understanding is a lot of those changes were in response to the pandemic so could be construed as acceptable under the broad acknowledgment that sometime public health policy overrides other concerns. That aside many of these changes were made well in advance of the election and thus if they were genuine issues why weren’t they litigated against at the time. The answer to that of course is that they were a potential means of changing the vote via litigation as opposed to a genuine election vote issue.


          You have to return to reality. In the first place, the only real public health emergency was the one caused by the response to a flu-like virus, which was not especially deadly or even dangerous. So, there was no arguable reason for the changes in the voting procedures [many were not changes in the law]. In the second place, several attempts were made to get the courts to intervene in unlawful procedural election changes prior to the election. The courts uniformly refuse to hear them, stating a lack of damages, until after the election occurred, or a lack of standing. Litigation can not occur, if the court refuses to hear the case in the first place.

          txvet2 in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2021 at 1:44 pm

          Milhouse: Gerrymandering is permitted, if the courts decide to allow it. Texas, for example, lost a case (and the Republicans lost a seat) a few years ago when the court decided to assume the unconstitutional authority to redraw districts to create an extra Dem seat.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2021 at 3:08 pm

          No, txvet2, the courts have been clear that gerrymandering is permitted. But the VRA has to be obeyed, which means states are actually required to gerrymander in favor of “minority representation”, whatever that means.

          zennyfan in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2021 at 6:50 pm

          Gerrymandering is legal when Democrats do it; Republican gerrymandering is problematic at best, unconstitutional at worst.

      Yeah. I’m sure the Biden Justice Department will get right on that.

      zennyfan in reply to Dantzig93101. | February 7, 2021 at 6:46 pm

      Were Hillary, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and the guy who wiped Hillary’s hard drive, inter alia, charged, much less convicted? The Senate staffer who leaked the FISA warrant faced a minor charge and de minimis time, and the FBI lawyer who altered a submission to FISC got probation because he’d suffered enough. Do you really expect a different outcome here?

        To my mind, one of the most stupid moves Trump made early on was his decision to let Hillary off the hook. One can see that he was extending an olive branch to Democrats in the hope that it would lead to some bipartisan goodwill on the Hill. It didn’t, predictably.

        Trump had no idea what he was getting into, and by the time he finally figured it out (around the time of the first impeachment), it was too late for him to take the offense; instead, he was left playing defense, in a bizarre whack-a-mole kind of way.

        I suspect that his instincts were correct but that he was talked out of many needed decisions (including prosecuting Hillary), but if that’s true, then even in that, he showed weakness. Anyway, done is done, but the buck stops with Trump on all of this, including who heads of the FBI and the DOJ. These persons serve at the president’s pleasure, and if he was displeased, it was on him to fire and replace them.

        Having been through all this, Trump would make an excellent president should he decide to run again in 2024 (I don’t think he will), but this principle applies to Biden and the Obama 3.0 team he’s assembled. They learned from their mistakes, and they won’t make them again.

          On the contrary, Fuzzy, I don’t believe Trump ever for a minute intended to “lock her up”. I think he was cynically using people’s enthusiasm for that, but his intention at the time was to resume his friendship with the Clintons as soon as the election was over, regardless of who won. I think the only reason that didn’t happen is that she could not forgive him for winning. If she’d only been gracious in her loss I think she’d have been an influential person with him, perhaps even been appointed to something, and America would be the worse off for it. So give thanks for her bad attitude.

          Of all his broken promises, that’s the worst. He should have appointed a dedicated prosecutor to investigate her in depth and bring whatever charges could still be brought.

          I don’t know about that; I think he was probably on the fence about it right up until he won. Then he had to decide. He decided wrong.

          Honestly, though, I think you are right that the Democrats played Trump completely wrong. If the Democrats had worked with him (let’s not forget his long-time Democrat leanings), he would have done some form of amnesty (ala Reagan), he would have done some form of a minimum wage hike (maybe not to the job- and economy-destroying $15, but something), and he would have been open to all sorts of other things from massive “infrastructure” “investment” to Ivanka-inspired new handouts and welfare programs (for the rich), and a host of other things that he talked about, including expanding Medicare to those at age 50, and etc. They could have got a good bit of their crazy crap passed if they had played nice; he was already leaning that way on many issues, anyway, so it was a calculated to risk to make him their enemy. It made him a far more conservative leader than any of us dreamed.

          But they are undoing all the good he did with the flick of a pen, so maybe they were right? Especially now that they can call everyone who is to the right of Stalin a “domestic terrorist.”

    scooterjay in reply to redc1c4. | February 7, 2021 at 7:51 am

    It will happen….

    C. Lashown in reply to redc1c4. | February 8, 2021 at 9:47 pm

    IT’S time for Americans to respond every time this corpse gives a speech or public address. Just start booing loudly, make your disgust known! Don’t threaten or act violent, but boo this Obama protege loudly. He’s as useless at tits or a boar hog!

Connivin Caniff | February 6, 2021 at 8:43 pm

Well, what are we going to do about it?

J’Obiden’s contorted facial expressions look more and more like Greta Thunberg’s, with each passing day.

Both are a couple of one horse ponies.

So going forward, will the Cabal dispense with elections and simply declare to the masses who our leaders are? Should we pretend that we have a democracy when the outcome is predetermined by the Cabal? Questions that the Time writers failed to ask and no leftist will dare answer.

    txvet2 in reply to technerd. | February 7, 2021 at 1:47 pm

    Now, that would be illegal. Of course they’ll have elections – and they’ll count them the same way they did this one.

Well, as long as they were well-funded…

There are voting fraud cases coming down the pike and Pennsylvania in the Supreme court in two weeks just to start.
Courts are going to have to belly up to the bar and decide if there was or not.

    irv in reply to Skip. | February 6, 2021 at 9:32 pm

    Smart money says they’ve already decided there was no fraud. Hearing the evidence, if they even bother, is a mere formality. “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

That’s all legal. The problem is women voters, who are the real target of all this soap opera news. For some reason they don’t see through it, and vote it in large enough numbers to make it worthwhile targeting them with this junk.

    moonmoth in reply to rhhardin. | February 6, 2021 at 9:16 pm

    “The problem is women voters”

    If conservatives can refrain from posting misogynistic cheap shots like these, they might make common cause with progressives who are just as outraged at the tone and substance of this article as any of us here are. For example: .

      alaskabob in reply to moonmoth. | February 7, 2021 at 2:07 am

      That was one person’s post. Progressives outraged that their ideology is being implemented this way? In general there are psychological differences in what most men and women see and want in and from government.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to rhhardin. | February 6, 2021 at 9:47 pm

    “Thats all legal” What am I missing, there are clearly election law violations, on a grand scale as in RICO. These are some really cocky SOBs, crowing about their crimes. They seem pretty confident that this will not bite them.

    This will make it easier to address the issues.

      There are no violations described in this article. This is them bragging, rubbing our faces in the fact that they cheated, but nothing they admit to having done is illegal. The illegal stuff is not mentioned here, but this is about the legal stuff they did so they could get away with the illegal stuff they insist they didn’t do.

        HImmanuelson in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2021 at 3:40 am

        I skimmed through the entire article online.

        What they did was not only not illegal, I didn’t find anything that I’d even describe as cheating.

        A lot of the their work was lobbying for and beefing up the voting infrastructure, particularly to handle absentee voting. Now that wasn’t a coincidence since they expected a lot of their base to vote that way, but there’s nothing dishonest about that.

        They pushed the states to clarify or change laws to nail down voting in a pandemic, but that’s not inherently bad.

        > The illegal stuff is not mentioned here
        Yeah. That gloating would be what would interest me. The stuff described in the article was certainly very partisan behavior in some case but not what I’d call cheating.

        Millhouse, you’re a pretty bright guy and we agree on most things. Some day I’d like to see what you believe are specific examples of cheating in the election, things of sufficient scale that would have tipped the balance to Trump, things that are verifiable and not speculation.

          Tallguy23 in reply to HImmanuelson. | February 7, 2021 at 4:57 am

          We already provided you myriad examples of cheating. You were perfectly fine with Democrats breaking the law. Things such as in Wisconsin the Election Commission was told they had to purge 220,000 people from the voter roll. They flat out said we aren’t doing it. They were held in contempt until they found some judge many days after to say it was ok. Then after the election the Wisconsin Election Commission wouldn’t allow Republicans to get the list of the 220,000 people to compare with votes.

          Trump got the most votes out of the black community since 1960, except in 3 counties, which also happened to be the 3 counties Joe Biden needed to secure a victory. Biden did worse with minorities everywhere but Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee.

          The vote counting was a complete mess in those three cities and the vote totals from them are what gave Biden the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, as well as the 2020 election. You can literally pinpoint where the theft occurred and it was in these 3 cities.

          Pennsylvania Supreme Court flat out ignored the USA Supreme Court telling them no ballots could be counted after Election Day.

          You had many sworn affidavits from poll watchers that were flat out ignored by judges (in on the steal). Before 2020 sworn affidavits meant something. If you weren’t telling the truth, you would get prison time.

          I know one thing. If someone accused me of something and I knew I was innocent I would be the first to give them access of everything as fast as I could so that I could be the first one to say, “I told you so.”

          We didn’t get that from Democrats, did we? If you look up Dominion, you don’t even know who they are. You have to go through a plethora of dummy corps before you find out China owns them.
          Funny how we weren’t given full access of Dominion machines, right?

          All the recounts were just recounts. None of them were audits. Those were rejected by more judges in on the cabal. Then after the recount there is video of ballots being shredded.

          You have numerous videos of trucks showing up after voting closed bringing in multiple boxes.

          After the election a computer generated poll was done and said 1/3 of Democrats believe election was stolen. These were people that had Democrat next to their name at the voting place, but voted for Trump. That’s the only way that poll showed 1/3.

          Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong.

          It was statistically impossible for Biden to have won Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico .

          Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers

          Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio

          Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions

          The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures

          Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’

          Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing

          Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes

          Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law

          Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.

          The only people who believe Biden won the 2020 election fair and square are the ones who helped him steal the White House: democrats and the liberal media. No thinking person can look at this information and conclude that this election was in any way legitimate.

          Milhouse in reply to HImmanuelson. | February 7, 2021 at 11:54 am

          Tallguy, several of the things you claim just aren’t true.

          Biden did worse with minorities everywhere but Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee.

          Not true.

          the vote totals from them are what gave Biden the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, as well as the 2020 election. You can literally pinpoint where the theft occurred and it was in these 3 cities.

          Maybe it was, but you can’t show it. The numbers don’t back it up. In those cities Biden did less well than Clinton; on paper, at least, the election wasn’t lost there but in the suburbs. What you can say is that but for the cheating in the cities Biden’s advantage in the suburbs would not have carried those states. There’s no way to prove or disprove that.

          If you look up Dominion, you don’t even know who they are. You have to go through a plethora of dummy corps before you find out China owns them.

          Not true at all. Dominion is a privately held Canadian company.

          Then after the recount there is video of ballots being shredded.

          I don’t think that’s true either.

          Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia.

          And he made an utter fool of himself trying to defend his work under questioning in the legislature.

          For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch.

          I don’t know about this, but I doubt it’s true.

          None of which means there was no cheating. I am confident there was a lot of cheating, but by design most of it is impossible to detect. I don’t think anyone will ever know how much cheating there was, or whether it was enough to swing the election. This article is mostly about how the Dems arranged for that to happen. It’s not about how they cheated but about how they protected the cheating from discovery.

          Milhouse in reply to HImmanuelson. | February 7, 2021 at 12:34 pm

          Here’s another one:

          Things such as in Wisconsin the Election Commission was told they had to purge 220,000 people from the voter roll. They flat out said we aren’t doing it. They were held in contempt until they found some judge many days after to say it was ok.

          They didn’t “find some judge”. They went to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, the proper venue for challenging a court order that one believes to be wrong. The appeals court found that the judge had ignored the text of the law and substituted his own opinion, and reversed both his order and the contempt.

          By election time that list had shrunk from over 232,000 to less than 72,000. Everyone else on the list had turned out to be valid voters. Some of those 72,000 are probably valid, many not, but none of them voted so it’s moot.

          Then after the election the Wisconsin Election Commission wouldn’t allow Republicans to get the list of the 220,000 people to compare with votes.

          Where did you read this? First of all, by election time there were only 72,000 names still unverified. Second, the original list of over 232,000 was already public long before the election, so why would the Republicans need it provided after the election?

          Milhouse in reply to HImmanuelson. | February 7, 2021 at 12:52 pm

          Millhouse, you’re a pretty bright guy and we agree on most things. Some day I’d like to see what you believe are specific examples of cheating in the election, things of sufficient scale that would have tipped the balance to Trump, things that are verifiable and not speculation.

          All the traditional ways that Dems have always cheated, but taken to a much higher level by the expansion of postal voting and the loosening of rules, which was largely the work of the conspiracy this article describes. Verifying individual cases ranges from difficult to impossible; each one has to be investigated, and even that wouldn’t be able to actually prove many of the cases.

          That’s why we need tighter security and tighter rules, not looser ones. Absentee voting needs to be minimized as much as possible. The whole attitude that there should be a presumption that a voter registration is valid is wrong. So is the idea that high voter participation is a good thing; it’s not. And the idea that voting is a constitutional right. In other words, all the things that Dems call “voter suppression”. In fact Congress made a big mistake by banning literacy tests; it’s true that they were being notoriously abused in some places, but the proper remedy was to crack down hard on the abuse, not to ban the practice even where it was being done properly.

          CaptTee in reply to HImmanuelson. | February 8, 2021 at 8:44 pm

          Milhouse – I think it would be proper to require a voting test for anyone who hasn’t yet finished High School, but still wanted to vote.

          It should be the same test used for citizenship.

        HImmanuelson in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2021 at 3:41 am

        Pardon my typos. I sure wish we could edit messages here after the fact.

For my last column I spoke with The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman about an article he wrote more than a decade ago, during the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. His important piece documents the exact moment when the American elite decided that democracy wasn’t working for them. Blaming the Republican Party for preventing them from running roughshod over the American public, they migrated to the Democratic Party in the hopes of strengthening the relationships that were making them rich.

A trade consultant told Friedman: “The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the Eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer. In principle, they have left the party, leaving behind not a pragmatic coalition but a group of ideological naysayers.”

In the more than 10 years since Friedman’s column was published, the disenchanted elite that the Times columnist identified has further impoverished American workers while enriching themselves. The one-word motto they came to live by was globalism—that is, the freedom to structure commercial relationships and social enterprises without reference to the well-being of the particular society in which they happened to make their livings and raise their children.
Because of Trump’s pressure on the Americans who benefited extravagantly from the U.S.-China relationship, these strange bedfellows acquired what Marxists call class consciousness—and joined together to fight back, further cementing their relationships with their Chinese patrons. United now, these disparate American institutions lost any sense of circumspection or shame about cashing checks from the Chinese Communist Party, no matter what horrors the CCP visited on the prisoners of its slave labor camps and no matter what threat China’s spy services and the People’s Liberation Army might pose to national security. Think tanks and research institutions like the Atlantic Council, the Center for American Progress, the EastWest Institute, the Carter Center, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and others gorged themselves on Chinese money. The world-famous Brookings Institution had no scruples about publishing a report funded by Chinese telecom company Huawei that praised Huawei technology.

They’re boasting. Rubbing our faces in it. They don’t seem to even realize that they’re practically begging for the Boogaloo to begin. They don’t understand that it’s a real possibility; they think it’s just the name of some hate group they’ve barely heard of.

Of course the language it’s written in is completely different. You have to translate it into English to understand what it’s really saying. For instance it says plainly, but not in English, that the Chamber of Commerce was brought on board by the threat of more riots and destruction; in other words BLM did its job.

    Danny in reply to Milhouse. | February 6, 2021 at 9:21 pm

    But was it brought in by threats or brought in by the fact that corporate America has as leadership exactly the kind of graduates from elite institutions who fully believe in BLM?

      Milhouse in reply to Danny. | February 6, 2021 at 9:23 pm

      No, it was the threat, which didn’t even have to be spoken. They saw what damage they suffered in the summer, and understood that if Trump won that would look like a picnic in the park, so they had to prevent it.

    daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2021 at 1:40 am

    They don’t understand that it’s a real possibility

    About fifteen years ago I had the great fortune to work alongside a Romanian ex-pat who was part of the very first army unit to turn its guns against the Ceaucescu regime in 1989. I am routinely frightened by the disturbing similarities between what I see happening in the US right now and the stories he used to tell about Romania before and during the revolution, including the Ceaucescus denouncing their own former subordinates as traitors and inferiors right up to the moment of their execution.

    Evil Otto in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2021 at 6:30 am

    “They don’t seem to even realize that they’re practically begging for the Boogaloo to begin.”

    They want Boogaloo. They want conservatives to begin violence, because it gives them an excuse to crack down. Look at how they’ve turned that silly little riot in the Capitol into a Reichstag fire moment.

smalltownoklahoman | February 6, 2021 at 9:19 pm

They don’t think they’re going to suffer any consequences coming out and admitting it now. Time will tell on that but in the meantime fortify yourself if you can. It may be years, if ever, for them to face justice. Meanwhile while they have power they are going to try and implement as much of their agenda as they can.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to smalltownoklahoman. | February 6, 2021 at 10:28 pm

    Global international businesses have no loyalty to anyone. The US is but one market, and that is all it is to them, a market. If they can make $5 more buy closing a factory in Ohio and shifting production to China, they will do it. They have no loyalty to the people who made them rich, if someone can make them richer.

    Small business owners in a town or city must necessarily care about their towns or cities, because it is where they live and work, where their children live, and is the market from which they earn their livelihood. They have a self-interested loyalty to you. The globalist conglomerate – not at all. To them, we are all just serfs who exist for their enrichment and pleasure, even if it pleases them to torment and lord over us.

    We are in a global fight between the globalist and those who benefit from their unmoored greed and lust for power, and everyone else.

      And liberals everywhere have been convinced to support the agenda of the types of people they purport to despise.

      The people were intentionally dumbed down by the Democrat party, and the party knows that’s true, while the people they dumbed down do not even realize they’ve been pacified and are being controlled.

      (See the Wikileaks Podesta email in which a Democrat operative bemoans Hillary’s weakness as a candidate despite the decades the party has devoted to creating “an unaware and compliant citizenry.”

    They don’t think they’re going to suffer any consequences coming out and admitting it now

    Better to admit it now, and grandly justify it, than wait until real evidence comes out later. This is a defense move as much as anything else.

“Private philanthropy stepped into the breach. An assortment of foundations contributed tens of millions in election-administration funding.”

Yeah… Isn’t it completely illegal for the state election organization to accept external funding? I mean by focusing the funding in certain politically tilted areas, this allows external forces to control who wins. I seem to remember one state that offered in-vehicle voting through this funding, but only in blue counties.

But it’s not rigging the election, it’s ‘a new and different word that means the same thing’

The Time article is a dog-bites-man story. Of course the 2020 elections were rigged by the rich and powerful! The whole sleazy operation was as secret as the noonday sun in the desert. And if you thought the 2020 elections were dirty, just wait until 2022!

This is what the Franz von Papen Republicans don’t understand. They colluded with the Communists to steal the 2020 presidential election and get rid of the hated Trump. And now they think they will come roaring back into power in 2022 and have their dream of a rich lily-white corporatist GOP forever free of those icky black and brown and working class voters Trump brought into the party.

The opposite will happen, of course. Personally I would not be surprised at triple-digit loses in 2022 by Republicans in the US Congress alone, as a combination of voting fraud (now at Third World levels) and Trump voter apathy (why vote for a party that makes it plain they hate you?) obliterate the Republican Party as a national political force permanently.

    You’re right. The voter rolls have million of excess (dirty) voters. For example, every county in CO and MI have larger voter rolls than the adult population. Those are states that print it, but the same is true wherever mail in balloting is allowed. That is why it takes them so long to count the votes. They count enough of the dirty ballots (that they voted themselves) to get what they want.

    We won’t have a decent election until the voter rolls are cleaned.

    Many states were under court order to clean the voter rolls, but the state ignored those orders.

      Milhouse in reply to InEssence. | February 7, 2021 at 2:44 am

      For example, every county in CO and MI have larger voter rolls than the adult population.

      Not even Judicial Watch claims that.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | February 7, 2021 at 11:55 am

    “Of course the 2020 elections were rigged by the rich and powerful!”

    Trump threatened the swamp, so much so that they dropped their cloak, let everyone see a small glimpse of their nature and how they operate.

    They have also closed most venues for exchange of ideas, they want to feed those who are left a steady diet of propaganda, most of them will never know that they are in the dark, while the swamp piles it’s dung on them.

Big tech was in from the beginning through pre and now post election censorship. Big tech even funded the effort in swing states/counties. It all sounds close to election fraud and racketeering. They concentrated on how to produce more ballots while Republicans focused on the old fashion form of persuasion.
The article only sheds light on the partial conspiracy. I’m sure it’s just the tip.
Why did the even put the story out? They are positioning for a reason.
It really just makes me more angry and resolved.

    mark311 in reply to Dr.Dave. | February 7, 2021 at 5:32 am

    You increased voter access, as for republican persuasion at least some of it was actually personal attacks on opponents. The whole slow Joe narrative for example which btw looks increasingly silly given the rapid pace set by the administration

      gonzotx in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 7:11 am

      He does nothing but sign papers put in front of him

      He is literally a perfect puppet with his Alzheimer’s

        mark311 in reply to gonzotx. | February 7, 2021 at 1:18 pm

        Seriously ??? throwing out insults is pretty meaningless.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 3:13 pm

          It’s not an insult, it’s the plain fact.

          Oh, and the name “Slow Joe” has nothing to do with his senility; he earned that name many years ago. He’s always been a dim bulb, as well as a liar, on the take, and a nasty person. The senility is just a recent thing on top of all that.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 3:42 pm

          One of the things I like about Trump is that he does a very good job of identifying those who deserve nothing more that contempt and insult. The type we are talking about suffer from TDS and LPS, as in Little Person Syndrome, otherwise known as small mindedness

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 8, 2021 at 6:55 am


          I hadn’t realised it was a long standing insult. Never the less it’s pretty crude and inaccurate. Sure he is a politician but calling him a liar seems rather disingenuous given Trumps record.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 8, 2021 at 5:15 pm

          It is not at all inaccurate. And it’s not because he’s a politician; not all politicians are liars. Biden is a big one, and has been all his life.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 6:11 pm

      The truth is that Biden has never been a bright bulb, he was and is to this day another dull witted, smooth talking jock, at least before his current decline.

      As I recall, one or more college classmates stated that Biden saw politics as a path to easy money, today we know that hw and his offspring are characters of dubious repute.

was a failure at the federal level that 2,500 local election officials were forced to apply for philanthropic grants to fill their needs

Those needs being? Is this even legal? It looks like bribery to me, not philanthropy.

    alaskabob in reply to randian. | February 7, 2021 at 2:12 am

    More like they banked the Fed money and spent the private money for the elections. Fair election or more money…gee…let me guess.

    mark311 in reply to randian. | February 7, 2021 at 5:30 am

    I would imagine beyond the usual requirements protective measures from Covid 19 might be one need. Additionally with the deterioration of the economy id imagine that budgets were pretty tight.

      caseoftheblues in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 6:44 am

      Making excuses and justifications for corruption and illegality is not a good look and that’s what all your posts on this article are. Are these things you and other Dems say to try to get yourselves to believe you did not actually engage in the fraud to place a senile grifter in the White House to destroy America or do you think this group here will actually believe you? Just exactly how badly did Trumps mean tweets damage you? All the serious charges you flung at Trump were clearly untrue and in fact ARE true of Biden…but you’re fine with his corruption and foreign influence peddling, ruling like a dictator with EO’s, hurting American families, eliminating millions of jobs, Americans last policies, his appalling inept Covid response, trashing the Constitution, horrible corrupt cabinet picks, kids in cages AGAIN under a Dem, etc etc. Seriously state why getting Biden in the White House at any cost including giving up our right to a vote was so worth it….exactly how many nights did you fall asleep sobbing over mean tweets?

    Milhouse in reply to randian. | February 7, 2021 at 1:00 pm

    Yes, it’s legal. Why wouldn’t it be? Puhiawa says it’s not legal in his state, but I don’t know which state that is. For all we know, in his state they didn’t do it.

This trend of bragging openly about rigging elections via media power, hinting at more, is an attempt to destroy American values, honesty and trust in elections. It is simply more sophisticated propaganda.
Of course the elections were fraudulent. And this merely smears it in ones face by pointing out the “legal” aspects of the election. It is an extension of the destruction of platforms and banking for conservatives in the modern age. An attempt to destroy those who politically disagree with the narrative.
Meanwhile we are saddled with a senile imbecile. Someone of mediocre intelligence at the age of 20, perhaps, who now cannot beat a pigeon at checkers. Who is unable to understand the simple instructions in his ear piece, whose replacement is a cackling, mean, halfwit.
A senile fool that is making decisions of such a unprincipled and irregular nature that makes one suspect Biden’s ear piece in his left eat is Putin, the right China, and the teleprompter Iran and other terrorists.

Fascinating article. It seems like this is the crux of the divide. Where one party lauds the achievements of improving voter access during a pandemic, ensuring rules and processes that allow people to vote this is read as somehow bad by the other side.

    HImmanuelson in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 3:53 am

    Yes. Unfortunately, many on both sides believe the other is inherently evil and every action taken by the other side is sinister.

    This was the same thinking that caused Trump to be attacked continuously by the Dems throughout his 4 years, always taking the worst possible interpretation of what he said as proof of how evil he was. The vast majority of the time, what Trump said could be interpreted in many different ways and what he meant was pretty clear, even if his speech was unfocused, rambling and sometimes self-contradictory.

    Interpreting Trump was a Rorschach Test. This was more of the same.

      mark311 in reply to HImmanuelson. | February 7, 2021 at 4:01 am

      I won’t delve into my views on Trump but in principle yes. It seems like the a significant number of people can’t see the wood through the trees. Take this article for example, it doesnt really look at why those actions were taken. The assumption, and it is an assumption, that changes in law were for nefarious purposes. Instead of understanding that specific item(s) it’s automatically painted as bad because …

        Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 1:23 pm

        Why those actions were taken is completely obvious and doesn’t need going into. Just as the original article blatantly attempts to gaslight readers into thinking that they were good actions. It’s bad because anything that makes election fraud easier is inherently bad, and needs to be justified. The default should not be that making voting easier is good, let alone that the higher the turnout the better.

          mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2021 at 1:57 pm

          Your argument makes no sense at all. The amount of election fraud is extremely low and the evidence for it too. Therefore which is the greater issue election fraud or voter suppression. That is easy to answer voter suppression. You can’t justify your stance on voter fraud at all. A number of parties have spent years trying to show election fraud and have all come up empty handed for the simple reason that it’s a non-issue. The only thing they have ever shown is isolated incidents that’s it. So I’m afraid I’m gonna call bullshit on your argument.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2021 at 3:18 pm

          Sigh. This bullshit again?! You are not arguing in good faith, Mark. The amount of election fraud is not extremely low, it’s historically been high, and lately it’s been getting even higher. That you continue to deny this only discredits you.

          Soon you’re once again going to trot out that old stupid line about how Trump’s commission disbanded without finding the evidence it was looking for, and how this somehow shows the fraud isn’t there.

    caseoftheblues in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 6:21 am

    If you actually think that’s what the article was stating you and Biden should maybe carpool to get a cognition assessment.

      So what are you suggesting that the article is about?

      The article seemed pretty clear in its tone and content

        caseoftheblues in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 12:44 pm

        Clearly not what YOU are trying to pretend it’s about and what much sharper minds on this board have discussed it IS about…grasping at straws to keep trying to pretend that Democrats aren’t utter garbage people… it’s all you got.

          You seem to be changing the subject, what I state is in relation to the article. So you haven’t actually countered my view at all, feel free to try and change my mind. So far all you’ve done is demonstrate you don’t know how to argue.

          mark311, you just don’t get it, do you? You’re a troll and everyone here knows it. We might indulge you when the mood strikes, but you are still just a troll (and sadly not a very good one). There is nothing wrong with @caseoftheblues response to you, and it in no way demonstrates a lack of knowledge regarding the formulation of an argument or the ability to do the same. What it does demonstrate to everyone here, except apparently to you, is that you are not worthy of further response. This is a reflection on you, not on @caseoftheblues.

          After all, how many arguments have you made here that were by any measure (that doesn’t include your own self-congratulatory squeees) successful? Oh, right, zero many. You’ve been trolling here for weeks, wasted how many hours (way too many, don’t you have a real life?), and still not changed a single mind or done much beyond get a few kindly LI readers to indulge your crazy for a second (note that they move on long before you do).

          I would urge you to avoid insulting our readers in this, or any other, manner. Trolling is one thing, attacking our readership is quite another.

    MarkSmith in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 2:00 pm

    Too Funny, The Cat Loving Karen comes out on cue. Hey, maybe Qanon. Ha.

    So this massive hyped story comes out. Why? Remember the media is in on this.

    Is it a distraction? Why is DC a Green Zone? Do they expect us to just give up because they want us to think that everyone is against us including Big Tech?

    Hey look squirrel, “We did not cheat, but we did” Too bad suckers!”

    We already know what is in the article before we ever read it. Nothing new here. Karen wants to justify the article. Hey look there was not cheating” Another distraction.

    Our reaction is going to be quick and swift when it comes. I don’t think it is going to come from Trump either. Faith in God is what makes us strong and they know it. That faith has help win wars throughout history and there is no reason to believe it will not continue.

    Like a Twightlight zone episode, when the masks comes off, their faces will be the mask they were wearing.

    The American Will is a lot stronger than you think. Maybe they will control us with a vaccine or new pandemic. It only takes a few like the founders were to take control

George_Kaplan | February 7, 2021 at 4:24 am

So even as Times admits a public-private partnership ensured a rigged er fortified election guaranteed a proper outcome, the NYT is claiming Trump spent the 77 days after the election and the ‘Storming of the Capitol’ risking chaos, disorder, and violence, all in a bid to subvert democracy.

So on the one hand the Left is laughing about having gotten away with it, on the other they’re continuing to try to push the myth that Trump is dangerous.

It makes perfect sense that the pathological narcissism and smug, self-congratulatory arrogance of these infantile, lawless, vindictive and totalitarian Dhimmi-crats would ensure that they eventually emerge in a fawning propaganda article, to boast and toast each other with regard to their subversion of democratic process and laws, in service of anti-Trump zealotry.

    MarkSmith in reply to guyjones. | February 7, 2021 at 2:02 pm

    I agree, but keep and eye out on the puppet master. The Times is not the puppet master. I still think Intel is driving a lot of this.

I am old enough to remember when the left decried “dark money” in politics, and hated corporations.

DieJustAsHappy | February 7, 2021 at 8:11 am

“Nothing new under the sun …”

The powers that be doing what they know and do best: use it to keep it. Something Trump didn’t seem to understand; or, if he did, he did not respect it. Don’t have to like it, but better respect it and what it can do …

This deserves another highlight:

word went out: stand down.(1) Protect the Results announced that it would “not be activating the entire national mobilization network today, but remains ready to activate if necessary (2).”(3) On Twitter, outraged progressives wondered what was going on. Why wasn’t anyone trying to stop Trump’s coup? Where were all the protests? (4)

Podhorzer credits the activists for their restraint. “They had spent so much time getting ready to hit the streets on Wednesday. But they did it,” he says. “Wednesday through Friday, there was not a single Antifa vs. Proud Boys incident (5) like everyone was expecting. And when that didn’t materialize, I don’t think the Trump campaign had a backup plan 6.”


(1) If this is the case there was a command structure in place.
(2) So it was not necessary to “activate” because they thought the “proper” candidate was on track winning. That leads to the question how they were able to predict the results in certain Democrat machine cities with the “minority/black vote” significantly differed from the split of that vote where the cabal had not succeeded in utterly compromising election security)? Without these anomalies, the “proper candidate” was not on track. There seem to be two possible basic answers: they believed their own deceitful polling, or they were confident that the Democratic machine would be able to insert enough “proper” ballots to overcome the decision of the voters made. From the reactions of the twats on Twitter, the first option seems to be not the correct answer to the question.
(3) They were able to issue commands to their activists that were followed to a T.
(4) Twitter twats were not read into the operation, so the were headless and “wondered” why “the protests” did not happen.
(5) Confirms the activists has the meaning of Antifa and BLM brownshirts/street thugs.
(6) This is what Robert Barnes calls confession through projection: the claim that “the Trump team” had no backup plan in case there were no street fights reveals that their plan A, not their plan B, was to use their brownshirt thugs to get to the “proper results.” And if that was their plan A (or even if it was their plan B) – why would that be the case, if they were so confident that everything they did to rig the election:
• overwhelming 24/7 disinformation pushed by 90%+ of the MSM; • practically airtight control ability to spike information like the Hunter Biden story suggesting the corruption of the “proper” candidate;
• preparation of “stochastic election fraud” by providing means through the successful systematic weakening of election security and ample motivation by dehumanizing the “improper” choice – “Trump is (worse than) Hitler”, the constant propaganda drumbeat in their compliant outlets?

That even so they almost did not succeed with their subversion is miraculous.

    This is good.

    My Spidey sense also kicked in during the parts about election night, particularly this part: “Podhorzer presented data to show the group that victory was in hand.” What ‘data’ could he possibly have showing a Biden win at 11 p.m on Election Day? There are several such statements and passages, and it all stinks to high heaven.

      felixrigidus in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 7, 2021 at 11:51 am


      There is one explanation for their lack of panic that passes an Occam’s Razor test. Alternative explanations require Rube Goldberg-level complications. And unlike those explanations, the Rube Goldberg contraptions – given perfect conditions – could work.

      P.S.: Please excuse my atrocious pre-coffee editing.

    Or maybe most democrats though Trump would act like a dick which he then did?

The involvement of the Chamber of Commerce might also explain why the Trump and Trump adjacent legal efforts to stop the steal exhibited less than optimal legal strategies. Some members of the legal teams were picked or suggested by Republicans under the influence of the Commerce wing of the cabal.
It would also suggest a possible explanation for the lack of adequate legal defense against the suits introducing ever more serious election security risks as well as the spectacular failure of certain Republican party actors tasked with securing election integrity.

    MarkSmith in reply to felixrigidus. | February 7, 2021 at 2:18 pm

    CofC has been involved since the 2016 election. Trump been fighting them since 2016. I believe enough people really voted for him to win the 2016 election. It is starting to appear that Trump is the true antivote. It is not about Trump it is about beating the system and they are coming on strong.’

It’s like Democrats and crime. They legalize it so it’s no longer criminal. And then attack you for pointing it out. There should be a massive legal challenge to get this resolved by 2022 or Democrats will never lose again.

Justice Potter Stewart’s comment on obscenity comes to mind here:
“I know it when I see it”
Regardless of how democRATs want to “clean up” the definition of cheating, we all know it when we see it!
It’s cheating and it’s obscene!

The Dems’ election war generals are telling us how they ‘legally’ rigged the election.

To distract from and provide cover for all of the illegal things that were done by the troops in the trenches.

“See. We didn’t have to do anything illegal to win. We rigged it legally!”

And yet they barely “won”.

Bet they aren’t fooling anyone beyond the borders of the
US. The rest of the world knows how elections are stolen. And they now know how they are stolen in the US.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to JHogan. | February 7, 2021 at 12:10 pm

    Just like most criminals, they are trying to whitewash their illegal activity. They have given us a glimpse into their RICO operation.

    For example, refusal to cover the Biden and Sons Syndicate was an undeclared campaign contribution to the Biden-Harris campaign.

    That sure as hell was illegal.

      No, it was not a contribution to any campaign, and it certainly wasn’t illegal. “Campaign contribution” means exactly what it says. Helping someone get elected is not a contribution; on the contrary, it’s protected speech, which Congress has no power to regulate. Congress can only regulate actual contributions to a candidate’s actual campaign. The total aggregate of people who want to see him elected is not his campaign. It’s a cause, not an entity, so it’s impossible to give it anything.

Impressive word salad. They could have easily coveyed the same message by simply quoting Eric Coomer stating he made f’g sure Donald Trump wouldn’t win.

Gee Whillikers, guys. With overwhelming evidence of election law violations, and probable vote fraud, we have to wait for a booyah, in-your-face, article from a liberal progressive rag to get people to seriously question the validity of the election. To make matters worse, people seemingly ignore the fact that a draconian program is in operation to make it impossible for anyone who questions the integrity of the election to find a public platform. Why? Because there is a literal mountain of evidence, sitting in plain sight, which will very likely prove that Trump, not Biden, won the election. The problem is, that the evidence is so massive and glaring, that they can not sit on it fora ever.

Take the last big controversy surrounding the election of a US President, Barack Obama [aka Barry Soetoro]. If he had been born within the boundaries of the CONUS, or in one of her territories, he would have been eligible, under the US Constitution to hold the office of President. If he was born outside those boundaries, he might well not be Constitutionally qualified. How to resolve the issue? Simply present valid, long-form birth certificate; something which virtually every person born in the USA does several times during their lifetime. Yet, when he finally “produced” such a document, in 2011, forensic analysis pretty well proved it was a Photo Shopped, electronic forgery. No court would hear a case concerning this matter. No wide-exposure, media outlet would touch it. And, most moderates and conservatives were content to move through the established, legal channels to address it. Of course, within the first year of the Obama Presidency, if true, this had produced a significant Constitutional Crisis, which almost all sought to avoid. And, the conditions, existing at that time, allowed for the matter to be largely ignored.

Well, now we have an even greater Constitutional Crisis. All of this should have been immediately investigated and addressed. But, it wasn’t. It was ignored and then actively suppressed by the powers-that-be. Now we have a Constitutional Crisis of unimaginable scope. And, it is compounded by the fact that 75 million voters may well rise up and force their government to address the situation. With the current availability of wide-spread, social media, it has become much harder to control the dissemination of information. And, as the election violations are so glaringly obvious, the only way to control the dissemination of this information is to remove those disseminating it. Ordinary people are being deplatformed. Respected journalists, some having massive followings, are being fired from long standing positions. Law suits are be being threatened and filed to stifle the dissemination of information on this subject. People are losing their jobs and businesses. And, now the counter information operation begins. This is where we have the Establishment claiming that an eleventh hour turn around, in the election, happened strictly due to legal means. We are all supposed to totally ignore the clear evidence of blatant election law violations as well as the mounting evidence of outright vote fraud.

But, what happens if the masses do not ignore this evidence? No further legal avenue exists to redress their damages. How do they get a hearing? The political class has a pretty good idea. There is a reason why armed troops are being stationed on the streets of Washington, D.C, in peacetime. This is not going to end well.

    mark311 in reply to Mac45. | February 7, 2021 at 1:52 pm


    That fake certificate has been debunked a whole load of times. It’s a plain conspiracy theory with any base at all. The fact you are even mentioning it is slightly disturbing.

    As for your comments re deplatforming well what do you expect. If you allow comment on your site as hateful and disgusting as Parler did along with the election lie crap their was bound to be consequences. Oh and before you say it was a free speech platform it wasn’t it actively removed left wing voices for no other reason than they were left wing. It was a hate platform. That’s been further proven by the fact the CEO was removed for suggesting that Nazi groups should be banned from it.

    With regard to the election fraud. No evidence at all and none has emerged in the meantime. So it’s starting to sound ridiculous.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 2:11 pm

      Oh and before you say it was a free speech platform it wasn’t it actively removed left wing voices for no other reason than they were left wing. It was a hate platform.

      Such as whom? Where did you read this crap? It looks like if we take the average between you and Mac we might get somewhere…

      Mac45 in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 2:33 pm


      You simply can’t by this out of touch with reality.

      First, the evidence that the Obama long-form birth certificate was a Photo Shop creation, and therefore a forgery, has never been “debunked” as you claim. It has been refuted. But, never debunked.

      As for deplatforming, the “reasons” given for such action just fo not hold water. AntiFa, and its agents, as well as BLM, and its agents, routinely post both hateful and potentially violent and seditious posts. They are not deplatformed. The Ayatollah Khomeini can threaten the USA, on twitter, and is not deplatformed. There are a multitude of other examples where actual violations of the stated policies used to deplatform conservatives and those challenging the accuracy of the 2020 Presidential election are being violated by liberal and progressive groups and people and nothing happens to them. So, what is so dangerous where people who legitimately question the veracity of the Presidential election are concerned? What is it about the 2020 Presidential election that so terrifies the Elite that they have to stifle all questions about it. Just as the release of an official, long-form birth certificate, by the state of Hawaii, would have put all the questions about the qualification of Barack Obama to rest, a comprehensive investigation of the last election would clear up any controversy. But, not only is this not done, the PTB embark on a path designed to keep that from happening. Why? Is this the act of an innocent? Hardly. How the establishment is handling the claims of vote fraud would raise HUGE red flags in any criminal investigator. We saw the organs of government conduct multiple years long investigations of whether Donald Trump colluded in any fashion with the government of Russia, in the 2016 election. MULTIPLE, YEARS LONG INVESTIGATIONS. Based on no concrete evidence. And, we can not get a single executive branch or judicial branch in the country to run even a cursory investigation of these claims. For four years. Trump actually produced truckloads of documents for Congressional and other investigators. In 2020, we see states stonewalling everywhere. Why???

      Re: Parler. Did Parler ban some posters? Yes, but, by the admission of most of the posters banned, they were there simply to harass the platform and the other users. They were not banned for their speech, but for their efforts to disrupt the platform. This is no different than a person being ejected from a movie theater or play for creating a disturbance for the purpose of disrupting the activities therein. But, what happened to Parler was not the same as what happened to the more liberal, tech company run platforms. The entire site was deplatformed and then blacklisted. Even though companies such as Apple, which still sells the Twitter app, even tough foreign leaders use it to directly threaten US politicians and the people, they had to stop selling the app for a third rate conservative social media platform. Why??

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | February 7, 2021 at 3:30 pm

        “Refuted” and “debunked” are exact synonyms. And yes, it has been. Only crazy people believe it.

        The Ayatollah Khomeini died long before Twitter started.

        But I’m still waiting to hear from Mark which “left wing voices” Parler removed “for no other reason than they were left wing”. I don’t believe that happened. And FB and Twitter have a long history of allowing blatant antisemitism and actual terrorist propaganda to remain, even after it was brought to their attention. To the point that they are probably in violation of the law against giving material support to terrorist organizations; but so far the courts have allowed them to shelter behind Section 230’s protections.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2021 at 5:59 pm

          Actually, Debunk and Refute are not EXACT synonyms.

          The definition of debunk, from Merriam Webster is:

          to expose the sham (see sham entry 1 sense 2) or falseness of.

          The definition of refute [same source] is:

          1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
          2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of

          Debunk is a much looser definition only exposure, while definition 1 of refute requires evidence or argument[O would say compelling argument] to PROVE something to be false or erroneous.

          Therefor, I would say that the evidence, supporting the contention that the Obama long form birth certificate was contrived or forged, was never refuted ;proved to be false].

          I stand corrected on the Ayatollah Khomeini not having a twitter account. It is the Ayatollah Khamenei who has the current Twitter account.

        mark311 in reply to Mac45. | February 7, 2021 at 4:06 pm

        So you think some randomer uploading a fake certificate is evidence of an actual fake certificate. Come on.

        As for deplatforming sure you might have a point that other people have been poorly behaved on the platform but perhaps the straw the camel’s back is the direct link between Parler and the incitement of a riot at the capitol. Twitter and Facebook have chequered histories in the ability to curtail such speech but Parler made zero effort to curtail any lies, hate speech or characters actively involved in the capitol events.

        The issue with questioning the 2020 presidential election results on the basis that it was fraudulent is that there is very limited evidence. Undermining a democratic election with out basis is bad for democracy. The belief that an election is fair and just is integral to how democracy works. The consequences of that are clear given it out of republican voters in Georgia. That’s a major factor in why Republicans lost. In effect the election fraud lies are hurting your own cause.

        I don’t think your criminal investigator analogy really works. You need probable cause and the Obama birtherism theory is pure fantasy. It’s stupid to the degree that I’d equate it to flat earth theory. Sorry but no you don’t get to accuse someone of that without evidence. Why is it he has to prove his place of birth when when no other president has too in that many.

        Again your point about lefties being removed from Parler isn’t correct in principle or fact. Sure they wanted to have a go at right wingers pointing out arguments that contradict the views held there. In some cases no differently to me right now pointing out hotels in arguments held here. Have I been banned no because this site at least from my experience actually endorses free speech whereas Parler doesn’t. It was promoting a particular ideology it wanted to be a forum for right wing though and showed no interest in being a free speech platform. I also am aware that from the data scrapping the site shadow banned people too so no dice I’m afraid.

        I’ve had some good conversations with you Mac I just don’t get the Obama birthism thing it’s nuts.

        The election fraud aspect I at least have some sympathy for the idea of an investigation even if the case for fraud is well poor.

        I do have some sympathy for the deplatforming opinion you hold. I just think it’s important to point out that Parler isn’t quite as noble as perhaps you think.

          Mac45 in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 6:34 pm

          First, the Photo Shopper birth certificate was posted by the Obama White House. So, what was the WH source for the document? See, all that Obama and Hawaii had to do was to walk oy the front door of the vital statistics bureau, with a long for birth certificate in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, II, show it to the press cameras and that would have been that. So, on more time. Why didn’t they do that?

          Actually, Facebook has far greater direct responsibility for the Capitol incursion than Parler did. And, nothing happened to them.

          Investigating claims of criminal activity, where reasonable suspicion exists that such activity may have occurred, is the norm, in our society. In the case of the 2020 election, we not only have clear video and documentary evidence that election officials actually violated existing election law, but we have significant circumstantial evidence that significant vote fraud also occurred. And yet, no LEA or court will investigate these claims. The best way to instill confidence in our election system is to prove that i axtually safe and secure, not ignore the charges that it is not secure.

          One only needs probable cause to make an arrest of charge soomeone with a crime. All you need to investigate a criminal act is reasonable suspicion. And, a lack of coopertion , or worse the impeding of, a criminal investigation adds reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. As to candidates for President having to prove their qualification as a natural born citizen to hold office as President, The congress had to certify that he was such, even though his parents were US citizens, just because he was born in the Republic of Panama, while his father was on active duty there. See, the problem with Obama’s status is that he refused to prove it, except with the suspicious long form birth certificate and no US authorities wanted to hear the case.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 7, 2021 at 7:41 pm

          the direct link between Parler and the incitement of a riot at the capitol.

          There was no such link. The rioters did all their planning on Facebook and Twitter, not Parler.

          And FB/Tw’s “chequered histories” are not in their “ability to curtail such speech”, but in their willingness. For years they’ve blatantly refused to do so.

          The issue with questioning the 2020 presidential election results on the basis that it was fraudulent is that there is very limited evidence.

          Yes, the direct evidence, at least, is very limited. So what? Neither you nor FB/Twitter can prove it wasn’t, which means you have no right to stop people from expressing their opinion that it was. Especially when you’ve spent four years allowing and repeating literally hundreds of outright falsehoods against Trump.

          Undermining a democratic election with out basis is bad for democracy.

          So? How does that give you the right to suppress it? Especially when you’ve spent four years undermining the last election.

          The belief that an election is fair and just is integral to how democracy works.

          Even when it isn’t?! Is that it? We must pretend it was fair, even when we know it wasn’t? And we do know it wasn’t, even beyond the issue of outright fraud. We know the election wasn’t fair because the news sources on which half the electorate relies refused to report the truth and continued reporting lies.

          The Hunter’s Laptop coverup is just the cherry on top, but it alone was probably responsible for at least a 1.5% swing, which is a lot more than Trump got from the few thousand bucks’ worth of Facebook ads that the Russians bought four years ago, which is the sum total of their alleged “interference”.

          I still don’t have a clue what you are referring to when you claim leftists were removed from Parler simply for expressing their opinion. I have never heard of such a thing happening and don’t believe it did.

          Birtherism as in the confident belief that 0bama was actually born in Kenya is just stupid. There was never any evidence for it. But “birtherism” as in asking the question, wanting to see evidence of his eligibility, and wondering why he so stubbornly refused to produce it, was just being rational.

          If he’d produced the birth certificate when he was asked for it, there would have been no issue. But for about two years he refused, so it was perfectly reasonable to conclude that he was covering something up, and to wonder what it was. In the end it turned out that he was just messing with people’s heads; but he invited the “birtherism”, and you can’t then complain about it.

          No other president was asked for a birth certificate because no other president’s birthplace was ever in doubt. It never occurred to anyone to challenge it. But once his was challenged, it should have been up to him to prove his eligibility or withdraw. I was shocked that there is no such requirement. I didn’t believe he was really ineligible, but without a requirement to prove it what was to stop the next person from actually falsely claiming to be eligible? What was to stop a Schwartzenegger from simply claiming to have been born in the USA, and refusing to prove it? Or what was to stop a 30-year-old from claiming to be 35?

          You know you’re wasting your time and energy on this troll, right? I’m pretty sure you know that, but I thought I would mention it just in case.

          We get this sort all the time; they come, they troll, they deny trolling, they troll some more, and eventually, they pick up their Play-doh and bubbles and stomp off to a new trolling ground. Some of them swing back by now and again (like the Zachs), but mostly, they just disappear. I’m good with that.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 8, 2021 at 8:53 am


          There is no evidence direct or indirect. If you have a source which says otherwise I’d be happy to look.

          Your comment on election confidence is silly. You have to have a reason that the election is unfair at present you just don’t have a case for that. And of course it’s damaging look at the amount of commentary here about election fraud making spurious claims about voting machines and rehashing long debunked arguments about witnesses or mail in voting.people have bought into a lie that distracts from arguments with actual substance. That kind of talk is at least part of the reason that Trump’s lawsuits got thrown out, because they are moronic. If you walk into court expect to have evidence for incredible claims and instead everybodys time was wasted. It’s a joke,a horrible painful tasteless damaging joke.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 8, 2021 at 8:59 am


          You continue to be a disappointment. Your abject lack of reason is troublesome. You seem to be unable to comprehend clearly what’s argued in front of you. I’m not sure whether you are intellectually dishonest or just suffering from tunnel vision.

          For the last time I’m not a troll. You seem to conflate those who have differing views with those who deliberately provoke. I’ve done no such provocation (as a general statement).

          Maybe other left wing voices have left the site because your logic and reasoning is contemptible and rather akin to omphaloskepsis.

          Bwahaha! Okay, mark311, what in this comment demonstrates an “abject lack of reason”? My seeing you for the troll you are? Bwahaha!

          You can have differing views all day long, but why on earth would you keep spewing them where they are roundly rejected, refuted, and ridiculed? Who does that? Oh, right . . . TROLLS do that.

          You just keep saying the same thing we already hear from every single mainstream media outlet, yet you seem to imagine that your magical parroting act will somehow turn us into commie leftist dupes like you. Um, not going to happen. But have fun trying. I’m enjoying watching you crash and burn in every single thread.

    Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | February 7, 2021 at 2:03 pm

    Because there is a literal mountain of evidence, sitting in plain sight, which will very likely prove that Trump, not Biden, won the election.

    No, there is not, and there probably never will be. Nobody will ever know for sure who really won the election, if you consider only actual valid votes validly cast, and don’t take into account all the votes legally “stolen” by misinforming voters and dishonestly persuading them to vote for Biden; of course if you do count those votes then there’s no question that Trump should have won, but that’s not how it works. Considering only valid votes, all we can say is that there was a significant amount of fraud, but we can never measure it, let alone prove it.

    Yet, when he finally “produced” such a document, in 2011, forensic analysis pretty well proved it was a Photo Shopped, electronic forgery.

    Oh, please. This is bulldust, and you know it. When he finally produced it all rational people acknowledged that it appeared genuine. The only people who questioned it were lunatics and liars like Arpaio.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2021 at 4:16 pm

      Actually, there is a mountain of evidence that shows the left rigged the election (as these people bragging to Time can’t help but admit; people are stupid and like to brag). I’ll only go into one type which under any other circumstance would be not only admissible in court but would be compelling enough on its own to cause a court to conclude the election was rigged. That’s the statistical evidence of vote rigging.

      Dr. John Lott did a study of voting patterns in border precincts in Fulton county, GA, and Allegheny county, PA in both 2016 and 2020. Both counties are oddly shaped; Fulton county borders 10 other counties. Once precinct in Fulton county borders 4 precincts in Cherokee county.

      Since the demographics in precincts on one side of the county line are practically identical to the neighborhoods on the other side of the line (they’re really the same neighborhoods) in 2016 both in person voting and absentee voting showed similar patterns; Trump defeated Clinton overwhelmingly in both categories of votes. In 2020 Trump defeated Biden by similar margins when counting in-person votes. But mail-in voting (of which 2020 absentee voting was just a small-subset) was different (border precincts in Allegheny county, PA, showed the same result when comparing mail-in votes to their neighbors in precincts in surrounding counties).

      This time Biden won the mail-in votes overwhelmingly. Only one thing had changed between 2016 and 2020. Who counted the those votes, and how they counted them. In both Allegheny and Fulton counties all the mail-in votes were counted in a centralized location controlled by democrats and all voter-integrity safeguards were removed.

      The 2005 Carter-Baker Commission Report predicted exactly this outcome.

      The Carter-Baker commission was tasked with making recommendations to ensure election integrity. They made 87 recommendations; among the most important:

      1. Stringent voter ID requirements.
      2. Ban mail-on voting.
      3. Ban ballot harvesting.
      4. Ban mail-in drop boxes.

      All of those are invitations to ballot-box stuffing. There is no reason, pace mark311 and other leftist trolls, to remove those safeguards (I should add the voter signature requirement and a witness signature to that list) except to facilitate voter fraud.

      As Stalin said, it isn’t who votes who count. It’s who count the vote.

      Just like leftists read Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 as instruction books on how to govern, they read the Carter-Baker Commission Report as an instruction manual on how to subvert an election.

      Being an intel officer isn’t exactly like being a cop, but there are similarities. You simply can’t involve this many people in rigging an election and expect them to keep the secret. Recall how Ben Rhodes bragged to a NYT reporter about how he was in charge of the Obama WH effort to set up an echo chamber. They sent the WH press corps (I agree with Rhodes on one thing; those people literally know nothing) to supposed independent experts who were in fact thoroughly on board with the administration’s goals. Those experts proceeded to parrot the WH lies (“The JCPOA strengthened ‘moderates’ in the Iranian government;” Fact: there are no moderates in the Iranian government since everyone who matters is hand-picked by the Supreme Leader, and he only elevates men who reliably agree with him).

      So Milhouse will be proven wrong. Just like Harry Reid brazenly lied about Mitt Romney not paying taxes for 10 years the truth will become undeniable. But the reaction will be the same; yeah, we did it. And so what? It worked. There’s not a g** damned thing you can do about it now.

      Also keep in mind that when the left pushes the lie that this country is systemically racist to its founding, that we have a system of white supremacy, and that explains the “disparate impact,” “mass incarceration,” blah blah blah, there evidence will be entirely statistical. “Systemic racism” is racism without an identifiable racist, an identifiable victim chosen for his/her race, and no identifiable conscious racist act. And the evidence will be weaker than the statistical evidence for 2020 voter fraud.

      But no matter. Only a racist wants evidence of racism. All good people presuppose racism. You’ll be called a “denier” and will be a target for destruction when you point out the fatal flaws in their evidence. Flaws which don’t exist in the evidence showing massive voter fraud in 2020.

        HImmanuelson in reply to Arminius. | February 7, 2021 at 4:50 pm

        That’s not proof of anything. The proportion of Dems voting using mail-in-ballots was MUCH higher than Republican voters that did the same. Of course the mail-in-ballots favored Biden, it couldn’t be any other way. And this was reflected all across the country, not just there.

          Arminius in reply to HImmanuelson. | February 7, 2021 at 5:53 pm

          It’s proof that Dem vote counters can manufacture all the Dem voters they need to produce those dem votes. There is zero proof that those votes were cast by any Democrat voter except the ones counting the votes. Or rather, stuffing ballot boxes.

          Moreover, you’re just glossing over the fact that we’re supposed to believe that voters who didn’t vote in statistically differently from their neighbors in 2016 did so in 2020. All while the vote counters ignored state law that would have made auditing the vote possible. Security sleeves for mail in ballots, which GA state law requires to be retained for two years,

          In any other circumstance this is the kind of expert testimony that is and has been accepted as proof in federal and state courts.

          Arminius in reply to HImmanuelson. | February 7, 2021 at 6:11 pm

          My bad. I got GA confused with other states that require secrecy sleeves in order to count absentee/mail-in votes.

          Georgia had other, even more serious problems that demonstrate the vote never should have been certified.

          Approximately 2k ballots weren’t even transported to the registrar of voters on the SAME DAY but remained in someone’s custody overnight. Of course, we don’t know whose custody as the people didn’t even bother to fill out the chain-of-custody paperwork.

          If you were convicted in a court with evidence produced by a crime lab that didn’t maintain proper chain-of-custody records the evidence would be thrown out and your conviction would be overturned. By the same token, these ballots should have been thrown out as null and void ab initio. There is zero evidence an actual, living voter cast those votes.

          And this is just one GA county. Biden only “won” the state by less than 12k votes.

          Keep saying this evidence of in-you-face fraud is evidence of nothing.

          mark311 in reply to HImmanuelson. | February 8, 2021 at 8:46 am


          “My bad. I got GA confused with other states that require secrecy sleeves in order to count absentee/mail-in votes.”

          You aren’t the only one who made this mistake some of the so called experts attempting to support the election fraud claim made similar mistakes along with numerous other factual errors. Including the analysis of the statistical case. The experts supporting your assertion have been widely ridiculed. And the other evidence such as from witnesses has been found to not to be credible. You don’t have a case for election fraud.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2021 at 8:25 pm

      There is a mountain of evidence that will prove Trump won. All that is needed is to disqualify the votes which were cast in violation of existing election law. And, this is only necessary in five locations. But, investigators have to actually investigate and seek the evidence or lack there of. And that is simply not happening.

      The problem here is that people want to have absolute proof of the exact number of fraudulent votes. You do not need that, to correct the fraud. The cure is not that difficult. Any vote cast in violation of election laws should be discarded. If they can not be separated from the immediate pool of votes, then an additional criteria has to be considered, the size of the affected pool. If a pool of votes is tainted, then the poll should be discarded. Otherwise, you are rewarding the people who benefit from the cheating. But, in this case, saving a pool of a few thousand voters, is immaterial when compared with disenfranchising tens of millions of voters.

      What happened here is that the safeguards, which are supposed to guarantee the security of the election were ignored or dismissed. It was not that there were insufficient safeguards in place, it was that no one enforced them. Particularly not the courts. When credible claims of election law violations and vote fraud were presented, no one would investigate them. What happens next time, when credible claims of fraud are made and no one will investigate them?

      Now, the Obama long form birth certificate, presented in 2011, by the WH. The forensic investigators made a very, very compelling case that the document presented was an electronic counterfeit. And, there was almost NO evidence presented that their evidence not accurate. It was labelled a “birther” conspiracy and dismissed. The reason was simple. Constitutional Crisis resulting in violence for removing a black president. It would also have affected four years of government actions. If the President is not eligible to serve, what happens to all the legislation that he signed and well as all the government actions taken pursuant to that legislation and any other Presidential action? What happened was that all of these so called “rational” people decided to ignore the situation in order to save the Union. People thought they could survive another four years of the Obama Administration.

      Well, here we are again. The problem is, this time, there are a significant number of the common folk who do not think they can survive four years of a Harris-Biden administration.

        I think this Time article reveals quite a bit about the fraud; in addition to the points about the Election night confab in which “data” was shared that the “proper outcome” would happen regardless of how strong Trump’s showing, there is also this rather startling revelation:

        “In Podhorzer’s presentations, winning the vote was only the first step to winning the election. After that came winning the count, . . . . ”

        I’m sorry, but in what world do Americans worry about “winning the count”? This is not a mistake, and it’s clearly a page out of the “it’s not who votes that counts but who counts the votes” playbook. Podhorzer, whom Time hails as the de facto head of this nefarious, Democracy-subverting cabal, is neck-deep in the commie union underworld (and, sadly for America, he’s one smart, savvy cookie).

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | February 8, 2021 at 5:39 pm

        The forensic investigators made a very, very compelling case that the document presented was an electronic counterfeit. And, there was almost NO evidence presented that their evidence not accurate.

        What “forensic investigators”? The people you are referring to are not forensic investigators. They’re random cranks, with no relevant expertise at all. Just like that “Jovan Pulitzer” clown who tried to grab some publicity in the Georgia debacle. The so-called “evidence” they claimed to have found was debunked immediately by everyone who knew anything at all about the structure of PDF files.

Nothing says party of the working class and the people like a well funded cabal of the rich and powerful.

I’m surprised Time was willing to admit this. I wonder if CNN will denounce them as QAnon.

Wow… great thread! This is the kind of discussion that makes LI such a valuable site.

Are you defending the idea that women are more susceptible to to manipulation than men?

It may interest you to know that the person who uploaded the video that I linked ((which now has >160,000 views) voted for Trump. He’s an outspoken first-time gun owner, and has almost a million subscribers on YouTube. He’s consistently denounced Big Tech’s censorship, and defended Trump and his supporters against the Democrats’ outrageous attacks. He even provided the timeline that proved AOC was lying about the supposed danger to her life on 6 Jan.

What’s more, he’s almost always does such things a day or two earlier than Legal Insurrection posts about the same incidents or articles.

So, another “conspiracy theory” proved true eh? Figure the odds.

. . . Meanwhile, the very expensive, unneeded, and free speech-intimidating troops are still occupying DC. Note here where the “Fascist Left,” led by Nancy & Chuck,” is aiming and planning to take us all:

Are we being distracted, then, perhaps? Fight hard, I agree, for future, electoral essentials, but while never failing to keep the big picture in prime focus.