Corporate Media Lied to Protect the 2020 Biden Campaign [Video]

Corporate Media Lied to Protect the 2020 Biden Campaign [Video]

20 Minutes of Corporate Media Lying About Hunter’s Laptop to Protect the Biden Campaign

Becker News

This is a great compilation put together by Kanekoa the Great that shows just how craven the corporate media’s liars became during the 2020 campaign to protect the Biden campaign.

The Democrat-controlled media repeatedly lied about the Hunter Biden laptop being a Trump campaign ‘smear’ and part of a ‘Russian disinformation’ campaign. Watch:

During the heat of the 2020 campaign, Now-President Joe Biden charged that Donald Trump’s accusation that Hunter Biden’s laptop contained incriminating information of his business ties to China and Ukraine was nothing but a ‘smear.’

“So what about the Americans who really today only want me to ask you about Hunter Biden’s laptop?” KCRG Anchor Beth Malicki asked him in October 2020. “How are you going to get them to see that you are fighting for them when they’re so dead-set against you?”

“By the way, there’s nothing to any of that,” Biden claimed. “Nothing to any of that. It’s all smear. Every major outfit, every serious investigator has pointed out that this is a smear. This is classic Trump.”

“We are four days left and all of a sudden there’s a laptop,” he continued. “And you may recall, there’s also talk about four months before there was a similar thing that somebody had allegedly. There’s overwhelming evidence that — from the intelligence community — that the Russians are engaged.”

“I mean, look, this is — my son’s an honorable man and all the investigations that were done around the issue of what was going on Ukraine, if you notice, every one of the major people who worked for Trump during the impeachment went under oath and under oath said Biden did his job,” he added.

“No law was broke — Biden, this Biden, did his job. Hunter Biden broke no laws. That was a testimony, their testimony from Republicans and intelligence community people,” he went on. “So, I think that it’s — you know, I just think — look, politics have become too crass, too dirty, too ugly, and and the perpetrator of an awful of this has been — he didn’t start it all, but he has taken it to a new level, this president.”

Joe Biden repeatedly denied there was any truth to the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Jen Psaki personally touted the deliberately false intelligence report.  On Friday, she snapped at a reporter who brought the Hunter Biden laptop story up.

CBS’s Leslie Stahl tried to shut Trump down during an interview when he brought up the Hunter laptop story.

Here is the exchange, for the record:

TRUMP: “Why did Hunter get three and a half million dollars from Moscow?” Instead of, “Why is an energy company paying your son $183,000 a month, or whatever they’re paying him?” And he has no experience in energy. You discredit yourself. I don’t have to discredit you.

STAHL: So this story about Hunter and his laptop, some repair shop found it, the source is Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani.

TRUMP: I don’t know anything about that. I just know it’s a laptop and they haven’t-

STAHL: And you’re making this one of the hottest, most important issues…

TRUMP: I don’t know about the two gentleman you mentioned.

STAHL: It’s an important issue-

TRUMP: It’s a very important issue to find out whether or not a man is corrupt, who’s running for president. Who’s accepted money from China, and from Ukraine, and from Russia. Yeah, I think that’s an important issue.

STAHL: All these things have been investigated and discredited.

TRUMP: It’s incredible the way you can try and say this and sit there and look me in the eye and say it. He accepted money, his family, from Russia, from Ukraine, from China and from other places. His brother who didn’t have experience became a big builder in Iraq, without experience. Take a look at what’s going on, Lesley. And then you say that shouldn’t be discussed? It’s the biggest scandal out there, Lesley.

STAHL: And you think it’s the biggest issue to campaign on?

TRUMP: I think it’s one of the biggest scandals I’ve ever seen, and you don’t cover it. You want to talk about-

STAHL: Well, because it can’t be verified.

This was a lie. The New York Times’ corroboration of the Hunter laptop emails was buried deep within its story, but nonetheless shows that Hunter Biden could be guilty of yet another crime: Knowingly avoiding Foreign Agent Registration Act requirements while his father ran for president.

“Last year, prosecutors interviewed Mr. Archer and subpoenaed him for documents and grand jury testimony, the people said. Mr. Archer, who was sentenced last month in an unrelated securities fraud case in which a decision to set aside his conviction was reversed, had served with Mr. Biden on Burisma’s board, starting in 2014,” the Times reported.

“People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity,” the report added. “Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.”

“In some of the emails, Mr. Biden displayed a familiarity with FARA, and a desire to avoid triggering it,” the report noted.

The intelligence community latched onto the bogus “Russian disinformation” narrative at a critical point in the 2020 election campaign. Natasha Betrand was one reporter that pushed the IC’s report.

“More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation’.”

Former acting DNI director Richard Grenell pointed out that none of the IC officials had a shred of hard evidence the laptop story was ‘Russian disinformation.’

The New York Post plastered these election riggers’ faces in a cover story.

This is yet another in an endless list of scandals the deep state is committing against the American people. Trump was right. Even more than that, he was a threat to their traitorous schemes.

That’s why they collaborated to ‘take him out.’ The proof is undeniable at this point. Even former Attorney General Bill Barr admits the election was “rigged.” And the media helped them rig it.

*********

(TLB) published this article from Becker News as compiled and written by Kyle Becker

Emphasis added by (TKB) editors

Header featured image (edited) credit: Joe Biden with media/Twitter grab

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Share this…
Share on FacebookPin on PinterestTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Source

Democrats Prepare To Dump Joe Biden Now That He’s Served His Purpose

Democrats Prepare To Dump Joe Biden Now That He’s Served His Purpose

When The New York Times begins publishing op-eds saying Joe Biden should not run again, and that he should announce it soon, then the gig is officially up. Biden is a lame duck. Perhaps someone should tell him.

Columnist Bret Stephens is right to note that the president would be 86 years old at the time of the next election cycle, and that he now “seems … uneven. Often cogent, but sometimes alarmingly incoherent.” More simply, Joe is old and tottering—and he’s unpopular to a startling degree.

As Stephens notes, even passage of a multi-trillion-dollar “infrastructure” spending bill didn’t boost his numbers much. He suggests the president liberate his party by freeing new (and younger) candidates to begin exploring a path to the presidency.

Sure, the question of Joe’s future “need(s) to be discussed candidly, not just whispered constantly.” At the same time, can we also ask the other obvious question candidly?

Why did the media cover for an elderly septuagenarian with clear age-related issues, thrusting him into a job he was never truly capable of holding—and subjecting the nation to a dangerous period without a strong leader? It’s fine to have a mea culpa moment, and truth delivered late is better than truth denied forever, but as the nation stumbles along with a puppet president there should be some accountability.

Just a year after a record 81 million Americans voted for Biden, they’re now being told it didn’t work out. Sorry. It’s coming within the timeframe of the traditional presidential “honeymoon,” that brief period presidents are normally at their zenith of political power and brimming to pass a bold agenda.

Perhaps we should give the public some adjustment time to avoid whiplash from this quick pivot. After all, it wasn’t long ago that the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin was telling them Biden was completely fit for duty, someone who “with his aviator sunglasses (plus his promotion of exercise during the Obama administration), projects vitality and energy.

Just more than a month before the election last year, a Forbes article claimed Trump and Biden might be “super agers” who would be expected to significantly outlive other men their age. Trump’s activity on the campaign trail perhaps warranted that description, but Biden not so much. He spent more days underground than Punxsutawney Phil and showed frequent difficulty with coherency on the campaign trail, from trying to describe COVID losses “for the past hundred years” to quoting “you know, the thing.”

Days after Biden’s election victory last year, Matt Viser of the Washington Post tweeted that “Joe Biden would often jog onto stage, showing how physically vigorous he is and attempting to dispel questions about his age. Now that he’s the oldest president-elect in American history, that doesn’t change.”

Has it changed now, Matt?

The truth is that establishment Democrats wanted Joe, and they selected him, despite his age and numerous warning signs regarding his mental acuity. He was the blank canvas on which anything could be written, and he could be sold as a “moderate.”

As Bernie Sanders surged in the polls in early 2020 with 45 delegates after the first three primaries and Joe languished in a distant third place with 15, the party took control. Rep. Jim Clyburn stepped in and delivered an influential endorsement in South Carolina that pushed African-American support to Biden’s campaign, propelling him to victory. Stories immediately appeared claiming Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg had “no realistic path to the nomination.”

Despite trailing early in fundraising behind the well-organized Sanders fundraising machine, the Democrat establishment pivoted to push donations to Biden. As the NYT admitted in an article at the time, “The elite world of billionaires and multimillionaires has remained a critical cog in the Biden money machine.” Bernie’s small-dollar donors were no match for the large bundles of corporate and PAC cash.

With a lot of help from a sycophantic media, Biden was elected president of the United States, without serious inquiry regarding his physical and mental abilities. Now, suddenly, it’s time to plan Joe’s exit before the new Oval Office carpet has fully settled in place?

We should note that it wasn’t Joe stumbling up the stairs of Air Force One that troubled Democrats into questioning Joe’s fitness. They didn’t question his stability when he at times spoke gibberish. They didn’t seem worried when his physical exam failed to report on his cognitive ability.

No, his collapse in the polls is why Joe is suddenly being challenged on the question of running again, and despite Chuck Todd’s protestations, it can’t be blamed on Trump.

It turns out that the public is a bit smarter than Democrats guessed. Reading prepared speeches from a teleprompter is not a substitute for leadership. Neither is putting one’s head down on the presidential podium like a child in the face of tough questions about a military failure in Afghanistan. The blame game can only get a president so far.

After voters finish expressing ire at the press for being misled about Biden’s abilities, perhaps they will turn and express sympathy for the old man who so desperately wanted the job. Having run twice before, the party eventually picked him, but not before the gas had run out of his tank.

Joe may have always been a politician, but the man behind the podium now is not the same as the one who ran in 2008, and certainly not the man who ran in 1988. Stripped of his dignity, he has become a caricature of a president, adorned with all of the symbols of the office, but lacking the substance necessary to perform.

Every Trump voter can still name his key issues: closing the border, beating China, restoring American jobs, making America energy independent, and above all, to “Make America Great Again.” Less than a year into his presidency, it’s hard to recall Biden standing strongly for anything in particular, having served more as an official signer of policy goals for leftist special interest groups than for his own agenda.

The truth is that even as his campaign wobbled toward the finish line last year, they were still struggling to coin a definitive slogan. That few can remember the eventual decision speaks to the vacuousness of this man and this presidency.

Joe is in the process of sinking not only himself but also his party in the upcoming midterms and possibly the 2024 election, so the door to retirement is being planned. Perhaps Democrats will at least give him the courtesy of a final national address, a chance to read from the presidential teleprompter one final time. At the end, he can sign off blissfully with, “Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America … end of message.”


Bob Anderson is a partner and CFO of a hotel development company and a former aerospace engineer who worked on the International Space Station and interned in Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) at the Pentagon. He is also a licensed commercial pilot.

Source

Exclusive Whistleblower Video: Pennsylvania Election Workers Discuss Hiding ‘Derogatory’ Records

Exclusive Whistleblower Video: Pennsylvania Election Workers Discuss Hiding ‘Derogatory’ Records

A new whistleblower video obtained by The Federalist shows Delaware County, Pennsylvania election workers discussing ways to hide from the public “derogatory” information about the management and administration of the November 2020 election. The video is further evidence of fraud undertaken to conceal the widespread violations of Pennsylvania election law that occurred during last year’s presidential election, according to a source familiar with the recording.

The video, surreptitiously recorded by whistleblower Regina Miller, is one of many Miller took while working as a contract employee for the county. Miller began secretly recording the behind-the-scenes conduct after witnessing concerning behavior by several election officials, a person with knowledge of a lawsuit filed last month against county election officials, based in part on the recordings, told The Federalist.

In that lawsuit, Delaware County residents Ruth Moton, Leah Hoopes, and Gregory Stenstrom, as well as the Friends of Ruth Moton campaign, alleged former Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, Delaware County, the Delaware County Board of Elections, and more than a dozen individual election officials destroyed election records and conspired to do so, to hide violations of election law.

Among the election law violations, according to the lawsuit, was the failure of the defendants to reconcile the votes after the close of the polls, as required by Pennsylvania’s election code. However, unlike the other lawsuits that followed the November 2020 election and alleged claims under the U.S. Constitution or state election codes, the petition in Moton v. Boockvar focuses instead on the defendants’ alleged fraud to cover up those purported violations.

In fact, four of the five counts set forth in the court filing were premised on Pennsylvania’s civil law of fraud and misrepresentation. The fraud and misrepresentation, according to the petition, involved the defendants’ alleged destruction of evidence and their purported representation of compliance with a May 21, 2021 Right to Know Request filed with Delaware County.

That request, according to sources with knowledge of the lawsuit, sought documentation from the county to confirm the November 2020 election results that were certified. According to the Moton lawsuit, the Right to Know request specifically requested the “final certified return sheets from the November 3, 2020 general election” for all Delaware County precints, along with the attached machine tapes from the voting machines. Significantly, as we will see, the request also asked for “any additional notes written on the back of the return sheet, as well as any attached notes that are related to each return sheet.”

The latest video obtained by The Federalist appears filmed soon after the Right to Know request, displaying a June 3, 2021 date. The recording shows two men identified by a source close to the matter as Delaware County election official James Ziegelhoffer and Delaware County lawyer Tom Gallagher.

The video captures the duo flipping through a box marked November 2020 “return sheets,” with the individual identified to The Federalist as Gallagher saying: “When we Xerox these return sheets there are notes on these return sheets and we are going to have to cover them over with paper. Somebody wrote on there ‘this is an outrageous example.”

The man identified by sources as Ziegelhoffer, whom county records show held the position of “Judge of Election” for the Western Precinct in the Media Borough, is heard on the recording saying, “So, like, any derogatory or whatever.”

“Right,” the tape records the apparently more senior election official responding, then adding that “most of the stuff is written on the back so we’re alright.”

The two then finger through the return sheets, appearing to discuss the markings, with Gallagher heard saying, “Okay that’s fine. But you know what I’m saying, ‘refused to come in,’” an apparent reference to a note he wanted covered when copies were made in response to the Right to Know request.

This latter exchange seems to confirm that Delaware County’s concern was only the derogatory handwritten notes and that in providing the responsive documents to the Right to Know request the officials left unobstructed any benign writing when making the copies.

Videos previously obtained by The Federalist provide further evidence of this apparently troubling conduct, as well as some hints to the type of “derogatory” information related to the management and administration of the November 2020 election the plaintiffs allege Delaware County officials attempted to hide.

In one of those earlier videos, the whistleblower filmed a conversation she had with the individual identified to The Federalist as Ziegelhoffer, according to a source with knowledge of the lawsuit. Ziegelhoffer, also known as Ziggy, is the man shown on this tape saying, “What we have here . . . is evidence. Right? Let them figure that out.”

The whistleblower responds: “Yes, but what I don’t understand and this makes—honestly this makes me nervous. Is why tapes were being thrown away?”

After Ziggy begins to deny the claim, “No, no tapes were,” Miller cuts him off: “No, you guys have been throwing away tapes… so what tapes are you throwing away? Like why?” After another short exchange in which Miller reminds him that “you have to save it for 22 months,” a reference to federal retention mandates, Ziegelhoffer acknowledges, “Yes, there are tapes that are being tossed,” but he then justifies their disposal by stressing, “They are of no audit value.”

That video then ends with a shot of various paperwork related to the November 2020 election, including torn documents shown in a large garbage can. A close-up of some of the paperwork captures some of the notes attached to, or written on, the election sheets, seen below:

The latest video appears filmed in the same room as another video obtained last month by The Federalist. That video depicts the man identified by sources as Gallager tearing up tapes from the voting machines and tossing them in a garbage can.

“Tom, why do you have to rip it up? Makes you feel better?” the whistleblower is heard saying.

Gallager replies, “At this point, I don’t want anybody to pick it up, and thinking we threw stuff away.”

“We’re gonna have a little campfire going,” Ziggy adds.

Attempts to contact Ziegelhoffer and Gallager proved unsuccessful and Adrienne Marofsky, the public relations director for Delaware County, told The Federalist, “This matter is pending litigation and therefore the County is not responding to press questions.” However, Marofsky added that “the County is confident that the elections in 2020 and 2021 were conducted fairly and fully complied with state and federal laws.”

But with the video evidence that continues to emerge, that pronouncement seems in doubt: After all, if there were no violations of state or federal law, why seek to hide “derogatory” evidence or destroy the very tapes that could prove compliance with the law?

Source

Harvard Law Churns Out Lawyers To Fight Elections In Court Instead Of At The Polls

Harvard Law Churns Out Lawyers To Fight Elections In Court Instead Of At The Polls

Before the Donald Trump-inspired challenges of the 2020 presidential election, Democrats and liberals alleged fraud and formally contested the results of the 2000, 2004, and 2016 Republican-won presidential elections. Those earlier challenges spurred the creation of a network of election litigators on the left — what J. Christian Adams, a conservative ex-Justice Department attorney pitted against them, calls a “linear build-out” of “some 30 groups” responsible for a lot of sudden changes in election law last year amid the pandemic.

For the closely fought 2020 presidential election, 29 largely Democrat-controlled states and the District of Columbia loosened voting laws, most expanding access to mail voting, according to the liberal Brennan Center for Justice. In response, after former President Trump’s efforts to contest his narrow loss, 19 largely conservative states tightened their voting laws, the Brennan Center reports. The latest changes have provoked a wave of litigation, overwhelmingly from the left.

Now Harvard Law School, in seeming recognition of the power of this “lawfare” strategy, is gearing up for a future where elections are regularly decided not at the ballot box – but in the courts. Two programs at Harvard Law show close ties between the school, the Democratic Party, and liberal activist groups with an interest in fighting elections through the judicial system.

Adams, whose nonprofit Public Interest Legal Foundation describes itself as “dedicated to election integrity,” says: “This is just the next phase: ‘Let’s set up an elite training academy.’ This is their Naval Academy of election litigators.”

Reporting the launch of the Election Law Clinic in April, Harvard Law Today said participating students will get course credit for working on political campaigns, as well as “hands-on litigation and advocacy work across a range of election law areas, with an initial focus on redistricting and voter suppression cases. Clinic offerings include federal and state litigation projects, as well as some advocacy opportunities.”

In an interview with RealClearInvestigations, Ruth Greenwood, the clinic’s new director, said its creation was driven by student demand: “As more people graduate and devote their careers to election law, it made sense for this premier law school to ensure that it has graduates ready to hit the ground running as election lawyers from day one.”

Greenwood stressed that she believes “elections should be decided by the voters, not their lawyers.” But other legal academics worry about what the advent of Harvard’s Election Law Clinic will mean. Glenn Reynolds, the libertarian University of Tennessee law professor known for his Instapundit blog, tells RealClearInvestigations that if institutions such as Harvard start turning out significantly more students with expertise in election law, those lawyers will create a demand for their expertise and election litigation.

“That’s just how the law works,” he says.

The backgrounds of those staffing the putatively nonpartisan Election Law Clinic show a distinct progressive tilt. Greenwood is a former fellow of the Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute. He also worked at the Campaign Legal Center, which receives its funding from major liberal groups such as ActBlue, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Ford Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

Greenwood is a proponent of congressional Democrats’ landmark proposed voting legislation, H.R. 1. She speaks glowingly of the bill as “the biggest step the federal government has taken to protect the right to vote since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. H.R. 1 not only includes bans on partisan gerrymandering and practices that suppress the vote, but also introduces better campaign finance regulations and ethics protections.”

Republicans fiercely oppose the bill on constitutional grounds — that it would put local elections under national control — as well as practical ones, in that Democrats in control at the national level could dispense with GOP-backed voting requirements.

Adams has called H.R. 1 a “partisan weapon masquerading as a civil rights law.” Even left-wing groups such as the ACLU have opposed the legislation, seeing its campaign finance and disclosure regulations as violating the First Amendment.

Theresa Lee, the Election Law Clinic’s litigation director, was formerly the senior staff attorney in the ACLU Voting Rights Project. The clinic also touts instructor Daniel Hessel, who has “litigated election law cases with the Campaign Legal Center and environmental cases with the Natural Resources Defense Council.”

Nicholas Stephanopoulos, an attorney who “provides strategic advice for clinic cases [and] helps to litigate some of these matters,” wrote a piece this year for Democracy Docket, the organization run by Marc Elias, a top election lawyer for the Democratic Party. In it, Stephanopoulos argues that Congress should refuse to seat a candidate who benefits from voter suppression (or gerrymandering) under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. And he defines voter suppression as “policies that make it hard for people to register and vote.”

Elias promoted the piece in the run-up to his ultimately unsuccessful effort to prevent Mariannette Miller-Meeks from assuming the vacant seat in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District after her narrow win over Democrat Rita Hart.

Elias, who worked for the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic National Committee, is perhaps best known for commissioning opposition research firm Fusion GPS to produce the fraudulent Steele dossier while Elias was at Democrat law firm Perkins Coie. Elias left Perkins Coie in August, shortly before his partner, Michael Sussmann, was indicted on charges of lying to the FBI in concealing his affiliation with the Clinton campaign and DNC while dishing dirt about alleged Trump-Russia collusion.

Harvard Law’s ties to partisan electioneering don’t end with the Election Law Clinic. It also boasts the Democracy and the Rule of Law Clinic, started in 2016. Students receive course credit for “an externship with Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit founded by former White House and Department of Justice attorneys and dedicated to preventing our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government.” According to the news outlet The Independent, the group, which got its name from a line in President Obama’s farewell speech, was founded by Obama administration lawyers to oppose then-President Trump.

If its mission doesn’t conflict with its description as a “nonpartisan nonprofit” organization, Protect Democracy’s structure might. Protect Democracy consists of two organizations under the same umbrella. While the Protect Democracy Project is a nonpartisan organization with a 501(c)(3) tax status, its partner organization United to Protect Democracy is a 501(c)(4) partisan entity. Both groups are listed at the same address a few blocks from the White House. Despite the 70 employees listed on their website, the address isn’t an office – it’s a mailbox service that hosts hundreds of organizations.

Protect Democracy

Protect Democracy’s mission in the wake of President Trump’s election.

Source

Emails Show Researchers Who Alleged Trump Links To Russian Alfa Bank Were Anti-Trump

Emails Show Researchers Who Alleged Trump Links To Russian Alfa Bank Were Anti-Trump

“Do the f-cking alfa bank secret comms story, it is hugely important,” Fusion GPS’s Peter Fritsch pushed a media contact in the final weeks before the November 2016 general election, according to emails obtained by an open records request. “Call David Dagon at Georgia tech,” Fritsch would then insist when the Reuters News investigative reporter countered that the problem with the story was an inability to authenticate the data.

While Dagon may have been an expert in the data crunching, emails recently obtained by The Federalist from Georgia Tech reveal Dagon was something more—he was an anti-Trump, Russia-collusion conspiracy theorist.

Dagon’s name first became connected with the Alfa Bank story when Special Counsel John Durham indicted Michael Sussmann two months ago, charging the Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer with lying to FBI General Counsel James Baker.

What the Indictment Says about the Alfa Bank Story

According to the indictment, when Sussmann met with Baker on September 19, 2016, and provided the top FBI lawyer with “white papers” and data files purporting to establish a secret communications channel between the Trump organization and the now famous Russia-connected Alfa Bank, Sussmann falsely claimed he was not there on behalf of a client. In truth, though, Sussmann was working both for the Clinton campaign and an unnamed “U.S. technology industry executive,” the indictment charged.

The 27-page speaking indictment then detailed the origins of the Alfa Bank story. In July 2016, a computer researcher, using the moniker “Tea Leaves” and referred to in the Sussmann indictment as “Originator-1,” “had assembled purported DNS data reflecting apparent DNS lookups between Russian Bank-1 and an email domain, ‘mail1.trump-email.com.” “Tea Leaves,” a business associate of Tech-Executive 1, shared her information with Tech-Executive 1 and others, with Tech-Executive 1 alerting Sussmann to the data.

According to the indictment, Tech Executive-1 later “exploited his access to non-public data at multiple Internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump,” and enlisted “the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”

The indictment further alleged that in early August 2016, “Tech Executive-1 directed and caused employees of two companies in which he had an ownership interest,” “to search and analyze their holdings of public and non-public internet data for derogatory information on Trump.” He also “tasked originator-1 and two computer researchers (‘Researcher-1’ and ‘Research-2’) who worked at a U.S.-based university (‘University-1’) to search broadly through Internet data for any information about Trump’s potential ties to Russia.” Among the data searched, the indictment alleged, was data Tech-Executive 1 had provided to Originator-1, Researcher-1, and Researcher-2.

Tech Executive 1 had provided the researchers access to that data to allow them to establish “proof of concept” for work they were seeking to perform under a government contract, which was eventually awarded in November 2016. Some of the data the university accessed from Tech-Executive 1’s internet company during this “proof of concept” stage included data the company had access to because it was a “sub-contractor in a sensitive relationship between the U.S. government and another company.”

While the data was provided to allow the researchers to protect U.S. networks from cyberattacks, according to the indictment, Originator-1, Researcher-1, and Researcher 2 also exploited the “data to assist Tech Executive-1 in his efforts to conduct research concerning Trump’s potential ties to Russia,” including the allegations about the secret communication channel between Trump’s organizations and Alfa Bank.

The Unnamed Players Go Public

Within hours of the indictment dropping in mid-September, internet sleuths began postulating on the likely names behind the numbering. By month’s end, the players went public, lawyers in hand.

The attorney for Manos Antonakakis, Mark Schamel, told The New York Times that his client, the unnamed “Researcher-1” and a computer scientist at Georgia Tech, had “provided feedback on an early draft of data that was cause for additional investigation.” Their hypothesis, “to this day, remains a plausible working theory,” Schamel, claimed.

Lawyers for Dagon confirmed to The New York Times that he was the second Georgia Tech data scientist discussed in the indictment. Dagon’s attorneys were more positive in their rejoinder, telling the Times the Alfa Bank results “have been validated and are reproducible. The findings of the researchers were true then and remain true today; reports that these findings were innocuous or a hoax are simply wrong.”

“Originator-1” is April Lorenzen, her attorney, Michael J. Connolly, confirmed. Lorenzen, the chief data scientist for Zetalytics, has “dedicated her life to the critical work of thwarting dangerous cyberattacks on our country,” Connolly intoned, adding: “Any suggestion that she engaged in wrongdoing is unequivocally false.”

And then there’s the man behind the mission: Tech Executive-1, identified as Rodney Joffe. Joffe’s lawyer, Steven A. Tyrrell, told the Times “his client had a duty to share the information with the F.B.I. and that the indictment “gratuitously presents an incomplete and misleading picture” of his role.

Emails obtained via an open records request to Georgia Tech, however, provide a picture of the politics behind the players who formulated and fed the Alfa Bank theory to Sussman, who in turn peddled it to the FBI. Some of the emails showed Joffe, Antonakakis, Dagon, and Lorenzen, or some combination of the four, merely exchanging media links of anti-Trump articles related to Trump or his team and supposed Russia connections.

But after Trump’s victory and later inauguration, the vitriol and tinfoil hattery lived loudly within emails Dagon sent.

“The Russians are killing spies with knowledge of the dossier materials,” Dagon wrote to Antonakakis in late January, linking to an Inquisitr.com article reporting of the death of a former KGB chief who allegedly helped to compile the “golden showers” dossier on Trump. Dagon then said his guess was “the purged NSC will now say that Russia has given us great intel on ISIS, and that we should lift sanctions now that Russia is helping.” “All this to protect Trump from the dossier materials,” Dagon ended his tirade.

A few minutes later, Antonakakis replied, “What the f-ck is going on? Can you please explain why GOP is not doing something?” Dagon’s response could have been a parody, but it wasn’t:

While the politics of some random researchers are their concern, when they allegedly assisted Joffe, as the indictment indicates, that made it everyone’s business. It was Joffe, however, who handed off the data to Fusion GPS and Sussmann, and Sussmann who allegedly lied to FBI General Counsel Baker.

Further, unlike Joffe, who worked hand-in-hand with Sussmann, according to Fusion GPS employee Laura Seago, who had worked on the Alfa project, she was not aware of anyone at Fusion GPS communicating with either Dagon or Antonakakis. And while she had heard Dagon’s name before, Seago first came across Antonakakis’s name in a newspaper article.

Antonakakis has not had any contact with Sussman, Marc Elias, or Fusion GPS, his lawyer Mark Schamel told The Federalist. “In this case,” Schamel added, “he reviewed a narrative presented to him by a well-known and respected researcher and provided his feedback, as he does for more than 100 unpublished research articles he receives every year.” Attorneys representing Lorenzen and Dagon did not return requests for comment.

Allegedly Sharing Non-Public Internet Data

While the charge against Sussmann concerned his alleged lie to Baker over whether he was representing anyone in sharing the Alfa Bank intel, a larger issue raised in the indictment concerns Joffe’s alleged sharing of internet company data with the researchers.

Joffe “caused employees of two companies in which he had an ownership interest to search and analyze their holdings of public and non-public internet data,” the indictment charges. Also, according to the indictment, the data Georgia Tech accessed included the “DNS data of an Executive Branch of office of the U.S. government, which Internet Company-1 had come to possess as a sub-contractor in a sensitive relationship between the U.S. government and another company.”

While the purpose of providing Georgia Tech access to that data was to enable researchers “to protect U.S. networks from cyberattacks” from July 2016 through at least February 2017, the indictment alleged, Lorenzen, Antonakakis, and Dagon “also exploited Internet Company-1’s data and other data to assist Tech Executive-1 in his efforts to conduct research concerning Trump’s potential ties to Russia,” including the Alfa-Bank allegations that Sussmann later fed the FBI.

In one email dated July 31, 2016, Antonakakis wrote Joffe with a subject line of “one more data request.” That email and all of the others provided to The Federalist by Georgia Tech used Joffe’s Centergate.com email address. Notably, in this email Antonakakis quipped that he was not a Joffe customer yet, in an apparent reference to the fact that the government contract under which Georgia Tech would purchase services from Joffe’s internet company had not yet been awarded.

An individual at Neustar, Steve DeJong, who was not on the original email, replied three hours later in an email with the “one more data request” subject line, saying he received the request.

Whether these emails concerned the Alfa Bank project or the proof of concept project is unknown, and neither Neustar nor De Jong responded to requests for comment.

None of the other emails expressly discussed the Alfa Bank project either, but several were nonetheless suggestive, such as an email from Antonakakis to Lorenzen with Joffe CCed, dated August 20, 2116, with the regarding line saying “mta,” which likely means “message transfer agent” or “mail transfer agent,” which is an internet email system that transfers electronic mail from one computer to another.

In the text of that email, Antonakakis wrote: “The conclusion here is that there is no conclusion.” Hours later Joffe sent an email to Antonakakis, Dagon, and Lorenzen, with “fist analysis” as the subject, likely meaning “first analysis.” “F-ck,” followed by “<sigh>” was all he said.

While it is possible these exchanges concerned the proof of concept work the researchers needed to complete for the upcoming government contract, the timing of the emails fits the Sussmann indictment’s allegations.

“On or about August 19, 2016, Researcher-1 queried internet data maintained by Internet Company-1 for the aforementioned mail1.trump-email.com domain,” the indictment alleged, continuing: He “then emailed Tech Executive-1 and others a list of domains that had communicated with it—none of which appeared to have links to Russia.”

Another email shows Lorenzen, on August 21, 2021, emailing Antonakakis and Dagon about establishing a Github account to serve as “a private repository for keeping the list of domains in sync.” If this work concerned the government contract for proof of concept, Lorenzen’s suggestion for a Github account seems strange.

Neither Lorenzen nor Dagon’s attorneys responded to a request for comment, but Antonakakis’ attorney unequivocally stated that Antonakakis did not use a Github account.

Another question the documents did not answer concerned whether there were any restrictions placed on the Georgia Tech researchers during the pre-contract, “proof of concept stage.” The eventual contract Georgia Tech signed limited the access, use, or disclosure of government data, but according to the indictment, Joffe and his connected companies provided the researchers access to the various data they supposedly then “exploited.”

Here, then, really, are the questions needing answers: Did Joffe improperly provide Lorenzen, Dagon, or Antonakakis access to data? If so, did they know that? Or if the data shared was properly accessed, were there any restrictions on the use or publication of that data? If so, what were they?

Aside from Sussmann’s alleged lie to the FBI, this case may be nothing more than a further expose of how the liberal media feeds a false narrative to benefit its politics of choice—but that is bad enough by itself.

Travis Miller contributed to this report.

Source

Emails Show Researchers Who Alleged Trump Links To Russian Alfa Bank Were Anti-Trump

Emails Show Researchers Who Alleged Trump Links To Russian Alfa Bank Were Anti-Trump

“Do the f-cking alfa bank secret comms story, it is hugely important,” Fusion GPS’s Peter Fritsch pushed a media contact in the final weeks before the November 2016 general election, according to emails obtained by an open records request. “Call David Dagon at Georgia tech,” Fritsch would then insist when the Reuters News investigative reporter countered that the problem with the story was an inability to authenticate the data.

While Dagon may have been an expert in the data crunching, emails recently obtained by The Federalist from Georgia Tech reveal Dagon was something more—he was an anti-Trump, Russia-collusion conspiracy theorist.

Dagon’s name first became connected with the Alfa Bank story when Special Counsel John Durham indicted Michael Sussmann two months ago, charging the Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer with lying to FBI General Counsel James Baker.

What the Indictment Says about the Alfa Bank Story

According to the indictment, when Sussmann met with Baker on September 19, 2016, and provided the top FBI lawyer with “white papers” and data files purporting to establish a secret communications channel between the Trump organization and the now famous Russia-connected Alfa Bank, Sussmann falsely claimed he was not there on behalf of a client. In truth, though, Sussmann was working both for the Clinton campaign and an unnamed “U.S. technology industry executive,” the indictment charged.

The 27-page speaking indictment then detailed the origins of the Alfa Bank story. In July 2016, a computer researcher, using the moniker “Tea Leaves” and referred to in the Sussmann indictment as “Originator-1,” “had assembled purported DNS data reflecting apparent DNS lookups between Russian Bank-1 and an email domain, ‘mail1.trump-email.com.” “Tea Leaves,” a business associate of Tech-Executive 1, shared her information with Tech-Executive 1 and others, with Tech-Executive 1 alerting Sussmann to the data.

According to the indictment, Tech Executive-1 later “exploited his access to non-public data at multiple Internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump,” and enlisted “the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”

The indictment further alleged that in early August 2016, “Tech Executive-1 directed and caused employees of two companies in which he had an ownership interest,” “to search and analyze their holdings of public and non-public internet data for derogatory information on Trump.” He also “tasked originator-1 and two computer researchers (‘Researcher-1’ and ‘Research-2’) who worked at a U.S.-based university (‘University-1’) to search broadly through Internet data for any information about Trump’s potential ties to Russia.” Among the data searched, the indictment alleged, was data Tech-Executive 1 had provided to Originator-1, Researcher-1, and Researcher-2.

Tech Executive 1 had provided the researchers access to that data to allow them to establish “proof of concept” for work they were seeking to perform under a government contract, which was eventually awarded in November 2016. Some of the data the university accessed from Tech-Executive 1’s internet company during this “proof of concept” stage included data the company had access to because it was a “sub-contractor in a sensitive relationship between the U.S. government and another company.”

While the data was provided to allow the researchers to protect U.S. networks from cyberattacks, according to the indictment, Originator-1, Researcher-1, and Researcher 2 also exploited the “data to assist Tech Executive-1 in his efforts to conduct research concerning Trump’s potential ties to Russia,” including the allegations about the secret communication channel between Trump’s organizations and Alfa Bank.

The Unnamed Players Go Public

Within hours of the indictment dropping in mid-September, internet sleuths began postulating on the likely names behind the numbering. By month’s end, the players went public, lawyers in hand.

The attorney for Manos Antonakakis, Mark Schamel, told The New York Times that his client, the unnamed “Researcher-1” and a computer scientist at Georgia Tech, had “provided feedback on an early draft of data that was cause for additional investigation.” Their hypothesis, “to this day, remains a plausible working theory,” Schamel, claimed.

Lawyers for Dagon confirmed to The New York Times that he was the second Georgia Tech data scientist discussed in the indictment. Dagon’s attorneys were more positive in their rejoinder, telling the Times the Alfa Bank results “have been validated and are reproducible. The findings of the researchers were true then and remain true today; reports that these findings were innocuous or a hoax are simply wrong.”

“Originator-1” is April Lorenzen, her attorney, Michael J. Connolly, confirmed. Lorenzen, the chief data scientist for Zetalytics, has “dedicated her life to the critical work of thwarting dangerous cyberattacks on our country,” Connolly intoned, adding: “Any suggestion that she engaged in wrongdoing is unequivocally false.”

And then there’s the man behind the mission: Tech Executive-1, identified as Rodney Joffe. Joffe’s lawyer, Steven A. Tyrrell, told the Times “his client had a duty to share the information with the F.B.I. and that the indictment “gratuitously presents an incomplete and misleading picture” of his role.

Emails obtained via an open records request to Georgia Tech, however, provide a picture of the politics behind the players who formulated and fed the Alfa Bank theory to Sussman, who in turn peddled it to the FBI. Some of the emails showed Joffe, Antonakakis, Dagon, and Lorenzen, or some combination of the four, merely exchanging media links of anti-Trump articles related to Trump or his team and supposed Russia connections.

But after Trump’s victory and later inauguration, the vitriol and tinfoil hattery lived loudly within emails Dagon sent.

“The Russians are killing spies with knowledge of the dossier materials,” Dagon wrote to Antonakakis in late January, linking to an Inquisitr.com article reporting of the death of a former KGB chief who allegedly helped to compile the “golden showers” dossier on Trump. Dagon then said his guess was “the purged NSC will now say that Russia has given us great intel on ISIS, and that we should lift sanctions now that Russia is helping.” “All this to protect Trump from the dossier materials,” Dagon ended his tirade.

A few minutes later, Antonakakis replied, “What the f-ck is going on? Can you please explain why GOP is not doing something?” Dagon’s response could have been a parody, but it wasn’t:

While the politics of some random researchers are their concern, when they allegedly assisted Joffe, as the indictment indicates, that made it everyone’s business. It was Joffe, however, who handed off the data to Fusion GPS and Sussmann, and Sussmann who allegedly lied to FBI General Counsel Baker.

Further, unlike Joffe, who worked hand-in-hand with Sussmann, according to Fusion GPS employee Laura Seago, who had worked on the Alfa project, she was not aware of anyone at Fusion GPS communicating with either Dagon or Antonakakis. And while she had heard Dagon’s name before, Seago first came across Antonakakis’s name in a newspaper article.

Antonakakis has not had any contact with Sussman, Marc Elias, or Fusion GPS, his lawyer Mark Schamel told The Federalist. “In this case,” Schamel added, “he reviewed a narrative presented to him by a well-known and respected researcher and provided his feedback, as he does for more than 100 unpublished research articles he receives every year.” Attorneys representing Lorenzen and Dagon did not return requests for comment.

Allegedly Sharing Non-Public Internet Data

While the charge against Sussmann concerned his alleged lie to Baker over whether he was representing anyone in sharing the Alfa Bank intel, a larger issue raised in the indictment concerns Joffe’s alleged sharing of internet company data with the researchers.

Joffe “caused employees of two companies in which he had an ownership interest to search and analyze their holdings of public and non-public internet data,” the indictment charges. Also, according to the indictment, the data Georgia Tech accessed included the “DNS data of an Executive Branch of office of the U.S. government, which Internet Company-1 had come to possess as a sub-contractor in a sensitive relationship between the U.S. government and another company.”

While the purpose of providing Georgia Tech access to that data was to enable researchers “to protect U.S. networks from cyberattacks” from July 2016 through at least February 2017, the indictment alleged, Lorenzen, Antonakakis, and Dagon “also exploited Internet Company-1’s data and other data to assist Tech Executive-1 in his efforts to conduct research concerning Trump’s potential ties to Russia,” including the Alfa-Bank allegations that Sussmann later fed the FBI.

In one email dated July 31, 2016, Antonakakis wrote Joffe with a subject line of “one more data request.” That email and all of the others provided to The Federalist by Georgia Tech used Joffe’s Centergate.com email address. Notably, in this email Antonakakis quipped that he was not a Joffe customer yet, in an apparent reference to the fact that the government contract under which Georgia Tech would purchase services from Joffe’s internet company had not yet been awarded.

An individual at Neustar, Steve DeJong, who was not on the original email, replied three hours later in an email with the “one more data request” subject line, saying he received the request.

Whether these emails concerned the Alfa Bank project or the proof of concept project is unknown, and neither Neustar nor De Jong responded to requests for comment.

None of the other emails expressly discussed the Alfa Bank project either, but several were nonetheless suggestive, such as an email from Antonakakis to Lorenzen with Joffe CCed, dated August 20, 2116, with the regarding line saying “mta,” which likely means “message transfer agent” or “mail transfer agent,” which is an internet email system that transfers electronic mail from one computer to another.

In the text of that email, Antonakakis wrote: “The conclusion here is that there is no conclusion.” Hours later Joffe sent an email to Antonakakis, Dagon, and Lorenzen, with “fist analysis” as the subject, likely meaning “first analysis.” “F-ck,” followed by “<sigh>” was all he said.

While it is possible these exchanges concerned the proof of concept work the researchers needed to complete for the upcoming government contract, the timing of the emails fits the Sussmann indictment’s allegations.

“On or about August 19, 2016, Researcher-1 queried internet data maintained by Internet Company-1 for the aforementioned mail1.trump-email.com domain,” the indictment alleged, continuing: He “then emailed Tech Executive-1 and others a list of domains that had communicated with it—none of which appeared to have links to Russia.”

Another email shows Lorenzen, on August 21, 2021, emailing Antonakakis and Dagon about establishing a Github account to serve as “a private repository for keeping the list of domains in sync.” If this work concerned the government contract for proof of concept, Lorenzen’s suggestion for a Github account seems strange.

Neither Lorenzen nor Dagon’s attorneys responded to a request for comment, but Antonakakis’ attorney unequivocally stated that Antonakakis did not use a Github account.

Another question the documents did not answer concerned whether there were any restrictions placed on the Georgia Tech researchers during the pre-contract, “proof of concept stage.” The eventual contract Georgia Tech signed limited the access, use, or disclosure of government data, but according to the indictment, Joffe and his connected companies provided the researchers access to the various data they supposedly then “exploited.”

Here, then, really, are the questions needing answers: Did Joffe improperly provide Lorenzen, Dagon, or Antonakakis access to data? If so, did they know that? Or if the data shared was properly accessed, were there any restrictions on the use or publication of that data? If so, what were they?

Aside from Sussmann’s alleged lie to the FBI, this case may be nothing more than a further expose of how the liberal media feeds a false narrative to benefit its politics of choice—but that is bad enough by itself.

Travis Miller contributed to this report.

Source

Wisconsin Elections Commission ‘Shattered’ Laws By Telling Nursing Home Staffers To Illegally Cast Ballots For Residents

Wisconsin Elections Commission ‘Shattered’ Laws By Telling Nursing Home Staffers To Illegally Cast Ballots For Residents

Racine County, Wisconsin law enforcement blew the 2020 election integrity question wide open on Thursday after an investigation into one nursing home. It revealed not only that state election officials flagrantly broke the law and ordered health-care employees to help them, but that the problem likely runs much deeper throughout the swing state’s other 71 counties.

An “election statute was in fact not just broken, but shattered by members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission,” Sheriff Christopher Schmaling said during a Thursday press conference in which he and Sgt. Michael Luell detailed the findings of an investigation into Ridgewood Care Facility.

What Happened in Racine County?

The investigation came about when a woman named Judy signed a sworn affidavit with the Wisconsin Elections Commission after she discovered that her mother, who had died on Oct. 9, 2020 after a period of severe cognitive decline, had voted in the 2020 presidential election. The affidavit was later passed along as a complaint to the county district attorney.

Judy alleged that her mother Shirley’s mental state had deteriorated so far that she was having hallucinations and wasn’t able to recall what she had eaten during a day or even what day it was. According to Judy, her mother couldn’t see — her glasses were broken, and she couldn’t even recognize her own daughter — so even if she were of a sound mind, she wouldn’t have known whether someone assisting her with a ballot had voted according to her wishes.

Luell, who led the investigation at the request of the district attorney, found an unusual spike in voting at this care facility: 42 people had voted in the 2020 presidential election. That number is usually 10. Furthermore, in 2020, 38 people had requested absentee ballots, up from the usual 0-3 in normal years.

When Luell attempted to contact the families of these voters to check whether their loved ones had the cognitive capacity to cast a vote, seven replied no, and almost all of them hadn’t voted since 2012. One of the family members said his mother would ask him who he was, meaning she didn’t recognize her own son. She hadn’t voted since 2012 — yet MyVote Wisconsin revealed she voted twice in 2020.

Wisconsin Election Commission Broke the Law

This surge in voting was the result of Wisconsin Elections Commission officials breaking state law. The commission — which is made up of six commissioners, including three Democrats and three Republicans, who are appointed by legislative leaders or the governor and serve as an agency in the executive branch under the governor — authorized nursing home employees to help residents vote, which Luell noted “is a direct violation of law.”

According to Luell, employees would ask residents how they voted in the past and then vote according to that party. In other words, if Judy’s mother “could only recall JFK,” staff would vote Democrat for her.

According to state law, however, nursing home staff can’t assist residents with voting. In fact, nobody can help the voter other than a relative or “special voting deputies,” which are people appointed by municipal clerks or elections boards to conduct absentee voting at care facilities.

In March, however, the Wisconsin Elections Commission sent out a letter mandating that municipalities should not use the “special voting deputy process.”

“Ladies and gentleman, it’s not a process. It’s the law,” Luell said, citing state Statute 6.875.

The original letter was issued under the guise of COVID guidelines. Nevertheless, in September, after the governors’ lockdown orders had expired and the initial shock of the pandemic had passed, the Wisconsin Elections Commission sent a letter to all residential care facilities telling the workers how to help residents vote, including even marking the ballot for them, in direct violation of state law.

Racine law enforcement looked at 2020 visitor logs and found that other visitors were let into the nursing home throughout the pandemic, about 900 times between the decision in March not to use special voting deputies and November 2020. Those visitors included someone to clean the fish tanks and birdcages and even DoorDash delivery people.

“Those people were allowed into the Ridgewood Care Facility, but heaven forbid we make an exception for special voting deputies,” Luell said.

Under Wisconsin state statute 12.13, breaking these laws about special voting deputies constitutes “election fraud,” which is a felony.

“We’re just one of 72 counties, Racine County,” Schmaling noted. “Ridgeland is one of 11 facilities within our county. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of these facilities throughout the entire state of Wisconsin. We would be foolish, we would be foolish to think for a moment that this integrity issue, this violation of the statute, occurred to just this small group of people at one care facility in one county in the entire state. I would submit to you that this needs the attorney general’s investigation,” the sheriff said, calling for the AG to launch an immediate probe into the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Add It to the List

This bombshell investigation is only the latest in the long list of malfeasant actions by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, especially regarding the 2020 election. As Wisconsin radio host and lawyer Dan O’Donnell put it, the commission “was downright derelict in its duty to fairly and impartially oversee an election.”

As O’Donnell documented, the commission unlawfully allowed clerks to “cure” ballots, illegally permitted clerks to go home on election night and return to finish counting in the morning, and illegally told clerks they could relocate polling locations in the weeks before the election.

Furthermore, the commission failed to issue relevant laws and rules for training municipal election workers, special voting deputies, and election inspections. Worse, it failed to investigate voter rolls for the hundreds of thousands there incorrectly, including more than 45,000 first-time voters whose names didn’t match Department of Transportation records, among other issues.

As The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway outlines in her new book “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” the Wisconsin Elections Commission also wrongly kept third-party candidates off the ballot, including Kanye West and the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins. Third parties can significantly affect elections in the Dairy State.

“Following the [Legislative Audit Bureau] report, what Sheriff Schmaling has uncovered + disclosed might only be tip of the iceberg of fraud in the 2020 election. The Legislature must be given the time, resources, and cooperation of election officials to conduct a complete investigation of allegations,” tweeted Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin following the Racine press conference. “Using elderly residents with cognitive decline to commit election fraud is reprehensible, and should concern every Wisconsinite and American.”

Johnson continued: “If Democrats will stoop this low to impact elections, one can only imagine what else they’re willing to do.”

Source

7 Insane Things I Just Learned About How U.S. Elections Are ‘Rigged’

7 Insane Things I Just Learned About How U.S. Elections Are ‘Rigged’

The extent to which corporate media rigs elections for Democrats has been rigorously documented since at least Tim Groseclose’s 2012 book, “Left Turn.” In that book, the political scientist concluded through data-driven analysis that media bias on average shifts the electorate 20 points to the left on a 100-point political worldview scale. Without media bias, he argued, the average American state would be as Republican-leaning as Texas or Kentucky, and those two states would be even more conservative.

Media bias was highly visible even before Rush Limbaugh made it a regular feature of his top-rated radio show that became nationally syndicated in 1988. As the Trump era dawned, however, media coverage moved from biased to outright propaganda.

Corporate media went from picking left-friendly frames and omitting facts that reinforced right-leaning views about public affairs, as Groseclose documented in 2012, to outright mass hoaxing of voters by 2016. While hyperventilating about the minority of Americans who believe conspiracy theories like QAnon, leftist media not only inflamed but also outright fabricated conspiracy theories that the majority of Democrat voters believe.

For example, in 2020, a majority of Americans — including 81 percent of self-described “liberals” — believed the lie that Donald Trump committed treason for Russia. That claim was disproven by a two-year, Democrat-populated special counsel investigation that spent $32 million to find no evidence for this hoax, which effectively hamstrung a president from pursuing what voters put him in office to accomplish.

This corporate media smear machine was only one of the numerous unfair advantages Democrats exploited in the 2020 elections. My colleague, Mollie Hemingway, just put out a new, bestselling book that also documents things like big tech hiding election-shifting news from voters and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg embedding Democrat get-out-the-vote operations inside local election offices — which are supposed to be nonpartisan! What’s more, all these cheats affixed into our nation’s election machinery haven’t been scrubbed away, not by a long shot.

While I work with Mollie and am highly aware of media corruption since it’s our bread and butter here at The Federalist, she still had many surprises for me inside “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections.” Here I’ll share a few things she reports in the book that made me gasp out loud.

1. The DNC Controlled All Poll Watchers for 40 Years

I had to read this section of the book two or three times to absorb what it was saying. I couldn’t believe it could possibly be true. Yet it is: “Shockingly, the 2020 contest was the first presidential election since Reagan’s first successful run in 1980 in which the Republican National Committee could play any role whatsoever in Election Day operations.”

What? Next sentence: “For nearly 40 years, the Democratic National Committee had a massive systemic advantage over its Republican counterpart: the Republican National Committee had been prohibited by law from helping out with poll watcher efforts or nearly any litigation related to how voting is being conducted.”

This section in chapter 1 goes on to explain how such an insane thing could be real. Essentially, after Democrats accused Republicans of cheating in a New Jersey race in 1981, a judge banned the RNC from poll-watching and voting litigation everywhere in the country, then kept re-upping the order until 2018, when it finally expired three years after he died.

This handicapped Republicans for almost 40 years while Democrats were free to do things Republicans couldn’t, like give boosts to their voters all along the voting process and track them extensively, challenge ballots, document irregularities, and sue over election disputes. By 2020, then, Mollie writes:

Democrats had spent the last forty years perfecting their Election Day operations while everyone at the Republican National Committee walked on eggshells, knowing that if they so much as looked in the direction of a polling site, there could be another crackdown. As a result, there was no muscle memory about how to watch polls or communicate with a presidential campaign.

That’s a pretty big handicap walking into the election chaos of 2020, in which Americans filled out an unprecedented 65 million mail-in ballots, which are known not only for their margin of error, but also for being structurally biased towards Democrats.

2. Lazy Voting Biases Elections Towards Democrats

Also made clear throughout “Rigged” is that lazier and sloppier elections strongly advantage Democrats. This means long election seasons, mail-in balloting, and loose ballot behavior such as mailing millions and opening dropboxes all tilt elections towards Democrats.

As Mollie writes, “the vote-by-mail system was becoming a major part of the Democratic Party’s get-out-the-vote operation. Regardless of fraud and other concerns, the press saw the success of the mail-in ballot effort in Wisconsin for what it was: an effort to turn out more Democratic voters.” Republican voters, she shows, prefer to vote in person because they want to make sure their votes are reliably counted.

Why Republicans would ever allow voting procedures that structurally advantage their opponents is, to put it bluntly, only understandable as self-hatred. Democrats would never, ever do that, because they actually want to win.

3. Facebook Bought Joe Biden the Election

In 2020, Facebook’s interference in the election was a one-two punch. Mollie notes: “[Mark] Zuckerberg didn’t just help Democrats by censoring their political opponents. He directly funded liberal groups running partisan get-out-the-vote operations. In fact, he helped those groups infiltrate election offices in key swing states by doling out large grants to crucial districts. That funding was the means by which [Democrat] activists achieved their ‘revolution’ and changed the course of the 2020 election.”

Elsewhere in the book, Hemingway notes that Facebook executives have boasted that they can shut off 80 percent of the traffic to any link they want. Facebook and Google blacklisting of conservative news sites such as The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and Breitbart has been documented since 2017.

Atop this were what’s been termed “Zuck Bucks,” the nearly half a billion dollars Zuckerberg gave to essentially fund a shadow elections system that again structurally advantaged Democrats. To list just a few things the book shows Zuck Bucks facilitated: literally designing mail-in ballots and their envelopes; sending partisan activists to “help” local elections offices in conveniently located swing districts; “fix” unclear or illegal mail-in ballots; designing absentee balloting instructions; and collecting absentee ballots.

The details are breathtaking. Mollie gives so many facts about the partisan tilt and effectiveness of Zuckerberg’s grants to local elections offices that it truly leads one to conclude Zuckerberg flat-out bought the election for Joe Biden.

4. The United States Has Republican No-Go Zones

I’d also never heard about this shocking story that illustrates the extent to which political repression is tolerated within the Democrat Party. In her chapter about the 2020 Summer of Riots, Mollie writes:

In 2017, Portland canceled its annual Rose Parade after violent threats from Antifa, which objected to the Multnomah County Republican Party’s being included as one of the many civic groups marching in the parade. Forget Trump; it was unsafe for even an ordinary Republican to walk down the streets of Portland. And in canceling the parade, [Portland Mayor Ted] Wheeler effectively conceded that Antifa ruled the streets.

Mollie later quotes former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr describing how Antifa — a violent group implicated in actual domestic terrorism — “use[s] legitimate demonstrations as a host body.” “Further,” Mollie writes, “they operated in liberal cities in blue states where local authorities were both reluctant to stop them and unwilling to help federal law enforcement go after them.”

In other words, Democrats are willing to concede the safety of Americans’ lives, limbs, and property to ideological allies, even when those allies openly commit violent crimes and threaten more.

5. The FBI Is Systemically Biased Towards the Left

In discussing why Antifa is allowed to threaten peaceful American citizens with violence, Mollie uncovers one of the political problems with addressing this: The FBI is systemically biased on behalf of the left. “[T]he agency had long focused its attention on right-wing extremists and was ill-equipped to deal with threats from the left,” she notes.

Yes, this is the nation’s top law-enforcement agency that helped hatch the Spygate plot to frame a Republican president. Politically biased — you think? Mollie writes further:

…Even though decades had passed, the FBI was still skittish about the criticism it had received for infiltrating radical left-wing groups in the ’60s and ’70s.

The inaction in response to Antifa certainly helped take the pressure off Biden [in the 2020 campaign], who never had to answer for the bricks flying through windows, rampant looting, toppling of statues, and assaults on innocent business owners that defined urban life throughout the summer of 2020. To do so would have been to confront an uncomfortable truth — the Democratic Party and its allies have been tolerating, encouraging, and mainstreaming political violence for decades.

6. It’s No Longer Media Bias, It’s Media Lies

As my opening to this essay explains, I’m aware media bias has been transcended by outright propaganda. In her book, however, Mollie makes an excellent point about this after detailing other cases proving this shift.

She makes it in relation to what I’d call a relatively minor offense — The New York Times publishing a Trump-smearing piece from an anonymous author it described as a “senior administration official,” meaning “someone in the upper echelon of an administration.” Of course, it turned out this person wasn’t any such thing. He was just a mid-level bureaucrat.

After giving the truly asinine details of that story, Mollie makes this comment:

If the New York Times was willing to lie about how high-level an anonymous source was for its very high-profile September 2018 information operation, what lies was it willing to tell about all the other anonymous sources it used? And if this is how one of America’s biggest newsrooms operates, readers are right to ask how much other papers and media outlets were willing to lie in support of their anti-Republican narratives.

If you don’t believe it already, after you read Mollie’s book, you will come away with the inescapable conclusion that Trump was right when he called corporate media “the enemy of the people.”

7. Mail-In Balloting Is More Outrageous Than Anyone Can Imagine

“Up to a quarter of a million votes were cast in Wisconsin’s presidential election without any identification check at all,” Mollie writes on page 66. I already knew a lot about how error-riddled mail-in voting is — I wrote about that when few would. But just encountering this new fact and realizing this represented just one swing state was another mind-blowing moment for me about just how corruption-enabling and confidence-destroying are vote-by-mail-tainted elections.

There are many more shocking things in Mollie’s book, and I’m not even done. I just started the Hunter Biden chapter, and holy mackerel. Until I read further, a few thoughts.

Republicans expect to win a wave election in 2022. How many points will they have to beat Democrats by to prove it? How many dubious ballots will be produced or negotiated away by partisan election workers or judges? How many urban areas run by Democrats will produce suspicious numbers of ballots that outweigh the votes in the rest of their states? How many Republican voters will stay home because they can’t trust elections run by some of the loosest rules in the developed world?

We shouldn’t even have to be asking these questions right now. If Republicans genuinely want to win elections — and that is sadly in doubt — they have no choice but to use whatever power they have to make those elections trustworthy again. That means in-person voting, with ID, for everyone except the truly disabled, and returning to an election day, not an election season.

The left and their media are going to lie about Republicans no matter what they do, so they might as well get secure elections out of the never-ending smear cycle. Republican voters don’t believe the media anyway, so why do any of their elected officials? Remember, admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)