Those who influenced 2020 expect to work election strategy again in 2022

A political sign for President Trump’s reelection in Stuart, Florida, on Friday, Oct. 16, 2020. (Photo by Joe Kovacs)

Many headlines have appeared regarding the results of the 2020 presidential election and how they were reached.

While some of the claims of ballot fraud have been looked at, and discarded, there remain two issues that are being blamed for significantly disrupting the normal election processes – and therefore likely the results.

Those are the fact that Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg handed out some $420 million to election officials, often telling them to go out and recruit voters from Democrat strongholds, and that election officials – without any permission – arbitrarily changed state voting laws to accommodate mail-in ballots.

Now J. Christian Adams, of the Public Interest Legal Foundation and a former attorney in the Department of Justices’ Voting Section, is warning that those who pursued that agenda in 2020 are looking forward to doing the same thing in 2022.

At the Gatestone Institute, he recently explained a “failure to understand the complex architecture and confusing events of the 2020 election makes it more likely that something like it will happen again. Indeed, the destabilizing forces at work in 2020 are emboldened by their success. The philanthropic streams of money that fueled the 2020 outcome still exist. They are looking toward 2022 midterm elections to do it all over again.”

He said those “two ingredients drove the outcome in 2020: First, private philanthropy injected into government election offices and, second, a banana-republic style suspension of agreed-upon election rules. You didn’t need much outright voter fraud when these two ingredients combined to poison the 2020 election.”

The “lethal poison” of millions of dollars being injected into the election was “essentially legal,” and worked like this, he said.

“In the months before the 2020 elections, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). Prior to Zuckerberg’s largess, CTCL had an annual budget around $600,000 per year. 2020 would be a very good year for them,” he said.

That group took the money and “with extreme, strategic precision, re-granted it to thousands of government election officials to ‘help’ them conduct the 2020 election. It converted election offices in key jurisdictions with deep reservoirs of Biden votes into Formula One turnout-machines.”

He said the real action was in cities where “hundreds of millions of dollars running through election offices fueled a ground game that, before 2020, the Democratic Party could only dream about.”

For example, Philadelphia got a “$10 million” burst of money and “hired new city employees — fresh from local activist groups — to go door to do and deliver ballots. Since they worked for the election office, everything was ‘legal.’ They bought radio advertising on Spanish and urban radio stations; ‘get out the vote, vote by mail, no need for any witnesses anymore!'”

“It’s obvious. A facially impartial and hyper-funded campaign to turn out votes in Philadelphia, will end up turning out votes for Joe Biden, and that is precisely what happened. Neutral actions, wholly lacking any facial partisan taint, were hyper-fueled with philanthropic dollars to turn out record numbers of voters in Philadelphia. They just happened to nearly all vote for Joe Biden, and no matching effort was conducted in red counties. You could not convert dollars in sparsely populated counties into turnout machines the same way you could in concentrated urban cores,” he said.

It happened similarly in other locations.

“Understanding this architecture explains so many other parts of the 2020 election. For example, it explains the urban turnout explosion. Trump had unprecedented support among black voters. But so what? Trump’s 15% of the black vote in Detroit was swamped in absolute terms because turnout there soared by 92,891 votes. Trump even had 20% of the black vote in Atlanta but overall DeKalb’s turnout soared by 54,550 votes — 80% were opposed.”

“The CTCL money did not fund voting integrity systems. It only funded a massive ground game to harvest blue ballots. It built processes to get those ballots distributed in urban cores, voted, and back in to be counted,” he said.

Secondly, he pointed out, “All across America, leftists and Democrats — some of the same leftists who helped cook up the Zuckbucks scheme — were suing states to break down rules and laws.”

He explained election laws are enacted ahead of time for a reason — so all agree on the rules before the game.

But in 2020, “especially in swing states,” “the rules were thrown out in the name of an emergency. In Nevada, the state rushed to all of the mail-in ballots being sent automatically, even though the Public Interest Legal Foundation had documented tens of thousands of dead registrants, vacant lots and commercial addresses on the voter rolls,” he wrote.

“Other states suspended their laws: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Arizona, North Carolina, and more.”

Officials also counted ballots after the election, calling it “fair.”

He wrote, “Let me be clear, there was voter fraud in 2020. But this time, it was bigger than voter fraud. This time, it moved hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of votes. In no election in my experience has voter fraud ever moved that many votes. This toxic 2020 plan was bigger, and more stealthy — and largely legal. After all, how is it illegal if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court orders it?”

WND reported when Joy Pullmann, the executive editor of The Federalist, cited in an analysis that the same strategy has been used before.

She cited the work of The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, whose book, “Rigged,” talks about the influence of money on 2020’s results.

“That book, and some great corroborating independent reporting, show that 2020 election chaos was part of an effective and well-funded plan to help Democrats win by rigging the playing field. One key strategy deployed to that end has become default on the left yet still often goes unremarked and unchallenged. It’s called ‘advocacy philanthropy,'” she explained.

Zuckerberg’s plan deployed “nearly half a billion dollars to help Democrat activists infiltrate local government election apparatuses, literally paying for election equipment and the salaries of partisans who counted ballots,” she said.

The result? A “shadow government that pits elected officials against their voters on behalf of moneyed interests.”

Pullmann said Bill Gates previously used the idea, funding the imposition of Common Core in schools across the country.

Explained Pullmann, “Like Zuckerburg with the 2020 elections, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation spent hundreds of millions of dollars to write Common Core, write tests and curriculum matching it, successfully lobby federal and state officials to make it mandatory (including with former Gates Foundation staffers inside the Obama administration, in violation of Obama’s own ethics rules), and create a media and activism ‘echo chamber’ that surrounded the entire process with Astroturfed, paid promoters praising the effort.”

Multiple states are investigating various aspects of the efforts to fund election processes privately, as well as the arbitrary changes in law that benefited Democrats.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts