If you read between the lines of the post-mortems of the 2020 election, you can almost sense some are so jubilant, they come very close to admitting to fraud, celebrating it … consecrating it.
I’ve never seen anything like the Feb. 4 issue of Time magazine’s cover story, titled, “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” authored by Molly Ball.
It’s almost as if this opus report by the glowing biographer of Nancy Pelosi was written in code, with so much braggadocio and the need for handing out kudos and “credit” along the way.
It talks frankly of a “conspiracy to save the 2020 election.” Why would you need a “conspiracy”? It seems a strange word to use for something you like and take pride in, something usually associate with trickery. Words usually associated with “conspiracy” are “plot,” “intrigue,” “collusion” and “connivance.” Conspirators are most often described as “betrayers,” “schemers” and “traitors.”
The article’s language gets worse.
The piece describes “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.”
Oh. Not rigging, fortifying it.
Once again, this is an unusual word to choose for something as supposedly non-forceful as a free election. What are fortifications used for? Trench digging, consolidating, reinforcement, entrenchment, arming.
As for this “well-funded cabal of powerful people,” that sounds rather sinister. But this is not the intent. It’s admiration. And as to “working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information,” it all sound rather diabolical.
“In a way, Trump was right,” Ball concedes. “There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs.”
More talk of “conspiracy.” There were “shadow campaigners,” too.
“Their work touched every aspect of the election,” she boasted. “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.”
Keep in mind, this passes for journalism today – unbiased, objective, fair and reasoned journalism.
The plotters, we’re told, were prepared for the two most likely outcomes.
Guess what they would be?
“Trump losing and refusing to concede, and Trump winning the Electoral College … by corrupting the voting process in key states,” Ball wrote – obviously unprepared for Trump to win sans corruption.
The other main concern was foreign disinformation and Trump’s “dependence” on Russia’s Vladimir Putin, according to Time’s factually challenged scribe.
“Bad actors spreading false information is nothing new,” she typed. “But Trump’s lies and conspiracy theories, the viral force of social media and the involvement of foreign meddlers made disinformation a broader, deeper threat to the 2020 vote.”
So how would they handle that? The ingenuous plan came from Laura Quinn, “a veteran progressive operative who co-founded Catalist.”
“She piloted a nameless, secret project, which she never before publicly discussed, that tracked disinformation online and tried to figure out of how combat it,” she wrote. “One component was tracking dangerous lies that might otherwise spread unnoticed. Researchers then provided information to campaigners or the media to track down the sources and expose them.”
More importantly, Quinn’s idea was to squelch the content before it ever had a chance by using Big Tech’s inclination to censor. One obvious example? The Hunter Biden laptop story, which was not disinformation. It was true. However, it was cloaked as “Russian disinformation” throughout the campaign.
There’s more to this leaked manual destined for future Democratic campaigns: It talks about how “protests” were orchestrated, even as to timing.
“Protests that devolved into violent clashes would give Trump a pretext to send in federal agents or troops as he had over the summer,” wrote Ball. “And rather than elevate Trump’s complaints by continuing to fight him, the alliance wanted to send the message that the people had spoken. So the word went out: stand down.”
It may be that the Democrats are publishing this “secret playbook” for their next campaign in the pages of Time magazine because it’s just so good. Or it may be that, in their enthusiasm for getting this information out, they don’t think we’ll have a ghost of a chance in four years to stop them.
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.