Exclusive Excerpt from ‘Rigged,’ Mollie Hemingway’s New Book

Exclusive Excerpt from ‘Rigged,’ Mollie Hemingway’s New Book: ‘Strong Reason to Question the Legality of More Votes Than Margin Biden Won’ Georgia By Mollie Hemingway’s explosive new book, Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections, details how a mismanaged election in Fulton County, a corrupt and incompetent Secretary of State’s office, millions of dollars from Mark Zuckerberg-backed nonprofits, and more than 10,000 illegal votes provide compelling evidence for a person to question the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s narrow victory in Georgia over Donald Trump in the November 2020 election.“
In the months since the 2020 election, data has been put forth showing strong reason to question the legality of more votes than the margin Biden won [Georgia] by, ” Hemingway writes:
Had a court been willing to hear the argument, and had Trump’s attorneys been able to show the data in the weeks following the election, a good argument could have been made for holding a new election. And that doesn’t even count the tens of millions of Zuck Bucks that flowed into the coffers of Democratic counties in Georgia, much less the millions the secretary of state’s office used to help Democrats with their get-out-the-vote balloting scheme.
“Trump actually won the state. And I’m not crazy when I say that,” Mark Rountree, head of Georgia’s long-time political consulting powerhouse Landmark Communications, told Hemingway.
The book will be released on Tuesday. Breitbart News was given a prepublication copy of Hemingway’s chapter on Georgia, which documents the strange events that took place in Fulton County on election night, November 3, 2020:

On Election Night, Georgia Republican field organizer Michelle Branton was told to go to State Farm Arena in Atlanta, where Fulton County was counting hundreds of thousands of mail-in absentee ballots. She was joined by fellow field organizer Mitchell Harrison. [Emphasis added]…When they got to the arena, Branton and Harrison, together with a camera crew from a Fox affiliate news station, were sent to a large, angular room where they were told to stay behind a rope at one end of the space. They couldn’t see a thing. The distance “effectively prevented our actual observation of the process,” Branton said in an affidavit.…Election workers had been processing ballots since that morning. After Branton and Harrison arrived, employees began wrapping up their work.

The last employee finished her stack of envelopes around 10:30 p.m. Across the room, a woman—she seemed to Branton and Harrison to be the supervisor—told everyone to stop counting and to come back at 8:30 a.m., at which point counting would resume. All but about four people left. Branton and Harrison left, along with the Fox TV news crew. They headed back to the Fulton County Board of Elections warehouse across town. Waller arrived shortly thereafter. But then they began to read on social media that counting hadn’t, in fact, stopped. It was still going on. Harrison rushed back to State Farm Arena with Trevin McKoy, another Republican poll watcher. When they got to the building shortly before 1:00 a.m., they were told that counting had kept going after they left, but was now stopped. They demanded to get access to the ballot counting area, where they witnessed no one counting ballots and were told that the counting had “just finished.

”Video of the vote-counting that night at State Farm Arena, discovered a month later, “showed that after they left, a small remnant of about four workers began pulling trunks containing thousands of ballots from underneath a table with a long tablecloth and running ballots through machines.
”Democrats and the establishment media quickly circled their wagons to explain away this huge election procedure irregularity:
Democrats knew that the video looked absolutely awful, particularly since Biden had received a huge spike in numbers from Fulton County at the same time as the footage was timestamped. In came liberal media to tell people not to believe their lying eyes—there was no problematic behavior in the suspicious footage.
After mentioning how some prominent conservative pundits had described the video as troubling, the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple said, “Of course, there’s another explanation, one offered on Friday by Fulton County Director of Registration and Elections Richard L. Barron:
‘According to my staff, that’s just normal.’”

The Washington Post also quoted Barron as saying, “No one from my staff made an announcement for anyone to leave.” With that, the Washington Post was satisfied. Never mind that in addition to the video, there were multiple affidavits from poll watchers and dozens of media reports on Election Night saying that they were told the counting was done for the night. There was no curiosity about why everyone had left at the same time if no one had made an announcement for anyone to leave.
Barron’s claim was at best lawyerly and narrow: they didn’t technically ask anyone to leave. Such a sophistical answer wouldn’t hold up against the most modest level of scrutiny. Luckily for Barron, the media wasn’t interested in providing any.
Barron was not the only one who asserted that the video of Fulton County poll workers did not merit serious consideration. Another group purporting to debunk the video was an outfit called Lead Stories, which relies on funding from Silicon Valley tech giants Google and Facebook, in addition to ByteDance, a Chinese-operated company headquartered in Beijing that operates the social media platform TikTok.
Lead Stories relied on the same line as the Washington Post, saying, “There was never an announcement made to the media and other observers about the counting being over for the night and them needing to leave, according to [Frances Watson, chief investigator for the Georgia secretary of state], who was provided information by the media liaison, who was present.
”Biden’s narrow 12,670 vote margin of victory over Donald Trump in Georgia’s 2020 election, out of 5 million votes cast in the state, was certified by Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, on November 20, 2020.In Fulton County, Biden won by a huge margin of 243,904 votes. Out of 524,659 votes cast, Biden was certified as the recipient of 381,144 votes, and Trump received only 137,240.Of those 524,659 votes cast, 146,994 were mail-in absentee ballots, an estimated 79,640 of which were placed in drop boxes, and an estimated 66,854 of which were sent via regular mail. (Biden received 115,788 of these mail-in absentee ballot votes in Fulton County, while Trump received only 29,479.)
Under an Emergency Election Code Rule promulgated by the State Election Board on July 1, 2020, those 79,640 mail-in absentee vote ballots deposited in drop boxes required chain of custody documentation–a ballot transfer control form that showed the time, date, and number of ballots picked up at the 38 drop boxes in the county in the 41 days before and up to Election Day, November 3, 2020, as well as the signatures of those who picked them up, and then the signature of the county registrar designee who was required to “immediately” receive the document.

Hemingway writes that the two GOP Commissioners in Fulton County raised the issue of no chain of custody documents for mail-in absentee ballots deposited in drop boxes on November 13, 2020, days before the Fulton County Election Commission certified the election results in a three to two vote and one week before Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger certified the state’s election results–as delivered to him by all 159 counties in the state, on November 20, 2020:

The problems in Fulton County were so extensive that neither of the Republican commissioners voted to certify the election. For one thing, the first certification was on November 13, but the county was still finding, processing, and tabulating absentee ballots as late as November 12. Later, during the runoff, the county would discover thumb drives accidentally left in voting machines, further worrying the Republican commissioners about chain-of-custody issues and inventory management.
The Republican commissioners also drew attention to the fact that there was no chain-of-custody information provided for the thirty-eight ballot drop boxes spread throughout the county. The commissioners asked for, but were never provided, a document showing who had picked up the ballots or dropped them off, and when, much less whether, all ballots placed into the boxes were accounted for during their transport.
The Republican commissioners also doubted whether Fulton County had even attempted to meaningfully match signatures. And it wasn’t for lack of technology. In July that same year, the Fulton County elections division had acquired a new platform to handle absentee-by-mail ballots from a company called BlueCrest. The stations they purchased had the ability to scan the oath envelope, open the envelope, remove the ballot, and flatten the ballot itself in order to start the scanning process.
The system also had optional capabilities for matching signatures to official signatures on file. While Barron had indicated to commissioners that the match capability was being brought into use, the Republicans later found out that the managers never had any intention of using that system. Consequently, there was no effective signature match going on at all.

Hemingway also highlighted a memo from an observer of the Fulton County election process, hired by the Secretary of State’s office, that “raised deep concerns over the integrity of Fulton County’s process.”

“But instead of voicing these concerns,” Hemingway writes,  “Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger decided to bury them:

He appeared on 60 Minutes in January and announced, “We had safe, secure, honest elections.

In July 2021, Raffensperger would sing a different tune about Fulton County after lawsuits kept the county’s 2020 election integrity problems in the news. “Fulton County’s continued failures have gone on long enough with no accountability. Rick Barron and Ralph Jones, Fulton’s registration chief, must be fired and removed from Fulton’s elections leadership immediately. Fulton’s voters and the people of Georgia deserve better,” Raffensperger tweeted.

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Hemingway said the two Republicans on the Fulton County Election Commission, “were livid when Raffensperger said there were no complaints about Fulton County election irregularities.”

In this March 3, 2016, photo, Mollie Hemingway speaks at the 2016 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons)
They had cited those complaints when they refused to certify the county’s election results.
Despite those complaints, Raffensperger certified the election results for Georgia on November 20, 2020, and then recertified those results on December 7, 2020.

Our next reports in this series will be on the actions of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, illegal votes that were counted, and the influence of Mark Zuckerberg’s millions of dollars of contributions to nonprofits that were active in Georgia.
2020 ElectionPolitics2020 electionBrad RaffenspergerDonald TrumpGeorgiaJoe BidenMollie Hemmingway


Surveillance video footage from State Farm Arena November 3, 2020


14 thoughts on “Exclusive Excerpt from ‘Rigged,’ Mollie Hemingway’s New Book

  1. Cleta Mitchell, senior legal fellow counsel for election integrity with the Conservative Partnership Institute, said in all her years working as an election law attorney, she’s never witnessed all the abnormalities that happened last November, particularly in Fulton County, Georgia.

    She also gave a report on the ongoing lawsuit to gain access to the county’s absentee ballots.

    “The system that we witnessed in 2020 was not right,” Mitchell said in her newly launched podcast, “Who’s Counting With Cleta Mitchell.”

    “I have been an election attorney for many, many years. I’ve done a lot of time at county election boards. I will tell you that I’ve spent many wee hours in the morning counting ballots, waiting for ballots to come in.”

    “I’ve never seen what happened in 2020 happen before Nov. 3 of 2020 where the counting stopped before it was finished,” she continued. “I’ve never seen an actual halting of the counting of the ballots.”

    Mitchell, who served on former President Donald Trump’s legal team challenging the Georgia election results, said the state was riddled with illegal conduct in last fall’s general election.

    She recounted that the first morning after she arrived in Atlanta, a “God thing” occurred when she met Alex Kaufman, the general counsel for the Fulton County Republican Party.

    Kaufman was able to give her an overview of some of the issues in the county they had been working to identify over the previous year, including an unsuccessful effort to remove a number of illegal voters from the rolls prior to the election.

    That feedback focused the Trump legal team’s efforts to look to the data to see how many ineligible voters may have cast ballots.

    She noted that President Joe Biden only won the entire state of Georgia by 11,779 votes, with Fulton County being one of his major bastions of support. He carried the county by approximately 244,000 more votes.

    Mitchell explained that if their team could determine there were enough irregularities, including ineligible voters, in Fulton County to potentially impact the outcome, the remedy, by Georgia law, would be to conduct a new election.

    Trump’s lawyers filed their suit on Dec. 4 officially contesting the results.

    However, the chief judge for Fulton County never assigned a judge from another county to hear the case, as is required by law, Mitchell said.

    “So that’s what happened in Georgia. We never got our day in court,” she said.

    “There was never an adjudication of the actual claims made in the lawsuit.”

    Instead, the Georgia attorney general, on behalf of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, threatened Trump’s legal team if they did not dismiss the case.

    He claimed the state would seek damages “in the multimillions of dollars against President Trump, against David Shafer, who was one of our plaintiffs. He’s the state party chair, and he was a Trump elector. And against the lawyers who brought the lawsuit.”

    Mitchell directed some of her sharpest criticism at Raffensperger, calling his handling of the election a “complete disaster.”

    He made a series of bad decisions, she contended, that began with his consent decree he entered into with Georgia Democrats, including 2018 gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, which greatly impacted the signature matching requirements for mail-in ballots.

    Additionally, contrary to Georgia law, Raffensperger unilaterally directed that absentee ballot applications be sent to every registered voter in the spring of 2020, Mitchell said.

    The law states that voters must ask for the application and then fill it out and mail it in, she stated.

    “We all know that the voter registration lists are a mess,” she said, meaning many applications likely went out to people no longer living at the address listed.

    Besides requesting a ballot for the 2020 primary, applicants were also able to check a box if they also wanted their general election ballots mailed, in violation of state law, which requires voters to request an absentee ballot no more than 180 days from an election, Mitchell added.

    “The point is election laws are determined by the state legislatures. That is one of the things our founding fathers wrote into the Constitution,” she said.

    Mitchell highlighted that all the changes were made by judges and those in the executive branch.

    Despite Trump’s lawsuit not going forward, the lawyer noted there is one still ongoing, brought by election integrity advocate and Fulton County resident Garland Favorito with VoterGa — seeking a review of the actual ballots cast in the county for irregularities.

    He has cited the incident at State Farm Arena on election night when party observers and the media were told counting had stopped, only for it to resume for nearly two more hours soon thereafter.

    Video captured of the incident showed what appeared to be ballots being feed through counting machines multiple times, according to Mitchell:




      You’re Not Wrong If questioning the results of a presidential election were a crime, as many have asserted in the wake of the controversial 2020 election and its aftermath, then much of the Democratic Party and media establishment should have been indicted for their behavior following the 2016 election. In fact, the last time Democrats fully accepted the legitimacy of a presidential election they lost was in 1988. After the 2000 election, which hinged on the results of a recount in Florida, Democrats smeared President George W. Bush as “selected, not elected.” When Bush won re-election against then senator John Kerry in 2004, many on the left claimed that voting machines in Ohio had been rigged to deliver fraudulent votes to Bush. HBO even produced and aired the Emmy-nominated Hacking Democracy, a documentary claiming to show that “votes can be stolen without a trace,” adding fuel to the conspiracy theory fire that the results of the 2004 election were illegitimate. But nothing holds a candle to what happened in 2016 after Donald Trump’s surprising defeat of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

      Rather than accept that Trump won and Clinton lost fair and square, the political and media establishments desperately sought to explain away Trump’s victory. They settled on a destructive conspiracy theory that crippled the government, empowered America’s adversaries, and illegally targeted innocent private citizens whose only crime was not supporting Hillary Clinton. The Russia collusion hoax had all the elements of an election conspiracy theory, including baseless claims of hacked voting totals, illegal voter suppression, and treasonous collaboration with a foreign power. Pundits and officials speculated openly that President Trump was a foreign asset and that members of his circle were under the thumb of the Kremlin.
      But despite the patent absurdity of these claims, the belief that Trump stole the 2016 election had the support of the most powerful institutions, individuals, and even government agencies in the country. To question the legitimacy of the 2016 election wasn’t to undermine our democracy; it was considered by some of our most elevated public figures a patriotic duty. “You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” Clinton told her followers in 2019. “I know he’s an illegitimate president,” Clinton claimed of Trump a few months later.5 She even said during an interview with CBS Sunday Morning that “voter suppression and voter purging and hacking” were the reasons for her defeat.6 Former president Jimmy Carter agreed. “[Trump] lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf,” he told NPR in 2019. “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016.” Their view was shared by most prominent Democrats in Congress.

      Representative John Lewis of Georgia, for example, said he was skipping Trump’s inauguration in 2016 because he believed Trump was illegitimate: “[T]he Russians participated in helping this man get elected.… That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not an open democratic process.” Lewis had also skipped the inauguration of President George W. Bush, claiming Bush, too, was an illegitimate president. A few members of Congress joined him in 2001. By 2017, one out of three Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives boycotted Trump’s inauguration. Many said they refused to take part in the installation of an “illegitimate” president. The corporate media didn’t condemn leading Democrats’ refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election. In fact, the media amplified the most speculative claims of how Trump and Russia had colluded to steal the election from Clinton. They dutifully regurgitated inaccurate leaks from corrupt intelligence officials suggesting Trump and his staff had committed treason. They ran stories arguing that Republicans who didn’t support their conspiracy theory were insufficiently loyal to the country or somehow compromised themselves. It was all nonsense. Even Robert Mueller, who ran a multi-year and multi-million-dollar government investigation into claims that Trump personally colluded with Russian president Vladimir Putin to steal the election from Clinton, found no evidence to support the fevered accusations. The reporters who pushed this conspiracy theory were never held accountable by their peers for peddling leaks and lies. They received raises and promotions, honors and awards, and the applause of their colleagues. Some were given Pulitzer Prizes for “reporting” that was closer to fan fiction than an accurate description of events.

      . From 2016 through 2020, the easiest way to achieve stardom on the political left was to loudly proclaim one’s belief that the 2016 election was illegitimate—stolen by the Russians on behalf of a corrupt traitor. Conspiracy-mongering, up to and including the assertion that the president of the United States was a secret Russian spy, was the highest form of patriotism. And then 2020 happened. At the drop of a hat, America’s electoral system went from irredeemably corrupt and broken in 2016 to unquestionably safe in 2020. Voting methods that were allegedly used to steal elections in 2004 and 2016 suddenly became sacrosanct and unquestionable in 2020. Whereas so-called election experts repeatedly warned pre-2020 about the pitfalls of electronic voting and widespread mail-in balloting, by November 2020 any discussion about the vulnerabilities of those methods was written off as the stuff of right-wing cranks and conspiracy-mongers.
      Such dismissals required ignoring quite real problems with election integrity affecting hundreds of U.S. elections at the state and local levels, and even the 1960 presidential election, when John F. Kennedy won just 118,574 more votes than Richard Nixon. That Electoral College win hinged on victories in Illinois, where Chicago vote totals were suspiciously high for Kennedy, and Texas, a state where Kennedy’s running mate Lyndon B. Johnson had been known to exert control over election results. Official biographers and historians have claimed one or both states would have been won by Nixon in a fair election.

      If concerns about election integrity were valid from at least 1960 through 2016, then surely those concerns were even more valid in 2020, an election year unlike any other in American history. In the lead-up to the election, thanks in part to the coronavirus pandemic that gripped the world, wide-ranging electoral reforms were implemented. Across the country at the state, local, and federal levels, political actors rammed through hundreds of structural changes to the manner and oversight of elections, resulting in what Time magazine would later call “a revolution in how people vote.”15 Some of these changes were enacted by state legislatures, some by courts, and others by state and county election officials. Many changes, allegedly justified by the global pandemic, were broad reforms that Democrats had long desired. The crisis was their chance to sneak in contentious policies through the back door. The bedrock of the American republic is that elections must be free, fair, accurate, and trusted. Election lawyers will tell you that fraud is almost impossible to conclusively find after the fact, and that to fight it, strong rules and regulations are needed on the front end. That’s why Democrats and Republicans fight so bitterly about the rules and regulations that govern the process. What happened during the 2020 election must be investigated and discussed, not in spite of media and political opposition to an open inquiry, but because of that opposition. The American people deserve to know what happened.

      They deserve answers, even if those answers are inconvenient. They deserve to know the effect flooding the system with tens of millions of mail-in ballots had on their vote. They deserve to know how and why Big Tech and the corporate political media manipulated the news to support certain political narratives while censoring stories they now admit were true. They deserve to know why courts were allowed to unilaterally rewrite the rules in the middle of the contest, often without the consent of the legislative bodies charged with writing election laws. Republicans began to issue warnings about the new practices well before November 2020. They talked about how widespread changes in the manner the country conducts elections would create uncertainty, confusion, and delays.

      They worried that widespread mail-in voting would lead to fraud. And they had good reason to worry. A 2005 bipartisan commission co-chaired by none other than Jimmy Carter found that absentee balloting was the largest source of potential fraud in American elections. Why should 2020 be any different? They worried that universal mail-in balloting would make ballots harder to track, as some states bombarded addresses with ballots for previous residents who had moved out but hadn’t been struck from the voter rolls. What would happen to all the excess ballots?

      They worried that lowering, or in some cases eliminating, standards for signature verification on mail-in ballots could make it impossible to challenge those fraudulently cast. In an election that promised to be contentious, lowering the standards seemed like a recipe for undermining public faith in the results. Why not leave signature verification as it was, or strengthen it? They worried third-party ballot harvesting would encourage voter fraud. Some states had called for unsupervised drop boxes to replace or supplement ordinary polling stations. What would stop those boxes from being tampered with, or, worse still, from being filled with fraudulent votes by bad actors? They worried ballot management in some areas was privately funded by corporate oligarchs overtly hostile to the Republican Party. Didn’t that give at least the appearance of impropriety? And they worried that failing to remove the deceased and those who moved out of state from voter rolls would cause worse problems in an election in which mail-in balloting would feature so prevalently. Republicans also screamed bloody murder about the censorship by social media platforms of conservative voices and negative news stories about Democrats. They were horrified by a media complex that moved from extreme partisan bias to unabashed propaganda in defense of the Democratic Party.
      They watched as a completely legitimate story about international corruption involving the Biden family business—and implicating Joe Biden himself—was crushed by media and tech companies colluding to suppress it. None of those problems went away after the election. If anything, the concern about them grew as tens of millions of Americans realized the problems associated with sloppy election procedure. It took days to get a handle on how many people had voted, much less how they had voted. And in an election of fine margins, the uncertainty surrounding basic questions of electoral procedure was reason to harbor doubts about the results.

      Doubts only grew as citizens saw how difficult it was to maintain independent oversight of the counting process. Observers were often misled about whether counting had stopped for the evening. Some were kept so far away from the ballot counting that courts had to intervene. As mail-in ballots came in and were accepted even when they were not properly filled out, Republicans saw the consequences of the mad rush to change the nation’s voting laws. And they saw how the media dismissed all concerns about how the election was run without a lick of investigation. The powers that be did whatever it took to prevent Trump from winning his re-election bid in 2020. They admitted as much in a victory lap masquerading as a news article in Time magazine that referred to the individuals and institutions behind the efforts to oust Trump as 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.”16 That’s to say nothing of the widespread privatization of election systems in key districts thanks to the efforts of leftist outlets funded by Mark Zuckerberg and other billionaires. Multi-million-dollar grants to public election commissions, and the strings attached to them, were the means by which the left’s sprawling voting activist arm took over huge parts of the 2020 election.
      These grants enabled the Democratic Party to run its get-out-the-vote operation through key cities and states. This private interference in the running of a national election had never before happened in the history of the country. This book tells the story of how the political, media, and corporate establishments changed election laws and procedures, reduced or eliminated the oversight of ballots, manipulated the COVID-19 response, stoked violent racial unrest, published fake news, censored accurate news, and did everything in their power to make sure what had happened in 2016—a Trump election victory—could not happen again in 2020. The media and other leftists learned a singular lesson from 2016: They could not let an outsider gain control of a system that so many political elites depend on ever again, democracy be damned. They were taking no chances. They would do whatever it took to make sure Trump lost. Donald Trump certainly has a unique way of looking at the world, and a formidable personality. These traits are at once his biggest assets and the source of some of his biggest difficulties. Both have contributed to his most notable successes as well as his most notable failures. He is hardly blameless for his narrow defeat.

      However, Trump’s flaws must be weighed against the disturbing nature of the opposition arrayed against him—an army of corporate-funded left-wing activists who excused and encouraged violent riots across the country; technology oligarchs who made unprecedented efforts to normalize censorship; state and local officials who radically altered the way Americans vote in the middle of an election for partisan advantage; an ostensibly free press that credulously and willfully published fake news to damage the president; politicized federal law enforcement agencies that abused the federal government’s surveillance and investigative powers to smear Trump as a puppet of a foreign power; and an opposition party that coordinated all these smears and spent years trying to impeach and remove a duly elected president from office.
      Such extreme, and in some cases un-American, opposition explains why tens of millions of citizens believe that the election was conducted from the beginning in a manner that was unfair, riddled with integrity problems, and designed to make it difficult to catch fraud. America’s smug political elites, of course, responded by mocking a small group of Americans that believe in darker and crazier conspiracies about what happened. It’s convenient to pretend that certain extreme beliefs are representative of all seventy-four million Trump voters, or even of just the tens of millions of Republican voters who are troubled about how the election was conducted.

      But these same establishment figures never ask themselves how their own rank dishonesty contributed to an information climate that gaslights well-meaning voters—voters who are unwilling to abandon the cherished American ideals of equality and liberty to forces of social and economic control. In some respects, it would be much more comforting to believe a small cabal of people changed forty thousand votes and handed Biden the victory. That kind of corruption is much easier to root out and fix. Those in control of America’s most powerful institutions—business, media, academia, bureaucracies, and even the FBI—are engaged in a permanent struggle against half the country to bring about radical social and political changes. Voters have the right to reject those projects and hold politicians who advance them accountable at the ballot box in free and fair elections. This fight is about conducting elections in a manner that is trusted by both winners and losers. But it’s also about much more than that. It’s about ensuring that American citizens still have a voice in determining the future of their country. If you believe things went terribly wrong in the 2020 election, well, you’re not crazy, and you’re not alone. But most of all, you’re not wrong.

      Hemingway, Mollie Ziegler. Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections (p. XV). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.



    2. 7 Insane Things I Just Learned About How U.S. Elections Are ‘Rigged’

      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.

      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.




      1. While journalists were encouraged to take the Steele dossier seriously, its origins as untrustworthy partisan opposition research had been hidden in the $5.6 million in legal fees that had been paid to Perkins Coie.48 Republican representative Devin Nunes of California and his House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence were the rare investigators skeptical of the whole operation. They sought to find out who funded Fusion GPS’s work. Nunes was attacked for his efforts, but they paid off when it turned out that Elias, Clinton, and the Democrats had been behind the dossier all along.[49]

        Hemingway, Mollie Ziegler. Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections (p. 13). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.


  2. President Biden… The Dictator?

    I have this strange notion, we are a democracy… if you can’t get the votes… you can’t [legislate] by executive order unless you’re a dictator.

    Despite this quote… Biden’s signed 63 executive orders, 37 presidential memoranda, 122 proclamations, and 23 notices since Inauguration Day.

    And if he hasn’t been able to use these questionable tactics, he’s found other workarounds.

    For example, he recently instructed the Department of Labor to force employees around the country to get vaccinated.

    (But did you know… immigrants illegally crossing from Mexico to the U.S. had no vaccine requirement?)

    Many Americans are starting to catch on…

    In fact, when asked by the Trafalgar Group whether Biden had the constitutional authority to force private businesses to require vaccine mandates for employees, 58.6% said no!

    And roughly the same percent admit they’re worried this could set a precedent a future president might abuse even worse.

    Which is why one government insider is stepping forward with an urgent warning about what Biden’s REALLY up to…

    And the critical steps you need to take to protect yourself and your family today.

    I urge you to check out this important warning immediately, right here.


    A.J. Wiederman

    Senior Researcher, Stansberry Research



  3. Kash Patel Says Durham Will Expose ‘Massive Anti-Trump Corruption’

    Former Department of Justice Chief of Staff Kash Patel has a major theory following the recent news from Special Counsel John Durham’s probe.

    During an interview on the Stew Peters Show, Patel spoke about Durham’s probe into the handling of the Trump-Russia investigation and whether Hillary Clinton’s campaign had any involvement in pushing false information to harm Trump and his campaign.

    Patel argued that the first indictment from Durham is laying out a broader explanation of corruption in efforts to funnel information to the FBI in 2016.

    Patel then said that Durham has “been at it for two years, two years and just change. I ran conspiracy fraud prosecutions that took me three, four, or five years to do. This is the biggest political scandal in the history of the United States of America, if not the world. So, when he issued subpoenas for more records against banks and law firms, there is no better evidence of fraud and conspiracy than the money, and that’s what he’s doing here.”

    “As much as I hate to admit these people, the commies of the world…they’re not stupid,” he said. “They’re smart. They’ve got good lawyers because they got GoFundMe pages and the morons on the left to give them a million dollars. And they’re being advised as I would advise…I would tell them to stay off TV. Stay off media, stop talking to anybody.”

    During a previous interview on Fox News, Patel said the sheer length of the 27-page indictment from Durham last month against cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussman indicated its importance.

    “What I believe John Durham is doing is laying out a sweeping indictment so that the American public can begin to understand what the corruption was and who exactly was involved,” he said.

    “What [former FBI Director James Comey] should have been investigating was the collusion links between the Democratic Party, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and the [Democratic National Committee] to funnel this information into the FBI, fraudulently so, and now it’s coming to light,” he continued.

    “The one thing that doesn’t lie is bank records and money records, and that’s what John Durham is basing his conspiracy investigation on because he cited eight other individuals, not by name,” Patel said.

    “John Durham’s only in his second year of the most political scandal in U.S. history, so I believe in the next six months, look out for indictments for folks like [former Wall Street Journal reporter] Glenn Simpson, [and FBI agents] Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, he said. “I believe they’re cooperating with him. I think you’re going to see these indictments start coming out on the individuals at the top, it’s just going to take a few more months.”



    1. The Plot Against the President
      1 h 31 min — 2020

      The true story of how Congressman Devin Nunes uncovered the operation to bring down the President of the United States. Following the book The Plot Against the President.


    1. CHRONOLOGY-Who banned slavery when?
      A sampling for the Reuters article:

      1777 – State of Vermont, an independent Republic after the American Revolution, becomes first sovereign state to abolish slavery

      1780s – Trans-Atlantic slave trade reaches peak

      1787 – The Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade founded in Britain by Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson

      1792 – Denmark bans import of slaves to its West Indies colonies, although the law only took effect from 1803.

      1807 – Britain passes Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, outlawing British Atlantic slave trade.

      – United States passes legislation banning the slave trade, effective from start of 1808.

      1811 – Spain abolishes slavery, including in its colonies, though Cuba rejects ban and continues to deal in slaves.

      1813 – Sweden bans slave trading

      1814 – Netherlands bans slave trading

      1817 – France bans slave trading, but ban not effective until 1826


      A note on the 1619 Project: The first enslaved Africans in the English colony of Virginia These were also the first Africans in mainland British America. As can be seen, the Colonies were still British at this time. Blaming the the US Founding Fathers for events more that a hundred years prior to the founding of the United States as absurd.
      The claim of ‘systemic racism’ is absurd because the system established by the Declaration of Independence established inalienable rights for all citizens. Thus the states that continued the slave trade did so illegally. It took a Civil War to eventually abolish slavery.


      1. Who Is in Control? The Need to Rein in Big Tech
        January 2021 • Volume 50, Number 1 • Allum Bokhari

        Breitbart News

        Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. He is a graduate of the University of Oxford and was a 2020 Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. In 2018, he obtained and published “The Google Tape,” a recording of Google’s top executives reacting to the 2016 Trump election and declaring their intention to make the American populist movement a “blip” in history. He is the author of #Deleted: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.

        The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on November 8, 2020, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on Big Tech.

        In January, when every major Silicon Valley tech company permanently banned the President of the United States from its platform, there was a backlash around the world. One after another, government and party leaders—many of them ideologically opposed to the policies of President Trump—raised their voices against the power and arrogance of the American tech giants. These included the President of Mexico, the Chancellor of Germany, the government of Poland, ministers in the French and Australian governments, the neoliberal center-right bloc in the European Parliament, the national populist bloc in the European Parliament, the leader of the Russian opposition (who recently survived an assassination attempt), and the Russian government (which may well have been behind that attempt).

        Common threats create strange bedfellows. Socialists, conservatives, nationalists, neoliberals, autocrats, and anti-autocrats may not agree on much, but they all recognize that the tech giants have accumulated far too much power. None like the idea that a pack of American hipsters in Silicon Valley can, at any moment, cut off their digital lines of communication.

        I published a book on this topic prior to the November election, and many who called me alarmist then are not so sure of that now. I built the book on interviews with Silicon Valley insiders and five years of reporting as a Breitbart News tech correspondent. Breitbart created a dedicated tech reporting team in 2015—a time when few recognized the danger that the rising tide of left-wing hostility to free speech would pose to the vision of the World Wide Web as a free and open platform for all viewpoints.

        This inversion of that early libertarian ideal—the movement from the freedom of information to the control of information on the Web—has been the story of the past five years.


        When the Web was created in the 1990s, the goal was that everyone who wanted a voice could have one. All a person had to do to access the global marketplace of ideas was to go online and set up a website. Once created, the website belonged to that person. Especially if the person owned his own server, no one could deplatform him. That was by design, because the Web, when it was invented, was competing with other types of online services that were not so free and open.

        It is important to remember that the Web, as we know it today—a network of websites accessed through browsers—was not the first online service ever created. In the 1990s, Sir Timothy Berners-Lee invented the technology that underpins websites and web browsers, creating the Web as we know it today. But there were other online services, some of which predated Berners-Lee’s invention. Corporations like CompuServe and Prodigy ran their own online networks in the 1990s—networks that were separate from the Web and had access points that were different from web browsers. These privately-owned networks were open to the public, but CompuServe and Prodigy owned every bit of information on them and could kick people off their networks for any reason.

        In these ways the Web was different. No one owned it, owned the information on it, or could kick anyone off. That was the idea, at least, before the Web was captured by a handful of corporations.

        We all know their names: Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon. Like Prodigy and CompuServe back in the ’90s, they own everything on their platforms, and they have the police power over what can be said and who can participate. But it matters a lot more today than it did in the ’90s. Back then, very few people used online services. Today everyone uses them—it is practically impossible not to use them. Businesses depend on them. News publishers depend on them. Politicians and political activists depend on them. And crucially, citizens depend on them for information.

        Today, Big Tech doesn’t just mean control over online information. It means control over news. It means control over commerce. It means control over politics. And how are the corporate tech giants using their control? Judging by the three biggest moves they have made since I wrote my book—the censoring of the New York Post in October when it published its blockbuster stories on Biden family corruption, the censorship and eventual banning from the Web of President Trump, and the coordinated takedown of the upstart social media site Parler—it is obvious that Big Tech’s priority today is to support the political Left and the Washington establishment.

        Big Tech has become the most powerful election-influencing machine in American history. It is not an exaggeration to say that if the technologies of Silicon Valley are allowed to develop to their fullest extent, without any oversight or checks and balances, then we will never have another free and fair election. But the power of Big Tech goes beyond the manipulation of political behavior. As one of my Facebook sources told me in an interview for my book: “We have thousands of people on the platform who have gone from far right to center in the past year, so we can build a model from those people and try to make everyone else on the right follow the same path.” Let that sink in. They don’t just want to control information or even voting behavior—they want to manipulate people’s worldview.

        Is it too much to say that Big Tech has prioritized this kind of manipulation? Consider that Twitter is currently facing a lawsuit from a victim of child sexual abuse who says that the company repeatedly failed to take down a video depicting his assault, and that it eventually agreed to do so only after the intervention of an agent from the Department of Homeland Security. So Twitter will take it upon itself to ban the President of the United States, but is alleged to have taken down child pornography only after being prodded by federal law enforcement.


        How does Big Tech go about manipulating our thoughts and behavior? It begins with the fact that these tech companies strive to know everything about us—our likes and dislikes, the issues we’re interested in, the websites we visit, the videos we watch, who we voted for, and our party affiliation. If you search for a Hannukah recipe, they’ll know you’re likely Jewish. If you’re running down the Yankees, they’ll figure out if you’re a Red Sox fan. Even if your smart phone is turned off, they’ll track your location. They know who you work for, who your friends are, when you’re walking your dog, whether you go to church, when you’re standing in line to vote, and on and on.

        As I already mentioned, Big Tech also monitors how our beliefs and behaviors change over time. They identify the types of content that can change our beliefs and behavior, and they put that knowledge to use. They’ve done this openly for a long time to manipulate consumer behavior—to get us to click on certain ads or buy certain products. Anyone who has used these platforms for an extended period of time has no doubt encountered the creepy phenomenon where you’re searching for information about a product or a service—say, a microwave—and then minutes later advertisements for microwaves start appearing on your screen. These same techniques can be used to manipulate political opinions.

        I mentioned that Big Tech has recently demonstrated ideological bias. But it is equally true that these companies have huge economic interests at stake in politics. The party that holds power will determine whether they are going to get government contracts, whether they’re going to get tax breaks, and whether and how their industry will be regulated. Clearly, they have a commercial interest in political control—and currently no one is preventing them from exerting it.

        To understand how effective Big Tech’s manipulation could become, consider the feedback loop.

        As Big Tech constantly collects data about us, they run tests to see what information has an impact on us. Let’s say they put a negative news story about someone or something in front of us, and we don’t click on it or read it. They keep at it until they find content that has the desired effect. The feedback loop constantly improves, and it does so in a way that’s undetectable.

        What determines what appears at the top of a person’s Facebook feed, Twitter feed, or Google search results? Does it appear there because it’s popular or because it’s gone viral? Is it there because it’s what you’re interested in? Or is there another reason Big Tech wants it to be there? Is it there because Big Tech has gathered data that suggests it’s likely to nudge your thinking or your behavior in a certain direction? How can we know?

        What we do know is that Big Tech openly manipulates the content people see. We know, for example, that Google reduced the visibility of Breitbart News links in search results by 99 percent in 2020 compared to the same period in 2016. We know that after Google introduced an update last summer, clicks on Breitbart News stories from Google searches for “Joe Biden” went to zero and stayed at zero through the election. This didn’t happen gradually, but in one fell swoop—as if Google flipped a switch. And this was discoverable through the use of Google’s own traffic analysis tools, so it isn’t as if Google cared that we knew about it.

        Speaking of flipping switches, I have noted that President Trump was collectively banned by Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, and every other social media platform you can think of. But even before that, there was manipulation going on. Twitter, for instance, reduced engagement on the President’s tweets by over eighty percent. Facebook deleted posts by the President for spreading so-called disinformation.

        But even more troubling, I think, are the invisible things these companies do. Consider “quality ratings.” Every Big Tech platform has some version of this, though some of them use different names. The quality rating is what determines what appears at the top of your search results, or your Twitter or Facebook feed, etc. It’s a numerical value based on what Big Tech’s algorithms determine in terms of “quality.” In the past, this score was determined by criteria that were somewhat objective: if a website or post contained viruses, malware, spam, or copyrighted material, that would negatively impact its quality score. If a video or post was gaining in popularity, the quality score would increase. Fair enough.

        Over the past several years, however—and one can trace the beginning of the change to Donald Trump’s victory in 2016—Big Tech has introduced all sorts of new criteria into the mix that determines quality scores. Today, the algorithms on Google and Facebook have been trained to detect “hate speech,” “misinformation,” and “authoritative” (as opposed to “non-authoritative”) sources. Algorithms analyze a user’s network, so that whatever users follow on social media—e.g., “non-authoritative” news outlets—affects the user’s quality score. Algorithms also detect the use of language frowned on by Big Tech—e.g., “illegal immigrant” (bad) in place of “undocumented immigrant” (good)—and adjust quality scores accordingly. And so on.

        This is not to say that you are informed of this or that you can look up your quality score. All of this happens invisibly. It is Silicon Valley’s version of the social credit system overseen by the Chinese Communist Party. As in China, if you defy the values of the ruling elite or challenge narratives that the elite labels “authoritative,” your score will be reduced and your voice suppressed. And it will happen silently, without your knowledge.

        This technology is even scarier when combined with Big Tech’s ability to detect and monitor entire networks of people. A field of computer science called “network analysis” is dedicated to identifying groups of people with shared interests, who read similar websites, who talk about similar things, who have similar habits, who follow similar people on social media, and who share similar political viewpoints. Big Tech companies are able to detect when particular information is flowing through a particular network—if there’s a news story or a post or a video, for instance, that’s going viral among conservatives or among voters as a whole. This gives them the ability to shut down a story they don’t like before it gets out of hand. And these systems are growing more sophisticated all the time.


        If Big Tech’s capabilities are allowed to develop unchecked and unregulated, these companies will eventually have the power not only to suppress existing political movements, but to anticipate and prevent the emergence of new ones. This would mean the end of democracy as we know it, because it would place us forever under the thumb of an unaccountable oligarchy.

        The good news is, there is a way to rein in the tyrannical tech giants. And the way is simple: take away their power to filter information and filter data on our behalf.

        All of Big Tech’s power comes from their content filters—the filters on “hate speech,” the filters on “misinformation,” the filters that distinguish “authoritative” from “non-authoritative” sources, etc. Right now these filters are switched on by default. We as individuals can’t turn them off. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

        The most important demand we can make of lawmakers and regulators is that Big Tech be forbidden from activating these filters without our knowledge and consent. They should be prohibited from doing this—and even from nudging us to turn on a filter—under penalty of losing their Section 230 immunity as publishers of third party content. This policy should be strictly enforced, and it should extend even to seemingly non-political filters like relevance and popularity. Anything less opens the door to manipulation.

        Our ultimate goal should be a marketplace in which third party companies would be free to design filters that could be plugged into services like Twitter, Facebook, Google, and YouTube. In other words, we would have two separate categories of companies: those that host content and those that create filters to sort through that content. In a marketplace like that, users would have the maximum level of choice in determining their online experiences. At the same time, Big Tech would lose its power to manipulate our thoughts and behavior and to ban legal content—which is just a more extreme form of filtering—from the Web.

        This should be the standard we demand, and it should be industry-wide. The alternative is a kind of digital serfdom. We don’t allow old-fashioned serfdom anymore—individuals and businesses have due process and can’t be evicted because their landlord doesn’t like their politics. Why shouldn’t we also have these rights if our business or livelihood depends on a Facebook page or a Twitter or YouTube account?

        This is an issue that goes beyond partisanship. What the tech giants are doing is so transparently unjust that all Americans should start caring about it—because under the current arrangement, we are all at their mercy. The World Wide Web was meant to liberate us. It is now doing the opposite. Big Tech is increasingly in control. The most pressing question today is: how are we going to take control back?



  4. By honoring members of the press, the Nobel committee recognized that investigative journalism represents one of the most powerful yet overlooked tools in the fight against global authoritarianism.

    The crisis facing journalism and the crisis befalling democracy are related. Authoritarian rulers have understood that traditional, independent media outlets have for some time been in difficult financial straits. The migration online of advertising revenue that used to support newspapers and magazines has led to an estimated $30 billion revenue loss in 2020 alone for free-standing newspapers worldwide, according to Oxford University’s Reuters Institute.

    At the same time, in a media-soaked society, authoritarians view hard-hitting reportage as a direct threat to their rule and use extreme means to counter it. Targeted killings of journalists worldwide spiked in 2020, with the number killed doubling over the year before—something the newly named Nobel laureate Muratov knows all too well, having seen six members of his newspaper’s staff killed since 2000.

    Last year also saw an all-time high in the recorded number of journalists in jail, 274—the fifth consecutive year that this grim census has numbered above 250. Beyond actual violence and prosecutions, authorities plague journalists with threats, extrajudicial intimidation, audits, registration requirements, visa hurdles, travel prohibitions, and an ever-evolving array of other hurdles. Governments are also reaching beyond their own borders to target and menace journalists who have fled to exile.


    Today, people around the world praise Ressa and Muratov for their courage and their work. Tomorrow, they must make good on that praise by taking action to fight the long arm of authoritarianism that threatens to silence journalists and writers around the world.



    Left unsaid and laying in the margins is the issue of the mainstream western press, especially the corporate press in the US, which uses “softer weapons’ to intimidate journalists who write against the suppression of the truth in America. The situation of Julian Assange & Edward are glaringly missing in the article above. The suppression of the scientists and doctors speaking out about the phony pandemic and the toxic so-called vaccines isn’t mentioned either…

    The word is mum about Twitter, Facebook and YouTube ie; corporatist censorship.

    Unmentioned is the fact the the US has become a ‘banana republic’ since the stealing of the 2020 presidential election. Or the fact that the US is a panoptic maximum security state that has developed steadily harsher since its establishment in 1947.

    The ‘Free Press’ is an illusion in the United States, only kept alive through citizen journalist like those writing here on this forum, and a few outlets like OEN and FOX News, and various web news sources.



Leave a Reply to prophet2020 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: