by WorldTribune Staff, December 4, 2020
Was there an “insurance policy” for the “Blue Wave” which Democrats and their allies in the major media guaranteed was coming in the 2020 election?
“If they were truly that confident Joe Biden could become leader of the world through Zoom calls from his basement, then why did Democrats blanket the country with millions of dollars to alter election processes in ways that are known to substantially increase errors and fraud to within election-tipping margins?” Joy Pullmann, executive editor of The Federalist noted in a Dec. 3 op-ed.
If they were so confident their policies would resonate with Americans so much that the result would be a Nov. 3 landslide, why would Democrats need to team up with corporate media and Big Tech on 2020 election “insurance policies”?
In a 2018 report on the Trump-Russia investigation, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz focused on FBI agent Peter Strzok’s message saying that “we can’t take that risk” of a Trump election win and that he had an “insurance policy” against it.
Related: Strzok was moving to fast-track Russia investigation as he texted vow to ‘stop’ Trump, June 18, 2018
“Democrats’ allies in Big Tech rigged search results and online conversations to hide news harmful to Biden,” Pullmann noted. “Their allies in big media refused to report on stories harmful to Biden or to ask him difficult questions. An election-overturning number of Biden voters say they would not have supported him had they been better informed of stories Big Tech banned and corporate media panned.”
Then there was the rush to enable mass mail-in voting under the guise of covid. “Mail-in voting increases fraud and error rates to within election-winning margins, as well as the ability to manipulate election outcomes by contesting ballots,” Pullmann noted.
“No one can blame voters for being confused before, during, or after the election,” Pullmann added. “It was confusing. It is confusing. Democrats filed the lawsuits that caused the uncertainty, decided they would simply declare victory amid the ongoing chaos they deliberately created, and let media and courts seal the steal. It worked perfectly — except that the election was so unexpectedly close, people noticed.”
Prior to the Nov. 3 election, Pennsylvania’s mail-vote error rate was known to be well within the victory margin due partly “because of all the changes Democrats made to weaken voting integrity. Democrats demanded before the votes came in that all mail-in ballots without secrecy envelopes be counted, even though that violates state law,” Pullmann noted.
The changes Democrats demanded were estimated to affect up to 200,000 ballots. In 2016, Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes. In 2020, CNN claims Biden won Pennsylvania by 81,000 votes.
“If at least 3 million people in Pennsylvania vote by mail in the Nov. 3 election, as expected, just 1% of that is 30,000 ballots, while 5% is 150,000 ballots. If 4 million people vote by mail, 5% is 200,000 ballots,” noted the Associated Press in August.
“So when margins of a few percentage points — or, as in 2020, of less than 1 percent in multiple key Electoral College states– separate winner from loser, mail-in errors can easily change the election results. And no one would ever know, or be able to know, since the errors are so diffuse throughout the voting process, and may be well-intentioned,” Pullmann wrote.
The New York Times reported in September that nearly 100,000 defective mail-in ballots were sent to New York City voters. “If this had happened in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, or Georgia and many of those voters unknowingly sent back bad ballots, it could have tipped the presidential electors of that state,” Pullmann noted.
“In all those states, Trump reportedly lost by fewer than 50,000 votes. All the margins in those states were less than 1 percent, or well within the margin for being flipped by mass mail-in balloting error rates. ”
Pullmann also pointed out that the Democrats’ 2020 “election confusion operation” was led by the same people who manufactured the Russian collusion hoax: the law firm Perkins Coie.
Marc Elias, Perkins Coie’s head of election law, is also the Democratic National Committee’s election lawyer, “and he’s been spearheading many of these election-weakening lawsuits while claiming to be fighting ‘voter suppression.’ In 2009, Elias got Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman’s narrow 2008 victory reversed in court so Al Franken could take his seat,” Pullmann noted.
Elias was also general counsel to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016. The Washington Post identified him in 2017 as the man who commissioned Fusion GPS to craft the phony Christopher Steele dossier.