Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Friday that documents released by Elon Musk and journalist Matt Taibbi detail a massive “systemic violation” of the First Amendment.
“One of the most extraordinary moments in the history of social media is unfolding right now as we speak. It began when Elon Musk took control of Twitter. When he bought the company, he promised to reveal its corruption, the extent to which Twitter engaged in politically motivated censorship, including the unlawful illegal censorship of American citizens at the direction of the U.S. government.”
Musk released the documents to journalist Matt Taibbi, who posted a lengthy thread on Twitter. The documents reportedly detail how company executives made moderation decisions and accommodated requests from the Biden campaign.
“Well, tonight, less than an hour ago, Musk began to make good on that promise. Twitter shared a trove of internal documents with Matt Taibbi of Substack, these documents are coming out as we speak and what they prove is very serious,” Carlson said. “Those documents show a systematic violation of the First Amendment, the largest example of that in modern history.”……
I must note that there was a single Democrat that expressed Constitutional concerns about the government asking for the censoring of social media posts. I felt compelled to write a letter to Rep. Ro Khanna:
RPT’S LETTER TO REP. RO KHANNA
Dear Representative Khanna,
I rarely write to my congressman let alone a Rep. from elsewhere in our fine nation. And why would a conservative Evangelical write to a Democrat Representative at all – except to bludgeon him (or her) with fodder.
After reading the Twitter thread by Matt Taibbi as well as stories from my “daily habit” of sites…. You left me no choice but to express my deepest respect to you and your team for being concerned with our (yes, our) Constitutional declarations of our God given rights.
If you were in front of me I would give you a hug.
Blessings to you and yours as we all enter this Christmas season. I will add you and your family to my prayer routine.
Forever In My Mind,
Sean G, MATS (Bio: religiopoliticaltalk . com/ bio-from-felon-to-seminary-grad/ )
The man who does not read good books is no better than the man who can’t ~ Mark Twain (or, “Abigail Van Buren”)
Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up ~ G.K. Chesterton
Do you realize if it weren’t for Edison we’d be watching TV by candlelight ~ Al Boliska.
Tucker Carlson mentioned that the truth would have [possibly] changed the 2020 Presidential election outcome. NEWSBUSTERS actually polled Democrat voters on this:
■ Burying Biden’s Bad News: The media’scensorship of Biden’s scandals had the strongest impact on this year’s election. According to our survey, more than one-third of Biden voters (35.4%) were unaware of the serious allegations brought against the Democratic nominee by Tara Reade, a former staffer who said Biden sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.
If they had known about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations, 8.9% told us they would have changed their vote — either switching to Trump or a 3rd party candidate, not voting for any presidential candidate, or not voting at all. By itself, this would have flipped all six of the swing states won by Biden (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), giving the President a win with 311 electoral college votes.
Even more Biden voters (45.1%) said they were unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son, Hunter (a story infamously censored by Twitter and Facebook, as well as ignored by the liberal media). According to our poll, full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes.
The ticket’s left-wing ideology was another issue barely mentioned by the national press. A GovTrack analysis found Biden’s running mate, California Senator Kamala Harris, had the most left-wing record of any Senator in 2019 (even more than self-described socialist Bernie Sanders). Our poll found that 25.3% of Biden voters said they didn’t know about Senator Harris’s left-wing ideology. If voters had the complete story, it would have led 4.1% of Biden voters to change their vote, flipping Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to Trump. The result would have been a Trump victory, with 295 electoral college votes…..
NEWSBUSTERShas more of the most recent government censoring.
Tony’s point is that if you take that number (42,918) and essentially half it, the election would have gone to Trump. There was easily that many votes that should have been rejected due to fraudulent ballots.
I combine a couple segments of Larry Elder showing that to say this election was close and maybe it was so close that small court cases would have changed the outcome. Which is why I include Rand Paul mentioning the crazy amount of mail-in-ballots with only a name and no address. Wow! That alone would have almost turn Wisconsin red….
Arizona: 10,457 votes
Georgia: 11,779 votes
Wisconsin: 20,682 votes
Total margin: 42,918 votes
….Kornacki noted that last month’s election of Joe Biden over President Trump could have easily gone the other way, despite a 7 million vote margin for the Democratic ticket.
“If you flipped about 20,000 votes in Wisconsin, about 13,000 in Georgia and 10,000 in Arizona, that’s just over 40,000 votes collectively,” said Kornacki. “In those three states, the electoral vote count would have been 269 to 269 and it would have gone to the House of Representatives. Republicans would have been able to elect Trump.
“The way that I look at this election is, Donald Trump came within about 43,000 votes of getting re-elected. We came very close to one of the biggest disconnects we’ve ever seen in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College,” he said….
I mentioned the following in a conversation with a friend, and he asked a question which I will respond to here. Enjoy. I said:
Sean Giordano — Biden won Wisconsin by just over 20,000 votes. There were 10s of thousands of ballots that only had a signature and no address, in all previous elections these were not accepted.
He asked simply,
B.A.M. — where did you get your info? I looked this up and couldn’t verify.
So, here are a few articles that build a related case that Senator Paul mentioned in the video above. First up is the earlier April election. Wisconsin Public Radio notes an issue that would have had consequences if the [illegal] change in laws hadn’t of happened before the November 4th election.
But an APM Reports analysis of voter data from Wisconsin’s April primary shows a far more measurable and consequential effect of mail-in voting — rejected ballots. Slightly more than 23,000 ballots were thrown out, mostly because those voters or their witnesses missed at least one line on a form.
To wit, some counties changed ballots in 2020 to try and make them legal, but as retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman (who worked as a poll watcher in Milwaukee on Election Day), “The statute is very, very clear. If an absentee ballot does not have a witness address on it, it’s not valid. That ballot is not valid” (RED STATE).
Before going on to my next point — I want to drive home the issue made by the Public Radio in another article via REVEAL.
…But an analysis of voter data from the April primary in the swing state of Wisconsin shows that mail-in voting may pose the opposite risk – rejected ballots. Slightly more than 23,000 ballots were thrown out in the primary, according to an analysis by APM Reports, mostly because those voters or their witnesses missed at least one line on a form.
That figure is nearly equivalent to Trump’s 2016 margin of victory in Wisconsin of 22,748 votes. And with Wisconsin voter turnout expected to double from April to more than 3 million in November, a proportionate volume of ballot rejections could be the difference in who wins the swing state and possibly the presidency…..
Taken together, the analysis serves as a case study of what may lie ahead for a presidential battleground state overwhelmed by applications and without the experience or systems to cope. Other battleground states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania saw increased by-mail voting in their primaries, as well as problems managing an increase in absentee ballots.
In the 2016 and 2018 Wisconsin general elections, by-mail absentee ballots made up no more than 6% of all ballots counted. In April, the portion jumped to more than 60%, the result of Gov. Tony Evers’ stay-at-home order because of the pandemic.
And while state officials stress the percentage of rejected ballots in the April primary is consistent with rejection rates in past elections, it’s little comfort to voters who learned that their ballots were rejected months after they thought their votes were counted.
More importantly, while the rate may be similar, raw numbers will make the difference when it comes to winning or losing an election.
One of the main issue I see is the equal protection of voters. There were not clerks fixing all the ballots evenly. It seems that this happened in more inner-city areas and not in the more conservative suburbs. RED STATE notes the last minute change to laws that also allowed more opportunity for fraud and ballots that have not been counted in the past.
…In Wisconsin, a federal judge extended the deadline for receiving absentee ballots during the primary election cycle by a period of six days. No one objected to that extension in the early days of state “lockdown” orders to address the outbreak of the COVID 19 virus. But, five days before the scheduled election, the same judge clarified the order to state that ballots postmarked on or before the extended day for receipt of ballots could be counted even though that violated Wisconsin election law which required that they be postmarked no later than Election Day, and no party in the case had asked for the Court to grant the additional relief. The Supreme Court reversed that provision of the district court’s order, writing as follows:
Nonetheless, five days before the scheduled election, the District Court unilaterally ordered that absentee ballots mailed and postmarked after election day, April 7, still be counted so long as they are received by April 13. Extending the date by which ballots may be cast by voters—not just received by the municipal clerks but cast by voters— for an additional six days after the scheduled election day fundamentally alters the nature of the election… This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election…. The District Court on its own ordered yet an additional extension, which would allow voters to mail their ballots after election day, which is extraordinary relief and would fundamentally alter the nature of the election by allowing voting for six additional days after the election.
The four liberals on the Court, including the late Justice Ginsburg, dissented from this order and would have allowed votes to be cast and counted after the deadline imposed by state law in Wisconsin, basing their judgment on the complications of the COVID 19 pandemic. So, you can see where the lower court judges are finding their “justification for rewriting election rules more to the liking of plaintiffs who — in every case I’ve looked at — are Democrat party interest groups….
The WASHINGTON POST agrees with the above by pointing out that [in the April election in Wisconsin] “more than 30,000 votes arrived after voting day in 11 cities where that information was available, more than 10 percent of all votes cast in those cities. In Brookfield, a western suburb of Milwaukee in conservative Waukesha County, the figure was closer to 15 percent.”
So Wisconsin changed laws on the fly (against their state’s normal [legal] constitutional process), or improperly applied others.
As JUST THE NEWS noted, an order from the election commission (passed in 2016) that went out in this election “permits local county election clerks to cure spoiled ballots by filling in missing addresses for witnesses even though state law invalidates any ballot without a witness address.”
This is part of the reason that 3-of-the-4 justices in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court wanted to see the evidence, the three dissenting conservative justices, led by Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, said the court should have decided whether votes should have counted in each of the four categories, and clarified the law for future elections.
“A significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted,” Roggensack wrote. “Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast.”
Because of the ruling, procedural wrongs:
absentee ballots filled in in one county to fix missing information by local county election clerks, and not in other counties (votes treated different) — probably 10’s of thousands via past numbers of ballots rejected and the increase of voting this time;
and the more than 28,000 votes counted from people who failed to provide identification by abusing the state’s ‘indefinitely confined status’
The liberal justices went on to say there was no evidence of fraud.
This is a red herring.
The above are not about fraud at all, but the invalidation of ballots because voters ballots were treated differently across the state, and, failure to follow the new regulation for voting from home by Wisconsin officials.
“Fraud,” it just sounds good and the press runs with the same narrative.
Here is an update to a story that I have followed… well…. since 2020. And below this post are two older videos posted on my site previously. There is more always at 100% FED-UP:
EXCLUSIVE BREAKING News from 100 Percent Fed Up and the Gateway Pundit– During an exclusive call, True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht and leader investigator Gregg Phillips have revealed that by utilizing the same geolocation tracking data they used to identify over 200o mules in the ‘2000 Mules’ movie, they have now identified out-of-state residents who they consider “important individuals” who may have been key players in the Detroit election. The individuals they have identified are North Carolina residents and were in Detroit, specifically in critical areas around the TCF Center, where absentee ballots from the November 2020 election were being counted for over 24 hours after the polls closed in Michigan.
At 3:11 AM, A black sedan (escort vehicle) with Pennsylvania license plates is seen pulling up to a door in the back hallway at the TCF Center. It appears as though the person in the escort vehicle contacts a supervisor or election official (dressed all in black) who leaves the counting room in the TCF Center through a door into the hallway. The black male, dressed all in black, appears to hand something to the driver in the escort vehicle through the window and the escort vehicle pulls away.
At 3:25 AM, the white van enters the back hallway. Three men jump out of the vehicle and begin to unload over 50 USPS absentee ballot transfer boxes filled with absentee ballots from the van onto the counting floor of the TCF Center.
The van is then seen on video, leaving the center about 25 minutes later.
Multiple GOP challengers on the scene would later report them as being positively identified as ballots. Former State Elections Director Chris Thomas, who was assigned to the TCF center as Senior Advisor to City Clerk Janice Winfrey, will later state in a deposition: “No absentee ballots.
Approximately one hour later, the black escort car arrives again at the TCF Center, contacts a supervisor or election official inside who exits through the door of the counting room into the hallway where he hands the escort driver something through the window and as the black vehicle leaves the TCF Center hallway, the white van reappears, and several men begin to unload more boxes of ballots.
The white van that was given entry into the back hallways of the TCF Center on the day after the election was registered to the city of Detroit. The van was allowed entry through an electronic gate outside the TCF complex.
Glenn Beck had Dinesh D’Souza on to discuss the new movie, 2000 MULES. It was an excellent overview of the documentary as well as clear and cogent questions by Glenn and his team. Voter fraud is proven, and in numbers greater than that [by far] to throw the 2020 election. Dinesh responds to a WASHINGTON POST article criticizing the film. The interview took place May 2nd, 2022
One of the key themes of my new movie is geotracking. But what is it? How does it work? Here’s how new technology can help us investigate some very old-school crimes.
…..They then requested and acquired 4 million minutes of recordings of these drop boxes by government-security cameras. It would take seven years and eight months to watch all these images at normal speed.
This investigation’s results are staggering: Cameras capture one mule after another traveling from box to box to deposit successive fists full of ballots. One mule in Atlanta slid ballots into 28 different collection bins.
Most mules left just a few ballots in each box over several weeks, leaving eyebrows unraised. But in Gwinnett County, Georgia, 271 people visited one box on Oct. 12, 2020. That day, 1,962 ballots were inserted—10 times the normal number.
These mules were not just overzealous political operatives. Corrupt activist groups reportedly paid them per ballot delivered, which is universally illegal. The mules’ identities reveal that many have criminal records. Some were present during the George Floyd riots.
So, was there enough fraud to change the outcome? A mere 42,844 votes sprinkled among three swing states clinched the White House….
FROM AN EARLIER POST
During our interview on Wednesday with Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips from True the Vote — TGP and 100%FedUp Release New Suspect Drop Box Video from Michigan
Almost two years after the New York Post broke the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was suppressed by multiple social media platforms, major media outlets are admitting that the laptop story was true. Yet at the time, they repeated the baseless accusation that the laptop was Russian disinformation. And remember how Twitter suspended the New York Post for more than a week before reversing its action and admitting it was a mistake? Maybe Elon Musk recently buying the largest share in the company could help prevent such things in the future.
The 2020 lie of the year was that more than 50 former senior US intelligence officials signed onto a letter claiming that the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and emails implying Joe Biden’s influence-peddling was Russian disinformation. When the New York Post broke the story of the Hunter Biden laptop and emails which implied influence-peddling on the part of Joe Biden while Vice President, a letter was circulated that was signed by more than 50 former senior intelligence officials. The letter was signed by Jim Clapper, Former Director of National Intelligence, three Former Directors of the CIA (Mike Hayden, Leon Panetta, John Brennan), Michael Morell, Former Acting Director of the CIA, and many former leaders of intelligence agencies. This letter was reported by Politico journalist Natasha Bertrand to state that the Hunter Biden laptop story was a Russian disinformation operation. Disinformation means the information was false.
The leaders of the intelligence community misleading the corporate media and public to prevent the investigation of allegations of corruption against their preferred candidate is what happens in failed totalitarian states, not healthy democracies. The members of corporate media were not innocent bystanders as they did not want to report this story and used the letter as a means of ignoring the story. This was a disinformation campaign run against the American people by intelligence leaders who are going to be in power during the Biden administration. This is why the intelligence leaders misleading the public through our willing media that the Hunter Biden story was Russian disinformation is our lie of the year.
The media outlets which spread this lie from ex-CIA officials never retracted their pre-election falsehoods, ones used by Big Tech to censor reporting on the front-runner.
One of the most successful disinformation campaigns in modern American electoral history occurred in the weeks prior to the 2020 presidential election. On October 14, 2020 — less than three weeks before Americans were set to vote — the nation’s oldest newspaper, The New York Post, began publishing a series of reports about the business dealings of the Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in countries in which Biden, as Vice President, wielded considerable influence (including Ukraine and China) and would again if elected president.
The backlash against this reporting was immediate and intense, leading to suppression of the story by U.S. corporate media outlets and censorship of the story by leading Silicon Valley monopolies. The disinformation campaign against this reporting was led by the CIA’s all-but-official spokesperson Natasha Bertrand (then of Politico, now with CNN), whose article on October 19 appeared under this headline: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”
These “former intel officials” did not actually say that the “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo.” Indeed, they stressed in their letter the opposite: namely, that they had no evidence to suggest the emails were falsified or that Russia had anything to do them, but, instead, they had merely intuited this “suspicion” based on their experience:
We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
But a media that was overwhelmingly desperate to ensure Trump’s defeat had no time for facts or annoying details such as what these former officials actually said or whether it was in fact true. They had an election to manipulate. As a result, that these emails were “Russian disinformation” — meaning that they were fake and that Russia manufactured them — became an article of faith among the U.S.’s justifiably despised class of media employees.
Very few even included the crucial caveat that the intelligence officials themselves stressed: namely, that they had no evidence at all to corroborate this claim. Instead, as I noted last September, “virtually every media outlet — CNN, NBC News, PBS, Huffington Post, The Intercept, and too many others to count — began completely ignoring the substance of the reporting and instead spread the lie over and over that these documents were the by-product of Russian disinformation.” The Huffington Post even published a must-be-seen-to-be-believed campaign ad for Joe Biden, masquerading as “reporting,” that spread this lie that the emails were “Russian disinformation.”
(ABOVE: HUFFINGTON POST’S FALSE BIDEN CAMPAIGN AD MASQUERADING AS A “REPORT”)
This disinformation campaign about the Biden emails was then used by Big Tech to justify brute censorship of any reporting on or discussion of this story: easily the most severe case of pre-election censorship in modern American political history. Twitter locked The New York Post‘s Twitter account for close to two weeks due to its refusal to obey Twitter’s orders to delete any reference to its reporting. The social media site also blocked any and all references to the reporting by all users; Twitter users were barred even from linking to the story in private chats with one another. Facebook, through its spokesman, the life-long DNC operative Andy Stone, announced that they would algorithmically suppress discussion of the reporting to ensure it did not spread, pending a “fact check by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners” which, needless to say, never came — precisely because the archive was indisputably authentic…..
You see, the Left is Machiavellian. They can use bad or immoral or unethical methods or means as long as you accomplish something good by using them. In this case the “good” was keeping Trump from office.
WI Special Counsel Gableman Discusses Ongoing Election Fraud Investigation With Tucker Carlson!. Tucker should have been on this all along. Glad he is educating people now.
THE FEDERALIST has an excellent article dealing with this, here is a clip of it:
Further, the special counsel’s report showed that fraud found was not merely “technical” fraud but resulted in ballots cast and votes counted contrary to the intent of the nursing home residents. The “improbably high voting rates” alone creates a strong inference of fraud, but the special counsel also gathered evidence of fraud, such as suspected forgeries of residents’ signatures and situations in which the residents who “cast” a vote had been adjudicated mentally incompetent, meaning they no longer had a legal right to vote. Other residents, while not adjudicated mentally incompetent, “were unaware of their surroundings, with whom they are speaking at any given time, or what year it is.”
The special counsel’s report also condemned the WEC for attempting to justify its illegal conduct by claiming it wanted to ensure seniors were not disenfranchised during Covid. “In no way was WEC’s mandating illegal activity a ‘solution’ to ‘disenfranchisement’ and to suggest that WEC’s actions were a good faith effort at doing so ignores the facts and the law,” Gableman wrote.
To the contrary, the report continued: “It is ‘disenfranchisement’ when electors are pressured to fill out ballots they did not wish to or in a way they don’t desire or even understand. It is ‘disenfranchisement’ when ballots are illegally cast on behalf of persons who have had their right to vote taken away by the courts of this State due to their mental incompetence.”
“Zuckerbucks” is a scandal. The media just refuse to talk about it. The real “election meddling” Democrats don’t want you to see
GATEWAY PUNDIT has more on the report’s evidence that many of the votes are via people who are cognitavely unable to vote. At all:
During his presentation, Justice Gableman played video of several victims of elderly abuse and voter theft. Several brave Wisconsin families reached out to Gableman and his committee after they discovered someone had voted for their loved one who resides in a nursing home. This happened all over Wisconsin.
Justice Gableman Reveals MASSIVE Voter Fraud in Wisconsin Nursing Homes — 100% Turnout in Zuckerberg-Funded Wisconsin Cities! — SHOCKING VIDEO
According to the Report there are about 90,000 residents in Wisconsin nursing homes. Biden won the state by about 20,000 votes. (MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN)
…..Now, let’s consider nine categories of suspicious anomalies that led to Biden’s squeaker of a victory.
I. CENSUS BUREAU DATA
In 2020, the Census Bureau found 5 million fewer voters than the number of ballots counted. This is the largest gap recorded since these post-election surveys began in 1964. These 5 million excess ballots account for most of Biden’s national popular vote lead. To cite one state-level example, the Census Bureau found 4.8 million voters in Georgia, but Georgia reported 5 million counted ballots.
The Census Bureau’s validated voter survey is a very thorough and comprehensive piece of post-election data analysis. Historically, it has been far more accurate than exit polling and other post-election surveys and studies, as Robert Barnes, a leading political analyst and successful political prognosticator, explained in early May on his “What Are the Odds?” podcast.
The nationwide excess of counted ballots over registered voters in 2020 is extremely unusual. Census data usually finds a very small differential between the number of people they identify as having voted in the previous presidential election and the official total number of ballots counted in that election. In 2016, Census voting data matched almost precisely the number of ballots counted.
Historically, when Census data has differed from the official ballot count, it has tended to overestimate, rather than underestimate, the number of voters. The opposite was the case in the 2020 election.
Most revealingly, the Census data shows the turnout surge was almost exclusively among White blue-collar voters, an overwhelmingly pro-Trump cohort. Yet, somehow, the surge favored Biden in the end.
Turnout in 2020 was 6.7 percentage points higher than in 2016. The Census data on overall turnout, and turnout among specific demographic groups, closely aligns with the macro- and micro-turnout predictions made respectively by Barnes and Richard Baris, the preeminent pollster and managing director of Big Data Poll, and polling data at my firm, Democracy Institute, which forecast a Trump win.