TIME Magazine Admits an Elite Cabal Conspired To Stop Trump From Winning 2020 Election Voter Fraud

Video Transcript:

If Donald Trump had written this article, it would be written off by the mainstream media as paranoid, delusional conspiracy theory. Viva for I, Montreal litigator turns YouTuber and by popular demand by emails DM's messaging has been blowing up people are asking me to do a vlog on this time article which details quite literally how shadow entities affected the outcome of the 2020 election. And in case you think I'm exaggerating, let me just read the headline of the article. The secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election. Now some of you out there might be saying Viva your bias is showing this headline didn't mention anything about affecting the outcome of the 2020 election. It only said that it saved the 2020 election. To which I would respond that this is merely a game of semantics, it is a distinction without a difference. The headline literally admits that shadow entities saved the 2020 election and saving an election is necessarily affecting its outcome. You may reassure yourself that it is only affecting the outcome for the good for the proper okay I might even grant that but it is necessarily admitting in the headline that shadow entities affected the outcome of the 2020 election. But let's not quibble over the semantics of the headline. Let's just read one paragraph from this article which I think summarizes the entire article before dissecting the article itself. That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream. A well-funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election, they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system's fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America injures. There is one meme and one meme only that is applicable to what I just read. What?! What the?! This paragraph from the article is literally admitting and confirming that a cabal of rich and powerful people literally changed the rules, changed the laws, controlled the media and controlled the flow of information. And while they admit to having done this, they then tried to control the information yet again and tell you that don't worry, they were not rigging the election, they were fortifying the election. This cabal was changing rules, changing laws, controlling the media, not to rig the election but to fortify it, they were doing it for your own protection. But Donald Trump made these accusations publicly, you would have had Nancy Pelosi clamoring to have him remove from the White House in virtual the 25th Amendment. Alright, now with that said, I'm just going to go through some of the other highlights of the article to show you not what is being said but how you have to read in between the lines and interpret what is being told to you. This article is beyond confession through projection, this article is a well-drafted admission of what went on but they're just trying to convince you that it was done for your own good, that it was done to preserve justice as opposed to taint it. That will be up to you whether or not you buy into that conclusion but let's just go through some of these highlights and I can tell you how I digest these sections. Just too quickly go over the introductory paragraphs I have very little commentary on them but it's just to set the scene. A weird thing happened right after the November 3rd election, nothing, the nation was braced for chaos, liberal groups had vowed to take to the streets planning hundreds of protests across the country. Right wing militias were girting for battle in a poll before election day, 75% of Americans voiced concerns about violence. It did an eerie quiet descended as President Trump refused to concede the response was not mass action but crickets. When media organizations called the race for Joe Biden on November 7th, jubilation broke out instead as people throng cities across the US to celebrate the democratic process that resulted in Trump's ouster. There is quite a bit of pre-swashing or sort of thought manipulation going on here, they are telling you right off the bat that it was in fact a democratic process so that you digest everything they're about to tell you with that in mind, even if what they're about to tell you sort of undermines the idea that it was in fact a democratic process. A second odd thing happened amid Trump's attempts to reverse the result. Corporate America turned on him. Hundreds of major business leaders, many of whom had backed Trump's candidacy and supported his policies, called on him to concede. So the president something felt a miss. Quote, it was all very very strange Trump said on December 2. Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted. In a way, Trump was right. This mainstream media time article is confirming that in a way, Trump was right. People were banned from social media, people had videos demonetized from YouTube, people were kicked off on Twitter for having said the exact same thing but now time is actually admitting Trump was in fact at least in part right. And how does time confirm that in a way, Trump was right by confirming that Trump was right? There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a TURSE, little-noticed joint statement of the US Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on election day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain, inspired by the summer's massive, sometimes destructive, racial justice protests, in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump's assault on democracy. Appreciate what is in fact being admitted to between the lines here. What this article is saying here is that the year of violent protests that we had seen on the streets was sort of the impetus to come together to make sure that Trump didn't while others might see it as actually a veiled threat that if Trump wins, we will see more of this type of violence in the future. So it was not in fact with this violence as a backdrop that people came together, it was with the threat of this violence in the future that people came together to ensure a certain result that would avoid that type of violence. At least that is the flip side way of interpreting that which is being admitted in this paragraph. And then with some spin that would make Brian Boy Tano dizzy, the article goes on to try to convince you that the joint efforts we saw here were cross-partisan. The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast cross-partisan campaign to protect the election. An extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. Now I'm not saying that they in fact were or they were not, but it is not because labor and business have diverging interests that it doesn't mean they had a common interest against Trump which is why they formed an alliance. But I'm going to say that if the intent truly is to ensure that the election is going to be free and fair, uncorrupted and credible, it seems kind of bizarre to do it with shadow entities. It seems to me that transparency is the underlying principle of freeness and fairness and doing all this with shadow organizations, with secret cabals. That might cause one to question what the actual underlying goal is here. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America's institutions as they came under simultaneously attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined president. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines with crucial contributions by non-partisan and conservative actors. So now this article is also further admitting that much of this effort came from organizations on the left, although these organizations were not formally tied to Biden's campaign as though that makes a difference, that is a distinction without a difference as far as I am concerned. The bottom line is that this article is now admitting that the secret shadow efforts to ensure a free and fair election came mostly from the left even though it wasn't formally affiliated with Biden's campaign. Okay. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding. First of all, hogwash. I am not going to believe for one second that this activity much of which is coming from the left was not seeking to ensure that Donald Trump was not reelected. Second of all, again, semantics so it might not be a dishonest statement. I am sure they wanted to avoid an election that would be so calamitous. That so calamitous an election would be Donald Trump getting reelected. But now we have it, a formal admission in a mainstream media time magazine article that there was a secret cabal, organizations much of which was on the left that sought to avoid a calamitous result of the election. It is now officially up to you to determine whether or not you believe the spin that the article is giving to it. And in case you thought we were done with absolutely mind-blowing admissions, wow, wait until you read this paragraph. Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and help secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and use data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. If you can believe it, it actually gets better. After election day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. Quote, the untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplish the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation. It says, Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to board the voter protection program. Now this may just be because I've done tons of videos breaking down the election lawsuits. I have done tons of streams with Robert Barnes where we talked about the entire election process, but this paragraph seems to create the illusion that the election has decided the day after the election day. This paragraph seems to create the illusion that after the election day, there is nothing else that needs to be done, you know, other than the constitutional requirements to certify the votes. People often say that America is a democracy, the more accurate way of phrasing it is that America is a constitutional republic. The election day is one step in the process of appointing a president. It has to go through the other constitutional requirements of the certification and the electoral college votes. But reading this paragraph, it's going to give everybody the impression that there is nothing else to the election other than the election itself. There's no other constitutional requirements that there in fact are. It also creates the illusion that whatever Trump tries to do after the election day itself is somehow unconstitutional, is somehow a sorted method of overturning the election as opposed to the actual constitutional process itself. Moving on, the article then goes on to talk about and confirm a secret alliance which if Donald Trump had ever alleged would have led him straight to the loony bit. The alliance. On March 3, PODOSER drafted a three-page confidential memo titled, quote, threats to the 2020 election. End quote. Trump has made it clear that this will not be a fair election and that he will reject anything but his own reelection as fake and rigged. End quote, he wrote, That Mr. PODOSER is confession through projection. Accus your adversaries of doing that which you are doing so as to create confusion. And do it so as to legitimize anything you can do so as to prevent that outcome which you have imputed on your adversary which is probably potentially maybe even true of yourself. Protecting the election would require an effort of unprecedented scale. As 2020 progressed, it stretched to Congress, Silicon Valley and the nation's state houses. It drew energy from the summer's racial justice protests, many of whose leaders were a key part of the liberal alliance. And eventually it reached across the aisle into the world of Trump's skeptical Republicans appalled by his attacks on democracy. This is pathological framing. That which one side is doing is protecting democracy even if it is with secret cabals and shadow entities, but they're doing it in order to protect it from the attack on democracy by the other party. We are only doing all of this in total secrecy to protect democracy. Trust us. Then we get into what I would otherwise qualify as the most shocking aspect of this entire article, but I think this entire article is equally shocking. We get into the disinformation defense. That actor spreading false information is nothing new. For decades, campaigns have grappled with everything from anonymous calls claiming the election has been rescheduled to fly or spreading nasty smears about candidates' families. But Trump's lies and conspiracy theories, the viral force of social media and the involvement of foreign medallys made disinformation a broader, deeper threat to the 2020 vote. Laura Quinn, a veteran progressive operative who co-founded Catalyst, began studying this problem a few years ago. She piloted a nameless secret project which she has never before publicly discussed that tracked disinformation online and tried to figure out how to combat it. One component was tracking dangerous lies that might otherwise spread unnoticed. Researchers then provided information to campaigners or the media to track down the sources and expose them. Laura Quinn created a nameless secret project to combat disinformation. I don't know about you, but my general rule is that nameless secret projects are disinformation. When you are allegedly combating disinformation and allegedly providing information, you don't do it through nameless secret projects. And the fact that this article is admitting this, it just blows the mind that they expect anybody to swallow this drivel. Alright, a nameless secret project that also docks its people they accuse of providing disinformation. Because in order to protect democracy and ensure a fair election, you need a healthy dose of McCarthyism. The McCarthyism coupled with a little bit of provdilevel propaganda. The solution she concluded was to pressure platforms to enforce their rules, both by removing content or accounts that spread disinformation and by more aggressively policing it in the first place. Quote, these platforms have policies against certain types of malign behavior, but they haven't been enforcing them end quote, she said. Quinn's research gave Amy in addition to advocates pushing social media platforms to take a harder line. In November 2019, Mark Zuckerberg invited nine civil rights leaders to dinner at his home, where they warned him about the danger of the election-related falsehoods that were already spreading unchecked. Call me cynical, but I might be a little suspicious that it was in fact Zuckerberg who invited these nine civil rights leaders over to his place. I suspect it was these nine civil rights leaders demanding a meeting with Zuckerberg. They demanded a meeting with Zuckerberg, where I am sure they sold him on the idea that censorship would be required in order to ensure democracy. Quote, it took pushing, urging conversations, brainstorming all of that to get to a place where we ended up with more rigorous rules and enforcement end quote, says Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the leadership conference on civil and human rights, who attended the dinner and also met with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and others. Gupta has been nominated for Associate Attorney General by President Biden. Quote, it was a struggle, but we got to the point where they understood the problem. Was it enough? Was it later than we wanted? Yes, but it was really important given the level of official disinformation that they had those rules in place and were tagging things and taking them down. End quote, a strictly partisan effort to put substantial pressure by their own admission on Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg, the owners of the two largest social media platforms on earth to censor content that these partisan actors believe to be disinformation. All being done secretly through this cabal and shadow organizations to preserve democracy. Then the article goes back to the other form of pressure that had been exercised the summer uprisings. It is interesting to note when something is qualified as an uprising versus an insurrection, but that is a debate for another day. The summer uprising had shown that people power could have a massive impact. Activists began preparing to reprise the demonstrations if Trump tried to steal the election. Quote, Americans plan widespread protests if Trump interferes with election. End quote, Roy does reported in October, one of many such stories. It frames the debate and you can control the discussion. Do you see how they're framing it here? We're going to riot. We're going to protest if Trump interferes with the election. Of course, nobody would disagree with that. If a president interferes with an election, of course, people should protest. But the other way to read this is that calling it interference is merely cloaking any Trump victory or any Trump attempt to ensure victory as interference that would justify riots in the streets. The translation, we are going to riot in the streets like we did for the entire year if Trump wins the election because as we have framed it in our own minds, the only way he can win the election is if he interferes with the election. More than 150 groups from the women's march to the Sierra Club to color of change from democrats.com to the democratic socialists of America joined the quote, protect the results and quote coalition. The groups now defunct website had a map listing 400 planned post election demonstrations to be activated via text message as soon as November 4. To stop the coup they feared, the left was ready to flood the streets. To stop the coup they feared because the only way Donald Trump could ever win would have been with a coup. Frame the debate, control the discourse. And in case anyone had any lingering doubts that the threats of violent protests in the streets in the event of a Trump coup was intended to sort of intimidate people into silence, then that's powerful leave no doubt. But behind the scenes the business community was engaged in its own anxious discussions about how the election and its aftermath might unfold. The summer's racial justice protests had sent a signal to business owners too. The potential for economy disrupting civil disorder. Quote with tensions running high there was a lot of concern about unrest around the election or a breakdown in our normal way we handle contentious elections. Says Neil Bradley, the Chamber's executive vice president and chief policy officer. These worries had led the Chamber to release a pre-election statement with business roundtable, a Washington based CEO's group as well as associations of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers calling for patients and confidence as votes were counted. Basically business owners were put on warning that if it looks like Trump is going to win, it's going to be the result of a coup and there will be violent protests in the streets so we had better make sure that Trump doesn't win the election. That is of course what is implicitly being said behind all of the spin. And then on election night when it looked like Trump might actually win, well people started freaking out and they started getting ready for violence in the streets. In Pauldhurtz's presentations winning the vote was only the first step to winning the election. After that came winning the count, winning the certification, winning the electoral college and winning the transition, steps that are normally formalities but that he knew Trump would see as opportunities for disruption. So according to Pauldhurtz, the actual constitutional process of certifying the vote is just a mere formality and anyone trying to have any influence over that is engaging in disinformation and needs to be stopped. Nowhere would that be more evident than in Michigan where Trump's pressure on local Republicans came perilously close to working and where liberal and conservative pro-democracy forces joined to counter it. The article then goes on to explain how in order to deter a constitutional contested election, the democracy defenders went on a full court press. The democracy defenders launched a full court press. Protect democracy's local contacts research the law makers personal and political motives. Issue one ran television ads in Lansing. The chambers Bradley kept close tabs on the process. Wamp the former Republican congressman called his former colleague Mike Rogers who wrote an op-ed for the Detroit newspaper urging officials to honor the will of the voters. Three former Michigan governors, Republicans John Angler and Rick Snyder and Democrat Jennifer Granholm jointly called for Michigan's electoral votes to be cast free of pressure from the White House. Angler, a former head of the business roundtable, made phone calls to influential donors and fellow GOP elder statesmen who could press the law makers privately. And is it amazing here that while the accusation is that they wanted to ensure that the vote occurred free of pressure, you have an admission that they were researching the personal motives of the people doing the voting. They had people calling up senators, calling in private calls to put private pressure on the individuals. What is that if not applying pressure to get your way? They are applying the exact same kind of pressure even potentially more into various than the pressure they fear, but they're only doing it to ensure a fair election. Confession through projection accused your adversaries of doing that which you are doing so as to create confusion, reading whichever way you want, but what is clear from this paragraph is that they are literally admitting to doing exactly that which they are trying to prevent by their own admission. The article then goes on to detail even more the type of pressure that these activists were putting on people to ensure a free and fair election. Raise activists, scan flight schedules and flock to the airport on both end of Shurkey's journey to DC to underscore that the lawmakers were being scrutinized. After the meeting, the pair announced they pressed the president to deliver COVID relief for their constituents and informed them they saw no role in the election process. Then they went for a drink at the Trump Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue. A street artist projected their images onto the outside of the building along with the words, the world is watching. Perhaps it is just a question of perspective, but I think a great many people could find this type of pressure to be extremely intimidating. The members of the Alliance to protect the election have gone their separate ways. The Democracy Defense Coalition has been disbanded, though the fight back table is on, protect democracy and the good government advocates have turned their attention to pressing reforms in Congress. Left-wing activists are pressuring the newly empowered Democrats to remember the voters who put them there while civil rights groups are on guard against further attacks on voting. Translation will before I get into the translation, just remember that at the beginning of this article we were sold on the idea that this was in fact a cross partisan movement. By the end of the article it becomes apparent by their own admission that this was in fact a purely partisan movement. It was a purely partisan movement that is now saying to the government, remember the people who put you in power and remember it based on everything we just said in this article that we can take to the streets with violent protests at the drop of a hat. We can mobilize via text message, we can get out there and cause severe economic disruption, so Democrats remember who put you into power and pay the favor back. At least that's the translation that I hear in my own head, but maybe I am just getting too darn cynical. Then the article ends with what is a fantastically amazing admission somewhere in between the lines for those who can read it. Democracy won in the end. The will of the people prevailed, but it's crazy in retrospect that this is what it took to put on an election in the United States of America. Translation, we are framing it as though democracy won, but what this really says is that we got the results we wanted and all it took was a secret cabal of extremely wealthy billionaires, tech giants, social media censorship and secret organizations all pulling the strings in the background unknown to everybody, but only to preserve democracy. And that is my breakdown of this article. I hope it gives you some insight into it. Go read the entire thing. The link is going to be in my pinned comment. And with that said, if you liked my videos, if you liked my content, please be sure to like share, subscribe, hit the notification bell, drop a comment in the comment section below because it feeds the algorithm.