Three Years Later: Some Illegal Actions that Really Did Flip Swing States in 2020

 

No, I’m not talking about the voting machines, the piles and piles of votes illegally cast, the scads and scads of votes illegally counted, and all the usual stuff.  Some of that stuff had some real problems, and that stuff matters, a lot.  But I’m not talking about that.

I’m talking about the Twitter Files.

And, by extension, I’m talking about the files we don’t have because a billionaire taking a stand on the right side of history can make the Twitter Files happen–thank you, Elon Musk–but cannot, of his own power, give us everything. He can’t also give us the Facebook Files, the Google Files, the FoxNews Files, the CNN Files, the ABC Files, the NBC Files, the CBS Files, and the New York Times Files.

In the Twitter Files, we learn that the feds were using Big Tech to manage speech.

These actions flipped an election–almost certainly.  Poll data indicate that (here, for example), factoring in the Hunter Biden laptop story alone.

And that stuff was illegal.  You shouldn’t have to ask which law, unless you want a thorough list and think there might be lesser laws on this. There may be, but I don’t know that I care all that much.  This crap is illegal according to the big law.  It’s called “the Constitution.”  Someone should have reminded these oathbreakers about it.

the lord of the rings gifs — villainelle: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of...

There’s a good intro to all this in this Imprimis article.  Here’s a good line:

Private companies, of course, for the most part have the right to engage in viewpoint discrimination—something the government is prohibited from doing by the First Amendment. The problem is that when Twitter suspended Trump, it was operating less like a private company than like an extension of the federal government.

Here’s another good bit:

Second, Twitter was taking marching orders from a deep state security apparatus that was created to fight terrorists, not to censor or manipulate public discourse. To the extent that the deep state is using social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to subvert the First Amendment and run information psy-ops on the American public, these companies have become malevolent government actors. As a policy matter, the hands-off, laissez-faire regulatory approach we have taken to them should come to an immediate end.

Third, the administrative state has metastasized into a destructive deep state that threatens to bring about the collapse of America’s constitutional system within our lifetimes. Emblematic of the threat is the fact that “the intelligence community” has proven itself incapable of not interfering in American elections. The FBI in particular has directly meddled in the last two presidential elections to a degree that should call into question its continued existence. Indeed, the FBI’s post-9/11 transformation from a law enforcement agency to a counter-terrorism and intelligence-gathering agency with seemingly limitless remit has been a disaster for civil liberties and the First Amendment. We need either to impose radical reforms or scrap it entirely and start over.

We are in very big trouble.

Since the day after the election–way back in November 2020, when it began to appear that massive illegalities might have made a difference to the Biden victory–I’ve been trying to figure out what happened.

The biggest question I’ve been interested in is whether illegal actions flipped swing states. Topics like thousands of mules, hackable voting machines, lots of zombie voters, votes cast illegally outside of the voter’s jurisdiction, illegal rule changes, and all the host of other election allegations do matter; some of those things even happened.  But a straightforward answer to the big question has been hiding in plain sight for a while now: Illegal actions did flip swing states, and they were the actions of Deep State intelligence.

Three years later, we know at least that much.

Published in Elections
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 29 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ignore This, Pal! Inactive
    Ignore This, Pal!
    @OldDanRhody

    Saint Augustine: Since the day after the election–way back in November 2020, when it began to appear that massive legalities might have made a difference to the Biden victory–I’ve been trying to figure out what happened.

    Legalities?  Did you mean to say “illegalities?”

    • #1
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Ignore This, Pal! (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine: Since the day after the election–way back in November 2020, when it began to appear that massive legalities might have made a difference to the Biden victory–I’ve been trying to figure out what happened.

    Legalities? Did you mean to say “illegalities?”

    Thanks!

    • #2
  3. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    It’s amazing that this topic remains forbidden.  Simply considering such things out loud is to remove oneself from polite society.

    Now THAT is real power. 

    • #3
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    It’s amazing that this topic remains forbidden. Simply considering such things out loud is to remove oneself from polite society.

    Now THAT is real power.

    I don’t hang around in polite society, so it’s not a problem for me.  However, I would like our presidential candidates to talk about it.  

    • #4
  5. DrewInWisconsin, Demagogue 🚫 Banned
    DrewInWisconsin, Demagogue
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    It’s amazing that this topic remains forbidden. Simply considering such things out loud is to remove oneself from polite society.

    And my goodness, the pearl-clutching at Ricochet.

     

    • #5
  6. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Saint Augustine: These actions flipped an election–almost certainly.  Poll data indicate (here, for example) that, factoring in the Hunter Biden laptop story alone.

    Are you referring to the question on page 35?

    Had you been aware that there was evidence Joe Biden lied about his knowledge of his son Hunter’s overseas business dealings, would you have been more likely or less likely to have voted for him in 2020?

    If you look at the breakdown by people who voted Biden in 2020, 26% claimed this would have made them more likely to vote for Biden, vs. only 13% who answered less likely.  Note that “less likely” doesn’t actually tell us if any of them would’ve switched their votes to Trump, or merely held their noses while voting for Biden.

    • #6
  7. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine: These actions flipped an election–almost certainly. Poll data indicate (here, for example) that, factoring in the Hunter Biden laptop story alone.

    Are you referring to the question on page 35?

    Had you been aware that there was evidence Joe Biden lied about his knowledge of his son Hunter’s overseas business dealings, would you have been more likely or less likely to have voted for him in 2020?

    If you look at the breakdown by people who voted Biden in 2020, 26% claimed this would have made them more likely to vote for Biden, vs. only 13% who answered less likely. Note that “less likely” doesn’t actually tell us if any of them would’ve switched their votes to Trump, or merely held their noses while voting for Biden.

    Yes, and 13% of his voters would be less likely to have been his voters.

    But what that 26% could be thinking is beyond me.

    • #7
  8. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine: These actions flipped an election–almost certainly. Poll data indicate (here, for example) that, factoring in the Hunter Biden laptop story alone.

    Are you referring to the question on page 35?

    Had you been aware that there was evidence Joe Biden lied about his knowledge of his son Hunter’s overseas business dealings, would you have been more likely or less likely to have voted for him in 2020?

    If you look at the breakdown by people who voted Biden in 2020, 26% claimed this would have made them more likely to vote for Biden, vs. only 13% who answered less likely. Note that “less likely” doesn’t actually tell us if any of them would’ve switched their votes to Trump, or merely held their noses while voting for Biden.

    Yes, and 13% of his voters would be less likely to have been his voters.

    But what that 26% could be thinking is beyond me.

    The 26% don’t really matter.  26% of the people who already voted for him, would have been more likely to vote for him?  So?  No net change.

    • #8
  9. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Yes, and 13% of his voters would be less likely to have been his voters.

    But what that 26% could be thinking is beyond me.

    And 15% of Trump voters said they’d be more likely to have voted for Biden had they known.  Explain that one to me!

    • #9
  10. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine: These actions flipped an election–almost certainly. Poll data indicate (here, for example) that, factoring in the Hunter Biden laptop story alone.

    Are you referring to the question on page 35?

    Had you been aware that there was evidence Joe Biden lied about his knowledge of his son Hunter’s overseas business dealings, would you have been more likely or less likely to have voted for him in 2020?

    If you look at the breakdown by people who voted Biden in 2020, 26% claimed this would have made them more likely to vote for Biden, vs. only 13% who answered less likely. Note that “less likely” doesn’t actually tell us if any of them would’ve switched their votes to Trump, or merely held their noses while voting for Biden.

    Yes, and 13% of his voters would be less likely to have been his voters.

    But what that 26% could be thinking is beyond me.

    I would take both numbers with a grain of salt. Once people are invested in a decision/choice they have made, they are very unlikely to say out loud or even to themselves that in retrospect, they made the wrong choice.  That’s as true of buying a computer or camera as voting for a politician. It does happen, but it doesn’t happen easily.

    They can be much more easily dissuaded before they become so invested in a choice as to have already made it.

    • #10
  11. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Yes, and 13% of his voters would be less likely to have been his voters.

    But what that 26% could be thinking is beyond me.

    And 15% of Trump voters said they’d be more likely to have voted for Biden had they known. Explain that one to me!

    Beats me.

    (All I can wildly guess is that these were the more timid who won’t tell the truth to pollsters they don’t trust, nor openly defy them, but lie in the way they think the pollsters want to hear.)

    • #11
  12. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Yes, and 13% of his voters would be less likely to have been his voters.

    But what that 26% could be thinking is beyond me.

    The 26% don’t really matter.  26% of the people who already voted for him, would have been more likely to vote for him?  So?  No net change.

    And the 13% are canceled out by the 15% of Trump voters who say they’d have been more likely to vote for Biden, so we’re back to square one.

    • #12
  13. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Yes, and 13% of his voters would be less likely to have been his voters.

    But what that 26% could be thinking is beyond me.

    The 26% don’t really matter. 26% of the people who already voted for him, would have been more likely to vote for him? So? No net change.

    And the 13% are canceled out by the 15% of Trump voters who say they’d have been more likely to vote for Biden, so we’re back to square one.

    Yeah, maybe.

    Or maybe not. The 15 percent and the 26 percent make no sense. The 15 percent and the 13 percent would make a difference. The 13 percent is the only one that makes any sense and a difference.

    It’s not like I need any survey to know that some of these people exist. I already know they exist. All a survey does is give me some rough idea of how many there might be. And how many is–enough.

    • #13
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    You have done the Lord’s work.

    • #14
  15. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    I recall, but cannot come up with a link, a guest on Tucker who did analytics on social media effect and warned in 2018-2019 that manupulating of social media could defeat Trump. 

    • #15
  16. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Rodin (View Comment):

    I recall, but cannot come up with a link, a guest on Tucker who did analytics on social media effect and warned in 2018-2019 that manupulating of social media could defeat Trump.

    The Biden campaign wouldn’t have invested so much effort in illegal censorship if it didn’t expect it would make a difference.

    • #16
  17. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    What’s past is prologue. 

    Bridgeport, Connecticut.

    And a Chicago export just up the road in Springfield, Massachusetts. (Video at link.)

    “We were able to ascertain from the video footage that many individuals who were dropped off the black Suburban and black Expedition entered city hall, voted and left in the same aforementioned vehicles. At one point in the footage, two women and one man can be seen showing the man in the red/white/blue shirt something. The man then takes out what appears to be a large bundle of cash and peel off a bill and hand it to each person.”

    Springfield Elections Commissioner Gladys Oyola-Lopez

     

    • #17
  18. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    It’s amazing that this topic remains forbidden. Simply considering such things out loud is to remove oneself from polite society.

    Now THAT is real power.

    On a small scale of exercising that power…will this make the main feed?

    • #18
  19. DrewInWisconsin, Demagogue 🚫 Banned
    DrewInWisconsin, Demagogue
    @DrewInWisconsin

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    It’s amazing that this topic remains forbidden. Simply considering such things out loud is to remove oneself from polite society.

    Now THAT is real power.

    On a small scale of exercising that power…will this make the main feed?

    Probably not. Have any of Augie’s many thorough and informative threads on this topic made the Main Feed? I don’t recall that any of them have.

    • #19
  20. Annefy Coolidge
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    It’s amazing that this topic remains forbidden. Simply considering such things out loud is to remove oneself from polite society.

    Now THAT is real power.

    Tucker Carlson made that point in his recent podcast with Theo Von. That when you’re trying to determine the truth, pay attention to what you’re not allowed to say. 

    Highly recommend entire video. I listened on a long bus ride yesterday and laughed out loud so many times I had to share the link with my seat mates. 

     

     

    • #20
  21. Annefy Coolidge
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Rodin (View Comment):

    I recall, but cannot come up with a link, a guest on Tucker who did analytics on social media effect and warned in 2018-2019 that manupulating of social media could defeat Trump.

    Rich Weinstein? The guy whose wife was killed in a car accident? I can not find a link either. 

    • #21
  22. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    DrewInWisconsin, Demagogue (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    It’s amazing that this topic remains forbidden. Simply considering such things out loud is to remove oneself from polite society.

    Now THAT is real power.

    On a small scale of exercising that power…will this make the main feed?

    Probably not. Have any of Augie’s many thorough and informative threads on this topic made the Main Feed? I don’t recall that any of them have.

    I was curious, so I went to @SaintAugustine ‘s profile and looked.  In 22 he had a few articles on the topic published.

    https://ricochet.com/1335923/what-happened-and-what-now/

    https://ricochet.com/1334554/two-years-later-how-to-think-about-election-cheating-in-2020/

    https://ricochet.com/1298020/should-we-move-on-from-2020/

    His “main post” is members-only, but some have made it to the main feed.

    • #22
  23. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    DrewInWisconsin, Demagogue (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    It’s amazing that this topic remains forbidden. Simply considering such things out loud is to remove oneself from polite society.

    Now THAT is real power.

    On a small scale of exercising that power…will this make the main feed?

    Probably not. Have any of Augie’s many thorough and informative threads on this topic made the Main Feed? I don’t recall that any of them have.

    A number have, actually. Maybe 4 to 8 of them. I’d have to check.

    • #23
  24. Quickz Member
    Quickz
    @Quickz

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    I recall, but cannot come up with a link, a guest on Tucker who did analytics on social media effect and warned in 2018-2019 that manupulating of social media could defeat Trump.

    Rich Weinstein? The guy whose wife was killed in a car accident? I can not find a link either.

    Thanks for the article @saintaugustine!

    I think you (@annefy & @rodin) are thinking of Robert Epstein. He did a lot of research on the manipulative effects of Google and others on the election – showed some crazy things. He continued his research and found even more in the Georgia runoff that involved court rulings and the subsequent internet traffic changes from Google covering their butts. I am sure the Ricochetti can find a lot of his interviews, but here is one with Mark Levin

    https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/dr-robert-epstein-on-googles-ability-to-affect-the-outcome-of-elections

    And an article in Epoch Times: https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/google-shifted-a-minimum-of-6-million-votes-in-2020-election-dr-robert-epstein-3592527

    Cheers!

    • #24
  25. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Quickz (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    I recall, but cannot come up with a link, a guest on Tucker who did analytics on social media effect and warned in 2018-2019 that manupulating of social media could defeat Trump.

    Rich Weinstein? The guy whose wife was killed in a car accident? I can not find a link either.

    Thanks for the article @ saintaugustine!

    I think you (@ annefy & @ rodin) are thinking of Robert Epstein. He did a lot of research on the manipulative effects of Google and others on the election – showed some crazy things. He continued his research and found even more in the Georgia runoff that involved court rulings and the subsequent internet traffic changes from Google covering their butts. I am sure the Ricochetti can find a lot of his interviews, but here is one with Mark Levin

    https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/dr-robert-epstein-on-googles-ability-to-affect-the-outcome-of-elections

    And an article in Epoch Times: https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/google-shifted-a-minimum-of-6-million-votes-in-2020-election-dr-robert-epstein-3592527

    Cheers!

    Thanks!

    • #25
  26. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Demagogue (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    It’s amazing that this topic remains forbidden. Simply considering such things out loud is to remove oneself from polite society.

    Now THAT is real power.

    On a small scale of exercising that power…will this make the main feed?

    Probably not. Have any of Augie’s many thorough and informative threads on this topic made the Main Feed? I don’t recall that any of them have.

    A number have, actually. Maybe 4 to 8 of them. I’d have to check.

    I believe 9 now have been Main Feeded.

    Saint Augustine:

    ANALYSIS OF THE 2020 ELECTION

    • #26
  27. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    What Is Up with the Critics of the Critics of the 2020 Election?

    • #27
  28. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Voting Machines Need To Go

    • #28
  29. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Electronic Fraud in the 2020 Election: More Likely than Not

    • #29
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.