Introduction

Joe Biden is now the POTUS. Donald Trump lost in his legal challenges and is no longer in the White House. The results are clear and we should all move on, right? Well, not exactly as questions surrounding the votes in states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and others have not been fully answered. Maricopa County is still under an audit. Pennsylvania violated the state constitution with Act 77. Why did it take so long for the votes to be counted in these states when others like Florida finished in a timely manner?

Like many people, I have continued going on with my life as what was done is already done. Maybe some new evidence will be brought to the surface. Maybe not. What I never expected to happen was the mainstream media confessing that strings were pulled behind the scenes in 2020. On Feb. 4, TIME Magazine published an article with the title, "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election". Yeah, not suspicious, at all...

How TIME Attempts to Prime the Audience

The first few paragraphs sound as if they came from a thriller novel. Underneath all of the melodramatic prose, however, the author sneakily tries to prime the reader into thinking that the 2020 election results were 100% democratic:

"... as people thronged cities across the U.S. to celebrate the democratic process that resulted in Trump’s ouster."

But the article soon contradicts itself in the next paragraph where it flat out admits that "in a way, Trump was right" in reference to his allegations that there was a concerted effort to "anoint the winner". That doesn't sound democratic to me. What's even better is how the article straight out admits that the BLM riots from last summer were destructive:

"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 terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. 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."

Not only that, but when you read in between the lines, the paragraph is implying that if Trump got re-elected, then there would be more riots on the streets as if he is the cause behind the rioters' destructive behavior.

The following paragraph yields multiple self-contradictions that I have to wonder how this article got approved in the first place:

"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."

I don't know about you guys, but I assume "free and fair" would include transparency rather than secrecy.

"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 nonpartisan and conservative actors."

TIME tries to portray the anti-Trump efforts as cross-partisan which is technically true, but here, the outlet admits that most of the activity came from the left. Describing the campaign as cross-partisan sounds nice at the surface with its positive connotations, but overall, there is a clear ideological slant towards one direction. I also have to question what TIME meant by "conservative actors" as I have a suspicion that the outlet is actually referring to the establishment Republicans. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL), who voted to convict Trump during the second impeachment hearing, supports mass immigration which is not a conservative principle. Liz Cheney (R-WY) is an interventionalist and putting resources to meddle in other countries' affairs is hardly conservative either.

"Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding."

At least for Pennsylvania, the changes to its voting system violated the state constitution.

"After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program."

This is quite a bizarre statement from Eisen as the election is not decided the day after Election Day. There is a Constitutional process that needs to be followed in order to properly appoint a new president or incumbent. The results can be overturned if there is enough evidence of inaccuracies and fraud. Is that rare? Yes, but it is not impossible or even improbable.

"For Trump and his allies were running their own campaign to spoil the election."

"Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count. And he spent the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol."

In what world is exploring legal challenges against the results constitutes as "spoil[ing] the election" and "block[ing] a legitimate vote count"? Some of Trump's legal challenges were successful such as RNC v. Gill and Trump for President v. Boockvar. They may not overturn the election (and it's also too late), but these rulings proved that Trump had legitimate reasons to approach the results with skepticism.

Also, "summoning his army of supporters"? As Trump's lawyers proved during the second impeachment trial hearing, he did not incite his supporters to illegally enter the Capitol or commit violence. To quote Trump during his Save America Rally, "I know that everyone one here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Secondly, the protesters that entered the Capitol began approximately 10 minutes before Trump finished his speech. The rally was about a mile away, which is a 20-30 minute walk. On top of that, if law enforcement actually did their job and prepared properly, then perhaps the violence wouldn't have escalated to the point that it did.

Lastly, the concluding paragraph of the introduction was a doozy:

"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 endures."

What TIME described as a "democratic process that resulted in Trump's ouster" was really a behind-the-shadows, predominantly left plutocratic and corporatist ploy. My absolute favorite part is when the article pre-emptively insists that the efforts were not to to rig the election, but instead to "fortify" it. I'm sorry, but when you have admitted that the campaign was (1) not transparent and (2) had a notable ideological slant, excuse me as I approach your claims of "fortifying" the election with a mountain of skepticism.

Oh, and I have only responded to the introductory content. Whether I will (or even want to) share my commentary on the meat and potatoes remains to be seen. If I do, don't expect me to churn them out on a timely schedule. Sifting through the first portion gave me headaches from all the disingenuousness.

Happy President's Day, everyone...