RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Joe Biden in 2020.

Considering the Murdoch family is ultra liberal and a part of the same elite community as the Bidens, that's hardly a surprise.

I do not lie WB unlike the person you worship and will be voting for...
Trump had one last story to sell, the Wall Street Journal passed

Trump wanted a paper with credibility but all of them wanted to verify the "evidence "

by Adam Barnes
October 26, 2020


Before the New York Post broke the story about Hunter Biden?s alleged laptop, Trump allies and one of Hunter Biden?s business partners, met with a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reporter to discuss a similar story, The New York Times (NYT) reported.

Wall Street Journal reporter Michael Bender reportedly met with White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, former White House counsel Stefan Passantino and Arthur Schwartz, an associate of Donald Trump Jr., in early October in McLean, Virginia, the NYT reported. The purpose of the meeting was to give Bender ?a cache of emails detailing Hunter Biden?s business activities.? Hunter Biden?s business partner Tony Bobulinski was on on speakerphone, according to NYT.

?Mr. Bobulinski was willing to go on the record in The Journal with an explosive claim: that Joe Biden, the former vice president, had been aware of, and profited from, his son?s activities,? NYT added. (RELATED: These Reports Are Essential Reading For Understanding The Hunter Biden Story)

• 
  Our media columnist @benyt gives a look inside the White House?s secret, last-ditch effort to change the narrative, and the election.
  https://t.co/yILcn8Jxil
  
  ? The New York Times (@nytimes) October 25, 2020

Trump allies reportedly leaned on the idea that WSJ?s conservative leanings and credibility would give viability to and verify the claims, though Joe Biden has denied the [Hunter Biden e-mail] allegations, NYT reported. They reportedly hoped to ?change the narrative? of the presidential race. Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani, who had been working with former presidential adviser Steve Bannon, was set to deliver his own documents to the New York Post, according to NYT.

As WSJ reporters worked to determine whether the documents could prove Joe Biden was involved in Hunter?s lobbying effort, the New York Post published its own story Oct. 14.
Trump?s team expected the Journal?s story Oct. 19, with the president reportedly telling staffers an ?important piece? was coming from WSJ, the Times reported.

Bobulinski reportedly became impatient with the timeline and emailed a 684-word statement, which Breitbart News published, to various media outlets alleging the former Vice President was involved in his son?s business, according to he NYT. Bobulinski also held a small press conference before the final presidential debate, where he served as Trump?s debate guest.
(RELATED: ?Political And Strategic Value Of The Biden Family?: Trove Of Documents Shows Biden Family Links To Chinese Business Deal)

The WSJ posted its version of the story after the final debate, concluding, ?Corporate records reviewed by the Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden.?


?Text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don?t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture,? it continued.

.



NYT: Trump Allies Gave Documents On Hunter Biden To The Wall Street Journal


It doesn't sound to me like the WSJ rejected the story, they were just dragging their feet, while the New York Post and other sources reported it first.

The "WSJ rejected the story" is just the latest lying narrative the N Y Times and other liberal media are trying to sell, to undermine the overwhelming evidence against the Bidens. Another case of the Democrat Newspeak media selling a narrative of "Hey, look at this shiny object over here" to distract from the actual evience that hurts the Biden campaign.

And Facebook, Twitter and Google/Youtube are likewise flying cover for the Biden campaign, in trying to suppress the story.

by Shelby Cassesse
Nov 2, 2020


SOUTH SIDE (KDKA) ? Two local politicians, a Democrat and a Republican, both the victims of apparent vandalism overnight.
Rep. Mike Doyle?s office and congressional candidate Sean Parnell?s home were tagged with the same message:

?Elections, no. Revolution, yes.?

Rep. Mike Doyle?s office on the South Side was tagged with the message and what appears to be a hammer and a sickle, the same message that appeared on Parnell?s garage door.
?There is an election coming up,? Parnell said. ?Things are hyper-partisan, but this type of behavior isn?t acceptable on either side of the aisle.?
Red spray paint stretched across the Republican U.S. Congressional candidate?s garage door on Sunday morning and across the front of Democrat Doyle?s office.

The message was accompanied by a hammer and sickle, the symbol commonly associated with communism.
?Send a message at the ballot box if you?re unhappy with me or what I stand for, but don?t come to my home and vandalize my home,? Parnell said.
While the punctuation did differ between the messages at Parnell?s home and Doyle?s office, Parnell said he found a brick near the garage that wasn?t there before.

?What happened to Mike Doyle?s office, absolutely wrong in every sense of the word,? he said. ?This is my house though. My kids sleep here.?

Congressman Doyle was unable to speak to KDKA on Sunday but did provide a statement.
?The overwhelming majority of Americans wholeheartedly support free and fair elections, which are the foundation of our democratic government. Vandalism by a few self-described revolutionaries will never change that.?
Pittsburgh Police say they are investigating the vandalism at Doyle?s office. Meanwhile, Parnell said he has been in contact with police in Ohio Township.

Ohio Township Police could not be reached on Sunday, but confirmed on Monday that they are investigating the incident at Parnell?s home.
?The type of vandalism or violence to further political goals is unacceptable whether it happens to a Republican or a Democrat,? Parnell said.
Both Parnell and Doyle are running in the election on Tuesday.

Parnell in the 17th congressional district against Conor Lamb and Doyle is the incumbent defending his seat against Luke Negron in the 18th congressional district.

by Michael Haverluck
September 6, 2020



The Washington Post is warning America that only a decisive win for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden will prevent catastrophic violence and utter mayhem across the nation.

Appealing to the same scare tactics used to frighten the world to jump on board with environmental alarmists to battle so-called climate change, Georgetown University professor Rosa Brooks ? cofounder of the Transition Integrity Project ? and her leftwing activist group contemplated war games by laying out ?the four most likely scenarios? for the 2020 Presidential Election results.

?President Trump has broken countless norms and ignored countless laws during his time in office, and ? my colleagues and I at the Transition Integrity Project ? realized that identifying the most serious risks to our democracy might be the best way to avert a November disaster,? Brooks wrote in her WaPo column. ?So we built a series of war games, sought out some of the most accomplished Republicans, Democrats, civil servants, media experts, pollsters and strategists around, and asked them to imagine what they?d do in a range of election and transition scenarios.?

Vote for Biden or prepare for trouble ?

Brooks shared the four results contemplated by her radical anti-Trump thinktank, including: 1) a narrow Biden win; 2) a big Biden win ? with a decisive lead in both the electoral college and the popular vote; 3) a Trump win with an electoral college lead, but a large popular vote loss ? as in 2016 and; 4) finally, a period of extended uncertainty as we saw in the 2000 election.?

Then a dire warning ? resembling a threat ? followed, indicating that a vote for Trump was inviting or asking for widespread trouble and pandemonium ? if votes for the Republican incumbent results in a win for a second term.

?A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power,? the Georgetown scholar shared from her group?s synopsis. ?Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis.?

Consisting of far-left Democratic leaders, including former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, former interim Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile and former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.), along with NeverTrumper Republicans such as former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Stelle and conservative commentator Bill Kristol, the Transition Integrity Project is giving every indication it is looking to scare voters away from the polls ? or into casting a ballot for Biden out of fear.

A description of those predicting the violence and of those carrying it out was outlined by the conservative media.

?What do all these people have in common? They hate Trump, and they assume the worst about him,? The Western Journal explained. ?The people engaging in violence right now are left-wingers like Black Lives Matter activists and members of Antifa.?

It was then implied that Trump is a militant dictator who will not leave the White House if he loses.

?The Washington Post painted a hypothetical in which Trump refuses to step down, citing his refusal to say whether he?ll honor the election results,? the Western Journal noted. ?Instead of holing himself up in the White House as The Post suggested, however, Trump has simply said he may have to challenge the outcome legally.?

It was indicated that the liberal daily and fellow Democrats are guilty of transference ? blaming someone else for something of which they are guilty.

"Remember the 2000 election? Al Gore conceded and then pulled back his concession to George W. Bush, and a legal battle ensued,? the Journal added. ?Hillary Clinton has yet to accept the 2016 election results ? consistently casting doubt on Trump?s win, [while] the Obama administration foisted Russiagate on the country.?

Mail-in ballots ? an election the Democrats? way ?

Even more than the threatened violence, what has many Republicans fearful before the November election is the Democratic Party?s demanding of widespread mail-in ballots ? a process that is flawed and best ? and outright illegal and election-turning at worst.

In the face of Democratic leaders? insistence that mail-in voting does not increase fraud, inaccuracy and botched or delayed outcomes, recent results were marred by the problematic process in both New Jersey and New York elections earlier this spring and summer.

While a complete redo of an election was ordered by the a judge due to the fraudulent mail-in ballots in New Jersey, more than one in five mail-in ballots were thrown out in New York City for the June state primary ? and winners in three races were not declared by election officials until after they weeded out fraudulent ballots received by mail.

Even the far-left New York Times reported on the fiasco incurred by widespread mail-in voting, citing how election officials were ?trading blame over the mishandling of tens of thousands of mail-in ballots.?

?Election officials in New York City widely distributed mail-in ballots for the primary on June 23, which featured dozens of hard-fought races,? the New York Times reported in its article titled, ?Why the Botched N.Y.C. Primary Has Become the November Nightmare.? ?The officials had hoped to make voting much easier, but they did not seem prepared for the response: more than 10 times the number of absentee ballots received in recent elections in the city.?

Reflecting Trump?s trepidations about automatically mailing out ballots to all registered voters on rolls ? regardless of whether or not they are requested ? U.S. Attorney General William Barr expressed concern that America has never administered the widespread use of mail-in ballots being pushed by Democrats ? as the usual practice is to send out ballots to a limited number of absentee voters upon request.

?This is playing with fire,? Barr told CNN?s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday. ?We?re a very closely divided country here, and people have to have confidence in the results of the election and the legitimacy of the government, and people trying to change the rules to this methodology, which, as a matter of logic, is very open to fraud and coercion, is reckless and dangerous. Do you think that?s a way to run a vote??

Flawed elections have been reported nationwide, including on the West Coast last year, when KNBC-TV reported that a lawsuit filed by the Election Integrity Project of the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, spurred California to remove up to 1.5 million inactive voters from its rolls after it revealed that the number of individuals registered to vote in Los Angeles County represented 112% of all adults living in the county.

Besides California, fraudulently set up elections have been revealed from coast to coast ? making adding additional non-requested mail-in ballots to the existing flawed voting system like pouring gas on the fire.

?Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said at the time that there are 3.5 million more names on various county rolls across the nation than there are eligible voters,? the Western Journal noted. ?Conservative commentator Deroy Murdock ? using Judicial Watch data ? calculated following the 2016 election that there were 462 counties across the U.S. in which voter registration exceeded 100% of the adult population.?

by John Daniel Davidson
September 11, 2020


It?s been hard to miss the steady drumbeat of articles and think-pieces over the past few months about Election Day war games and post-election planning underway on the left, rooted in obsessive fears that President Trump will refuse to accept an electoral loss, triggering a constitutional crisis and maybe even widespread civic unrest, all in a desperate attempt to cling to power.

?The Left Secretly Preps for MAGA Violence After Election Day,? reads a recent headline at The Daily Beast.

?Is Trump Planning a Coup d??tat?? asks another recent piece at The Nation. ?Is America in the Early Stages of Armed Insurgency?? frets Slate.

Similar pieces have run at the Washington Post (?The election will likely spark violence?and a constitutional crisis?), The Atlantic (?What might he do? What should Americans fear??), Vox (?Imagine that? Donald Trump refuses to concede defeat?), The New Yorker (?Trump?s threats about rejecting the results come November are not idle?), and on and on.


The news hook for most of these articles is a series of elaborate election war games hosted in June by a newly formed organization called the Transition Integrity Project, touted by the media as a bipartisan group of experts consisting of former elected officials, high-level government staffers, consultants, and journalists like David Frum, who wrote the Atlantic piece referenced above.

In other words, the Transition Integrity Project is a cross-section of our elite ruling class.

In its own executive summary of the war games, the group states it was founded ?out of concern that the Trump Administration may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transition process? ? never mind the many ways Democrats in Congress and the executive bureaucracy, aided by the media, have been doing just that since before Trump won the 2016 election.

The exercise mimicked the kind of war games sometimes conducted for foreign policy crises, only this time the format was applied to the presidential election, with one team playing the Biden campaign and the other the Trump campaign. The outlandish outcome of these simulations?that in the event of a close election, Trump might ?federalize the National Guard and take military control of state voting sites,? as Frum writes ? tells us less about what is likely to happen in the real world and more about the mendacious worldview, toxic prejudices, and treasonous imaginings of the elites themselves.

In one of the simulations, a scenario similar to 2016 was gamed out, with Trump losing the popular vote but winning the right combination of states for an Electoral College victory. John Podesta, Hillary Clinton?s 2016 campaign chairman and a top adviser to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, played the role of Biden. According to Ben Smith?s account of the simulation in the New York Times, Podesta-as-Biden refused to concede, saying his party wouldn?t let him and instead alleged voter suppression, persuading the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send Biden electors to the Electoral College.

?In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned,? writes Smith. ?The House named Mr. Biden president; the Senate and White House stuck with Mr. Trump. At that point in the scenario, the nation stopped looking to the media for cues, and waited to see what the military would do.?



THE LEFT IS ENGAGING IN POLITICAL BLACKMAIL


Whether they realize it or not, Podesta and Frum and the others are acting out a present-day version of the election of 1860, only they?re playing the role of the secessionist South. Indeed, well before Abraham Lincoln won the election, even moderate ?unionist? southern leaders warned that their states would secede if the vote didn?t go their way. It amounted to mass political blackmail, and after Lincoln?s decisive victory the South followed through on its threat. For slave states, the Union was conditional, not perpetual, and Lincoln?s election violated their conditions.

Once southern states began seceding ? South Carolina was the first to go, less than two months after Lincoln?s victory and three months before he even took office ? the long-burning question about the constitutionality of secession had to be answered. For Lincoln and most other northerners, the answer had always been obvious. The ?central idea? of the Union, said Lincoln, ?is the necessity of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose.?

We now seem to be on the cusp of relitigating the question, only instead of slaveholding southerners blackmailing the country with secession, it?s anti-Trump Democrats and left-wing radicals threatening to tear the country apart if Trump wins in November. For them, the Union is conditional, and Trump?s reelection will violate their conditions.

What do they have in mind? Not exactly an 1860-style secession, state-by-state, but something more immediately disruptive. Depending on the circumstances the day after the election, they might contest the results and trigger lengthy litigations and ballot recounts, working in the meantime to come up with enough absentee ballots to put Biden over the edge. In that case, while the lawsuits and recounts are underway, the left plans to do what it?s been doing for months now: take to the streets.



Last week, an initiative called the Fight Back Table, a coalition of more than 50 left-wing groups that got together after the 2016 election, met to formulate a plan of action in case no clear winner emerges after Election Day. Of course, ?no clear winner? is something for which the left has been rhetorically preparing the country [for] under the guise of ensuring all the mail-in ballots are properly counted.

The group ?began charting out what it would take to stand up a multi-state communications arm to fight disinformation, a training program for nonviolent civil disobedience, and the underpinnings of what one official described as ?mass public unrest,?? according to a report by The Daily Beast. One person familiar with the discussion said the goal was to figure out how to ?occupy shit, hold space, and shut things down, not just on Election Day but for weeks.? By now, we all know what that means.

Perhaps more disturbing than the possibility of organized mass riots and looting is the open fantasizing among Democrats, including Biden himself, about the role the military might play in a contested election. Biden has felt free to ruminate, more than once, on the possibility of soldiers dragging Trump out of the White House if he tries to ?steal the election.?



In June, Biden boasted that the military ?will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.? Later, his campaign released a statement saying, ?the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House.?

This isn?t normal campaign rhetoric, and it belies a feverish mindset on the left going into November that any outcome except a Biden win?by any means necessary?won?t be legitimate. That?s why Hillary Clinton has publicly urged Biden not to concede ?under any circumstances.?

Indeed, paranoia and an assumption that any action by the Trump administration to ensure the integrity of the election is tantamount to stealing it pervades our elite class. The Transition Integrity Project?s war games played out various scenarios, utterly divorced from reality, in which team Trump ?succeeded in invoking the Insurrection Act and sending active-duty military troops into US cities to ?restore order,? ?protect? voting places, or confiscate ?fraudulent? ballots.? In another scenario, Attorney General Bill Barr ordered ?the seizure of mail-in ballots to ensure that vote counting would stop.?


Joe Biden says that his greatest concern that is that President Trump is going to try to ?steal this election? and the military will have to escort him from the White House.

• 
  "I promise you I'm absolutely convinced they will escort him from the White House with great dispatch." pic.twitter.com/MLPhMy2EdW
  
  ? Benny (@bennyjohnson) June 11, 2020

All this tells us much more about the mindset of the people running the simulations than it does about what Barr or Trump are likely to do in November. The left simply cannot imagine an election in which Trump doesn?t win by cheating, hence they?ve decided they will accept only one outcome. Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn and a participant in the Fight Back Table discussions, told The Daily Beast, ?It is very obvious that Trump is laying the groundwork for claiming victory no matter what.?

This is doublespeak. What should be obvious by now is that a broad coalition of left-wing groups is laying the groundwork to reject the results of the November election if Trump wins, and claim victory, no matter what. The same left-wing groups that have been fomenting riots and street violence for months will again mobilize, only this time they won?t be calling for the abolishment of the police but the effective abolishment of popular government?an end to our constitutional system, and with it, an end to the republic.

Alas, this kind of electoral hostage-taking isn?t new. In the months before the 1860 election, southern leaders and newspapers warned in explicit terms that electing Lincoln would mean disunion, perhaps even war.
?Let the consequences be what they may?whether the Potomac is crimsoned in human gore, and Pennsylvania Avenue is paved ten fathoms deep with mangled bodies,? declared one Georgia newspaper. ?The South will never submit to such humiliation and degradation as the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.?

Most northerners thought this was just bluster, that Lincoln?s election would never lead to actual war and bloodshed. They badly underestimated how lightly the South regarded the Union, and what southerners would do to the country to be rid of it. They should have taken the South at its word.

Now, 160 years later, we face what could be a similar crisis.

There?s a rich irony in the elite assumption that post-election violence will come from ?right-wing militias? or ?vigilante groups,? when the last three months of rioting and looting by Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists have in some ways been a dress rehearsal for what the left is planning in November. You don?t need to read between the lines to understand this, you just need to take these people at their word.
______

John is the Political Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Leaked Zoom Calls Reveals Anarchists Nationwide Plans to Disrupt US Election and Takeover Federal Buildings

"We are going to be in a crisis, but we want it to be one that we are creating."
? Lisa Fithian, Trainer

WASHINGTON, DC, November 1 ?Dozens of leaked internal documents and Zoom call video footage were made public today describing plans by progressive activists and federal workers to disrupt and destabilize Tuesday?s US election outcome, including plans to ?shut down the White House.?

The documents and footage can be viewed at a new website
http://www.sunriseexposed.com/
or
https://www.exposesunrise.com/ and will be regularly updated with additional content during the next 48 hours. All content has been handed over to law enforcement.

The information was leaked by a disaffected insider of the ?Sunrise Movement,? part of a loose but extremely coordinated network of liberal activists mobilizing around the country in an effort to ferment chaos in the wake of a potential Trump victory or a contested election.
‍
The videos and documents discuss a well-coordinated plan to shut down federal buildings (including the White House), public transportation portals, and disrupt Congress when it returns post-election. Sunrise is an umbrella movement comprised of 400 ?hubs? and hundreds of affinity groups including 350.0rg and Extinction Rebellion.

The Shut Down DC Zoom video can be found here.

At one point during a Zoom call that highlighted the role of the militant group ?Shut Down DC,? a spokesman states:

"We have been in discussion for a couple of months about how to respond to different contested election scenarios. The first step is we think we need to start the post-election phase in the streets, so we invite everyone to come to BLM (Black Lives Matter) Plaza any time after 4:00 on election night. On the 5th, we?re going to shut down the White House. On the 6th, we?re going to shut down larger parts of DC and then the following week, all the mainstream groups are going to come to DC and try to have a march on the 7th. "

The network of progressives has enlisted the several key players including Lisa Fithian, a long-time organizer and trainer including stints with Occupy Wall Street and various unions. In the video describing tools and tactics to shut down DC, she states:

Whoever?s got the guns can win ? let?s take over the buildings! We are going to be in a crisis but we want it to be one that we are creating. We want to make sure that we are on the offense and not the defense. We want them to be responding to us and not us responding to them.

Another Zoom call featured federal workers, including attorneys and members of the intelligence community, conspiring to use their protected status and positions of power to disrupt and destabilize an outcome beneficial to Donald Trump.

The Federal Workers video can be found here.


Additional videos and internal documents will be uploaded in the next 48 hours on the website www.exposesunrise.com

• ACTIVISM RESOURCES FOR FEDERAL WORKERS:
  
  This document was originally created by a grassroots group, Takoma Park Mobilization, for U.S. government employees who want to better know their rights inside and outside the workplace and to think about strategies for balancing their obligations as federal employees and their professional or personal values in 2017. It has been updated for 2020. Feel free to circulate widely.
  If you would like to organize an event, here is a facilitators? guide that can help guide you.
  
  The document is organized into several sections and you can click through to the parts you are most interested in when viewing this document online. For agency-specific advice, please consult your own agency?s Inspector General or ethics office and for legal advice, please consult a lawyer.
  
  This document will be updated, so if you find information that is incorrect or want to suggest something to add, please contact: fedsfordemocracy@gmail.com. The electronic version of this document can be found at http://tiny.cc/FederalEmployeeActivism
  
  Educate -- Organize -- Take Action

]

Trump will win in a landslide both in the popular vote and the electoral college.

Trump will win in a landslide both in the popular vote and the electoral college.