DARK MONEY: ‘Non-partisan’ Zuckerberg Used Private Money To Override Election Protocols

Written by Wes Walker on December 19, 2020

Why do countries have such strict election laws? Because there is so damned much incentive to cheat. It takes the decisions away from rival factions and puts in the hands of (theoretically) neutral civil servants.

We are either a nation of laws, or we are a nation of powerful interests that are above those laws. We cannot be both.

Can you imagine if some financial hotshot had the ability to funnel private money into ridings that would help his candidate and use a slick combination of financial incentives and penalties to advantage communities that help your favorite candidate at the expense of communities that help the rival?

Well, now you won’t have to wonder. Because that’s exactly what Mark Zuckerberg did with some $500 Million of his own money in key battleground states in this past election cycle.

The report, titled “The Legitimacy and Effect of Private Funding in Federal and State Election Processes,” alleges that when Zuckerberg gave money to government institutions to assist with elections during the coronavirus pandemic, the donations were targeted at Democrat-heavy areas in swing states with the specific purpose of tilting the election to Joe Biden.

The report, according to Amistad Project director Phil Kline, documented the use of “more than one half of a billion dollars, more than the federal government expended [$400 million] in the CARES Act, to fund the election during the COVID crisis.

“This, effectively, is a shadow government running our elections,” he added. “A half a billion dollars into the hands of state and local officials who, in turn, allowed those private organizations, and private interests, to have access to sensitive and private information of American citizens that was of value to political parties, and monetized for interests on the left.”

Kline said that Zuckerberg’s money had encouraged states to violate their own laws, and act contrary to federal law, in turning out specific groups of voters and suppressing turnout among other groups of voters, violating the Constitution.

“Zuckerberg paid for the election judges; he purchased the drop boxes — contrary to state law; he ordered the consolidation of the counting facilities; Zuckerberg paid the local officials who boarded up the windows to the counting room; Zuckerberg money purchased the machines, Dominion and otherwise; and Zuckerberg money was contributed to secretaries of state, like Michigan’s Jocelyn Benson, who has fought transparency in this election.” –Breitbart

Was this an attempt to unfairly advantage one political group over another in an election?

Damn betcha.

According to the Amistad project, of “the 17 cities and counties that have received the largest “grants” from CTCL, totaling more than $51,000,000 combined, just under $300,000 was given” to Republican-leaning counties.

In other words, 99.4 percent of Zuckerberg’s grants went to Democrat-heavy districts.

The Amistad Project links CTCL’s efforts to former campaign manager for President Barak Obama and Zuckerberg Chan initiative strategist David Plouffe, who wrote: “A Citizen’s Guide to Defeating Donald Trump.”

On page 81 of his book, Plouffe correctly identifies that the 2020 general election will come down to a “block by block street fight” to turn out the vote in the urban core, a key stronghold of Democrat Party votes. Plouffe specifically highlighted high turnouts in Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia as the key to a Democrat victory. Soon after, we witnessed the rumblings of a previously sleepy 501(c)(3) organization entitled the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) whose previous annual revenues never exceeded $1.2 million.According to the Amistad project, of “the 17 cities and counties that have received the largest “grants” from CTCL, totaling more than $51,000,000 combined, just under $300,000 was given” to Republican-leaning counties. –NationalPulse

By the end of this process, these activists had figured out a way to commercialize — and essentially privatize — the election system itself.

Democrats in Silicon Valley openly mused about a ‘Civil War’ in which they cram their blue-state values down the throats of red-state America — whether those red-states like it or not.

Some laughed, thinking that prissy snowflakes with no guns had no shot at winning a civil war.

But what if they found a way to fight dirty, creating a political revolution where the legitimate will of the people had no bearing upon the outcome?

What if hijacking the vote itself WAS the civil war they had in mind all along.

All that hand-wringing about $100k in Russian FB ads, where the real threat to the American Constitutional process may have been the CEOs of Silicon Valley themselves.

Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news — subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here:

Become a Clash Insider!

Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Follow Doug on Parler @TheGilesWay.

Join our MeWe group to get all the ClashDaily goodness.

If you’re still on Facebook, check out our ClashBriefing page.

Stay Rowdy!

You Might Like