By February 2020, Trump had been President for a little over three years. Despite constant attacks from both within and without his administration, he had still managed to enact at least some of the elements on his agenda. In foreign affairs, notwithstanding his bombastic manner, he had proved capable of salving wounds rather than opening them, particularly with Little Rocket Man and Putin. He had also withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords and had excoriated the European arm of NATO for not pulling their weight. He had renegotiated NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which had given American companies carte blanche to outsource labor and further emasculate the US industrial base.
All of these actions were anathema to the globalist elites. Peace, rather than adventurism, meant drawdowns of overseas troop deployments and a loss of future profits for the military industrial complex. Democratising NATO similarly undercut American hegemony and would necessarily lead to a reduction in the hundreds of US bases that are scattered throughout Europe and Asia. Fealty to the Paris Accords was a crucial part of the framework that (as we can now appreciate) was to be used to establish an authoritarian dominion over us and unfettered trade that enriches the corporations while hollowing out the US economy was a right that had been enjoyed for decades and needed to be restored, post haste.
Trump was proving to be the arch disruptor domestically, too. The economy and the markets were in fine fettle, unemployment was low and the middle class was beginning to stage a recovery of sorts. Despite ongoing acts of political sabotage and the implacable opposition of the mass media, the President was popular and reasonably effective. Granted, the border wall farrago was a running sore, but it was clear that it was the entrenched bureaucracy and the Uniparty that were the problem, rather than Trump – he was doing all he could to circumvent the opposition. In the light of all this, and with only nine months until the people would deliver their verdict at the ballot box, it would be astounding if warning klaxons were not blaring incessantly in ruling class circles.
And it is now that a degree of educated speculation is required. Up to this point, the efforts of the anti-Trump resistance have been relatively easy to recognize and chronicle, as all of it had been political in flavor. The investigations, impeachment and the blatant deployment of double standards are difficult to miss. However, the events that dominated the political landscape in 2020 (prior to the election) were not overtly political – at least, that's the narrative that we are encouraged to follow. Covid was a 'pandemic' of natural origins and the 'mostly peaceful' riots were a spontaneous reaction to the police's racist brutality; it would easier to accept this approved version of events were it not for the numerous glaring inconsistencies in both narratives, some of which were apparent from the outset. The Wuhan wet market origin of Covid, in particular, was immediately problematic, as was the 'spontaneity' of rioting that lasted night after night.
But even those of a skeptical disposition would probably not automatically subscribe to the theory that these events were choreographed in an attempt to kneecap Trump. Or, at least, not primarily. After all, Covid was a worldwide phenomenon and the riots, while peculiar to the US, might be said to be rooted in righteous anger at the police. The latter proposition may hold some water, at least initially and the former was clearly intended to usher in authoritarian measures across as much of the globe as possible.
However, along with China, America was a world leader in all manner of Covid measures, including the never previously deployed lock-downs, which not only decimated Trump's economy, but also provided the pretext for a tsunami of Democrat election lawfare that largely went under the radar, but which proved to be hugely consequential come November. And there was a lot more to the rioting than we were led to believe. Additionally, both the riots and the 'pandemic' were phenomena that were far from ordinary and yet they slotted right into a continuum that can only be identified if we zoom out and place their effects in context by identifying what they actually achieved, politically.
I don't intend to re-litigate every element of the 'pandemic', but will instead focus on the parts that best illustrate the manufactured nature of what occurred, starting with the mammoth coincidence of Event 201. John Hopkins University advertised it as follows:
“Event 201 is a pandemic tabletop exercise hosted by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. The exercise illustrated the pandemic preparedness efforts needed to diminish the large-scale economic and societal consequences of a severe pandemic.”(1)
It took place in October 2019, prior to the outbreak of Covid (allegedly) and the hypothetical disease of choice was a novel zoonotic bat coronavirus that eventually developed the ability to transmit between humans. The exercise envisaged that no vaccine would be available in year one and that the only existing antiviral drug could only reduce symptoms, not reduce the spread. In eighteen months, the pandemic kills 65 million people. Predictably, the recommendations include the usual bromides about 'working together' and 'preparedness', but they also emphasized a vaccine response and a focus on combating the (by now) tired canard of mis- and disinformation. By 24th January 2020, the similarities between the event and the emerging pandemic forced the organizers into a press release denying their predictive skills and emphasizing the few elements of their scenario that were not also a part of the SARS-COV-2 story, rather than the many that were.(2)
Then there is the curious case of Zhou Yusen, a scientist at the Wuhan lab who filed a patent for a SARS-COV-2 vaccine in February 2020. Expert opinion holds that he would have been required to conduct at least three months research to get to that point, which takes us back to November 2019, which is prior to the first reported case of the disease. Yusen, incidentally, was thrown to his death off the roof of the lab in May 2020.(3) Another scientist from the same lab has stated that he and other researchers were given four strains of the coronavirus and tasked with identifying the most infectious strain.
He also alleged that some of these colleagues were sent to the hotels accommodating athletes partaking in the World Military Games in October 2019, which took place in Wuhan.(4) It has long been suspected the Chinese used these games as a testing ground for the release of a SARS bioweapon, due to the large numbers of competitors who got flu like symptoms and the unusually strict hygiene demands placed upon them by officials.(5) According to US investigators, WIV researchers — and the Chinese military — obtained “cutting-edge virus manipulation techniques” from Ralph Baric, Ph.D., a leading U.S. coronavirus scientist. They also received funding for gain-of-function research from the U.S. government through the EcoHealth Alliance.(6)
Further evidence of US complicity and prior planning comes from a study of the US patent office. On April 19th 2002, the same Ralph Baric filed a patent application (7279327) on behalf of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This was for a replication defective coronavirus, targeting the epithelial cells in the lungs. It included gene sequencing for the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, the S1 Spike protein and other elements, engineered and synthetically modified in a laboratory. On April 25th 2003, a further patent application was lodged (7220852) along with associated others, including 7776521. The application was on behalf of the NIH and the CDC.(7)
Patent 7776521 couldn't be more explicit:
“Disclosed herein is a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Also provided are the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV genome and the amino acid sequences of the SARS-CoV open reading frames, as well as methods of using these molecules to detect a SARS-CoV and detect infections therewith. Immune stimulatory compositions are also provided, along with methods of their use.”(8)
That was applied for a year before the original SARS outbreak. So, the US medical community is home to scientists who own patents on the disease known as SARS. In addition, the CDC is shown to hold patents that are 89%-99% identical to the sequence identified as SARS COV 2, as well as the PCR test to detect the disease. US patent 7279327 shows that not only did the ACE Receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, the S1 spike protein and other elements of SARS COV 2 exist years before 2019, but also that they were engineered and could be synthetically altered by gene sequencing technologies.
And, finally, there are 120 odd patents detailing all the fine grain, specific, scientific detail of the above elements and substances. What sequences are we comparing these patents to? The genomic sequences posted by the Chinese in January 2020. This means that the likes of the NIH, CDC, Chapel Hill at the University of North Carolina (and Pfizer) hold the patents for SARS COV 2. They've had them for years. So, prior to Event 201, the US had the means to bring about a pandemic. They had also outsourced that ability to China.
Curioser and curioser and somewhat undermining to the limited hangout explanation, allegedly dragged reluctantly from the establishment, that there might have been a 'lab leak'. As noted elsewhere, if one accepts that the virus came from a laboratory, there are then two possibilities; was it accidental or deliberate? The accidental discharge narrative that was continually referenced was always contrived, as there had been no attempt to rule out the other option.
But when the 'pandemic' landed, the response from Fauci et al was somewhat subdued initially. On March 8th 2020, over a month after the WHO declared a global health emergency, he was describing the lock-down measures employed by China as “draconian” and stating that restrictions such as this would not be feasible in the US.(9) This was around the time that he said that there was no reason to wear a mask.(10) Previously, in January he had said that asymptomatic transmission had never been the driver of outbreaks (11) and in February he had been busy downplaying the virus and telling the public not to be frightened.(12) It seems that Fauci hadn't yet received the memo.
By mid-March, however, everything changed. Now, he was recommending lock-downs and advocating for authorization of the potentially lethal drug remdesivir on the basis of a solitary trial which hadn't yet been peer-reviewed.(13) By August, he was irreversibly gung-ho about every conceivable element of the Covid fear porn, including the assertion that asymptomatic transmission was responsible for spreading Covid (14) and was talking up the likelihood that Kawasaki disease (an inflammation of blood vessels in children) was linked to Covid, which it wasn't.(15) He also went out of his way to dismiss hydroxychloroquine as a treatment,(16) thus ensuring that Trump (who had touted the drug) was trashed in the mainstream media – this despite the fact that the drug is extremely effective in treating Covid outpatients.(17)
Fauci wasn't the only one who initially urged calm. Most cautioned that the virus was only a risk to the old and the sick – as most viruses are – but it was also apparent that other forces were at work. The following blog entry is fairly typical:
“I have to say, that after being a doctor for 31 years, I’m not sure that I’ve seen anything quite like this level of abject panic regarding a respiratory virus in my career. While this is a bad bug that can overwhelm health systems and should be taken seriously, the misinformation is spinning out of control. Again, if you focus on the actual hard data, it paints a different picture.... So why the abject panic? It’s being fueled by some in the media.”(18)
That was on March 10th. Two days later, there was an update which included the following words:
“... the catch is that to have lower mortality rates we need to shut down our society due to our lack of ability to test for the coronavirus at scale as of the week ending 3/13/20.”(19)
Don't panic to lock-downs in two days. The timing tallies with Fauci's conversion, also. Somebody was pulling the strings from behind the scenes and the puppets fell in line with alacrity. And the lock-down solution, which was an absolute necessity if the election element of the plan was to have a chance of success? Where did that never previously utilized tactic come from?
As it transpires, it originates in two sources in the US, both from around 2006. The alleged near miss with the 2006 Avian Flu epidemic had prompted some soul searching at federal level, as it became clear than pandemic preparedness, as a field of study, was not burdened with any cohesive strategies and tactics. Two government non-experts and a 14 year old school girl's homework project later, (I kid you not) and a pseudo academic paper was presented to the Bush White House.(20)
Lacking, as it did, any consideration of ethics, constitutional rights, economics or countervailing views from actual experts in viral pandemics and relying on computer simulations, the high school paper naturally became the draft proposal. Whilst it ostensibly sought to address mitigation against an influenza pandemic, it's recommendations included this gem:
“Implementation of social distancing strategies is challenging. They likely must be imposed for the duration of the local epidemic and possibly until a strain-specific vaccine is developed and distributed. If compliance with the strategy is high over this period, an epidemic within a community can be averted.”(21)
Note the phrase 'must be imposed'. Mandatory social distancing had never previously been proposed and not because the constitutional framers couldn't have foreseen a challenge of this magnitude. Between 1776 and 1787, when the Constitution was actually implemented, pandemic after pandemic swept the 13 states and 30% of the population was lost. Then there was the Spanish Flu in 1918-20. And yet the US Constitution does not provide federal or state authority for the imposition of long duration lock-downs and no-one deemed it necessary to amend it to ensure that it did. At best, state governors and local authorities have the ability to issue 14-60 day executive orders. That's it.
In that light, it would seem that somebody at federal level blanched at the prospect of committing the word 'mandatory' to paper and instead put together a 90 page guide which explicitly states that isolation for sick people is voluntary (even in circumstances much more impactive than Covid 19) and that voluntary isolation of healthy people with sick people is 'generally not recommended' but should be considered – presumably by the healthy people themselves, but certainly not by the authorities. The maximum duration of any such isolation would be 12 weeks, but more likely 6-8.
There is no mention of widespread business closures, merely suggestions for mitigation efforts within work environments and strategies for coping with absenteeism through actual illness. No mask mandates, even though this guidance was issued with viral pandemics in mind. Instead, it places a responsibility on authorities, stating that
“...federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial officials should review laws, regulations, and policies to identify ways to help mitigate the economic impact of a severe pandemic and implementation of the pandemic mitigation measures on employers, individuals, and families, especially vulnerable populations.”(22)
However, a gentleman named Dr Donald Henderson, the driving force behind the eradication of smallpox and a man who, you would think, might be worth listening to, completely refuted even this watered down plan on the grounds of efficacy (there being no scientific data to support the hypotheses), ethics – as in quarantining healthy people with sick people, among other matters – and economic and social costs.
“Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”(23)
The federal policy was, nonetheless, adopted. And there it rested until March 2020 and Covid. You and I might regard catastrophe as a circumstance to be avoided, rather than a desired end state, but somehow, state governors, presumably guided (or goaded) by the Feds, implemented orders that replicated the study paper, not federal policy. Instead of an order recommending voluntary compliance with measures proposed, they defaulted immediately to mandatory orders and nobody challenged them. How did that happen? More to the point, how did so many of them even know of the obscure study paper's existence? And under what authority did they act? On its face – and it really isn't as complicated as some would want you to believe –
“...the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency.”(24)
That includes the right to free assembly (First Amendment) and the guarantee of due process and equal protection under the law (Fourteenth Amendment). But nobody in government paid that any mind; they doubled down on their version of pathological care and put Trump in an invidious position that must, nonetheless, have been privately amusing to them. After all the previous plotting had come to naught, they were now within touching distance of successfully forcing Trump to self-sabotage, which he duly did, although that can't have been apparent to him at the time.
While nominally up to the states, as previously noted, the White House did its level best to ensure that everyone complied with its edict, which stated that “indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed” for the next fifteen days.(25) The 'experts' had spent the previous weekend telling Trump that this was the best option and he (it seems reluctantly) acceded to their wishes. I say reluctantly, because the evidence shows that the president was not a true believer. A week prior, he had tweeted the following:
“So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!” (26)
But, in common with most others, within days he had been persuaded otherwise. The question is how? What was he told that prompted a complete 180, which was apparent from 12th March onwards, the day Trump shut down all travel from Europe, the UK and Australia? Is it possible that, in response to Trump's dismissive tweet of the 9th, certain officials (perhaps from the intelligence community) briefed the President, informing him that the virus was in fact a Chinese bioweapon that came from the Wuhan lab and that this was why the Chinese were having to take such extreme lock-down measures? Was it additionally possible that they told him that the long-researched mRNA platform could be used to roll out a vaccine in months, prior to the election?
It's a theory that's done the rounds and it would account for Trump's abrupt volte-face.(27) We'll probably never know as Trump will not want to admit that he was duped and the dupers have no obvious reason to confess their treachery to the world, but there is evidence to suggest that certain officials were pushing false narratives in meetings with the President (the myth of asymptomatic spread prominent amongst them).(28)(29) At the time, the advice that he was receiving from all the experts was uniformly alarmist:
“Trump went along with the advice because it was the only advice he was fed at the time. They made it appear that the only choice that Trump had – if he wanted to beat the virus – was to wage war on his own policies that were pushing for a stronger, healthier economy.”(30)
The following is a still from the White House press conference on 16th March 2020, just after Fauci made the announcement that a national shutdown was recommended. Dr Birx and Fauci seem unaccountably happy, Trump not so much. After much effort, the blob had finally gotten on the score-sheet. A 15 day lock-down it was.
Figure 1
Nine days later it was apparent that the timetable had already slipped somewhat, but Trump still seemed to think that the country could return to normality by Easter, which was April 12th. He was concerned that prolonged lock-downs could cause a “massive recession or depression”.
“You’re going to lose people. You’re going to have suicides by the thousands. You’re going to have all sorts of things happen. You’re going to have instability.”(31)
He wasn't wrong. By March 26th, weekly unemployment claims were at nearly 3.3 million, an eleven-fold increase, as the economy shed 850,000 jobs. That was just for starters; 20.5 million jobs were lost in April.(32) The President found himself signing Covid relief bills in both of those months, adding $2.5 trillion to the deficit in the process. Thousands of businesses went bust and, by the time Trump signed another relief bill in December (cost $900 billion) the economy had shrunk by 3.5%. But the experts were insistent that it was far too soon to open up – 'cases' were surging (inevitably, given a vast increase in indiscriminate testing with a swab that had, by design, a false positive rate of over 90%) and it would be irresponsible to expose the public to this dangerous, novel coronavirus.
By July, however, Trump was sufficiently disenchanted with 'experts' that he gave the WHO a year's notice of US departure (having already halted US funding in mid-April),(33) prompting the usual howls of anguish from the Left. Given what we now know about the WHO's central role in what's coming down the track – the ceding of the national sovereignty of all member nations will be effected by a Pandemic Treaty in 2024 – Trump's action would merely have increased the size of the target on his back, but he had grown increasingly suspicious of his advisors, too - as early as April 3rd.(34)
Unfortunately, he didn't want to backtrack publicly. It wasn't until August that a Dr Scott Atlas turned up at the White House (at Trump's request) and the President learned that, as he suspected, he had been betrayed by those he had trusted:
“They had convinced him to do exactly the opposite of what he would naturally do in any other circumstance, to disregard his own common sense and allow grossly incorrect policy advice to prevail…. This president, widely known for his signature “You’re fired!” declaration, was misled by his closest political intimates. All for fear of what was inevitable anyway—skewering from an already hostile media.”(35)
Nonetheless, it's almost impossible to see how Trump could have avoided the trap. If he'd followed his instincts, they would simply have ramped up their efforts to make the 'pandemic' appear far worse than it was. As it was, governments around the world did their very best to prolong all manner of 'pandemic' measures. Hospital protocols were introduced that that were designed to kill patients (over 65s who were ventilated suffered a 97.2% mortality rate and remdesivir, the drug that didn't even make it out of clinical trials after killing 53% of patients, were both integral parts of the arsenal),(36)(37) existing off-label treatments were banned, all sorts of false narratives around herd immunity, masks, social distancing, PCR testing and the like were pushed relentlessly and the US held its breath, waiting for the wonder drug that would allow normal life to resume. And, despite all the effort that was expended in making Covid as deadly as possible, what was the actual death toll?
United States Total Deaths
2010 2,468,435
2012 2,543,479
2014 2,626,418
2016 2,744,248
2018 2,839,205
2020 2,851,432 (to 23/12/20)
World Total Deaths (rounded)
2016 58,000,000
2017 58,700,000
2018 58,500,000
2019 58,800,000
2020 58,800,000
“What can be said is that COVID produced a bump of up to about 15% “excess deaths” in a small number of relatively rich, NATO countries, but in world-wide terms produced no extra deaths beyond what would have been expected for 2020. Most of the hard-hit countries were under, and may still be under, the severest forms of “lockdowns” and “social distancing” such as Italy, UK, France, Spain, Portugal, and parts of the US.”(38)
Figure 2
Within the administration, Atlas found that every reform that he instigated was undone and every presidential decision that didn't fit with the administrative state's agenda was slow walked and memory holed. And, ultimately, there was no way out of the quagmire. If Trump had kept the country open, they would have buried him politically and, by shutting down, they not only undid Trump's domestic accomplishments, they enabled a lawfare campaign that ensured that Trump could not win another four years. More on that shortly.
The, on May 25th 2020, George Floyd 2020 died in Minneapolis. I could have said that he was killed, but that is probably not accurate. The Medical Examiner in the case believed that Floyd's fentanyl levels were at a potentially fatal level and that there was no physical evidence to suggest that he died of asphyxiation. The final report in the case concludes that Floyd suffered a heart attack, whilst being restrained. He was suffering from severe cardiovascular disease.(39) Even the video of the arrest shows him complaining of not being able to breath at least five minutes before he was placed on the ground, which was done because he was not cooperating with police.(40)
But surely that's simply quibbling, isn't it? We saw the video and we know that the police are systemically racist, so while the precise circumstances of this particular case may be a tad opaque, the subsequent outrage is still legitimate, isn't it? No, it isn't – not even close, but that's not to say that there isn't a belief that it is and that this belief had been cultivated by those on the Left who seek to profit from Black resentment. And in this instance, that resentment was stoked and organised and lasted weeks, in a fashion that is very familiar if one has some knowledge of the techniques that the US has successfully used overseas in fulminating civil unrest, which the leads to color revolutions.
Figure 3
The answer to the question posed in Figure 3 is 12, although over 50% of Leftists thought it was “about 1,000” or more. There are freely available databases which contain the relevant data,(41) but those who get their confirmation bias from CNN and the New York Times are not inclined to do their own critical thinking and will instead imbibe a steady diet of selective reporting and outright lies. Systemic police racism doesn't exist:
“However sickening the video of Floyd’s arrest, it isn’t representative of the 375 million annual contacts that police officers have with civilians. A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.”(42)
But Biden, Obama and the progressives want to reinforce the impression that it does. Obama, in particular, has lied repeatedly about racism in the criminal justice system, most infamously mere hours before an orchestrated attack at a Black Lives Matter (BLM) rally in Dallas that left five officers dead;(43) his cherry picking of statistics to support his argument is too egregious to be characterized as unintentional bias. Nonetheless, despite the false narrative created during the Obama years, “a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.”(44) and, in reality, African Americans are under-represented in police killings; while less than a quarter of killings by cops are African Americans, they make up 53% of known homicide offenders and 60% of robbery offenders, despite being only 13% of the population.(45)
Even then, while the false bedrock assumptions have been laid, it's apparent that there was no gradual crescendo of outrage, but rather a sudden explosion. The media must be held at least partly responsible, as the term 'systemic racism' suddenly got an airing in the press, seemingly from out of nowhere.
Figure 4
While simultaneously skewing the public perception of Black criminality.
Figure 5
Whether as a result of swarm behavior or an explicit instruction, the mainstream media acted in concert. George Floyd's death seemed to be the one that they'd been waiting for, possibly because the optics were so gruesome, the police so seemingly callous and the timing so propitious.
Figure 6
Curiously, the riots in Minneapolis didn't start until two days after Floyd's death and it wasn't until then that the rioting spread to other parts, either. There were then weeks of riots across the US, as we know. A minimum of twenty five people were killed and the property damage totaled somewhere between $1-2 billion, all of it during lock-downs, compliance with which the rioters were curiously exempted by the authorities. However, in truth, it wasn't a spontaneous uprising. If it had been, it wouldn't have only happened in cities in blue states; it would have happened everywhere, but only sanctuary cities and municipalities with Leftist mayors could be relied upon to defang the police and allow the 'protesters' to run riot. And so that's where the vast majority of the damage was done.
“In case after case, police were told to stand down, in order to avoid provoking violence. And in each case, the result was more violence, more property destruction, and more damage to businesses and jobs, while political leaders stood by.”(46)
Figure 7
Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Louisville, New York, Columbus, Long Beach, Indianapolis, Raleigh, Denver and others all suffered from the blight of police stand-downs or 'light touch policing'. Chicago, as is the city's wont, was first among equals – in one weekend in early June, the city's 911 dispatchers received 65,000 calls in 24 hours (50,000 more than normal), 21 people were shot and killed (with a further 61 injured) and rioters were even engaged in shoot-outs with the police.(47)
On May 29th, the Washington DC riots spread to the White House, a fact that is no longer to be acknowledged in the light of the January 6th protest, as Leftist outrage would be exposed as the pantomime that it is. As it is, over three days of rioting, more than 60 Secret Service officers and special agents sustained multiple injuries, as protesters threw bricks, rocks, bottles and fireworks at law enforcement.(48) They set fire to St. John's Church, directly across from the White House.(49) The President and his family had to be moved to the underground bunker after rioters crossed barricades close by.(50)
Trump had been sandbagged over his comments after the Charlottesville protest in August 2017, when the press (and the Democrats) accused him of saying that the neo-Nazis and white nationalists who were present were “very fine people”, when he actually said that “the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists... should be condemned totally”.(51) But, as Churchill observed, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”(52) Biden, naturally, didn't care to make the distinction.
“Three years ago today, white supremacists descended on Charlottesville with torches in hand and hate in their hearts. Our president said they were “very fine people”. It was clear then, and it's clear now: We are in a battle for the soul of our nation, and we must win.”(53)
Additionally, Trump had run on a law and order platform. As such, the widespread rioting was hugely damaging to him politically, particularly as he was constitutionally impotent to intervene without a gubernatorial invitation, something that Democrat governors were loathe to do and the media were keen to gloss over. The President cannot unilaterally send in the National Guard – he only has authority over deployment for hurricane relief, border security or overseas military operations. Governors have control in all other regards.
Trump urged governors to activate their state's National Guard and, nationwide, around 17,000 were utilized to combat civil unrest.(54) But that was a drop in the ocean and it was clear that Democrat governors and mayors, rather than prioritising the safety of the citizens that they represented, were more interested in virtue signalling to the protesters and attacking the President. On June 2nd, Trump held a conference call with state governors and told them:
"If people are running amok, you have to dominate. If you aren't dominating, you're wasting your time. They're going to run over you; you're going to look like a bunch of jerks. It's a movement. If you don't put it down, it will get worse and worse. The only time it's successful is when you're weak and most of you are weak."(55)
While I suspect that most people with an ounce of common sense would recognize that Trump was vocalizing what we all know to be true in life in general, his audience didn't like it. The governor of Washington called the remarks the "rantings of an insecure man trying to look strong after building his entire political career on racism."(56) The Democratic governor of Oregon, one of the worst hit states, said
"Our goal, and the goal of the overwhelming number of protesters should be to reduce violence. You don't defuse violence by putting soldiers on our streets. Having soldiers on the streets across America is exactly what President Trump wants."(57)
They, and others like them, preferred to indulge their Trump Derangement Syndrome, play politics and pander to the rioters, who weren't much interested in reducing their level of violence while there were still shops to loot and fires to set. And a President to undermine. By June 10th, just over two weeks after Floyd's death, Trump's approval rating was in freefall, down 7-10% month on month. At least, that's what CNN and Gallup would have us believe;(58) whether it was truly that bad is largely academic, as the narrative could be spun for months if necessary and Trump's alleged racism and incompetence could be added to the list of reasons that would be trotted out to justify his preordained November election loss.
However, the phenomena of Leftist opportunism and media lies are no longer a revelation and their reaction to the riots was entirely predictable. But was that all it was – opportunism? Or was there more to the entire narrative than met the eye? Did the Left have their fingerprints all over action as well as reaction? After all, it would fit their general modus operandi, where little is left to chance and there is a wealth of evidence which indicates just that.
As we know, Antifa and BLM were heavily involved. The former, given relentless top cover by the Fourth Estate who have variously claimed that Antifa is merely an idea, not an organisation, or that Antifa just means standing against fascism, is instead the paramilitary wing of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which has over 70,000 fee paying members and has won elections in blue cities like Chicago and New York.(59) They are partnered with the Justice Democrats, whose long term strategy (according to its co founder) is as follows:
“What we need to do is take over the Democratic Party. We’re going to primary all of the establishment Democrats…. We’re going to primary all vulnerable Democrats. We want hundreds. We want to replace Congress.”(60)
Their policy agenda includes abolishing the police, which mainstream Democrats also advocate for. Leftists in Minneapolis and Seattle went so far as to openly support Antifa's sedition. But the DSA isn't just a presence in local elections; they have members who have been elected to Congress, also – at least seven of them, including five minority women and two minority men - so it appears that the ties that bind the street activists with the Democratic Party in Congress are both visible and substantial.
BLM's genesis was via an organisation known as The Dream Defenders, who merged with the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party.(61) In June 2020, 67% of the thoroughly propagandized US public supported them. They pulled in $10.6 billion in donations and cajoled politicians into defacing many a town with their painted slogan.(62) They were also very active in the organisation of the protests, as were a number of other Leftist groups. Anarchist networks coordinated rioting in multiple cities and a report found that
“...extreme anarcho-socialist fringe online forums on Reddit use memes calling for the death of police and memes for stockpiling munitions to promote violent revolution.”(63)
Numerous police officers were shot and over 2,000 were injured. Arson was endemic and, despite what the media would have us believe, they didn't just burn down small businesses, either. They also set light to a police precinct station (while it was still occupied by cops) and a federal courthouse.(64) In many jurisdictions, city hall was a target of arson and, overall, 97 police cars were burned.(65) Rioters came from far and wide which, in and of itself, is evidence of organisation. The after action report stated that there was a notable correlation between the presence of out-of-town protesters and violence, which often stopped entirely when they left.(66) Many agencies noted that “snack vans” were used to conceal weapons and bicycle scouts were used to report back on police activity. Antifa themselves organised funding streams for accommodation, riot gear, travel and weapons.(67) Large numbers of known BLM and Antifa activists were arrested for looting, arson and (on at least two occasions) murder.(68)
The insurance cost of the damage caused in the first fortnight (adjusted for inflation) exceeded the total cost of the riots that plagued America throughout the sixties,(69) but the disorder continued for months in some locations and the media weren't shy about warning the voter about their responsibility come November:
“A loss by Joe Biden under these circumstances is the worst case ... because it is the outcome most likely to undermine faith in democracy, resulting in more of the social unrest and street battles that cities … have seen in recent months.”(70)
Which is completely incoherent given that rioting over something that's a lie and trying to bring about political change in doing so is the opposite of democracy in a republic, as it seeks to usurp a legitimate election. Some media were prepared to make an even bolder statement, when purportedly analyzing the possible outcomes of the election to come:
“A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power. Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis.”(71)
Just in case the rubes still didn't get it, Kamala Harris and her ilk contributed to an entity called the Minnesota Freedom Fund, a bail fund which found itself inundated with donations in June 2020 and, presumably, felt obliged to bail out those rioters who found themselves actually under arrest, despite the police's best efforts to turn the other cheek. Among the bailees were rioters accused of shooting at the police, others in custody on murder charges and yet more accused of kidnapping and assault. When the prospective VP is helping to bail out rioters who are burning cities and trying to kill people, despite weasel words condemning violence, the message is loud and clear.(72) The Democrats had the rioters' back and the sooner they could get them back out there to riot some more, the better. Opposition, as Karl Rittenhouse was to discover, was verboten.
There is then no doubt as to the existence of some degree of choreography between the political Left and the organisations that ensured that the summer of 2020 was one continuous riot. While nobody with a functioning cerebral cortex would claim that the death of Floyd was somehow part of a conspiracy designed to set America aflame, one can see the clear outline of a coordinated campaign designed to take political advantage of it. The two day delay before the rioting began in earnest is sufficiently suspicious to give pause, the obvious organisation and widespread replication of tactics provides further evidence and the immediate media focus on “systemic racism” was a crass but effective accelerant.
The Left's explicit alliance with the rioters signaled that they could make it all go way if the right result was achieved in November. It's notable that overseas color revolutions nearly always feature elections – either ones that have recently provided the “wrong” outcome or ones that are rapidly approaching and which need to be influenced. The pretext is uniformly fabricated, but the media are usually uninterested in pointing this out and the violent protest that is engendered swiftly morphs from one cause to another. All of these elements were present in 2020, the only difference being that this revolution was taking place on home soil.
One might think that the campaign's true purpose was to convince the squishy middle to opt for the path of least resistance, rather than voting for Trump, if doing the latter meant a resumption of hostilities. I'm not so sure. While some voters must have been so affected, I think it was more to do with creating the impression that, come November, nobody would be surprised if Trump lost. The Left just had to seed the fertile media with the narrative that Trump's support was ebbing away and then ensure that a bunch of partisan polls reinforced the lie.
The Democrat machine doesn't necessarily need to convince the voter to vote for it when it controls the swing states' election processes, which is why they show such contempt for the public. But there was still one piece of the jigsaw that needed to be cut to shape and, while the rest of America was either quarantined or setting fire to stuff, the Left was on manoeuvres in court rooms across the country.
The Great Reset of the US election machinery that took place in 2020 was predicated on the false narrative of the pandemic. That was the justification for wholesale changes to state election laws, often without the involvement of the state legislatures who, at the time at least, were supposed to be the sole arbiters of all their elections:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”(73)
That's what the Constitution says. There's no mention of the primacy of courts or Boards of Elections; the latter were designed to be the enablers of legislative fiat and the courts didn't even have a designated role. One might think that state courts ought to be involved, if only to replicate the federal system of constitutional oversight, so that a legislature cannot go rogue and institute practices that are in clear breach of the state's constitution. It sounds sensible, but in practice (as Justice Thomas noted recently)
“...though some state constitutions are more [‘prolix’] than the Federal Constitution, it is still a general feature of constitutional text that ‘only its great outlines should be marked.’”(74)
Inevitably, in these circumstances, interpretation is king. The only body that has the ability to initiate checks and balances in this area is Congress, not the courts; however, in presidential elections, even Congress does not possess the power to override the state legislatures. They are the supreme authority. But progressives, as their name implies, aren't interested in a literal reading of the Constitution – they prefer to refer to it as a “living” document, which can be reinterpreted to mean the polar opposite of what was intended, especially in states where Republicans hold the legislative reins and they can't loosen election safeguards in ways that will allow them to commit the industrial level fraud that is frequently required if a Democrat is to emerge victorious. And so, in collusion with their fellow travelers in the judiciary, they went to work:
“First, a series of lawsuits by activist lawyers such as Mark Elias—and executive branch use of “emergency police powers” due to COVID-19—radically changed the management of the 2020 election, resulting in different treatment for different kinds of ballots and voters within several states. Absentee ballots and urban voters were favored, in-person voting and any jurisdiction that was not heavily Democratic were not.”(75)
Conveniently forgotten (again), along with an admission that the courts had no authority, was the fact that the Constitution contained no pandemic exception, either. Other countries (including South Korea and Portugal),(76) managed to hold elections during the 'pandemic' and neither experienced jumps in Covid cases as a result. Liberia even held an election in the midst of an Ebola outbreak in 2014.(77) Indeed, the primary season in the US in 2020 also went off without similar issues and the measures in place in late 2020 (social distancing and masking, in particular) were supposed to be effective. In short, there was no reason to change state election law and no valid method for doing so, other than through the representatives of the people. But, when one is prepared to ignore the rules and nobody steps in and prevents that malfeasance from occurring, the rules mean diddly squat.
Lawmakers were entirely bypassed. Some of the lawfare occurred prior to 2020, but most of it was instigated either late or very late in the election cycle. The key to the practice was to ensure that whatever measure was being introduced would definitely be in place come election day, no matter what. If it was subsequently held to unlawful or unconstitutional, it would be too late.
“These changes, which included expanded access to mail-in voting, ballot-harvesting by third parties, longer early voting periods, and the implementation of ballot drop boxes, all led to practices that are more susceptible to voter fraud.”(78)
On October 28th, less than a week out from the election, and with early voting already underway in many states, there were still outstanding lawsuits in eight states, including five of the ten swing states. Another four (including three more swing states) had also recently been in the courts. A particular bone of contention was the deadline for absentee ballots; federal judges were oddly keen to extend them well beyond election day, some for ten days or so. There was no compelling justification for such rulings and doing so would undermine the election process even further, as it opened up the possibility that ballots could be collected after election day, so as to change the result. On numerous occasions, another tactic was deployed:
“Some plaintiffs have pursued their election-related claims in state courts and then entered into settlement agreements or consent decrees with state officials who refuse to defend their state laws as they are obligated to do. That’s known as collusive litigation, in which state election officials use lawsuits filed by their friends and political allies to subvert laws implemented by state legislatures that they don’t like or that were passed by their political opposition.”(79)
It's an effective way for the Uniparty to do what it wants while pretending that the lesser spotted Republican Election Board (Arizona and Georgia come to mind) is caving under duress, rather than willingly co-operating in an end run around state law.
None of this is in any way subtle. The Democrat appointed judges who were selected to decide these cases were partisan in the extreme. In North Carolina, for instance, the circuit judge attempted to change the rules regarding absentee ballots when well over 1,000,000 people had already voted. Here (and in Minnesota) officials had simply entered into agreements with certain groups which directly contradicted state law, once again on the subject of absentee ballot deadlines. In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court ordered officials to count absentee ballots received up to three days after the election, even if they lacked a postmark to show that they were posted prior to Election Day.(80) The Democrat Secretary of State (SoS) also abrogated state statutes that required signature verification for these ballots. In Georgia, the RINO SoS did the same, as did officials in Michigan and Wisconsin, all swing states.(81)
What was it about absentee ballots that so exercised the Democrats, for it was they who were filing suit? Well, in-person voting is a much more secure way of conducting an election; no-excuse absentee ballots, on the other hand, are a fraudsters wet-dream, especially when combined with dirty voter rolls. My next offering will delve into the detail, but vast amounts of 'votes' can be manufactured and, when combined with an extended deadline, they can be fed in as and when needed once the opposition vote has been estimated.
The Left gambled on the fact that, once the ballots were opened and the envelopes were thrown away, most fraudulent practices would be nigh on impossible to identify. Plus, of course, now that the courts were inserted into the process, any legislature that understood what had happened was left with very few options after the fact. Trump knew what was coming. Three months before the election he tweeted:
“With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”(82)
Even without the unfolding and illegitimate legislation, it was clear that the woefully inefficient US Postal Service would ensure that millions of voters were disenfranchised. It's goal in the 2018 mid-terms was to achieve timely delivery of only 96% of absentee ballots, which it then failed to achieve. The worst mail processing facilities (in states like Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin – swing states, once again) only managed a rate of 84.2%. It wasn't any better two years later. CBS conducted their own experiments using a P.O. Box and the best that the USPS achieved was a 79% delivery rate within a week.(83) At least almost all the mail turned up in the end, which is more than can be said for ballots over the four election cycles between 2012 and 2018; more than 28 million of them effectively disappeared.(84)
The President's objections weren't wholly partisan, either. He knew that he was going to be left grasping the soiled end of the stick, but he also knew that he would be far from the only one who would suffer from election fraud:
“You can’t take millions of ballots, send them haphazardly all over the country, or all over a state, and expect it to come out properly ... It’ll end up being a rigged election or they will never come out with an outcome ... Win, lose, or draw, we have to get it right … we have to have honest voting.”(85)
But the whole point of the Democrat campaign was to have the opposite. They continually bleated about “voter suppression” when anybody tried to argue for functions that preserved election security (there was precious little effort made by the GOP to actually enhance it). And the whole sordid enterprise makes one wonder. Not about the Left's capacity for amorality and rule-breaking, but rather just how much of it they seemed to think they had to do to beat Trump. I can see that they may have felt the need to leave nothing to chance, given the fact that they got caught with their pants around their ankles in 2016, but even so.
Universal absentee mail-in voting, ballots being accepted ten or eleven days after the election, the attempt to do away with ID and signature verification? That seems like overkill and yet, as it transpired, they still only just managed to fall over the line. 0.027% of the overall votes in three swing states was the difference between a 269-269 tie in the electoral college vote and the alleged Biden victory of 306-232. Another 0.021% in a fourth swing state and Trump wins 275-263.
Because the modern progressive Democrat is, by temperament, a double-downer, it shouldn't be a surprise to find that the war to kneecap Trump was being waged on more than one front. For them, the Donald really is the Devil incarnate and they don't care who knows it. That's an attitude that prevails when people are certain that they, and only they, occupy the moral high ground and that their opponents are inherently evil. Witness Pelosi tearing up the President's State of the Union speech earlier in 2020 or freshman Representative Cori Bush hysterically calling Trump the “white supremacist-in-chief”.(86) With attitudes like those, anything goes, whether it's on offence or defense. Stopping Trump is all that matters.
Figure 8
And so Pelosi, having botched her attempt to take Trump out via an impeachment cut out of whole cloth, decided to support a bill that would give Congress increased power to decide whether a president was incapacitated under the 25th Amendment and to force a medical examination upon him – something that can't be done under the Constitution. This was shortly after Trump had recovered from Covid, but Pelosi assured us all that it wasn't targeting him. Perish the thought. The bill was never going to succeed, but it had still accrued 38 co-sponsors, many of them virulently anti-Trump. It's indicative of how far the progressives are prepared to go in order to rid themselves of a man they abhor; to hell with the voters.(87)
Nonsense like this is symptomatic of a trend. The more one parses the plethora of destabilising events that occurred during the Trump years, the less one is inclined to view them as discrete stand-alones, particularly as neither the allegedly unavoidably natural pandemic nor any of the contrived investigations, riots and impeachment were anything other than harmful to the man in the White House. When these events are placed on a continuum, the sheer number of them and the way that one flowed into another without respite is deeply suspicious. Once again, one is reminded of FDR's dictum:
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”(88)
The 'plandemic', the rioting and the all-out effort to compromise the 2020 election (and all subsequent ones) via the courts are all of a piece; none of the phenomena are as they seem, all are riddled with the actions of bad actors and all are the subject of media gaslighting. And, as noted, it should be remembered that the entire construct was designed to feed a narrative that Trump was becoming increasingly unelectable so that, when they fixed the election, it would give the media the ammunition it needed to gaslight us some more, which would result in the soft political center staying its lane.
But few campaigns get everything their own way, even when their control of the public square is all encompassing, and this one was no different. Despite all the massive coordinated efforts of the establishment, it very nearly came to naught. Moreover, the event that precipitated the near disaster didn't really come out of left field. The story of Hunter Biden's laptop, which he had abandoned at a repair store a full year earlier and then neglected to collect, was a non-story until October 2020, simply by virtue of the usual method, a media blackout. That all changed on the 14th, when the New York Post launched a classic October Surprise.
Much more detail has subsequently been revealed, but the gist of the story was that Hunter was selling his father's influence (at the time he was Vice President under Obama) to the board of Burisma, the Ukrainian oil company that he had joined in 2014 on a salary of $83,000 a month.(89) That's not a controversial statement; the Ukrainian in question met with the the VP less than a year before the elder Biden pressured Zelensky's government to drop a corruption investigation into the company.(90) A sudden public awareness of these events was obviously not favorite.
One problem for Joe Biden, even in the face of considerable public ennui on the subject of his corruption, was that he had repeatedly claimed that he'd “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings”.(91) Another problem was that he was about to debate Trump on television, an event which was now shaping up to be a massacre, given Trump's willingness to go for the jugular. What was needed was what the media always refer to as a “debunking”, so that the fact checkers could then trot out their trademarked lexicon, replete with words such as “baseless” and “misinformation”. The Biden campaign's senior adviser (and now Secretary of State) Anthony Blinken knew just what to do, as we now know.
He was the “impetus” behind and “played a role in the inception” of a public letter signed by current and past intelligence chiefs which stated that the story that the laptop in question belonged to Hunter Biden had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”(92) Yes, the Russians again - even though Russiagate had been shown to be a Clinton/DNC propagated lie and not a covert attempt to install Trump in 2016, the elites still couldn't quite let it go and now sought to re-purpose the the hoax for 2020. The letter also stated that these intelligence experts, tasked with ensuring the nation's security were:
“... deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case...if we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.”(93)
They felt able to make such a statement despite also saying the following:
“We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails … are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.” “Such an operation would be consistent with Russian objectives ... to undermine the candidacy of former Vice President Biden and thereby help the candidacy of President Trump.”(94)
The media fell upon the letter in packs, noting that some of the signatories had worked under Trump, as if that meant anything given the legions of bureaucrats who had undermined him at every turn. The FBI was “reportedly” investigating the possibility that the fifty odd sages were correct, despite the Director of National Intelligence stating that the information that the laptop was Biden's was genuine.
The tactics employed were starting to become familiar in 2020 and are now ever more obvious – get an 'expert' (better yet, a chorus of them) to make a statement and then use that statement as a pretext to censor coverage of the entire story. The statement doesn't even have to be definitive, as this one wasn't; this intervention was such an obvious “have their cake and eat it” example, whereby shade can be thrown but their asses are still covered because they said they had no evidence to back up their assumptions. The damage is done, they can walk away untainted and the media universe has the excuse they need. And, importantly, Biden was handed a defense in the upcoming debate.
Twitter did what Twitter continually did at that time, shadow banning conservatives and burying the story. Zuckerberg got a call from the FBI, as he admitted to Joe Rogan and also censored the story.(95) What should have been a proverbial “bombshell” became just another football to be kicked around by the talking heads on cable news, who got to dust of their russophobia and parrot “disinformation” ad nauseam. And, not for the first time (nor the last), the public largely bought it. The revelations about the Biden influence peddling scheme were successfully memory holed, at least temporarily. As a former CIA Deputy Director who was involved in the deception testified in April this year:
“Our intent was to … help Vice President Biden … because I wanted him to win the election.”(96)
However, it was all a lie. The letter wasn't the skillfully crafted missive that it appeared to be, because the provenance of the laptop had been known for eleven months. The FBI had verified its authenticity in November 2019, by matching the device number against Hunter Biden's Apple ICloud ID.(97) They'd known for a year, kept quiet about it and then, when the story still broke, they ensured that it was censored.
The purpose of all these actions was explicitly political; they wanted Trump to lose and they were prepared to run the risk of tanking their less than stellar reputations in the attempt, because the only people who would castigate them for their duplicity are people they don't care about – their own community will view them as heroes for doing what was necessary to win.
The false narrative that they created made a big difference with voters. When polled afterwards, 16% of Democrat voters stated that they would not have cast their votes for Biden had they known.(98) That's a number that might have been big enough to overcome many of the election cheats that the Democrats were planning to deploy. More importantly, had pre election polling reflected this new reality, it would have made the subsequent steal even less plausible and that was a problem Biden's party were anxious to avoid.
And so, the November election finally rolled around. Trump had been assailed from all directions and had not always understood the provenance of the crises that afflicted his term. At least, not at the time. Both the pandemic and the Summer of Love were designed to stop his momentum and also strip him of his power. He was still President, for sure, but once he had been persuaded to ignore his gut and effectively cede control to Fauci and co., he found himself in an untenable position and, for once, he lacked the courage that was necessary if he was to reassert himself. He knew that if he swam against the tide the media would declare open season on him. However, as Atlas noted, they were always going to do that anyway.
The states held the whip hand when responding to the riots and Democrat governors, the ones who were the group keenest to impose draconian lock-down measure on the law-abiding rank and file, were curiously reluctant to similarly indulge their authoritarian instincts when it came to the black-clad hordes of Antifa and BLM. Curiously, the 2018 mid-term gubernatorial had seen a dramatic swing to the Democrats, who gained seven and lost none. Prior to those elections, the Republicans had 33 governors and the Democrats 16 – now the score read 27 – 23, which was a suspiciously useful outcome for the Left, given what lay ahead.(99) In an even stranger twist, while polls showed that 74% of the country felt that the country was going in the wrong direction, the Democrats picked up another two governorships in 2022.(100)
While the Left was the primary protagonist in the was against Trump, one can lay the lawfare debacle (at least partly) at the feet of the Republican Party. Notwithstanding the determination of activist judges to routinely ignore state legislators and impose their own version of election law, the GOP was still too inert. RINO Election Boards colluded with the enemy and the Republican establishment sat on its hands, hoping that nobody realized that they were allowing the corrupt Democrat election apparatus to rid them of their own turbulent priest. Trump could see the slow motion car crash unfolding before him, but he was again powerless to prevent it, in the absence of allies within the Republican hierarchy.
One might have thought that all this effort would be enough; that having created the impression (at least, in their own echo-chamber) that Trump was on his uppers, a spent force with the voting public, they could surely rely on the people to give them a helping hand at the ballot box? They must have believed that they had actually shifted at least some of the Independents their way and thereby reduced the amount of ballot fraud they would need to employ? Perhaps they did, despite the scores of sold out rallies that Trump held. Perhaps they didn't; maybe they knew that they would still require a monumental effort come November 3rd.
For his part, Trump knew that his support was strong but he had, by now, also come to understand the lengths that Democrats would go to in their bid to deny him re-election. He could see the election safeguards being dismantled and he must have been able to see the outline of the opposition plan. He feared the worst and he wasn't wrong.
Citations
(1) https://archive.org/details/og-event201
(2) https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/2020/statement-about-ncov-and-our-pandemic-exercise-0
(3) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22732205/chinese-scientist-vaccine-patent-dead-wuhan-lab-leak/
(6) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pandemic-china-america-qhjwwwvm0
(10) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/preventing-coronavirus-facemask-60-minutes-2020-03-08/
(12)
(13) http://web.archive.org/web/20230630213429/https://www.yahoo.com/?err=404
(18) https://web.archive.org/web/20200312195938/https:/regenexx.com/blog/coronavirus-myths-debunked/
(19) https://brownstone.org/articles/tell-the-truth-no-matter-what/
(20) Glass, R. J., Glass, L. M., Beyeler, W. E., & Min, H. J. (2006). Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 12(11), 1671-1681. https://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1211.060255.
(21) Ditto
(22) https://cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/community_mitigation-sm.pdf
(23) Henderson D.A., et al Disease Mitigation Measures in the Controlof Pandemic Influenza BIOSECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM: BIODEFENSE STRATEGY, PRACTICE, AND SCIENCE Volume 4, Number 4, 2006
(24) https://nypost.com/2020/10/06/courts-say-extreme-lockdowns-dont-pass-constitution-sniff-test
(25) https://brownstone.org/articles/the-70-seconds-that-shook-the-world/
(26)
(27) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-they-convinced-trump-lock-down
(28) https://brownstone.org/articles/matt-pottinger-the-us-intelligence-agent-who-pushed-lockdowns/
(29) https://brownstone.org/articles/cia-agent-cloaks-lockdown-propaganda-in-concern-for-china/
(32) https://thehill.com/business/3478647-a-timeline-of-the-covid-19-economy/
(33) https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics/us-withdrawing-world-health-organization/index.html
(34) https://brownstone.org/articles/when-did-trump-change-his-mind-about-lockdowns/
(35) https://www.amazon.com/Plague-Upon-Our-House-Destroying/dp/163758220X
(36)
(37) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.15.20209817v1
(38) https://coronanews123.wordpress.com/2021/06/09/global-data-shows-no-excess-deaths-worldwide-in-2020
(39) https://www.fox9.com/news/hennepin-county-medical-examiner-declares-george-floyd-death-homicide
(40)
(41) https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-police-shootings
(42) https://archive.ph/pHUnX#selection-4411.91-4411.439
(43) https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-obama-said-about-cops-hours-dallas-massacre-james-barrett
(45) Ditto
(49) https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/3rd-day-george-floyd-protests-washington-dc/2318177/
(51) https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/08/fact-check-trump-very-fine-people.html
(52) https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/winston_churchill_103564
(53) https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1293690094554099713
(56) Ditto
(57) Ditto
(58) https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/politics/donald-trump-gallup-approval/index.html
(59) https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-makes-its-move-opinion-1512646
(60) https://spectator.org/more-democratic-socialists-in-congress/
(62) https://moguldom.com/323339/10-6b-was-given-to-black-lives-matter-causes-where-did-the-money-go/
(63) https://networkcontagion.us/
(67) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/4/democrats-dismiss-antifa-violence-wake-us-capitol-/
(70) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/democrats-may-not-be-able-concede/616321/
(73) https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/
(74) https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/04/we-need-a-constitution-that-means-what-it-says/
(78) https://amgreatness.com/2022/10/24/rnc-launches-73-election-integrity-lawsuits-across-20-states/
(80) Ditto
(82) https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/the-risks-mail-voting
(83) https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/expect-chaos-the-november-election
(86) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/squad-cori-bush-calling-trump-white-supremacist
(88) https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/franklin_d_roosevelt_164126
(89) https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/
(90) https://nypost.com/2019/09/21/trump-flips-media-reports-on-ukraine-call-as-biden-disaster/
(91) https://nypost.com/2019/10/01/joe-and-hunter-biden-golfed-with-ukraine-gas-executive-in-2014/
(93) https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276
(94) Ditto
(97) https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Whistleblower-1-Transcript_Redacted.pdf
(98) https://thepostmillennial.com/flashback-16-of-biden-voters
(99) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_gubernatorial_elections
(100) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_gubernatorial_elections
Figure 1 https://brownstone.org/articles/the-70-seconds-that-shook-the-world/
Figure 2 https://coronanews123.wordpress.com/2021/06/09/global-data-shows-no-excess-deaths-worldwide-in-2020
Figure 4 https://archive.ph/pHUnX
Figure 5 https://freebeacon.com/media/yes-the-media-bury-the-race-of-murderers-if-theyre-not-white/
Figure 6 Proquest, Mapping Police Violence
Figure 8 https://www.pressherald.com/2020/02/05/pelosi-felt-very-liberated-tearing-up-trump-speech/