Category Archives: ELECTION INTERFERENCE

Can the mainstream media be punished for Hunter Biden election interference?

The drive-by media committed election interference by lying about Hunter Biden. I think there’s a a common law remedy against them.

In October, the New York Post revealed that Hunter Biden was in bed with Russia, China, and Ukraine, and that Joe Biden was a part of it. As I like to say, the information from what is indubitably Hunter’s hard drive showed that Joe Biden pimped his son to various countries with interests antithetical to America. In exchange, Biden got a cut from the money that flowed in. He did the same with his brother, James.

The evidence was incontrovertible: Joe Biden is not just corrupt in the way of an ordinary politician making money from graft; he sold out America for his and his family’s enrichment. Rather than seemingly heading for the White House, he should be heading for Club Fed (where he should have a cell next to Bill Clinton, while Hillary tries to dominate her sector in the women’s Club Fed). But nobody said that life was fair and America has become, I think, an irredeemably corrupt nation. Trump tried valiantly, but the task of cleaning out the Augean stable was too great for one man.

Of course, the Hunter Biden scandal isn’t just Hunter Biden — it’s also the media. The media did everything possible to squash the story:

We know that this media cover-up affected the election — so much so, that it’s reasonable to believe that, but for the cover-up, Trump would have sailed to victory. Even fraud would not have been enough to scale that difference.

Now, though, the media have a different goal: They believe they got Trump out of the White House. Now they need to get Biden out too. After all, we all understand that he was a mask, a puppet, a figurehead, and a phony. He existed solely as a vehicle to get Kamala Harris into office. She will be Obama’s third term and America’s Chavez/Maduro. That’s why the media, which could have continued to stifle the Hunter story, is suddenly reporting it. Joe Biden needs to be tainted and given the boot ASAP.

What the media did was extraordinarily corrupt and it constituted very real, very effective election interference. The problem, as many have pointed out, is that the media didn’t break any laws. I wonder, though, if they can be sued. This is a very inchoate idea, but wouldn’t it be lovely if the media could be financially broken?

Here’s the way I see it: The mainstream media have represented to Americans that they are purveying comprehensive and accurate information. Since 2017, CNN has been using as one of its slogans, “Facts first.” It also claims to be “the most trusted name in news.” The New York Times has long claimed to provide “all the news that’s fit to print.” Even if their mottos aren’t so explicit, all of the mainstream media outlets implicitly and intentionally hold themselves out to the public as sources of reliable information that will help citizens become informed voters.

These are promises these outlets are making to the American public: If you rely on us, you will be informed. You will know the important stories. You will be an informed voter able to make the correct choice on all the information available.

Yet with the Hunter Biden revelations, as those videos show (and the Times and WaPo did the same thing in print), the mainstream media deliberately lied about and suppressed a major news story. Moreover, they did so because the story ran counter to their openly stated desire to get Trump out of the White House, and Kamala Harris (oh, and Joe) into the White House.

So media outlets consistently did two things before the election when it came to the Hunter Biden story that they now acknowledge was true: They told affirmative lies and they omitted information in what they reported to an American public that relied upon them for accurate information in assessing presidential candidates. The media outlets did so deliberately, with the intended purpose of affecting people’s vote-making decisions.

We know that people relied upon these misrepresentations and omissions in casting their votes. Had they not been on the receiving end of bad information, they would have voted differently and that would have changed the election outcome.

Lawyers know where I’m going with this. I’m describing the elements of fraud by commission and omission. Here are the elements of both causes of action from the California Civil Jury Instructions. By the way, the last time I prepared jury instructions, the state still had some semblance of sanity and did not contemplate that people could jettison human biology and pretend to be something other than male or female

1900. Intentional Misrepresentation

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] made a false representation that harmed [him/her/nonbinary pronoun/it].
To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] represented to [name of plaintiff] that a fact was true;
2. That [name of defendant]’s representation was false;
3. That [name of defendant] knew that the representation was false when [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] made it, or that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] made the representation recklessly and without regard for its truth;
4. That [name of defendant] intended that [name of plaintiff] rely on the representation;
5. That [name of plaintiff] reasonably relied on [name of defendant]’s representation;
6. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
7. That [name of plaintiff]’s reliance on [name of defendant]’s representation was a substantial factor in causing [his/her/nonbinary pronoun/its] harm.

1901. Concealment

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was harmed because [name of defendant] concealed certain information.
To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
[1. (a) That [name of defendant] and [name of plaintiff] were [insert type of fiduciary relationship, e.g., “business partners”]; and
(b) That [name of defendant] intentionally failed to disclose certain facts to [name of plaintiff];] [1. [or] [1. That [name of defendant] disclosed some facts to [name of plaintiff] but intentionally failed to disclose [other/another] fact[s], making the disclosure deceptive;]
[or]
[1. That [name of defendant] intentionally failed to disclose certain facts that were known only to [him/her/nonbinary pronoun/it] and that [name of plaintiff] could not have discovered;]
[or]
[1. That [name of defendant] prevented [name of plaintiff] from discovering certain facts;]
2. That [name of plaintiff] did not know of the concealed fact[s];
3. That [name of defendant] intended to deceive [name of plaintiff] by concealing the fact[s];
4. That had the omitted information been disclosed, [name of plaintiff] reasonably would have behaved differently;
5. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
6. That [name of defendant]’s concealment was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

Any enterprising lawyers out there?

Project Veritas’s latest Facebook exposé and Scott Adams’s Slaughtermeter

Project Veritas’s new exposé by political bias at Facebook reminded me that Scott Adams said a year ago that Big Tech would make a Trump loss a 100% certainty.

Last year, Scott Adams created something called the “Slaughtermeter,” which was his mental tally of how badly Trump would be slaughtered in the upcoming 2020 election. It’s a straight-line meter that looks at events on a given day and, using that day as a metric, determines where Trump is on a sliding scale of election success. A zero on the Slaughtermeter would mean that Trump’s chances of winning in 2020 are zero, while a one-hundred would mean he is certain to win.

On May 24, 2020, Adams was very pessimistic about Trump’s chances of winning the election. His pessimism was because social media and other tech companies, all of which are leftist from the top down, were already showing that they were determined to use their massive power to prevent Trump from winning again.

I have downgraded the slaughter meter from a hundred and forty percent, where I said to myself the competition for presidency is so weak that I couldn’t imagine any situation other than Trump dominating the election. I’ve reset that to zero. My current thinking is that the president has no chance of reelection now.

Adams’s starting point was the way in which YouTube routinely blocks entirely or demonetizes videos that say things that support Trump or challenge his opponents:

There is a topic that I can’t mention that is removed from YouTube whenever an individual is mentioned in the positive. I can’t even say the name of the person because these videos will be removed from the internet. Now I don’t have much interest in that actual topic, I don’t even have an opinion on it and I’m not really informed, but it is true that we now live in the world in which a major platform can completely stop a topic and it’s okay. . . it’s okay. It’s legal apparently you can make an entire topic leave the news and it’s okay. Now in what world can you ever expect a fair election where the social media people do not put their finger on the thumb? Well, I would say that’s pretty unusual, we see people like Dave Rubin being demonetized . . . I’d say a hundred of my videos were demonetized, if I ask the reasons for it — and I haven’t — I’m sure there would be some reason that didn’t sound very convincing to me, but the things demonetized coincidentally are the same things that would be the most damaging to the Democrats. Might be a coincidence but I don’t know.

Adams explained that the shield behind which the social media giants operate is so impenetrable that even he, with his fame, wealth, and connections, cannot prove if he’s being deliberately censored. All he can do is suspect that something’s going on.

As an example of the way in which YouTube puts its thumb on the scale, Adams discussed what was then a hot topic: The video of Pelosi slurring her words, and therefore appearing drunk or demented, which YouTube removed because it was “doctored.” Adams pointed out the innumerable other doctored videos that stay on the platform. Also, there there are readily available examples of the original video so that people can draw their own conclusions about whether Pelosi was actually slurring or not. YouTube’s/Google’s problem with the video, obviously, wasn’t the doctoring; it was that it made Nancy Pelosi look bad.

To step away from Adams’s 2019 discussion for a moment, think back just a few days. Carpe Donktum created a funny little video pointing out CNN’s massive bias. The starting point was an adorable viral video showing a black toddler and a white toddler hugging each other on the street, at which point, as part of their play, the black child ran down the street with the white child in happy pursuit. Carpe Donktum clipped just the running portion and imagined a fake CNN chyron that would claim a racist toddler was terrorizing a terrified black toddler. The Carpe Donktum video then resets to reveals the original video. Only a moron, or a Twitter content controller, would be incapable of understanding that this is a satirical political commentary.

President Trump retweeted the video — and Twitter responded by pulling the video on the ground that it was “manipulated.” This power to pull manipulated videos is ideally intended to protect the public from true, Stalin-esque propaganda that erases true images to replace them with skillful and indistinguishable fakes. (A good example of Deep Fake, Stalin-esque propaganda is the way the mainstream media promulgated the “fine people” hoax to make it appear that Trump was praising white supremacists.) Twitter’s attack on Carpe Donktum’s obvious political satire has nothing to do with protecting the public from deep fakes. It’s pure political censorship.

It was only thanks to serious pushback resulting from Trump’s and Carpe Donktum’s high profiles that Twitter reinstated the video:

But back to Adams’s 2019 disquisition about the social media giants and the upcoming election. After explaining that he routinely finds himself shadowbanned or demonetized, Adams got to the point about Big Tech’s ultimate goal, which is to prevent Trump’s re-election (starting at 12:39 in the above video; emphasis mine):

So, if you go back to pre-2016 the social media companies didn’t see what was happening. In other words, they may have been trying to you know put their finger on the scale a little bit. But the thing that these social media companies didn’t see coming is what I call the “Island of Misfit Toys” Trump supporters. All over were this weird collection of . . . I’ve just weirdos yeah and oddballs, and I would put myself squarely in the center of that population because nobody really saw me coming, right? No, nobody really saw that a cartoonist would start spending all this time talking about Trump’s persuasion abilities which would probably change thousands of votes.

[snip]

Now, multiply me by all of the other misfits — and I say this with love because I’m putting myself in this category — there was this weird spontaneous outgrowth of misfits who were unusually effective. The thing about all the misfits — and, again, I’m including myself in this group — is that many of the misfits were super influential.

[snip]

I think it caught everybody by surprise. Everybody thought Hillary would, you know, just waltz into the office. But that surprise factor doesn’t exist for this next election. Consider, if you will, Silicon Valley. They’re all about a/b testing, and releasing the new version, and continuous improvement. Do you think that they’re gonna get caught off guard again? There isn’t any way that the platform owners will be caught off guard again. They won’t be caught off guard again this time. They’re going to be prepared and they’ve had a lot of time to prepare. Four years of the smartest people in the world trying to figure out how to hide behavior. Then, nobody can find you. Keep in mind it’s not too hard to hide because there’s no access. Even I, with a tremendous amount of pull and resources — I have no visibility on whether my social media traffic is real or manipulated.

[snip]

So, here’s the bottom line: I’ve moved the Slaughtermeter to zero because the current situation is that the social media platforms do absolutely have enough influence to change an election. Is there anybody who doesn’t think that’s true? Is there anybody who doesn’t think social media can determine the election if they were determined to do so? I don’t think anybody believes that, right? It’s clear what they want to happen, which is Trump losing. It’s clear they’ve had four years to fix their systems so that there are less obvious, more subtle, more effective. . . . Four years of technical development, the smartest people in the world. Do you think they’re gonna lose this time? Maybe. I mean, anything’s possible.

Well, I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I think you give the smartest people in the world, who are super motivated. . . . How motivated are the social media platforms? Not a little bit motivated. Super, super motivated. Smartest people in the world, [they] know exactly the problem, they know exactly the levers to move. Four years to figure it out.

You think you’re gonna beat that? You’re not, so the current situation is the social media has the levers. We can’t see them. They can push them. It’s clear which way they’re going to pull the lever.

No chance of the president winning this election under the current conditions. So, a lot of things would have to change for him to have be really any shot because the whole democratic process is broken down.

When Scott Adams made the above statements, he was assuming, based upon what little evidence he had available, that things were happening behind the scenes at social media outlets to game the election.

Today, Project Veritas released a whistleblower video showing that, at least within Facebook, Adams’s suspicions were correct. Between biased algorithms and fanatic anti-Trump employees (all of whom quite obviously graduated within the last decade or so from America’s entirely Marxist colleges and universities), Facebook is deliberately and systematically censoring pro-Trump, anti-Democrat content, while promoting anti-Trump, pro-Democrat content:

(And yes, it’s ironic that I’m using YouTube’s platform to link the video. I was unable to find an embed code for the video on Project Veritas’s website. However, if YouTube yanks this video, you can find it here.)

The Department of Justice recently announced that it intends to interpret Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act to allow the social media giants (which were little babies, not big monsters, when the act was passed) to be sued for anti-trust violations. The DOJ is also opening the way to suits for defamation and libel. Currently, tech giants cannot be subject to civil actions because, in 1996, Congress assumed these sites were bulletin boards, and therefore not responsible for content. Twenty-four years later, though, to the extent they’re controlling almost all conversation in America, they’ve become publishers and should not be able to hide behind the Communications Decency Act.

I’m worried that the DOJ’s action is too little, too late. Unless Attorney General Barr has antitrust cases already in the pipeline, this is just a future threat. My sense is that a future threat is meaningless to the Big Tech/Social Medica companies. Indeed, if anything, it will cause them to double down on getting Biden elected because that will protect them completely. And if their gamble fails . . . well, they’ve already committed past antitrust violations, so future conduct won’t change their risk.

We are at a very dangerous time in American history, with the threat of a totalitarian technocracy working to support a fascist American government. And I use the word “fascist” deliberate. The leftists who’ve been spat out of academia for the last 50 years don’t intend to give up their money and do not want a communist-style takeover of the means of production. Instead, they want a purely fascist situation, which envisions government and big business working together to control the American population — and to make sure that Americans buy products from those crony businesses. Obamacare, which forced Americans to buy insurance from private companies, was a trial run, and Justice Roberts’ Supreme Court gave that kind of unconstitutional government force a complete pass.

In November, vote as if your life and freedom depend on it because they do. This election isn’t about “a little bit left of center versus a little bit right of center.” This election is truly about a constitutional, small government/individual liberty America versus true fascism.

As an added incentive for taking the election seriously consider that, while the current batch of American fascists aren’t interested in world domination, as Hitler was, they’re certainly race-obsessed. That should frighten us too. And any minorities who think, “Well, serves those white people right,” should think again. World War II ended almost as badly for the race persecutors as it did for the persecuted races.