Before pillow magnate Mike Lindell burst onto the political scene with his election audit mantra, the idea was popularized by a powerful left-wing think tank. A 2017 policy paper reveals the Center for American Progress stood foursquare behind the idea of “robust election audits,” The National Pulse can today reveal.
The 21-page document entitled “9 Solutions to Secure America’s Elections” was written by Danielle Root and Liz Kennedy and published on August 16, 2017.
At the time, the political left was attempting to convince Americans that Donald Trump was an illegitimate president, and that Russian election interference had swayed the 2016 election process. To this day, losing candidate Hillary Clinton insists the election was “stolen” from her.
Fast forward four years, and the corporate media alongside Democrats scream in one voice that election audits are not necessary, and are in fact an “attack” on “democracy.”
But their 2017 sentiments beg to differ.
“The legitimacy of self-government rests on the consent of the governed. In our democratic republic, that consent is manifested through the administration of free and fair elections,” the report begins, before going on the hash out many of the debunked Russian-collusion conspiracy theories that dominated the Trump presidency.
But the report goes on to assert a number of things that, now asserted by the Trump Right, are called “dangerous disinformation.”
The first point concerns voting machines such as those deployed by Dominion Voting Systems, specifically addressing the current corporate media canard about the machines not being connected to the internet. Emphasis added:
“Voting machines that record votes and tally them are run on software that is vulnerable to cyberintrusions. Well-resourced hackers, whether funded by foreign governments or criminal syndicates, have the access, ability, and motivation to infect computerized voting machines and tallying systems across America. This can occur even if the machines are not connected to the internet. Attackers, for example, can deploy software such as Stuxnet and Brutal Kangaroo to target offline voting machines.”
The Paper Ballots.
For this reason, the document asserts a preference for paper ballots, especially with election audits in mind:
“That is why there needs to be a paper ballot—which is software independent—for every vote cast. A paper ballot offers a record of voter intent, which will exist even if voting machines are attacked and data are altered. Paper ballots or records are necessary both to conduct meaningful postelection audits able to confirm the election outcomes, and to enable post-hoc correction in the event of malfunctions or security breaches. As described by Ed Felten, professor of computer science and public affairs at Princeton University, “If there is uncertainty after an election, either because of the possibility of tampering or just the possibility of error or malfunction, a paperless system … doesn’t have any way to go back to other evidence to figure out what really happened.”26 Most experts agree that paper ballots marked by the voter, either with a pen or via a ballot-marking device, are the easiest to audit.”
Recommendation #2 of the paper assails voting machines themselves, and reveals how Mike Lindell and other machine-oriented election auditors may be well within their rights to suspect foul play:
“Old voting machines are prone to hacking, as many rely on outdated computer operating systems that do not accommodate modern-day cybersecurity protections… Piling onto these concerns is the fact that weak chain-of-custody practices leave voting machines vulnerable to tampering. For example, an individual with only limited access can infect a machine with malicious malware and other viruses that can corrupt honest vote counts. Some electronic voting machines even include accessible ports that are an open invitation to hackers, who can plug in laptops or smartphones in order to add extra votes. Even with strong chain-of-custody practices, hackers can remotely infiltrate an electronic machine’s operating system, and without paper-ballot records, it is impossible to know whether a hack occurred or if votes were changed.”
Point #3 of the Center for American Progress report speaks to election audits, a process now widely pilloried by the partisan-left media:
“The utility of paper ballots and voter-verified paper records is only useful for ensuring that the outcome of an election is correct if election administrators commit to carrying out robust postelection audits… Many jurisdictions are not doing enough to conduct audits on an adequate number of ballots to ensure election accuracy and detect manipulation of vote totals caused by failing machines or hackers… Given these facts, postelection audits—which are robust enough to create strong evidence that the outcome is accurate and to correct it if it is wrong—must be conducted after every election.
Speaking to a WNYC/PRI podcast in late 2018, paper author Danielle Root proclaimed:
“Auditing really is necessary to protect our elections and ensure the integrity of our elections and paper-based voting systems are incredibly important. But the overall impact of a paper-based system depends largely on election officials and states’ ability and commitment to carrying out robust post-election audits.”
Auditing really is necessary to protect our elections and ensure the integrity of our elections and paper-based voting systems are incredibly important. But the overall impact of a paper-based system depends largely on election officials and states’ ability and commitment to carrying out robust post-election audits.
The full report can still be read here, and The National Pulse has backed up a copy to the Scribd website.
Root still works with the Center for American Progress, while co-author Liz Kennedy recently moved to Facebook to manage their “Voting Rights and Civics” division.
The Puppet Master.
The Center for American Progress was founded in 2003 by John Podesta, former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton. Podesta also served as Counselor to President Barack Obama, and went on to be chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election campaign.
Podesta is reported to have played Joe Biden in an election war-game that took place ahead of the 2020 election, wherein he refused to concede defeat in the immediate aftermath of a clear Trump election-night victory.
Per a report from the Soros-linked Transition Integrity Project‘s war game:
“…they cast John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the role of Mr. Biden. They expected him, when the votes came in, to concede, just as Mrs. Clinton had. But Mr. Podesta, playing Mr. Biden, shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn’t let him concede. Alleging voter suppression, he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College. In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned. The House named Mr. Biden president; the Senate and White House stuck with Mr. Trump.”
In other words, Podesta showed willingness to break the United States apart if his candidate failed to win the election. He even lobbied governors to send electors contrary to what the results showed after election night. His idea was soon repeated by Hillary Clinton, who told Biden on the run up to 2020 that he “should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch…”
The D.C.-based Center for American Progress (CAP) has also repeatedly partnered with the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) on sponsored trips to China, reports, and other endeavors over an 11-year period.
Podesta’s lobbying group recently employed Terry Neal, who went on to “provide strategic communications advice” for Huawei, a China-based technology company vying to dominate the world’s 5G infrastructure. Podesta’s brother, Tony, is also now believed to be lobbying for Chinese Communist-linked tech giant Huawei.
Labeled a “national security threat” by the U.S. government, Huawei is a known Chinese military collaborator per Department of Defense (DOD) reports. Huawei routinely provides the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) backdoor access to its products and networks and devices.
The information above raises questions as to whether Root and Kennedy perhaps even inadvertently provided a playbook to Podesta, the Transition Integrity Project, and the Biden campaign to defraud the American public in the 2020 election.
Natalie Winters contributed research to this report.