(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({ google_ad_client: "ca-pub-8106879304633798", enable_page_level_ads: true });
Home / News / National / Report: Zuckerberg’s grant program demanded control of elections
elections
President Joe Biden talks on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2021, in the Oval Office of the White House. (Official White House photo by Adam Schultz)

Report: Zuckerberg’s grant program demanded control of elections

The Amistad Project, an election integrity organization that has spent much time since November reviewing the outside and possibly illegal influences on the 2020 president election, already has filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission against its administrator and the mayor of Racine, Wisconsin, alleging they violated the U.S. Constitution in allowing an outside group to be part of the management of the 2020 presidential election.

“In the November 2020 general election, the city of Racine adopted private corporation conditions on the election process affecting state and federal elections,” the complaint states. “In this case, Racine involved private corporations and their employees in the city’s state and federal election administration.”

And Racine broke state laws in that act, it alleges.

The same organization has claimed in another complaint before the commission that officials in Green Bay, Wisconsin, turned over some of their operations and responsibilities to “private activist groups” during the election.

Director Phill Kline said it was a “shadow government” that actually ran the 2020 election there.

READ: Christian university student leaders refuse to approve conservative club

 

The allegations are all part of a campaign to uncover what leftist Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg demanded from cities and counties when he donated some $400 million to local election officials to help them with their election work.

The money actually went to the Chicago-based Center for Tech and Civic Life, which handed out millions of dollars but put strings on the money, with provisions that it could get the money back if local elections officials didn’t allow the CTCL’s own designated private groups essentially to run the elections.

Now, in a report at the Thomas More Society, Erick Kaardal, a special counsel with the project, said documents that have been obtained confirm “election officials from the five largest Wisconsin cities – Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Racine and Kenosha … adopted and implemented private corporate conditions, including direct corporate and corporate employee engagement in the administration of the general election.”

“Moreover, the mayors of Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay agreed in private meetings to place the same corporate conditions on their election administration. These are the five largest cities in Wisconsin. The private corporations through engaging in these five cities’ election administration hoped to conduct outreach and target certain neighborhoods and communities for extra voting information, to register more voters and to obtain more votes and absentee votes,” he reported.

However, he said, “The Wisconsin State Legislature never gave municipalities, jointly or otherwise, the authority to adopt or accept private corporate conditions affecting existing state election laws. The Wisconsin Elections Commission, as the responsible entity in the administration of election laws, never opined on the legality of private corporate conditions affecting existing election laws. Nor did the State Legislature or the Commission authorize the Wisconsin Five cities to obtain private funds of over $6,000,000 from CTCL to target get out the vote effort for special targeted and geo-fenced neighborhoods.”

And, he said, “The Wisconsin Five cities were not authorized to ‘share screen shots’ of their databases or information, or to share census information with these private actors. The actions of the Wisconsin Five cities violate state law and the U.S. Constitution’s Elections and the Electors Clauses because they diverted constitutional authority of the State Legislature and the Commission to private corporations.”

Wisconsin is just one of six battleground states where anomalous practices and results have prompted suspicions of election fraud from the 2020 presidential race. Lawsuits continue in several of the states, even though the results already were certified and Joe Biden moved into the White House.

Among the suspicious activities are sudden surges of votes – often all for Biden – in the middle of the night. Additionally, several of the states stopped counting votes, about the same time, with Trump ahead. Then when they resumed counting hours later, Biden suddenly surged into the lead.

Among the factors in the election that are not in dispute are circumstances like those outlined in Wisconsin, where election officials changed state law for voting by themselves, even though the Constitution requires those procedures – and any changes – to be approved by state lawmakers.

Kaardal explained those city officials actually “adopted and implemented private corporate conditions, including direct corporate and corporate employee engagement in the administration of the general election.”

He said it was part of the still-under-investigation “unprecedented diversion of election authority from urban election officials to private corporations.”

He said Zuckerberg’s $400 million was used to “use urban public election resources as a medium for urban absentee ballot harvesting.”

“The method of achieving that goal was to divert election authority away from the municipal clerks, who have in the past run the elections, to private corporations who want to engage in urban absentee ballot harvesting,” his report explained.

Other grants are known to have been made in Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Phoenix, the report said.

“CTCL’s grant agreements included claw-back provisions which entitled CTCL to recover all the money if its allied private corporations were not engaged in election administration. For the private corporations, the goal was to use public resources to accomplish urban absentee ballot harvesting,” he said.

The Amistad Project’s next stop will be to research “the same CTCL-led diversion of election authority in the other swing states,” which include Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Arizona, the report said.

Cities there all agreed “to engage the allied private corporations in election administration. So, in turn, the same documents exist there to prove the diversion of election authority to private corporations. It is just a matter of further investigation and litigation before the truth comes out.”

–Bob Unruh | wnd.com

X
X