To Tell the Truth: New York Times Deliberately Fraudulent Regarding Voter Fraud
By Brent Hamachek
October 12, 2020
To Tell the Truth is Human Events News’ press analysis series. These stories will focus on “news” being reported by either The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, NBC News, or CBS News. Despite 24-hour cable broadcasts, and an untold number of internet sources, these established, mainstream platforms continue to influence the majority of American citizens and their political opinions.
The “news” generated by these press is better regarded as “opinion” crafted in a way designed to discourage skepticism and critical thought on the part of the audience. To Tell the Truth will be Human Events News’ periodic effort to help address this bias, and restore the skepticism necessary on the part of all Americans to maintain a free society.
On October 7, The New York Times ran a story with the headline “Justice Dept. Eases Election Fraud Inquiry Constraints as Trumps Promotes False Narrative.” The story is in reference to the fact that the Justice Departments has announced a new policy that election fraud clams can be launched before votes are counted.
The Times contends this reverses a policy of not announcing election fraud investigations prior to voting, an action which they indicate can lead to a lack of voter confidence in the election process and lower turnout.
That characterization of the Justice Department announcement is deliberately false and misleading to the reader. The announced policy simply permits an investigation to commence at the time a suspicious activity has been reported. It is not announcing an investigation prior to the election.
The Times piece is further deliberately misleading in its headline regarding the President pushing a “false narrative” regarding election fraud, and it repeats the erroneous contention in the body of the piece by saying “…President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr have promoted a false narrative that voter fraud is rampant, potentially undermining Americans’ faith in the election.”
News outlets dominated by supporters of Democrats in general, and Vice President Biden in particular, repeatedly claim that there is “no evidence supporting voter fraud,” a contention that is hotly contested both by election monitoring experts, and the facts of reported and recognized cases, according to Catherine Engelbrecht, founder and Chairwoman of TrueTheVote.org, an organization dedicated to preserving honesty and integrity within the election process.
“The media likes to say there isn’t any evidence of ‘widespread’ voter fraud, but they are playing a Bill Clinton-style trick with language,” Engelbrecht says. “When they make that statement, they are very narrowly referring to when one person goes into a voting center and tries to vote as someone else. Those instances are not widespread. The problem is that there are a number of ways to fraudulently impact election results and because they are not commonly understood by the public, it is easier for those inside the system to get away with corrupt activity.”
Recent cases of votes found in dumpsters in both Santa Monica and in Luzerne County, PA have attracted some media attention but they are readily dismissed by the MSM and Democrats as being “small” or “isolated” incidents.
Engelbrecht says there are five categories to election interference or voter fraud. Each has its own characteristics, and each has verifiable examples to demonstrate that the concerns of the President and others are not “false.” “Use whatever term you like,” she says. “There is plenty of evidence that heavy investments are being made in trying to guaranty election outcomes, regardless of what is the actual expressed will of the people.”
“People need to understand what they are looking for,” Engelbrecht says. “If you don’t understand the different types of election manipulation and fraud, it is hard to appreciate exactly what you are seeing.” She says that the key to combating this behavior is to have an informed and active citizenry that is constantly vigilant both on the streets and in the voting precincts themselves.
Here are Engelbrecht’s five categories through which the election process can be easily undermined:
Voter Roll Registrations and Maintenance: States voter registries are full of inaccuracies, duplications, non-citizens, false identities, deceased, and invalid addresses. Mail-ballots sent to these registrants are easy fodder for fraudsters, as is in-person voting in states with lax or non-existent voter identification laws.
A recent example for this can be found in Illinois in the case of Illinois Conservative Union v. Illinois State Board of Elections filed in U. S. District Court. The complaint alleges that Illinois has not complied with the national Voter Registration Act of 1993 by failing to provide required voter roll information. Illinois’ non-compliance makes it easier for fraudulent voting to take place in all of the above referenced categories. This case, being represented by Constitutional expert and attorney David Shestokas, is being backed by Judicial Watch.
Ballot Harvesting: Harvesters are third parties who collect and deliver voters’ mail ballots, ostensibly because the voter cannot mail or deliver it themselves. 26 states have legalized ballot harvesting to varying degrees. This practice invites predators to exploit vulnerable voters, particularly the elderly, infirm and homeless.
A clear example of this can be found in the recent Project Veritas undercover operation in Minneapolis where paid workers can be shown attempting to illegally gather absentee ballots from senior citizen Somali immigrants in Rep. Ilhan Omar’s district.
Procedural Flaws: Engelbrecht points out that antiquated equipment, limited security, insufficient training, disparate processes, and subjective standards are all part of the problem that allow for vote tampering. She adds that “while it’s true that no system is perfect and some margin of error is to be expected, if we truly believe that a free and fair vote is the cornerstone of our republic, than election processes should be rock solid – and they are far, far from it.”
Attorney David Shestokas, the same attorney handling the Illinois lawsuit referenced above, was an election observer in Broward County, Florida during 2016. He noted numerous irregularities in the process that ranged from locked doors during ballot counting, improperly opened mail ballots, and outright statute violations by the local canvassing board. “The entire process was filled with irregularities and noncompliance,” Shestokas stated. “At one point I was told that out of over 40,000 ballots that had arrived by mail, ‘only 30-40’ had signature verification issues. That sort of failure rate is simply not plausible.”
The issue was covered at the time by the Miami Herald and several other publications.
Litigation: Engelbrecht connects the dots of George Soros and others helping to elect people to serve in the legal system to proliferation of what she calls “election ambush tactics.” As an example, she points to Hillary Clinton’s attorney Marc Elias his well-publicized syndicate of over 1,000 attorneys. Engelbrecht says their aim in 2020 is to advance mail-ballots while at the same time move to remove signature verification, postmark standards, and voter ID requirements. This will create continued confusing changes in process and allow for the faciliatation of election mischief.
According to the Washington Times, this year there have been hundreds of pre-election lawsuits. Engelbrecht predicts post-election litigation will be frenetic. “The settlement of these kinds of lawsuits is where the real opportunity for election fraud takes place,” Engelbrecht states. “Through the settlement the court issues binding orders, or the parties agree to such orders between themselves, regarding election rules. These ‘consent decrees’ are not necessarily even in accordance with state constitutions, but they get instituted, nonetheless.”
The people controlling the process: According to Engelbrecht, this is the one that makes the other four possible. “The wealthy and powerful have long focused on funding efforts that position operatives in key state and local election offices to ensure protection of their interests.” Secretaries of State, responsible for sealing the final election results, have been co-opted first by George Soros’ now defunct Secretary of State Project, and more recently under his new initiative LetAmericaVote.org.
Soros also has also been funding local district attorney races across the country, including Cook County DA Kim Foxx who has faced numerous allegations of political partisanship while executing the duties of her office.
Mark Zuckerberg has launched a similar command and control strategy, pushing approximately $280 million into local election offices to fund staffing and operations through his new nonprofit, Center for Tech and Civic Life. Lawsuits have been filed to try to prevent the use of his money in key battleground states, but the question that needs to be asked by voters is whether or not the Facebook billionaire is spending this money out of some patriotic calling, or in an attempt to help secure a personally favorable outcome.
Whichever of the above categories an activity might fall under, it is all voter fraud. “The New York Times, Nancy Pelosi, or any activist on social media can say what they want,” Engelbrecht says. “The dictionary definition of voter fraud is ‘illegal interference with the process of an election.’ Each of these categories involves people and processes dedicated to doing exactly that.”