The Washington Post has released a bombshell report exposing how Mark Zuckerberg helped illegally rig the 2020 election for Joe Biden.
According to WaPo, Zuckerberg pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into left-wing nonprofits that sought to increase voter turnout among Democratic Party voters.
Washington Post columnist Philip Bump attempted to “fact-check” and debunk claims Zuckerberg may have influenced the election for Biden, but ended up admitting that the “Zuckerbucks” did boost Democrat votes.
Slaynews.com reports: On Tuesday, Twitter boss Elon Musk shared a news article on his social media site that highlighted Zuckerberg’s influence.
The report, from The Federalist, reviewed how Zuckerberg was able to give hundreds of millions of dollars to nonprofits leading up to the 2020 presidential election.
The article explains that the nonprofits then “poured” the money into local election offices in battleground states, in counties heavily skewed toward Democrats.
The move expanded unsupervised election protocols and privately funded Democrat get-out-the-vote operations.
Musk called the article “interesting.”
Then, following the admission from Musk, the Washington Post responded by publishing an article titled “Musk shares baseless election claim with millions of Twitter users.”
In the article, “journalist” Bump attempted to call out Musk and discredit the report on “Zuckerbucks.”
“This is a common way in which Musk elevates right-wing rhetoric,” the Post claims.
“He’ll often engage with fringe voices by declaring their commentary to be ‘concerning’ — suggesting it’s just something worth mulling over,” Bump wrote.
However, he then appeared to admit the purpose of “Zuckerbucks” was to increase voter turnout in primarily Democrat areas.
Bumb then claimed that Zuckerberg’s money was used to “promote safe and reliable voting.”
The statement directly echoed the original claim from two recipients of “Zuckerbucks,” the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR):
Much of the analysis in the Federalist article centers on the idea that these investments were larger in more-Democratic counties, using that as a peg for the argument that the investments were partisan and critical to Biden’s success.
But that argument is easily countered.
CTCL’s investments were often in heavily Democratic areas — because those areas often have lower turnout rates.
If you want to increase turnout, the smartest place to try to do so is places where turnout is lowest.
In the United States, that’s often lower-income communities and communities that have high populations of Black and Hispanic residents, two groups that often vote heavily Democratic.
Ultimately Bump admitted that CTCL’s effort was to increase the turnout in heavily Democrat-voting areas.