Illegal immigrants flown in from Algeria turned the election in New Hampshire for Hillary
(TNFN Exclusive!) TNFN has learned that the Hillary Clinton campaign flew in some 4,172 Algerians - without visas - into New Hampshire aboard 30 Algerian Airlines airliners, utilizing more than half its total fleet, including all 21 of Air Algérie’s Boeing 737-800s, all 3 of their 767-800s, and 6 of their Airbus A330-200s.
When asked how the Clinton campaign managed such a feat without immigration and TSA controls, our source claimed that Clinton was, “owed a few favors,” by certain State Department and Department of Homeland Security Personnel.
“Besides,” said the source, “they didn’t want to be out of a job if Trump won, so they had nothing to lose. It’s not like someone doing something illegal for Hillary has ever gone to jail.”
Upon arrival, the Algerians were given English phrasebooks, the names of dead people still on the voter rolls, and “flesh” colored foundation to make them look white. They were then bused to the various polling places throughout the state, each group of voters accompanied by a lawyer and a campaign staffer.
“You would think that this would be a really dumb plan,” said the source who is highly placed in the informal Clinton organization chart, “But really, have you noticed how many poll workers are elderly retirees? You’re lucky if they can see whether you’re wearing jeans or a dress, much less figure out that 20 year-old 6′3″ Muhammed Al Qafar isn’t actually 87 year-old 5′2″ Miriam Wexgeld of Beford.”
“What about their accents and poor English,” TNFN asked.
“They were instructed to say they were Jews from Poland. Works every time. Who the Hell knows what a Polish accent even sounds like?”
The estimated cost of the operation, including bus rentals, attorneys’ fees, paying the Algerians for their time and discomfort, and chartering more than 50% of an airline’s fleet came to over $9 million, or about $2200 per vote.
“In a billion-dollar campaign, nine million is pocket change,” the source explained, “Sure - that could have more than doubled her ad buys in Florida or Michigan, but we feel New Hampshire’s 4 electoral votes were critical to a blowout victory.”
TNFN asked a variety of experts, including conservative pundits, neutral observers, and liberal mouthpieces.
“You’d have to be a complete fucking idiot,” said the normally reserved and polite Larry Sabato, political scientist at the University of Virginia, “What kind of inane and shitty conspiracy theory are you peddling?” He then hung up on TNFN, proving that he was in the bag for Hillary.
“Oh, they totally did that,” said Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, “I just wish I had thought of it. We could have flown people into Texas from Oklahoma to balance out our wins. It would have been worth it - it’s on the front of everyone’s minds these days.”
“That would be a surprising spending decision and I would have advised against it,” said Rachel Maddow, lying through her teeth, “It really sounds like there are better ways to spend money than bringing people in from elsewhere. Couldn’t you just have campaign staffers drive their own cars from polling place to polling place? It’s not like the polling officials talk to each other during the day, and this way, fewer people would be able to reveal the fraud. I’m not sure anyone who thinks more than about 10 seconds would consider this even remotely a good idea, much less something a super-funded political party would do.”
TNFN will stay on top of this story and attempt to find independent confirmation from anyone we can pay enough to be willing to be the murderers of their own posterity by agreeing to say so on the record.
Correction: An earlier version of this story erroneously stated that George Soros personally flew his privately-owned Leer Jet to bring a delegation of uniformed Chinese People’s Liberation Army generals to vote as well. It turns out they were just Algerian PLA generals.
In what ways has the 2020 presidential election been unprecedented?
The pandemic led to exponentially greater use of mail-in voting. And because some state legislatures refused to authorize the counting of absentee votes before Election Day, the process of counting votes (never mind re-counting them) has taken longer. Also, because voting by mail was primarily by Democrats, President Trump was way ahead in several critical states on Election Day, only to see Biden come roaring back—fueling Trump’s claims of fraud. Of course, Trump created this situation by discouraging his base to vote by mail.
This election has also been unprecedented in the sense that one of the candidates was complaining about fraud months before Election Day.
On November 10, 2020, the New York Times reported “President Trump, facing the prospect of leaving the White House in defeat in just 70 days, is harnessing the power of the federal government to resist the results of an election that he lost, something that no sitting president has done in American history,” and that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, "There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.”
What concerns should these unprecedented developments be raising?
In context, it appears that Pompeo was joking, but it’s a scary joke that seems to reflect the denialism among the Trump administration and many of his supporters. This is frightening and unprecedented. One major difference between this situation and the post-election crises of 1876 and 2000 is that, in those situations, the incumbent president was not one of the candidates. Here, we have a defeated president who is nevertheless fighting for a second term. Will he abuse the office to make that happen? This is the man with the armed forces and nuclear codes at his command.
It is mind boggling, and that’s understatement. The new conference started with his false claim that he won the election, and went downhill from there. The President apparently considers “legal” votes and “illegal” votes as synonymous with Trump votes and Biden votes respectively.
The big lie at the heart of Trump’s complaint is that he had Pennsylvania and other key states easily won until the suspicious onslaught of Biden votes. The only reason for both Trump’s huge lead and Biden’s big comeback was the fact that Democrats voted largely by mail and most Republicans voted in person.
What would happen if Trump refuses to accept the election’s outcome and refuses to leave?
Fortunately, the winner of this election seems fairly clear, and no recounts or lawsuits seem likely to change the outcome. If Trump refuses to leave, he will presumably be escorted from his office—by force if necessary.
It’s not often taught that the Electoral College was a compromise the North made with the South. In the process, white slave owners were able to count each black person they enslaved as 3/5 a person, and thereby gained greater representation in the Electoral College.
Given this history, are there any civic arguments to keep the Electoral College?
The argument one hears most often is that the Electoral College protects the interests of small states. The senate protects the interests of small states (since every state, even the least populated, gets the same two senators), and no one proposes abolishing the senate. It is argued that, without the Electoral College (ensuring that even the tiniest state has 3 electoral votes), candidates would never visit small states. This gets things backwards. Without the Electoral College, candidates would have at least some incentive to campaign in all states. Because of the Electoral College, they spend almost all of their time in a handful of swing states (whether or not small).
How might Trump’s lawsuits succeed in altering the election outcome?
It appears that he would need to reverse the outcome in several states. In other words, he’d need three or four Bush v. Gores, and even that doesn’t capture the desperation of his situation. Florida in 2000 was essentially a tie, and the legal arguments on both sides had at least some merit. Trump has offered no semi-convincing reason why the outcomes in any of the close states should be reversed.
In addition to litigation, might there be other routes Trump could take to derail the election result or attempt to stay in power?
The one being pushed by Trump allies is to try and convince Republican legislatures in several states to substitute a Republican slate of electors for the Democratic slate that was chosen in the election. After all, the Constitution empowers state legislatures to choose the “manner” in which electors are chosen. The problem for Trump is that these electors did choose the manner—popular elections. They can’t just substitute their will for that of the people because they don’t like the result.
He can try, but there’s no legal basis or precedent for a president remaining in power after his term was over.
Of the past presidential election crises, do any resemble the situation we are in now?
It resembles both 1876 and 2000 in that the election came down to a few states with narrow margins. And, like 2000, recounts and litigation will extend the period of uncertainty. But the Biden margins appear to be large enough that we will probably avoid the chaos that ensued after those elections.
Can you go into more detail about parallels between the current moment and the election crises of 1876 and 2000? What form did corruption take then? How might it manifest now?
As the 2020 post-election crisis unfolds, we must learn from history—specifically the presidential election chaos in 1876 and 2000. In each of these three elections, the outcome came down to one or more disputed states. Most history books claim the 1876 election was resolved by a fifteen-man commission that voted along party lines. In truth, Democrats were prepared to ignore the commission’s determinations, and the threat of duel inaugurations and another civil war loomed ominously. The resolution came only when Republicans assured Democrats in Congress that, if they went along with Rutherford B. Hayes’s election, would cease implementing Reconstruction. The nation paid a terrible price for the backroom dealing. In 2000, the election was resolved by the Supreme Court – with five conservative Justices intervening to assure the election of George W. Bush.
Today, both of these threats are present—political deal-making and/or a partisan Supreme Court could determine the outcome. There are additional parallels to 1876 and 2000 that need to be explored. In both 1876 and 2000, as in 2020, the election took place against the backdrop of voter suppression. In 1876 and 2000, like today, there were calls for state legislatures to intervene and nullify the results of their state’s popular vote. In 1876, states sent competing slates of electors that Congress had to choose between. Today, the possibility of competing slates of electors cannot be ruled out. Ditto the threat of the conservatives on the Supreme Court intervening.
To prevent these destructive outcomes, we need to understand how things unfolded during the prior election crises.
In your latest book, A Short History of Presidential Election Crises, you write: “Abolition of the Electoral College would reduce but not eliminate the dangers of a presidential election marred by fraud and post-election chaos.” How would your proposed Presidential Election Review Board potentially help eliminate the dangers of post-election instability?
Trump’s various claims of election irregularities would be resolved by a tri-partisan (Democrats, Republicans, and independents) commission rather than the courts. Because many judges are seen as partisan, the public would rightly have more confidence in the process and outcome.
Alan Hirsch, Instructor in the Humanities and Chair of the Justice and Law Studies program at Williams College, is the author of numerous works of legal scholarship and many books including A Short History of Presidential Election Crises (And How to Prevent the Next One), Impeaching the President: Past, Present, and FutureandFor the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights (Free Press, coauthored with Akhil Amar). He received a J.D. from Yale Law School and B.A. from Amherst College. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Newsday, and the Village Voice. Hirsch also serves as a trial consultant and expert witness on interrogations and criminal confessions, testifying around the nation. He lives in Williamstown, Massachusetts.
Funny how all these voting machine “glitches” always benefit republicans….
Isn’t this literally a joke in an episode of the Simpsons
PSA:
1. Check your local polling policies, some states and voting districts still offer paper as an option. You may be able to submit via paper.
2. Make sure you also read/review the summary, before you submit.
3. There are people that volunteer from all parties to assist. Use them! If you have a question. Use them! If it is your first time voting, use them! If you see any glitch. Use them!
4. If you are utilizing a write in option, know the local, state and federal laws. Misspelling or not including a middle initial can negate your vote.
To often we do not know our rights, but we also fail to ask or rely on social media. Visit or call your voter registration office.
