Transition Integrity Project

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Group.png Transition Integrity Project  
(Deep state group)Rdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
Formation2019
Founder• Rosa Brooks
• Nils Gilman
InterestsOperation Blackout, US/2020 Presidential election, Lincoln Project
Membership• Rosa Brooks
• Nils Gilman
• Michael Steele
• John Podesta
• Bill Clinton
• Jennifer Granholm
• Trey Grayson
• Donna Brazile
• William Kristol
• Edward Luce
• Max Boot
• David Frum
A US deep state that has been gaming the US/2020 Presidential election

The Transition Integrity Project is a US deep state action group of more than 100 current and former senior government and campaign leaders, academics, journalists, polling experts and former federal and state government officials[1]. Using color revolution tactics, it intends to hinder Trump taking power after the 2020 election.

Projection

Using projection, the Project repeatedly states that the whole planning effort is to "restrain or counter anti-democratic actions the Trump Administration", while itself planning similar "practices that depart from traditional rule of law norm".[2]

Likewise, "Media outlets, organizers and campaigns need to develop strategies to both promote accurate reporting with trusted leaders and to interrupt and limit disinformation campaigns," which is seen as only coming from the other side.

"Sober and Militant Stakeholders"

The Initiative was initially convened by Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown and former Pentagon senior official, and Nils Gilman, a former vice chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley and historian at the Berggruen Institute.

David Blum, New York Times columnist and member of the Initiative, envisages “a group of sober people who are militant about America, who can see reality unblinkered by the lens of partisanship, and who are finally compelled to organize."[3]

Wanting to to "spur all stakeholders to action", the scenarios began charting out what it would take "to stand up a multi-state communications arm to fight disinformation, a training program for nonviolent civil disobedience, and the underpinnings of what one official described as ‘mass public unrest.’”[4]

Themes

The scenarios concentrate on what the Democrats see as their two biggest weaknesses (but also strengths):

  • Voting irregularities (“voter fraud”). The scenarios noticeably mentions the Trump campaign condemning fraud in the mail-in ballot process, and the Democrats need to protect this process proceeding. The scenarios also consistently envisages state Democrat officials under different pretexts select a different and pro-Biden batch of Electors to the national Electoral College.
  • Peaceful demonstrations and escalating violence. Street demonstrations and how the government reacts to them is seen as crucial. In the playing out of street violence, terms such as false flag and agent provocateur were used (by the other side). And as well understood in color revolutions methods, "the game-winning strategy was to goad the other side into violence."[5]

Planning Exercises

During 2020, the group executed a series of four crisis planning exercises ('games'). Stating that "the winner may not, and we assess likely will not, be known on “election night” as officials count mail-in ballots"[6] the group, with apparent lack of self-irony, concludes "This period of uncertainty provides opportunities for an unscrupulous candidate to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the process and to set up an unprecedented assault on the outcome."

Game One: Ambiguous Result

Game One played an ambiguous vote, without a clear winner. The game envisages Trump calling into question the validity of mail-in ballots and getting Republican officers in several states to immediately halt further vote counting.

  • On the Democrat's side, "the Biden Campaign declared that victory was imminent and called for every vote to be counted. The team mobilized a network of influential bipartisan elites, elected officials, and retired military officers to speak to the press and denounce any effort to suppress counting the vote. The Biden Campaign also called for peaceful rallies, echoing a call to count every vote."
  • The Democrats also turned to state officials. Using an incident where a batch of presumed pro-Biden votes were destroyed by "a rouge individual", leaving Trump a narrow electoral win. The governor of Michigan used this abnormality as justification to send a separate, pro-Biden set of electors to DC.

Game Two: Clear Biden Victory

In this scenario, Biden won outright in the Electoral College and the popular vote. "The Biden Campaign team emphasized standing up a credible transition process. The Trump Campaign sought to hinder this, but the Federal Government Team confirmed that a number of civil servants would seek to enable it regardless of directions from the White House."

Game Three: Clear Trump Electoral College Win

The third scenario posited a comfortable Electoral College victory for President Trump — 286-252 — but also a significant popular vote win—52% - 47%--for former Vice President Biden.

The game play ended in a constitutional crisis, characterized by: "1) Political chaos; 2) Widespread threats of violence, and sporadic actual violence in the streets; and 4) A hostile, dangerous, highly-partisan, and frequently unconstrained information and media environment" (point 3 missing in document).

The game envisages the Biden Campaign encouraging "Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington to secede from the Union unless Congressional Republicans agreed to these structural reforms.

Game Four: Narrow Biden Win

The final scenario explored a narrow Biden win where he leads with less than 1% of the popular vote the day after the election, and is predicted to win 278 electoral votes, concluding with an "uneasy and combative but ultimately successful transition."

The scenarios envisages Trump being escorted out of the White House on January 20, 2021, by the Secret Service, while continuing to "launch attacks against the legitimacy of the election".



References