Vigdorous Claims
The gaslighting lives on in the spirit of faux journalism via Neil Vigdor & The New York Times.
Neil Vigdor’s hate piece in the New York Times embodies the worst instincts of a media that has become more of a political operative than a public service. His critique of Trump’s recent statements, rife with insinuations, selective omissions, and brazen partisan spin, is a textbook example of how “legacy” media outlets engage in agenda-setting rather than honest reporting.
Vigdor’s blanket dismissal of Trump’s claim about the 2020 election as "false" is a lazy assertion that betrays any pretense of objective journalism. What Vigdor fails to mention—and what is crucial to understanding the complex nature of the 2020 election—is how numerous activists judges in swing states disallowed key evidence to even be presented in court. In many instances, the judiciary effectively acted as a firewall, preventing legitimate concerns about election integrity from being thoroughly examined. Cases brought forward in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were thrown out not on their merits but on procedural technicalities, often without a full hearing or examination of the evidence.
Take Pennsylvania, for instance. A state Supreme Court made a unilateral decision to extend the mail-in ballot deadline, overriding the state legislature—a violation of the U.S. Constitution's mandate that state legislatures determine election laws. Similarly, in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, last-minute changes to voting laws were implemented by governors or secretaries of state, bypassing the required legislative process. These unconstitutional changes were enabled to loosen voter ID laws, expand mail-in voting, and remove safeguards under the guise of a public health emergency. None of this, of course, is mentioned in Vigdor’s commentary. The absence of these facts leaves his readers with an incomplete—and thus misleading—picture of the situation.
Moreover, the article conveniently omits the fact that over 50,000 signed affidavits were submitted by election workers and voters in various states, attesting to irregularities they witnessed, such as ballots being entered into machines multiple times. This is not fringe conspiracy theory; it's sworn testimony from ordinary Americans concerned about the integrity of the process. Instead of treating these affidavits as evidence worthy of consideration, the media and courts, along with activists judges, dismissed them outright, often without any substantive inquiry.
Then there was Vigdor’s brief mention of Trump’s claim about FEMA funding being redirected to housing for undocumented immigrants similarly evades a necessary discussion of how federal disaster-relief funds are appropriated and whether they’ve been diverted inappropriately. While Vigdor simply repeats Biden administration talking points, he ignores a troubling trend of policy shifts where funds meant for specific purposes are quietly rerouted under the radar of public scrutiny.
And then there’s the highly curious statistical anomaly that occurred in the early hours of November 4, 2020. As votes were being counted after midnight, millions of ballots came in overwhelmingly in favor of Biden in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan, after counting had mysteriously been halted in key areas. Statistically, the sheer magnitude of this surge, with nearly all votes skewed toward Biden, strains any credibility. Given the inherent volatility in any election, it was a near-impossibility that such a uniform pattern would emerge without something more than chance at play. But to even suggest this, as Trump did, is met with derision from the likes of Vigdor, who has already made up his mind as to who the "rightful" winner is.
Vigdor also conveniently downplays the all of the politically motivated prosecution that has targeted Trump and his allies and rather than acknowledging the troubling weaponization of the legal system—especially the criminal charges against Trump supporters in Michigan and other states— what does the disingenuous NYT reporter do ? He glosses over these critical issues, choosing instead to continue the tired narrative of election subversion. Cue the eye roll please.
What the corporate media refuse to admit is that, due to a combination of judicial interference, unconstitutional changes to election laws, and widespread irregularities, it was impossible to properly determine who genuinely won the 2020 election. The media’s decision to continually shut down any discourse on these subjects further compounds the issue - and rather than fostering transparency, Vigdor’s reporting serves to obfuscate the truth, insulating his readers from uncomfortable realities in favor of a carefully curated narrative.
Republicans need to begin going on the offensive and they cannot start soon enough. Rather than remaining defensive or dodging questions about the 2020 election, they should start challenging the premise of the questions themselves. When asked, "Who won the 2020 election?" or “Will you concede that Donald Trump didn’t win the 2020 election” they should shift the focus to the verifiable issues surrounding the process and the media’s complicity in silencing dissenting voices. That 2020 election was marred by irregularities that were never fully investigated due to courts dismissing cases without hearings, unconstitutional changes to voting laws in key states, and widespread suppression of evidence further exacerbated by media gaslighting obfuscation, should be obvious to anyone paying attention to the details.
Glen Greenwald, a genuinely honest journalist, himself has often pointed out that the role of the media is not to pander to power but to challenge it, and that includes questioning the legitimacy of election processes when legitimate concerns arise. But in the world of The New York Times, the narrative has already been decided, and the truth, whatever it may be, must be cast aside if it doesn’t fit neatly within that framework. Neil Vigdor’s latest article is just one more example of a sad and troubling reality that seems more interested in preserving a career than any semblance of integrity - journalistic or otherwise.
Sources that have reported on judicial activism, bias, and the refusal to consider evidence regarding the 2020 election:
The Federalist
"How Judicial Activism Helped Steal The 2020 Election"
This article covers the role of courts in rejecting key election-related cases, pointing to judicial activism as a factor in decisions that prevented investigations into election fraud and irregularities.
National Review
"Supreme Court Rejects Texas Election Lawsuit"
This piece discusses how the Supreme Court and lower courts refused to hear major election-related cases, including Texas v. Pennsylvania, citing technicalities rather than examining the merits of the claims.
RealClearPolitics
"Why Judges Refused to Hear Evidence of Fraud in the 2020 Election"
This analysis explains why various courts, including federal and state judges, dismissed election-related cases without considering the evidence, attributing some of it to reluctance to challenge the results.
Epoch Times
"Judges Refuse to Look at Election Fraud Evidence, Experts Say"
This article explores claims from legal experts that many judges avoided reviewing substantive evidence of election fraud, often dismissing cases on procedural grounds.
Just the News
"Judges Refused to Consider 2020 Election Fraud Evidence, Experts Say"
This outlet reported on the refusal of several courts to examine evidence of election fraud, emphasizing how judicial activism and bias may have played a role in blocking transparency.
Townhall
"The Courts Didn’t 'Reject' The Election Fraud Cases on the Merits"
The article discusses how the courts rejected election cases based on procedural grounds rather than substantive evidence, allowing accusations of fraud and irregularities to go uninvestigated.