Harvard’s Institute of Politics has removed @RepStefanik from its Senior Advisory Committee.

In a letter to other members of the committee, Dean of the Faculty of the Kennedy School Doug Elmendorf writes...

2/ “My request was not about political parties, political ideology, or her choice of candidate for president. Rather, in my assessment, Elise has made public assertions about voter fraud in November’s presidential election that have no basis in evidence,...
3/“... and she has made public statements about court actions related to the election that are incorrect. Moreover, these assertions and statements do not reflect policy disagreements but bear on the foundations of the electoral process..
4/“... through which this country’s leaders are chosen.

“I made this request to Elise mindful of her important contributions to the crucial mission of the Institute of Politics over a long period, beginning with her role as a student leader (she was in the class of 2006)...
5/“... and continuing to her mentoring students and strengthening the IOP’s programming in many ways. I know that we are grateful for her long and committed service.
 
“In my conversation with Elise, she declined to step aside, and I told her that I would therefore remove her...
6/“... from the IOP’s Senior Advisory Committee at this time.”
7/ Full letter here:

https://t.co/ccZLvEzNaz
Removing an alum (@RepStefanik was Harvard class of 2006) not to mention a sitting congresswoman is no small thing for any university.
Here’s the response from @EliseStefanik in which she describes opposition to her spreading election lies — not to mention her votes to disenfranchise millions of Americans based on those lies, *after* the MAGA terrorist attack led to bloodshed — as being “woke.” https://t.co/XGd6Odcbiw

More from Politics

Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.


This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."

There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?

It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."

The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
"3 million people are estimated not to have official photo ID, with ethnic minorities more at risk". They will "have to contact their council to confirm their ID if they want to vote"

This is shameful legislation, that does nothing to tackle the problems with UK elections.THREAD


There is no evidence in-person voter fraud is a problem, and it wd be near-impossible to organise on an effective scale. Campaign finance violations, digital disinformation & manipulation of postal voting are bigger issues, but these are crimes of the powerful, not the powerless.

In a democracy, anything that makes it harder to vote - in particular, anything that disadvantages one group of voters - should face an extremely high bar. Compulsory voter ID takes a hammer to 3 million legitimate voters (disproportionately poor & BAME) to crack an imaginary nut

If the government is concerned about the purity of elections, it should reflect on its own conduct. In 2019 it circulated doctored news footage of an opponent, disguised its twitter feed as a fake fact-checking site, and ran adverts so dishonest that even Facebook took them down.

Britain's electoral law largely predates the internet. There is little serious regulation of online campaigning or the cash that pays for it. That allows unscrupulous campaigners to ignore much of the legal framework erected since the C19th to guard against electoral misconduct.

You May Also Like