THE 'PROJECT' TO DESTROY AMERICA AFTER THE COMING ELECTION (lengthy) SICK LIBERALS!!!

 Submitted by: J Cryots

Remember, ahead of the election, buy water and food and if you want to keep both, buy guns and ammo.

 

 [comments from Michael Greer - Author/Columnist]

 

TRANSITION INTEGRITY PROJECT 

 

I just finished reading the “Transition Integrity Project”. When I finished crying, I became determined. I’m “Madder than Hell and I’m not going to take it anymore”. We NEED to be prepared.  

 

It starts out sounding so nice and reasonable. They (funded by Soros) say it is to ensure a “free and fair election”, except there is nothing in it that ensures either. Not a word about taking measures that to prove a mail-in ballot is filled out by the person whose name is on it; not a word about making sure dead people don’t get ballots; nothing about voter ID as proof that the voter is who they say they are; nothing about purging voter rolls of dead people, double registrations, people who have never voted, etc.  

 

Everything is about how to contest even a landslide by Trump. This is VERY well funded, very well thought out, very well prepared for. For instance, they have already spoken to the National Guard and Military. They are speaking to Democrat Governors to contest the Electoral votes.  

 

And Republicans have no “Soroses” funding a counter group, we have no one planning to defend an outright Trump win. We don’t even have our churches speaking out against the evil we are facing, against rioting. They need to address the loss of our Rights and the loss of religious liberty. A few are but not nearly enough.  

 

The Transition Integrity Project says the concept of “election Night” is no longer acceptable and is actually dangerous. They say they are determined to contest the election well into 2021. They suggest the “transition” should be highly disrupted.  

 

They say Campaign decisions about whether or not the election be contested will be political rather than based on legal rules and that a close and contested election may be resolved through POWER, not the courts.  

 

They plan to organize 1000 “influencers” to denounce efforts to steal the election; organize the living ex-Presidents to stand with Biden (they already do, don’t they?); Recruit moderate Governors like Baker (MA) and Hogan (MD) to form an “Election Protection” coalition; work with Democrat officials to call on the Adjutant General of the National Guard, along with tech companies to monitor counting (Remember, it isn’t who votes, it’s who COUNTS the votes that matters); organize a “National Day for Restoration of Democracy” and a “National Day of Unity” with faith leaders; consider a capital strike and work stoppage to push corporate leaders to insist ALL ballots be counted.  

 

They are focused on readiness in the states to provide political support for a “complete and accurate count”. What is that exactly? Democrats have been rushing to the courts to change voting laws last minute. Some states are not requiring signatures match, some allowing ballots be received days after 11/3. In NY 100,000 ballots have been sent out with the name and address on the return envelope not matching the voter’s name and address. What is going to happen to those ballots?  

People across the country are reporting receiving more than one ballot. And, of course, the Left refuses to point out the difference between a “Mail-In” ballot and an “Absentee” ballot. Absentee ballots are requested and the voter is verified. Mail-In ballots are sent to everyone on the voter rolls. Most voter rolls have never been verified or purged of invalid or unqualified voters. And 30% or more of registered voters don’t vote. So, there will be hundreds of thousands of “Mail-in” ballots floating around.  

 

Their plans include a big campaign (already started) for the media to attack the “lies” about voter fraud and vote harvesting. One of the ways they commit fraud is to take all the ballots from “Senior living facilities” and fill them out for the senile seniors. They also want the media to downplay escalating violence. They want the “trusted leaders” and tech companies to “publically challenge Trump’s claims of voter fraud”, especially that “Mail-in” ballots are ripe for fraud. (We can see the media and social media are already very busy with this). “Public officials and law enforcement need to plan for large-scale protests…”.  

  

GAME THREE: CLEAR TRUMP WIN  

 

They war-gamed four scenarios; a narrow Biden win; a narrow Trump win; a clear Biden win; and a clear Trump win. The “Clear Trump Win” game ended in a constitutional crisis, with threats of secession, and the potential for either a decline into authoritarianism or a radically revamped set of democratic rules that ensure the popular will prevails (abolishment of the Electoral College, making DC and Puerto Rico states, and other changes).  

 

They suggest it will end in 1) Political chaos 2) Widespread threats of violence and actual violence in the streets. 3) A hostile, dangerous, highly-partisan, and frequently unconstrained information and media environment. (DUH!) 

 

They think Biden should encourage Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, collectively known as “Cascadia” (they’ve already named the new country) to secede from the union unless Congressional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms to fix our democratic system to ensure the majority rule (I never want the majority to rule).  

 

This part is VERY interesting! “With advice from President Obama, the Biden campaign submitted a proposal to 1) Give statehood to Washington DC and Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico has voted 3 or 4 times NOT to be a state, but never mind what they want), (I would be willing to give back Hawaii and Alaska); 2) Divide California into five states to more accurately represent it’s population in the Senate; 3) Require Supreme Court Justices to retire at 70; and 4) Eliminate the Electoral College, to ensure that the candidate who wins the popular vote becomes President. (Why do they think our founders put the Electoral College in place? It was to prevent the larger states from oppressing smaller states).  

 

They also suggest Biden “provoke a breakdown in the joint session of Congress by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the Presidency to Biden”.  

 

They also suggest if Trump loses they open more investigations into Trump and should consider a range of options including those used by other countries. (Lovely, Obama attempted a coup against Trump and got away with it).  

 

“There needs to be a robust, intentional, and specific strategy to challenge White Supremacists (all ten of them) and extreme networks that enabled Trump’s rise to power (you mean “We the People”?), and were in turn enabled by Trump’s administration (how? We aren’t paid to go to rallies). This base will not automatically demobilize (like Obama’s Organizing for America?) if and when Trump leaves office, and it is inimical to the kind of pluralistic democracy the founders intended. (What are they talking about? “Pluralist democracy”? Eliminating the Electoral collage, making two more states, will ensure a ONE PARTY country. And our founders NEVER intended for us to be a “democracy”). 

 

The media has already done a great job of getting us to accept we won’t have an answer to the election for days or weeks. Good job! They have cast BLM as being about racial justice. They keep saying the “protests are 93% peaceful”.  

 

During the Prayer Vigil we held in our town square last weekend I prayed God would forgive those misguided souls who are rioting, looting and burning our cities. It occurred to me that if BLM were praying in the streets and asking forgiveness for the slave owners instead of burning, destroying and demanding we submit, there could be a uniting of the country. This is what our pastors need to be preaching. 

 

I don’t see how America survives unless we turn back to God. 

 

Michael Greer - Author/Columnist

 

 

 

 

Here is the actual text of the Democrats' plan to destroy this nation....

 

 

Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition

August 3, 2020Executive SummaryIn June 2020 the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) convened a bipartisan group of over 100 current and former senior government and campaign leaders and other experts in a series of 2020 election crisis sce-nario planning exercises. The results of all four table-top exercises were alarming. We assess with a high degree of likelihood that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape.We also assess that the President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power. Recent events, including the President’s own unwillingness to commit to abiding by theresults of theelection, the Attorney General’s embrace ofthe President’sgroundless electoral fraud claims,and the unprecedented deployment of federal agents to put down leftwing protests, underscore the extremelengths to which President Trump may be willing to go in order to stay in office.In this report, TIP explains the basis for our assessment. Our findings are bolstered by the historical expe-rience of Bush v. Gore(2000) and other U.S. electoral dysfunctions. The closest analogy may be the elec-tion of 1876, a time of extreme partisanship and rampant disenfranchisement, where multiple states prof-fered competing slates of electors, and the election was only resolved through a grand political bargain days before Inauguration—one that tradedan end toReconstruction for electoral peace and resulted in a century of Jim Crow, leaving deep wounds that are far from healed today. Among the findings we highlight in the report:•The concept of “election night,” is no longer accurate and indeed is dangerous.We face a pe-riod of contestation stretching from the first day a ballot is cast in mid-September until January 20. The winner may not, and we assess likely will not, be known on “election night” as officials count mail-in ballots. This period of uncertainty provides opportunities for an unscrupulous can-didate to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the process and to set up an unprecedented assault on the outcome. Campaigns, parties, the press and the public must be educated to adjust expectationsstarting immediately.•A determined campaign has opportunity to contest the election into January 2021. We antici-pate lawsuits, divergent media narratives, attempts to stop the counting of ballots, and protests drawing people from both sides. President Trump, the incumbent,will very likely use the execu-tive branch to aid his campaign strategy, including through the Department of Justice. We assess that there is a chance the president will attempt to convince legislatures and/or governors to take actions –including illegal actions –to defy the popular vote. Federal laws provide little guidance for how Congress should resolve irregularitieswhen they convene in a Joint Session on January 6, 2021. Of particular concern is how the military would respondin the context of uncertain elec-tion results. Here recent evidence offers some reassurance, but it is inconclusive.•The administrative transition process itself may be highly disrupted. Participants in our exer-cises of all backgrounds and ideologiesbelievedthat Trump would prioritize personal gain and self-protection over ensuring an orderly administrative handoff to his successor. Trump may use pardons to thwart future criminal prosecution, arrange business deals with foreign governments that benefit him financially, attempt to bribe and silence associates, declassify sensitive docu-ments, and attempt to divert federal funds to his own businesses.These risks can be mitigated; the worst outcomes of the exercises arefar froma certainty. The purpose of this report is not to frighten, but to spur all stakeholderstoaction. Our legal rules and political norms don’t work unless people are prepared to defend them and to speak out when others violate them. It is

2incumbent upon elected officials, civil society leaders, and the press to challenge authoritarian actions in the courts, in the media, and in the streets through peaceful protest. Specific recommendations include:•Plan for a contested election. If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly. Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions. Approach this as a political battle, not just a legal battle.In the event of electoral contestation, sustained political mobilization will likely be crucial for ensuring transition integrity.Dedicated staff and resources need to be in place at least through the end of January.•Focus on readiness in the states, providing political support for a complete and accurate count. Governors, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General and Legislatures can communicate and rein-force laws and norms and be ready to confront irregularities. Election officials will need political and public support to see the process through to completion. •Address the two biggest threats head on: lies about “voterfraud” and escalating violence. Vot-ing fraud is virtually non-existent, but Trump lies about it to create a narrative designed to politi-cally mobilize his base and to create the basis for contesting the results should he lose. The poten-tial for violent conflict is high, particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up arms. •Anticipate a rocky administrative transition. Transition teams willlikelyneed to do two things simultaneously: defend against Trump’s reckless actions on his way out of office; and find crea-tive solutions to ensure landing teams are able to access the information and resources they need to begin to prepare for governing.

3About the Transition Integrity ProjectThe Transition Integrity Project (TIP)1was launched in late 2019out of concern that theTrump Admin-istration may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transi-tion process. TIP takes no position on how Americans should cast their votes,or on the likely winner of the upcoming election;either major party candidate couldprevail at the polls in November without resort-ingto “dirty tricks.”However, the administration of President DonaldTrump has steadilyunderminedcore norms of democracy and the rule of law and embraced numerouscorrupt and authoritarian practices. This presents a profoundchallenge for those –from either party –who are committed toensuring free and fair elections, peaceful transitions of power, and stable administrative continuityin the United States.The American people have the right to choose their next presidentwithout intimidation or interference in the normal electoral process. Believers in democracy andtherule of law should therefore be prepared to take action to ensure that the results of the 2020 presidential election reflect the will of the American peo-ple. Like manyauthoritarianleaders, President Trump hasbegun to lay the groundwork for potentially ignoring or disrupting the voting process, by claiming, for instance, that any mail-in ballots will be fraud-ulent and that his opponents will seek to have non-citizens vote through fraud. Similarly, he has fre-quently expressed the view that he is entitled to additional time in office and that his opponents are seek-ing to steal the election. If President Trump’s future actions violate long-standing legal and ethical norms relating to presidential elections, there is also a risk that they will push other actors, including, potentially,some in the Democratic Party, to similarly engagein practices that depart from traditional rule of law norms,out of perceived self-defense.The goalof TIPis to highlight these various electoral and transition-related risks and make recommenda-tions to all actors, individual and institutional, who share a commitment to democracy and the rule of law.2The recommendations shared here reflect input from both Republicansand Democratscommitted to these values. However,because the primary threat to the integrity of the election and transition appears to come from theTrump Administration, mostof the recommendationsin this memofocus on how actors committed to the rule of law can restrain or counter anti-democraticactions the TrumpAdministrationand itssupporters may take in connection with the2020 election.That TIP’s concerns are widely shared is reflected in the media attention which this project has already begun to garner. (For a list of articles as of late July 2020, see Appendix A.)About theScenario ExercisesIn June 2020, TIP organizedfour scenario exercises to identify risksto the rule of law or to the integrity of the democratic processin the period between Election Day(November 3, 2020)and InaugurationDay(January 20, 2021), with an eye toward mitigationand/or prevention of worst-case outcomes.At this point it seemspossiblethat either candidate may achieve a decisiveelectoralvictory, but the goal of TIP’s scenario exercises was to gain a better understanding of the tests our democratic institutions 1Rosa Brooksand Nils Gilmanlaunched the Transition Integrity Project in December 2019 to focus on identifying and mitigating threats to democracy and administrative continuity in the period between Election Day and Inaugura-tion. TIP has received advice and input from dozens of experts representing both major political parties. TIP is di-rected by Zoe Hudson. Inquires can be sent toinfo@transitionintegrityproject.org.2TIP recognizes and shares the view that the Electoral College is profoundly anti-democratic, and that numerous long-standing practices also function to create structural biases in our voting system. For present purposes, however, these constraints are treated as givens.

4could face in the event that candidates defy the normsthat have underpinned American political practice for decades.Specifically, TIP wanted to examine some of the unknowns: How far might candidates go in contesting negative electoral outcomes or disrupting the normal transition process? How well would American institutions hold up if one or both candidates refused to “play by the rules”?The four scenarios were developed after a consultative process involving outreach to experts on electionsand transitions, political violence and instability, governance, and scenario planning and game design. Each of the four scenarios developed was different. (SeeAppendix Bfor a summary of the scenariosand key actions.) In one scenario, the exercise posited that the winner of the election was not known as of the morning after the election and the outcome of the race was too close to predict with certainty; in another, the exercise began with the premise thatDemocratic party candidate Joe Biden won the popular vote and the Electoral College by a healthymargin; and in a third, the exercise assumed that President Trump won the Electoral College vote but again lost the popular voteby a healthy margin. The fourth exercise began with the premise that Biden won both the popular vote and the Electoral College by a narrowmargin. Sixty-sevenpeople participated as active “players” in one or more of the scenario exercises, while dozens more participated in the exercises as observers and offered feedbackduring debriefing sessions. Partici-pants included members ofboth major political parties, former high-ranking government officials(includ-ing,for example,two former governors), seniorpolitical campaigners, nationally prominent journalists and communications professionals, social movement leaders, and experts on politics, national security, democratic reform, election law, and media.Each simulation exercise involved seven teams, eachcomposed of 2-3 people.The teams were con-structedto allow players considerable flexibility toadopt different identitiesat different points in the game. Using a “matrix game”3format, the teams were: (1) The Trump Campaign[“Team Trump”];(2) The Biden Campaign[“Team Biden”]; (3) Republican Elected Officials; (4) Democratic Elected Offi-cials; (5) Career Federal Governmentemployees(civilian and military) and political appointees; (6)Me-dia(right wing, left wing and mainstream);and(7) the Public(this team consisted of polling experts).Teams were made up of participants with “real life” experience in the types of roles they were asked to play. Under the rules of the matrix game, teamspresented with the initial scenariocould take any action they wanted. The chances of success of each team action were determined based on robust argumentation among all teamsand the adjudication of a White Cell,as well as a randomizing factor based on dice rolls. It is important to note that the exercises werenot designed to model or simulatelegal strategy, but rather to better understand the potential political mobilization and media dynamics surrounding potential elec-toral contestation,and how candidates might exercisepoliticalpower to achieve a win.Key Insights from the ScenarioExercises The scenario planning exercises were conducted in June2020.Developments since then have only con-firmed that there is every reason to be concerned that our electoral rules and norms are under threat. In an interview with Chris Wallace, President Trump suggestedthat he might not abide by the resultsof the election if he loses. The President deployed agents from Homeland Security to Portland to suppress racial 3A “matrix game” approach emphasizes and facilitates creativity and dynamic interaction between teams represent-ing major stakeholder groups. Participants make multifaceted, competitive arguments aboutnot only their own in-tended actions, but also the actions of each of their allies, partners, and competitors. The iterative “contest of ideas” design forces players to interrogate and critique actions in real-time –which provides insight not only into what could happen, but also the reactions those actions may elicit. The gameplay focuses on players’ intentions, which makes this modality useful for analyzing competing strategies.

5justice protestors, a move that outragedmany, including the Republican former headof Homeland Secu-rity, and indicates President Trump’s appetite to deploy federal agents even against the will of local elected officials. He has announced plans to expand this deployment to blue cities in swing states, raising the specter of electoral intimidation. President Trump hasspeculated about whether the election should be postponedand Attorney General Bill Barr expressed confusionabout whether thedate of theelection could be moved. (As a legal matter, only Congress can move the day of the Presidential election.)Trump also demanded that the election results be called immediately on Election Day, e.g. before all mail-inbal-lots can be counted.And the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center in the Of-fice of the Director of National Intelligenceissued a statement warning that foreign countries are again trying to interfere in the US election. Two words of caution about the findings from the exercises. First, TIP intentionally did not game legal strategies in any detail. Litigation will be an important part of the strategy for both sides, butwe did not attempt to pass judgement on whether any particular claimsor tactics would prevail. One question is whether a candidate is able to convince the state legislature to send a package of electoral college votes inconsistent with the certified popular vote.Even if a court disapprovedof this action,Congress might nonetheless consider those votes on January 6. Second, the exercises were not able to fully capture the ways in which the media will shape and drive public opinion, or how specific media outlets would cover events differentlyand drive increasingly parti-san responses. Social media in particular will undoubtedly play a heavy role in how the public perceives the outcome of the election.Political operatives, both domestic and foreign, will very likely attempt to use social media to sow discord and even move people to violence. Social media companies’ policy and en-forcement decisions will be consequential, and this merits further exploration and consideration.The topline findings arehere. While not directly the subject of the scenario planning exercises, in debrief-ings our participants almost all raised questions about whether “Trumpism” would survive a Trump loss. We include a summary of that discussion in Appendix C.1.Campaign decisions about whether to contest the election are likely tobepolitical calcula-tions,rather than calculations based on legal rulesalone.Election lawyers use the term “margin of litigation” to describe the range of reported vote tallies that would provoke legal action. Thinking about the upcoming Presidential election, the more important con-cept might be the “margin of contestation.”4In other words, what combination of factors might lead a candidate to conclude that contesting the election is(or is not)in his interest? This is a dynamic and un-predictable calculationbecause the outcomeis likely to be foughtnot only in courtor by counting ballots, but possibly also in state legislatures, in Congress, and on the streets.What happens beforeElection Day will, to a large extent, determine the margin of contestation. Report-ers, pollsters, pundits, political parties, and many others will communicate confidence or concern about the legitimacy of the election. Viral social media memes will play a role as well. During the exercises, winning “the narrative” emerged as a potentially decisive factor.Either side can ex-pand or contract the “margin of contestation”if theysucceed in substantially changing how key decision makers and the public view the “facts,” the risks of action or inaction, or external events such as civil un-rest. An integrated strategy of legal contestation, politicalleadership, mass mobilization, and messaging is 4This observation comes from Ohio State University law professor Edward B. Foley, author of Presidential Elec-tions and Majority Rule(Oxford University Press, 2020) and Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States(Oxford University Press, 2016).

6much stronger,and Team Trump often had the advantage because they could rely on Fox News, a signifi-cant and committed base, and loyalties from law enforcement agencies.Team Biden often had the major-ity of the public on its side, and the ability to mobilize resentment about the structural disenfranchisement in the way we conduct presidential elections.TIP’s exercisessuggest that President Trump mayexpand the margin of contestationprimarilyby contest-ingthe legality of votes cast (e.g., by alleging fraudulent mail-in ballots, voting by ineligible voters, etc.). Meanwhile, former Vice President Biden may expand the margin of contestation by highlighting voter suppression by the GOP (purges of voter rolls, shutting down of polling places, failure to fund election administration, ID and other verification requirements, intimidation of voters, etc.).Biden may also be able to expand the margin of contestation by questioning the overall legitimacy of a system that doesn’t require the winner to get a majority of the popular vote or by decrying howPresidentTrump uses the power of the presidency to manipulate the process.Both sides may expand the margin of contestation by questioning the credibility of reported results, if, for example, they believe (or merely assert) that foreign interference or other factors compromised the integrity of the vote count.Theconditions andmood of the country will also inform whether and how candidatesassess the window of contestation. We could be facing an alarming second wave of COVID-19, rising unemployment, a cra-tering stock market, growing evictions, civil unrest, and even political violence. President Trump may be seen as an asset or as a liability to down-ballot Republican candidates.The political commitment (or des-peration) of rank and file members of each party will not just reflectthe actions of leadership butmay drive those actions as well.Aclose election will bydefinition be a fluid situation.2.A close and contested electionmaybe resolved through theexercise ofpower, not through the courts.The scenario exercises developed by TIP were designed toencourageboth the Biden and Trump teams to pursue plausible but aggressiveactions in order to win.Theexercises demonstrated that thevery first “move” by each campaign was oftendecisive; it establisheda narrative and the overall strategy. In all four of the exercisesTIP conducted, Team Trumpimmediately adopted astrategy ofcastingdoubt on the official election results, even in the one scenario where he later accepted a loss. Team Trump also encour-agedchaos and violencein the streetsand aimedto provoke Team Biden into subvertingnorms —even as Team Trump itselfsabotagedtraditional norms—so that Team Biden could beaccused of hypocrisy or illegality.During the exercises, Team Trumpand GOP elected officialstook the following steps:•Callingfor recounts in all states in which victory was not already apparent.•Launchingcoordinated investigationsat the state and federal levelsintoalleged“voting irregular-ities”in an effort to undermine public confidence in results that did not go Trump’s way and/or alter the results.•Attemptingto halt the counting of mail-in ballots by filing cases in state court or leaning on Re-publican leaders to stop vote counting or to certify a result early, without waiting for the certified results from the Secretary of State.•Turningout theirwell-organized and committed baseto take to the streets inTrump’sfavor, in part by disseminating disinformation about the danger posed by pro-Biden demonstrators (e.g., by suggesting likely Antifa violence, etc.).•Relyingonboth FOX News and right-wing social media to echo and amplify pro-Trump mes-sagesand facilitate the harassment and bullying of election officials, to cause chaos and delay and/or to intimidate officials into taking actions that benefited Team Trump.

7•Usingfederal agencies to justify or support Trump campaign tactics. In one of the more aggres-sive movesundertaken in one of the TIP exercises, Team Trump had Attorney General Bill Barr order the seizure of mail-inballots to ensure thatvote countingwouldstop.In TIP’s exercises, whenTeam Trump was behind in the popular vote, they moved quickly totry to shift the narrativeand alter the standards of proof. Theirstrategy wasto forceTeam Bidento “provea nega-tive”:that there was not election fraud. Theexercises suggest that Trumpand his supporters are likely to engage in an orchestrated disinformation campaign to shapethe public’s perception—in fact, mispercep-tion—of the “facts” underpinning a disputeover electoral results. In TIP’s exercises, once a narrative took hold casting the election results into doubt, Team Trump was able to successfully convinceGOP-controlled state legislatures to submit separate slatesof electors declaring Trumpthe winner.5Biden’s strategic assets include Democratic governors and Secretaries of State in swing states(notably in North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin); a broadly shared sensein the Democratic Partythat current voting systems,as well as the electoral college,are structurally anti-democratic; and a wide-spread and deeply-held desire, on the part of Democrats nationwide,to move on from the chaos of theTrumpadministration. In all the scenariosexamined in TIP’s exercises, even as votes were still being counted, Team Biden moved quickly to try to project an ability to govern, by announcing cabinet nomi-nees, an agenda for the first 100 days, and bipartisan support for its administration.During the exercises, TeamBidenand Democratic elected officials took the following steps:•Organizing1,000 “influencers” to denounce efforts to steal the election.•Organizingall living presidents to stand with Biden and denounce Trump administration efforts to subvert the democratic process.•Recruiting moderateRepublican Governorssuch asBaker (MA) and Hogan(MD)to form an “Election Protection” Coalition.•Workingwith local Democratic electedofficialsto call on the Adjutant General of the National Guard, along with representatives from the technology sector, to monitor vote counting.•Organizinga bipartisan “National Day for Restoration of Democracy” and a “National Day of Unity,” both including faith leaders.•Attemptinga capital strike and a work stoppage as part of an overall effort to pushcorporate leaders to insist that all ballots to be counted.During TIP’s exercises, these moves had limited ability tostop Team Trump’s push to discredit or contest the results. The one exception was in the scenario, described in more detail later, where Biden won the popular vote by a large margin but still lost the electoral college, and the response was aggressive andco-ordinated. Team Trump was consistently more ruthless than Team Biden –more willing to ignore exist-ing democratic norms,to make use of disinformation,to deploy federal agencies to promote Trump’s per-sonal and electoral interests, and to engage in intimidation campaigns. Team Biden generallyfeltcon-strained by a commitment to normsand a desire to tamp down violence and reduce instability.At the same time,the scenario exercisesalsorevealed that for many Democrats and key Democratic con-stituencies, this election represents an existential crisis, the last chance to stop a rapidand potentially irre-versibleUSdecline into authoritarianismand unbridled nativism. Some participants in the exercises ob-served that if former Vice President Biden wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College,there will bepolitical pressurefrom the Democratic Party’s rank and file andfromindependent grassroots5This move and others would certainly be contested in court; we don’t mean to imply that every action taken is strictly legal. Teams were given considerable flexibility in the actions taken.

8organizationsto prevent a second Trump term.In the scenario that most closely mirroredthe 2016elec-tion results(e.g., the Democratic candidatewins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College), Team Biden pushed to overturn certified results in states with Democratic Governors andnegotiated hard for permanent structural reforms in exchange for recognition of a Trump victory.To takethismore robust action, Team Biden had to deliver a united Democratic front,which meant coordinating effectively with state party officials as well as with grassroots and activist organizations. While most participants believed that the Trump campaign has the real-life capacity to mobilize and, to a significant extent, steer and con-trol the actions of Trump supporters, several participants expressed serious doubt about the ability of the Biden campaign to either mobilize or control left-wing activists. (They also expressed doubt about Team Trump’s future willingness to honor any agreements made during the election period.)The period from November 4th to December 14th sets the stage for a potential fight in the Congress on January 6th, 2021.The scenario exercises did not have adequate representation from individual states to adequatelyunderstand howthe full range ofstate-based institutions and actors would likely conduct themselves.Teams were often able to convince state legislaturesor governorsto submit a slate of electors contrary to the popular vote, but it isn’t clear how realisticthispolitical possibility is, orif it isbeing ac-tively considered by either campaign.3.As an incumbentunbounded by norms, President Trumphas a huge advantage. TIP’s scenario exercises underscored a basic truth: an incumbent running for re-election can use the pow-ers of the presidency to great advantage, particularly if traditional norms are viewed as unimportantand the incumbent is willing to take the risk that a court will eventually rule his actions to be unlawful. The exercise identified the following presidential powers as most likely to be misused to manipulate electoral outcomes or disrupt the transition:the President’s ability to federalize the national guardor invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active duty military domestically; his ability to launch investigations into op-ponents; and his ability to use Department of Justiceand/or the intelligence agencies to cast doubt on election resultsor discredit his opponents. The President and key members of his administration canalso reference classified documents without releasing them, manipulate classified information, or selectively release classified documents for political purposes, fueling manufactured rumors.Participants noted that additional presidential powerssubject to misuseinclude the ability to the freeze assets of individuals and groups the presidentdetermines to be a threat, and his ability to restrict internet communications in the name of national security.Many participants expressed concern that the Department of Justice has been politicized and would be used to provide legal cover for the President’s actions. In one TIP simulation, the teams playing the De-partment of Justice and the Postmaster General took action to seize ballots going through the mail,alleg-edly to “safeguard” the ballots pursuant to a fraud investigation. The elections also demonstrated that there isconsiderable room to use foreign interference, real or invented,as a pretext to cast doubt on the election results or more generally to create uncertainty about the legitimacy of the election.Thescenario exercises revealed very few meaningful checksonTeam Trump’s executive authorities from GOP members of Congressor from political appointees in federal agencies.6During the TIPexercises, teams playing GOP elected officials and political appointeesmost oftenacted in lockstep to support Team Trump. Where the GOP broke ranks, it could be decisive. There was one instance where four GOP 6This did not feature in the scenario planning exercises, butwhen President Trump has suggested that the date of the election should be moved,GOPleaders, including Majority Leader McConnell have been quick to clarify that the date cannot be moved.See “Trump encounters broad pushback to his suggestion to delay the Nov. 3 election,” Washington Post, July 30, 2020.

9Senators broke with Trump when the Congress considered the slate of electors, handing the victory to Biden. The one area ofgenuineuncertainty related towhether Team Trump could convince the military to deploy active duty troops domestically. In the scenario, the military refused to support Team Trump, but there was concern that this reflected “recency bias” given that the exercises were run shortly after partici-pants observed the military’s cautiousness in the wake of theJune 1, 2020events in Lafayette Square.4.A show of numbers in the streets-and actions in the streets-may bedecisive factorsin de-termining what the public perceives asa just and legitimate outcome.During TIP’s exercises, Team Biden almost always called for and relied on mass protests to demonstrate the public’s commitment to a “legitimate”outcome, with the objective of hardening the resolve ofDemo-cratic elected officials to fight and take action, and to dramatize thestakes. As a practical matter,how-ever, participants in the exercise noted thatracial justice activists and others willlikelyactindependentlyof the Biden campaign–playersrepeatedly cautioned that these social movements are independent, not beholden to,or a tool of, the Democratic party. Their support or Biden’s ability to mobilize them cannot be taken for granted.(Note: leaders of these grassroots movements were not well represented in the simu-lation exercises, so the scenario exercises did not robustly test theirlikely receptivity toa Biden call to take to the streets, or to the Biden campaign’s ability to control these actors once mobilized.)If anything, the scale of recent demonstrations has increased the stakes for the Democratic Party to build strong ties with grassroots organizations and be responsive to the movement’s demands.In addition,the exercises suggest thatthere is a significant possibility ofsimultaneous street mobilizations by both Trump and Biden supporters, in which case the possibility for violence will increase significantly, and the actions of law enforcement will become critical. Of note here: TIP’s scenario exercise suggestthatPresidentTrumpand his more fervent supportershave every incentive to try to turn peacefulpro-Biden (or anti-Trump)protestsviolentin order to generate evidence that a Democratic victory is tanta-mount to “mob rule.”In the recent past, President Trump has on numerous occasions called on “Second Amendment people” to defend their rightsand has called on his supporters to “liberate” states with re-strictive COVID-19-related rules. Trump can rely on surrogates to embed operatives inside protests to en-courage violent action, andhe can mobilize a range of law enforcement actors (including National Guard troops, whether federalized or under the control of GOP governors) who might, without proper trainingor if led by politicized actors, escalate matters. In some scenariosexamined by TIP, Team Trump succeeded ininvoking the Insurrection Actand sending active duty military troopsinto US citiesto “restore order,” “protect” voting places, or confiscate “fraudulent” ballots.5.Trump is likely toprioritize his personal interests in the transition period.TIP constructedscenarios intended toilluminate issues in the transition period, but during the exercise, the active teams spent most of their time contesting the electionresults.As a result,the insights on the formal transition are somewhat limited.Nevertheless, a few themes emerged:•Take the money and run. Participantsin the scenario exercises universally believed that self-preservation forPresidentTrumpand his family will be Trump’s first and possibly only priorityif he is forced to concede electoral defeat.Before he leaves office he might maximize the flow of federal money into Trump businesses (moves played: direct COVID-19relief package for Trump hotels; relocate to Mar-a-Lago for the final months of his presidency); negotiate business deals with foreign countries; and purge documents that might incriminate foreign governments and business partners (for example, documents related to Jamal Khashoggi’s murder).PresidentTrump could also launch his next business venture from the White House (speculations include “MAGA TV,” possibly headed by Trump’sson-in-law Jared Kushner).

10•Pardon everyone. In almost every TIP scenario,Team Trump executed or prepared for the par-dons of relatives, campaign associates, and himself. Players took different approaches in each of the scenarios; in one scenario Trump resignedon January 19, 2021, trusting thatPencewouldsign the pardons. In another scenario, Trump executed his own pardon.In the debrief, participants noted that the pardons could be challenged only after he leaves office and someone files charges. Even with an expansive understanding of pardon powers,Trump can’t absolve himself of state crimes. He could, however, impugn the character of state officials, including, for instance, the character ofNew York State Attorney Leticia James,who has publicly threatened legal action against President Trump when he leaves office. He will certainly try to establish the narrative in advance that any efforts to hold him or his allies accountable for wrong-doing and illegality is po-litically motivated revenge.•Wag the Dog/spark aforeign adventure. There was quite a bit of speculation that Trump might himself initiate a foreign crisis shortly after the election or during the transition, perhaps to change the media narrative around a contested election, attempt to rally nationalist feelings to himself, or placate foreign leaders to whom he may feel beholden, such as Vladimir Putin.Some participants noted that in the event of political chaos in the United States, certain US adversaries might be emboldened to act opportunistically, especially if electoral contestation was generating uncertainty about who precisely was acting as Commander in Chief.From a national security perspective, participants expressed concern about US vulnerability during a contested election.•Destroy evidence.In an effort to preserve the President’s legacy and thwart future criminal inves-tigations, Team Trump ordered numerous documents destroyedin several of the exercises. Team Trump also classified many more documents as top secret and expanded the use of non-disclosure agreements.•Disrupt the transition process. In several of the TIPexercises, Team Trump refused to provide clearancesor briefings forproposed members of the incomingBidenadministration, offering only what is already in the public domain. Team Trump attempted to discredit the transition team (“We’re cooperating,but not with Democrat Antifa agents”). In a debrief, one participant ex-pressed concern that Attorney General Barr could launch a bogus investigation into “terrorist ties”of the Biden transition team in order to justify surveillance,and/orfacilitate a false flag op-eration before the election or when the election is still being contested.Others voiced the concern that if Trump loses badly,he could quit on the spot, making Vice President Pence interim presi-dent during the transition period. Few participants found it plausible toenvision a defeated Trump gracefully engaging in the customary rite of passing the baton to the next President on Inaugura-tion Day.During several of the TIP exercises, TeamBiden attempted to enterintonegotiations with Team Trumpabout a pardon and gracefultransition, but those overtures were consistently rejected. Inmultiple in-stances, Team Biden offered to talk about pardons. In one instance, Team Biden’s strategy–in anticipa-tion of an ultimate loss–wasto strengthen its hand in order to negotiate a package of structural reforms to the democratic system (including making DC and Puerto Rico states, abolishing the Electoral College, and requiring Supreme Court justices to retire at 70). It is not clear whether the failure to compromise during these scenario exercises should be viewed as pre-dictive of likely future behavior by Trump and his representatives, or whether the game structureof the scenario exercises rewarded partisan actions. What is clear is that, if he is faced with having to negotiate an “exit package” with the incoming Biden team, President Trump has incentives to increase the chaos or damage to the institutions during the transition process, in order to improve his negotiating leverage re-garding that exit package.