reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Whitney Webb and Charlie Robinson discuss predictions of chaos around the 2020 U.S. presidential election and how intelligence-linked simulations anticipated turmoil long before the coronavirus crisis, with outcomes ranging from a constitutional crisis to martial law. They point to simulations produced by networks tied to former Bush or Obama officials, neocon think tanks like PNAC, and allied groups. They argue these drills are not mere “war games” but part of a toolkit that maps possible futures, and note a pattern of simulations preceding major events such as 9/11, the anthrax attacks, London’s bombings, and the coronavirus crisis. Two organizations created around March are highlighted: the Transition Integrity Project and the National Task Force on Election Crises. The Transition Integrity Project’s cofounder Rosa Brooks is described as an Obama-era DOD and Hillary Clinton State Department adviser, previously special counsel to the president of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and affiliated with the New America Think Tank, funded by Eric Schmidt, the Gates Foundation, Pierre Omidyar, Jeff Skoll, Reid Hoffman, and Craig Newmark. The other cofounder, Nils Gilman, is vice president of programs for the Berggruen Institute, which envisions a transnational network addressing AI and gene editing. Membership overlaps exist across both groups, including Michael Chertoff, Max Boot, David Fromm, Bill Crystal, John Podesta, Robert Gates, and Larry Wilkerson, with Wilkerson being a prominent public figure in both efforts. The groups’ membership is not fully public, but various reports note their overlap and the presence of PNAC-linked figures. The groups reportedly gamed four election scenarios: ambiguous results, a Biden victory, a Trump victory, and a narrow Biden win. A particularly striking hypothetical under a clear Trump win describes the Biden campaign encouraging Cascadia—California, Oregon, and Washington—to secede unless Republicans agreed to reforms such as granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico; dividing California into five states; mandating Supreme Court retirements at 70; and eliminating the Electoral College. The scenario then envisions Congress awarding the presidency to Biden, with Pence and Republicans resisting, leading to a constitutional crisis in which the military’s role remains unclear. The discussion emphasizes that the people behind these simulations—like PNAC alumni—“are not Nostradamus” but seek to shape outcomes by prefiguring them. The conversation also covers how some involved openly support Biden, and how the campaigns leverage narratives of democracy threats. Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks about not conceding are juxtaposed with the TIP projections. They discuss campaign energy differentials, the debate dynamics, and the perception that Biden’s team seeks stability and predictability, while Trump’s unpredictability complicates control. They examine cyber and foreign interference narratives. Cybereason, an Israeli-founded cybersecurity firm with Unit 8200 ties, has major investors such as Lockheed Martin and Microsoft-linked entities; its founder served in Israeli intelligence. Cybereason’s work, and broader CTI League efforts, are cited as manifesting the external dimension of election security narratives. The discussion critiques media and political elites who promote foreign-interference threats while overlapping with pro-Israel intelligence circles. They argue these dynamics intersect with broader agendas, including AI governance and the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, suggesting a convergence of technocratic power, media narratives, and political operatives aimed at managing or engineering political outcomes. They close by signaling ongoing reporting on these themes, highlighting the need to recognize the pattern of simulations, prepositioning, and narratives intended to normalize drastic interventions around elections, including potential continuity-of-government scenarios.