“2000 Mules” Sheds Light on Zuckerberg’s Disproportionate Gifts to Cities in 5 Swing States, Which Were Heavily Democrat, in Violation of Law

munkle

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2012
4,550
7,498
1,930
Bottom line, Zuckerberg broke the law.



1651693177749.png


"The law on non-profits, such as the Chan-Zuckerberg Foundation, engaging in “get out the vote” activism is clear.

IRS.gov:

“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.”

This means it is not against the law to donate to activities which increase voter turnout, as long as they do not favor any one candidate.

As many states move to ban all private donations to public election departments, fall-out from the new 2020 election documentary “2000 Mules” continues to grow. A simple calculation shows that, contrary to the letter and spirit of the law, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg funneled a disproportionate share of the $250 million he gave to Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), to cities in five swing states which averaged 78.5% for Clinton in 2016.

The data was collected by the Minnesota Voters Alliance, the plaintiff in a lawsuit against CTCL in 2020. The case, and others like it, was dismissed by multiple Wisconsin Judges.

Zuckerberg was sued by citizens in 2020 forwhat they said were illegal donations in swing states, but the possible end use of those funds, to have ballot drop boxes in place which could be stuffed, is shown only now with the release of “2000 Mules.”

Specifically, court documents taking data directly from CTCL show that, although the left-leaning non-profit gave money to election departments in all 50 states, including red states and counties, it vastly turned up the dial in eleven cities and three counties in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Georgia.

With just 3% of the US population in total, $33 million, or 13% of the $250 million Chan-Zuckerberg gave to CTCL, went to these critical populations where “2000 Mules” now shows shady drop box activity was heavy.

Source below: Amounts given by Zuckerberg through CTCL conduit to key swing states. Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. City of Minneapolis, Complaint

screenshot-2022-05-03-10.19.06-pm.png


In a rebuttal to what it called “frivolous” lawsuits against it concerning Zuckerberg funds given to some Wisconsin cities, CTCL argued that it had distributed funds for it’s “COVID-19 Response Grant Program” across all 50 states in both Democrat and Republican leaning jurisdictions.

However, the data shows that the spigot was not turned on evenly everywhere. It was fairly gushing in a few states, in certain localities where Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 by an average of 78.5%..." FULL ARTICLE


 
Last edited:
Any day now the evidence may be admissible in a court of law, someday...

It happened before and it was exposed 120 years ago when bunch of super wealthy people tried hard to get McKinley elected because they despised William Jennings Bryan who wanted to break up their monopolies and improve the poor working conditions of the employees.
 
Bottom line, Zuckerberg broke the law.



View attachment 640467

"The law on non-profits, such as the Chan-Zuckerberg Foundation, engaging in “get out the vote” activism is clear.

IRS.gov:

“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.”

This means it is not against the law to donate to activities which increase voter turnout, as long as they do not favor any one candidate.

As many states move to ban all private donations to public election departments, fall-out from the new 2020 election documentary “2000 Mules” continues to grow. A simple calculation shows that, contrary to the letter and spirit of the law, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg funneled a disproportionate share of the $250 million he gave to Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), to cities in five swing states which averaged 78.5% for Clinton in 2016.

The data was collected by the Minnesota Voters Alliance, the plaintiff in a lawsuit against CTCL in 2020. The case, and others like it, was dismissed by multiple Wisconsin Judges.

Zuckerberg was sued by citizens in 2020 forwhat they said were illegal donations in swing states, but the possible end use of those funds, to have ballot drop boxes in place which could be stuffed, is shown only now with the release of “2000 Mules.”

Specifically, court documents taking data directly from CTCL show that, although the left-leaning non-profit gave money to election departments in all 50 states, including red states and counties, it vastly turned up the dial in eleven cities and three counties in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Georgia.

With just 3% of the US population in total, $33 million, or 13% of the $250 million Chan-Zuckerberg gave to CTCL, went to these critical populations where “2000 Mules” now shows shady drop box activity was heavy.

Source below: Amounts given by Zuckerberg through CTCL conduit to key swing states. Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. City of Minneapolis, Complaint

screenshot-2022-05-03-10.19.06-pm.png


In a rebuttal to what it called “frivolous” lawsuits against it concerning Zuckerberg funds given to some Wisconsin cities, CTCL argued that it had distributed funds for it’s “COVID-19 Response Grant Program” across all 50 states in both Democrat and Republican leaning jurisdictions.

However, the data shows that the spigot was not turned on evenly everywhere. It was fairly gushing in a few states, in certain localities where Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 by an average of 78.5%..." FULL ARTICLE



You actually give a shit about this?

Man...you must have NO life.
 
The same kind of evidence is accepted in court. The same technology has been used to solve cold cases.

- Non-profit get out the vote funding is not illegal, as long as it is not biased to any party or candidate

- Ready? $33 million of Zuckerberg's $250M to CTCL went to just 3% of the US population, tightly concentrated in 4 swing states, in areas where Hillary won by an average of 80%. That is 13% of grants to 3% of the population

- Per-voter dollars in these areas was as much as $30 - $53 per voter. All other jurisdictions were a few bucks per voter.

This is clear bias. Throw in fraudulent ballot stuffing, using illegal boxes, and you've got a number of felonies. Wisconsin should be forced to match signatures on every single absentee ballot.
 
I wonder how many Zuck bucks went to fund GA Gov Kemp or former CISA cuck Crebs new venture?
 
Bottom line, Zuckerberg broke the law.



View attachment 640467

"The law on non-profits, such as the Chan-Zuckerberg Foundation, engaging in “get out the vote” activism is clear.

IRS.gov:

“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.”

This means it is not against the law to donate to activities which increase voter turnout, as long as they do not favor any one candidate.

As many states move to ban all private donations to public election departments, fall-out from the new 2020 election documentary “2000 Mules” continues to grow. A simple calculation shows that, contrary to the letter and spirit of the law, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg funneled a disproportionate share of the $250 million he gave to Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), to cities in five swing states which averaged 78.5% for Clinton in 2016.

The data was collected by the Minnesota Voters Alliance, the plaintiff in a lawsuit against CTCL in 2020. The case, and others like it, was dismissed by multiple Wisconsin Judges.

Zuckerberg was sued by citizens in 2020 forwhat they said were illegal donations in swing states, but the possible end use of those funds, to have ballot drop boxes in place which could be stuffed, is shown only now with the release of “2000 Mules.”

Specifically, court documents taking data directly from CTCL show that, although the left-leaning non-profit gave money to election departments in all 50 states, including red states and counties, it vastly turned up the dial in eleven cities and three counties in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Georgia.

With just 3% of the US population in total, $33 million, or 13% of the $250 million Chan-Zuckerberg gave to CTCL, went to these critical populations where “2000 Mules” now shows shady drop box activity was heavy.

Source below: Amounts given by Zuckerberg through CTCL conduit to key swing states. Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. City of Minneapolis, Complaint

screenshot-2022-05-03-10.19.06-pm.png


In a rebuttal to what it called “frivolous” lawsuits against it concerning Zuckerberg funds given to some Wisconsin cities, CTCL argued that it had distributed funds for it’s “COVID-19 Response Grant Program” across all 50 states in both Democrat and Republican leaning jurisdictions.

However, the data shows that the spigot was not turned on evenly everywhere. It was fairly gushing in a few states, in certain localities where Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 by an average of 78.5%..." FULL ARTICLE



Violating the "spirit of the law" and violating the ACTUAL law are 2 entirely different things
 
Violating the "spirit of the law" and violating the ACTUAL law are 2 entirely different things

In this case Zuckerbucks did both.

IRS.gov:
"absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate"

Nothing ambiguous about that. Zuck intervened on behalf of a candidate, Biden. An honest DA is some red state could indict Zuck right now. Dinesh is going to dump his terabytes of pings and video on the Internet for anyone to reconstruct his allegations. I'm sure he'd be happy to give a DA's computer gets a guiding hand.
 
Last edited:
In this case Zuckerbucks did both.

IRS.gov:
"absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate"

Nothing ambiguous about that. Zuck intervened on behalf of a candidate, Biden. An honest DA is some red state could indict Zuck right now. Dinesh is going to dump his terabytes of pings and video on the Internet for anyone to reconstruct his allegations. I'm sure he'd be happy to give a DA's computer gets a guiding hand.
It seems your beef is with the get out the vote groups
 
It happened before and it was exposed 120 years ago when bunch of super wealthy people tried hard to get McKinley elected because they despised William Jennings Bryan who wanted to break up their monopolies and improve the poor working conditions of the employees.
Moonglow trollyboy sure embarrasses himself here everyday.:abgg2q.jpg:
 

Forum List

Back
Top