On August 19, President Donald Trump tweeted something that sent the left – particularly his former presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton – into fits of outrage. That may not seem like news, but it is the subject of the tweet that shines a light upon the greatest threat to America’s electoral systems. That threat comes not from Russia or China, but from an American tech company that has become far too powerful: Alphabet, the parent company of Google.
The offending Trump tweet read: “Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Election! This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought!”
Debunked by Whom?
Clinton shot back that said report had been “debunked,” though she offered no evidence to support her claim. “Debunked” is a favorite word of leftists: They use it as though it were some kind of magic spell to dismiss any study, statistic, or media article that questions their beliefs or opinions – or even their feelings. Usually, without any credible evidence, they will claim that something has been “debunked” and, abracadabra, it is debunked!
In reality, though, the author of the report to which the president referred is Dr. Robert Epstein, a psychologist and long-time staunch Clinton supporter. In fact, Epstein on August 20 even tweeted a photograph of himself standing next to a smiling Hillary Clinton. He was responding to Clinton’s claim that his “report” – the result of a survey of Google’s politically biased search results – had been debunked.
.@HillaryClinton, whom I have strongly supported for many years, told blatant lies about me today. As a result, I have been subjected to widespread condemnation by mainstream media. I'm going to fight this. Stay tuned tomorrow for my first-ever twitter storm. pic.twitter.com/CrPHMycVBu
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
Epstein, a Harvard graduate, has been warning since 2016 that Google is deliberately meddling in US elections. True to his word, he was not finished with the failed White House candidate. “to my knowledge,” Epstein tweeted,” no credible authority has ever ‘debunked’ either my 2016 and 2018 election monitoring projects or my controlled studies on internet influence.”
The Google-DNC Love Connection
The doctor’s Twitter feed is a veritable avalanche of studies, media articles, and documents that support his sinister claims about Google, including numerous easily verifiable facts that prove the coziness of Google’s relationship with the Democratic Party.
Epstein points out that “About 96% of 2016 campaign donations from #Google employees went to #Hillary.” He also asserts that Clinton’s chief analytics officer claimed that his own 2012 tech team can take the credit for almost half of Barack Obama’s “win margin” in the presidential election that year.
Of Epstein’s many damming tweets about Google, one stands out as conclusive proof that the tech monolith is all-in for the Democrats. The doctor posted an image of a leaked email from Google head, Eric Schmidt, to Cheryl Mills, who was one of Clinton’s top aides during the 2016 campaign. The email is dated April 15, 2014, which demonstrates the amount of advanced preparation Google was putting into helping get Clinton elected.
A leaked email showed that in 2014 #Google's #EricSchmidt offered to run #Hillary's tech campaign (see pic). In 2015, Schmidt in fact funded The Groundwork, a highly secretive tech company, the sole purpose of which was to put Clinton into office. https://t.co/rXMNH9bLYV pic.twitter.com/MRjGpCJcvr
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
On Friday, August 2, former Google engineer Kevin Cernekee spoke with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, telling him that the search engine giant intended to work toward getting Trump out of office in 2020. “I think that’s a major threat,” Cernekee said in response to Carlson’s question about Google’s intention to influence the election. “They have openly stated that they think 2016 was a mistake. They thought Trump should have lost in 2016. They really want Trump to lose in 2020. That’s their agenda.”
Aside from all the talk of algorithms and other technical explanations of how Google’s search engine operates, the theory that the company does, indeed, discriminate against conservatives is difficult to deny. Bring up search results on any political issue or simply take a look at Google News at any time and one will find that the top results overwhelmingly are left-leaning articles.
While it is well known that the media industry, in general, leans mainly left, Google practically gives one the impression that pro-conservative and pro-Republican news and opinion is virtually non-existent.
On Twitter, Epstein points out that Trump’s tweet was incorrect. “The level of pro-#Hillary bias I found in #Google’s search results – absent on #Bing & #Yahoo – was enough to convince between 2.6 & 10.4 million undecided voters to vote for Hillary. .@realDonaldTrump said 16 million; that’s wrong.”
If the doctor’s research accurately reflects Google’s potential influence, though, he is certainly suggesting that Clinton’s roughly three million—vote margin of victory in the 2016 popular vote might never have existed without the tech company’s manipulation of voters by running its search results through a political filter.
The left-wing media largely ignores Epstein or attempts to discredit his research while Democrats have no interest in discussing his work even though he has testified before Congress. The was considerable hysteria over a few Russian Facebook posts and some fake Twitter accounts in 2016. Some Democrats and their media lackeys have often claimed that these Russians swung the election in Trump’s favor.
One would have thought, then, that Democrats and journalists alike would be climbing over each other to demand Congress take steps to ensure the 2020 election is protected against undue interference from any source. That this is not the case perhaps indicates that leftists are perfectly happy to allow the democratic process to be influenced, so long as it benefits their candidate.