Hit-piece by commie Washington Post: "U.S. officials privately advise states fearing Trump election meddling"

One of the oldest and most often used tricks in the communist/leftist/Democrat/"proggie" playbook sounds too simple to be true:  They accuse their opponents of doing something they themselves are doing.

The reason this always works is that if the Democrats are discovered to have been doing the exact thing they accused their opponents of doing--the instant response is 

"Today's totally false, baseless, malicious accusation by Republican dirty-tricks "operatives" against ouah totally honest party is nothing but a transparent effort by Republicans to deceive voters by accusing ouah party of doing exactly what we told you weeks ago that they were doing!
    "Surely ALL good, honest voters can easily see the Republicans are obviously just trying to deflect attention from what we told you weeks ago that we'd caught them doing!  And since Republicans have no imagination, they couldn't even invent some new charge, so dey merely accused US of what they were doing!  They're simply copying ouah true claim from weeks ago to try to deflect voter attention from their own crimes!
   "Of course American voters are too smart to fall for this obvious deflection!

With that in mind, consider this total hit-piece from the communist Washington Post, dated October 20, 2026 (two weeks before the mid-term elections) titled  

"U.S. officials privately advise states fearing Trump election meddling"

A small group of U.S. national security officials has been discreetly advising state governments and congressional lawmakers on how to prepare for the possibility that the Trump administration will attempt to interfere in November's midterm elections, according to people involved in the effort.

Note the phrase "will attempt to interfere..."  Not "may" or "might" or "could," but "will."  If you think that's just an accident, or trivial, you're too damn stupid to breathe.
   And unnamed "national security officials," y'say?  Would those be the same officials who signed the utterly lying open letter saying Hunty bribem's abandoned laptop was a "Russian disinformation op"-- without ever examining the laptop?  Without determining that the FBI had seized it (meaning it definitely existed)?

The group includes about 10 current and former officials with experience in the Defense Department, some of whom have previously focused on countering authoritarianism abroad.

Of course no names, even though the hit-piece says "current and former officials.  You'd think former officials wouldn't be worried about being fired, yet they still refused to put their names on this dastardly piece of shit lie.

Their efforts are motivated not by political bias, they say, but a growing sense of alarm that President Donald Trump will harm American democracy by undermining the integrity of the vote to keep the Republican Party in power.

Note the author (Tarasov) did NOT say "by massive vote fraud," because lots of Americans would think "Wait, that's exactly what Republicans accused the Democrats of doing in 2020--and yet the Mainstream Media sneered at that, claiming it couldn't possibly have been true.  "Wild conspiracy theory!"  But NOW when the Dems (the Post) make the same claim even before the election, they expect readers to believe it's totally credible?  What horseshit!"

Over the past several months the group has consulted with officials from 10 states, including governors, election officials and members of the House and Senate from both political parties who share a fear of federal intervention, two people involved in the effort said.

Notice the order of the phrasing: First a long list of officials, naming their positions, claiming members of both parties and their "fears of federal intervention" (NOT "massive vote fraud," eh?)--and then at the very end "...two people said."
  If the propagandist had started with "Two people said..." it would drastically weaken the 'graf.  So the miniscule, nameless "source" is placed at the end of the graf.  It's not an accident.

The effort...focuses on states and jurisdictions [??] where tightly contested races will determine control of Congress for the remainder of Trump's presidency. Members of the group remain in contact with congressional staffs, and at least one state has continued to meet with them as it works to address potential vulnerabilities.

"All of them have said we're concerned but we don't know what to do," one member of the group said of its meetings with lawmakers.

A magnificent appeal to emotion: "We po' state election officials iz hepless 'gainst duh rapacious Orange Kang an' we haz no idea whut to doo!  Pwease hep us, SuperDemocratMan!"

"This report is based on interviews, conducted over several months, with two officials involved in the effort."

Ahhh, a "report," y'say?  Guess saying "This propaganda piece" would have been too on-the-nose, eh?   And note that the original "group of ten" is now shown to be interviews with just two.  "Ohhh but the other 8 were in the group, we jus' din' interview 'em!  But we were able to count the heads in the room, so..."

They spoke on the condition of anonymity and that the lawmakers and state leaders with whom the group has met not be identified either, for fear of retaliation.

So, totally anonymous.  What a surprise.  Everyone in the hit-piece is unnamed.

In their discussions ahead of the midterms, the national security officials [many of whom have been shown to be lying, socialist/Dem rat-bastards] have detailed ways the Trump administration could use its federal powers to sway the upcoming vote, covering categories that include legal and illegal activity.  Among their concerns are that the administration could deploy troops or immigration agents to polling stations or seek to nullify results based on claims of voter fraud.

Just curious, WaPo shill: if illegal aliens aren't voting in national elections, why would anyone be even remotely concerned about "immigration agents" or troops being at voting locations?

Their meetings with lawmakers have mainly focused on raising awareness, especially among Republicans, of the potential for interference and on counseling them to be prepared to publicly oppose any such efforts. With state governments, they've focused more on how to harden election protocols that could be exploited by the federal government, the two members of the group said.

"...how to harden election protocols that could be exploited by the federal government," y'say?  That's an curiously vague phrase.  Would that be things like insisting that signatures on mail-in ballots match those on file from when the actual voter registered?  Or maybe refusing to count ballots that don't have required witness signatures?  Or maybe only mailing ballots to registered voters who request 'em after stating a valid reason?  Or is all that too arcane for your vague phrasing?

Their warnings are based on personal analysis of the administration's activities and public statements made by the president and his allies - not access to specific government intelligence or information to which they have access because of their positions within federal agencies, members of the group said. They described the meetings as a way to help state and federal officials secure the election and emphasized that their work has occurred outside of their official capacity as government employees.

Still, their efforts indicate an extraordinary level of concern that Trump may use his authority to influence the election or challenge the results, similar to his extended campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election that culminated with a raid on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump's approval rating is at record lows only weeks ahead of the Nov. 3 midterms, with voters frustrated about the cost of living and the war in Iran. Democrats appear likely to flip the House and possibly the Senate, and have vowed to intensify oversight of the administration if they regain power.

Election officials, including some Republicans, have decried efforts by the Trump administration to assert federal control over a process that the Constitution entrusts to the states. Some GOP-led states, such as Utah, have refused to comply with the administration's efforts to access their voter rolls.

Interesting that the author did NOT mention Democrart-ruled shitholes like California, which has also refused.  Ohh, got it: the Post doesn't wanna make Dem-ruled shitholes look corrupt.  Of course.

"The threats that we're getting now are mostly from our own government," Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson told The Post earlier this month.

"Threats," shill?  You mean threats like "trying to enforce U.S. law that says only citizens can vote in federal elections?"  THAT kind of threat?  WOW, how DARE the president try to enforce valid U.S. law, eh?
   Y'know, the thing the Constitution commands him to do.
   Oh wait: you don't know jack-shit about the Constitution!  Apparently you've never read it, or you wouldn't be screaming that enforcing U.S. law was a "threat."

Good ol' Deidre is a either a RINO or stupid--and I'll go either way you want on that one.

In January the FBI raided an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, and seized voting materials in an investigation tied to Trump's debunked claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election. Trump told the New York Times in an interview earlier this year that he regretted not having the National Guard seize voting machines during that race.

As he has campaigned on behalf of Republicans, Trump has repeated his claims about the 2020 election and that Democrats are attempting mass voter fraud ahead of the midterms. In October, a group of nongovernmental organizations sued the administration, alleging that it unlawfully collected voting data from 47 states.

In the U.S. anyone can sue for anything.  Question is, did the Supreme Court agree with the Dems that it's illegal for the federal govt to insist that states follow federal law in only letting citizens vote in federal elections?  No?  Gosh, you'd think that would be highly relevant to a factual article, eh?     
   Oh wait...this is a hit-piece, which only uses selected facts--"a group of NGOs from 47 states sued"--without providing anything that would give context.  Classic.

Throughout the year [Trump] has unsuccessfully urged Congress to pass an election security bill--the SAVE America Act--that would give the federal government more authority over the voting process.

This is a Freudian slip:  Even the Democrat-fellating shitheads at the Post describe the Save America Act as an "election security bill."

The GOP-controlled Senate has not done so, as passing the bill would require ending the chamber's 60-vote threshold known as the filibuster.

This is a classic:  First, leading with "The GOP-controlled senate" implies that even the GOP doesn't want to pass the bill.  That's a lie: they just can't pass it--even though they have a majority--because the Dems have said they'll filibuster, meaning it would then take 60 votes to pass!  And the Dems refuse to provide the nine lousy votes needed!

Then an equally brazen lie, that passing the bill would "require ending the...60-vote threshold known as the filibuster."  Total lie.  If just nine corrupt Democrat monsters vote to make election fraud harder--voting a bill even the Post says is an "election security bill"--the filibuster would still remain.  But of course senate Democrats refuse to vote to pass the bill--precisely because it would make election fraud harder, by requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, and photo-ID to vote--both of which would cost the Democrats millions of illegal votes.  

Trump and some of his top Cabinet officials also have declined to rule out the possibility that they will send members of the military or immigration agents to polling stations, alarming Democrats.

Dems bleat that illegal alien invaders aren't voting.  If that's true, why would sending ICE to polling places be of ANY concern to Democrats, eh?  Gotcha, assholes.

During a combative Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in late April, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked whether he would refuse a presidential order to deploy troops to the polls or to collect voting machines. He dismissed the question, posed by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan), as a "hypothetical."

Wait, is this the same Slotkin who was videoed saying that she wanted to intimidate young Americans who might be considering applying for a job in the Trump administration to get them to decline, by threatening to prosecute them?  As she put it, she wanted to "send a "deterrent message" to 'em.  Wow, and that bitch is a senator!

When the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Roger Wicker (Mississippi), urged Hegseth to provide a response, the secretary said, "I've never been ordered to do anything illegal, and I won't."

In August, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to Slotkin and said that there were no plans to deploy troops to the polls or seize voting records.

But the damage was done, exactly as the Dems intended, and the shitheads at the Post parroted: "Hegseth dismissed the question," planting the idea that he *might* send troops.  Mission accomplished for the Dems and their fellators at the Post.<<

Source: Washington Post.  If behind a paywall, use source 2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/10/20/us-officials-quietly-advise-states-fearing-trump-election-meddling/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/u-officials-privately-advise-states-122930503.html