Why is mainstream media and Big Tech blocking an old CNN report on Smartmatic?

You can't find the report on CNN's website. If you try to upload it anywhere, they quickly flag it for removal. As the saying goes, when you're taking flak you know you're over the target.

A report by CNN from 2006 details very obvious voter fraud perpetrated by the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez using Smartmatic Voting Systems. But you can’t find the video on CNN’s website. You can’t find it on their YouTube channel or Facebook. You can’t even find it in their archives. The story and the video have been scrubbed completely.

They’ve taken it a step further than usual. Anyone who tries to post the video to Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube finds their post is quickly censored. CNN is actively trying to prevent anyone from seeing their own reporting from back in the days when they still pretended to do real journalism. It was a very good exposé that drew the conclusions regarding Chavez. Let’s see if those conclusions sound familiar…

During his last election, Chavez was losing badly on election night. But miraculously overnight he was able to reverse the course of the election and declare victory. Votes magically appeared for him in the early morning hours following election night that pulled him from the abyss into the winner’s circle. The resemblance to what happened in Venezuela a decade and a half ago is strikingly similar to what happened in the United States on election night and the early morning hours the next day.

Contrary to a plethora of fact-checks that claim there is no connection between Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems, the company at the heart of voter fraud allegations in the United States, the truth is this. Smartmatic bought Sequoia Voting Systems in 2005. Dominion purchased parts of Sequoia in 2010, including components and software from Smartmatic that are still used by Dominion today.

There is a small labyrinth of shell companies and subsidiaries used by fact-checkers to justify their “debunkings” about the connections, but it’s real. For example, one mainstream media fact-checker claimed that since Smartmatic technically bought Sequoia through their Florida subsidiary, Smartmatic Florida, to circumvent federal government scrutiny, TECHNICALLY it wasn’t Smartmatic who was directly connected to the sale of their equipment and software to Dominion. Seriously, folks, that’s how they justify their “false” labels on “fact-checks.”

We often see on the internet videos labeled, “They don’t want you to see this!!!” Usually, it’s some silly theory or meaningless bit of old news. With this CNN video, they truly, vehemently do not want you to see it.

The media and big tech believe they have the right to decide what information Americans can have. That is corruption to the core.

Americans had freedom of speech and press under the Articles of Confederation - that is, under their individual states, considering how weak that “national government” was. When the Federalists promoted ratification of the Constitution, Antifederalists rose in opposition - claiming that since the Constitution didn’t have a bill of rights, ratifying it would lead to the extinguishment of Americans’ rights. The Constitution wouldn’t have been ratified but for the Federalists’ concession of a commitment to promptly installing a bill of rights by amendment.
That history is well known, but its implications for the interpretation of the Bill of Rights was new to me when I heard Scalia explain it. Since the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to suppress controversy over rights, there is no case to be made that the BoR was understood by its ratifiers as anything other than a reification of existing, well understood, rights. That is, the BoR did not change anyone’s rights! Its sole intent was to cast Americans’ existing rights in concrete.
From that POV the enumeration of rights in the first eight amendments is not definitive. It is the last two of the BoR’s amendments which actually define the intent of the BoR as a whole:
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So the original intent of the ratification of the BoR was clearly not to weaken pornography laws, or libel laws. The First Amendment no more entitles a printer to arbitrarily destroy a politician’s earned reputation than the Second Amendment entitles a gun owner to shoot Steve Scalise.
No court ever held that the First Amendment affected libel law until in 1964 the Warren Court handed down its New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision. Justifying itself with the fatuous claim that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
Sullivan (unanimously, with enthusiastic concurrences) held that public officials (including judges) presumptively could not sue for libel.
JUSTICE SCALIA: THE 45 WORDS — AND ORIGINAL MEANING — OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT - published the year Scalia died - wrote of Scalia’s objection to Sullivan:
But in Times v. Sullivan, Scalia said the Supreme Court, under Justice Earl Warren, “… simply decided, ‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea anymore.’”
The trouble with that conceit is the fact that - particularly under the aegis of the AP and other wire services - all major journalists “meet together” virtually on a continuous basis. And Adam Smith’s prediction of what that would mean
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)
only too clearly came to pass in journalism a very long time ago.
Sullivan presumes unbiased, ideologically diverse, presses - a fact already not in evidence in 1964, but a risible conceit in the Trump era. Journalists simply like crises, and that makes their product systematically negative - even cynical - towards society. The slant of journalism runs counter to the public interest. Democrat politicians, as is their right, go along perfectly and get along famously with the journalism cartel. Consequently Democrats never are libeled, and their opposition is - under the Sullivan disposition - libeled mercilessly without recourse.
Sullivan is killing us. Unanimous decision or no, it has to go. With the seating of ACB on SCOTUS, it is possible that Sullivan can be overturned.
I confess that I would, given my druthers, overturn Sullivan only insofar as the journalism cartel is concerned. I certainly would not see FR sued for libel because of some FReeper’s post . . .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.