Today, Facebook and Twitter crossed a line. It has long been known that they have been engaging in censorship of views they do not like, typically those of Conservatives. But today, they went one step further. Today, they engaged in election interference, confirming something that Conservatives have known for many years: these are not platforms, they are publishers.

An article was published in the New York Post earlier today, detailing Hunter Biden’s email correspondence. Hunter, the son of Democrat nominee for President, former Vice President Joe Biden, with the Ukraine. Now it is widely known that Hunter has had business dealings with the Ukraine, given it has been the subject of much media coverage and scrutiny over the time in which Joe Biden has been running for President. However, the former VP has consistently claimed he had no knowledge of his son’s business dealings. The emails detailed in this report from the NY Post are thereby damning given they show that Biden was indeed involved in Hunter’s dealings with the Ukraine. This means that for months on end, Biden has been lying about his involvement. There is a very real possibility, hell, it is practically a reality, that the former VP is corrupt.

But there is a far greater concern than this that has emerged from the flames of the fire. When this report was published, it was, as is the norm nowadays, shared around on social media, particularly Twitter and Facebook. However, these social media “platforms” jumped on the article, doing all they could to practically wipe it from history. Facebook started taking down the posts, claiming it was a publishing decision (something that is limited to publishers, not platforms), and Twitter went on a suspension spree, locking the accounts of people who shared the article and removing the tweets. They locked out Hollywood actor James Woods, known for being a staunch Conservative, and political commentator Jack Posobiec. But then they went overboard when they locked out President Trump’s Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany. This is where it crossed over from mass censorship to election interference.

See these Silicon Valley companies, also known as Big Tech, claim to be “platforms”. Platforms allow for the free sharing of information with very limited restrictions. In other words, people should not be punished for simply sharing their political views, or a news article like that published by the NY Post. A publisher, on the other hand, has the ability to choose what is published on their site, and thus can remove posts if they so wish. As previously mentioned, Facebook and Twitter both claim to be platforms. Now it is well known that the companies’ CEOs Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, alongside most of those who work for these social media companies, are liberals. They do not like Conservative views, being quick to censor them regularly. Many Conservatives have had their accounts suspended or indeed removed completely from these “platforms” simply for sharing opposing views to their creators. This is unacceptable under the provisions that constitute a platform. To understand this however, we must look to Section 230 of the US Communications Act.

In essence, Section 230 provides both providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information from third parties with immunity from liability. Furthermore, it provides what is termed as “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for the operators of such interactive computer services in moderating and/or removing any third-party material that they deem to be either obscene or offensive, as long as it is done in good faith. This is the privilege extended to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, so long as they are classified as such.

However, in the actions these two social media giants have taken today, they have overstepped their boundaries, removing material that was neither obscene nor offensive. Indeed, the only issue with the article from the NY Times was that it did significant damage to the Biden campaign, evident from the actions of the campaign this morning in calling a lid at 10:30am. More notably, neither Joe Biden nor his campaign team have refuted the substance of the article, bringing into question Biden’s innocence in all this. It speaks volumes that Biden would call a lid after this was published, given the very action itself screams guilt.

Now it was only a few days ago that Twitter announced a new Civic Integrity Policy that they would be implementing in order to prevent any election interference. The irony in this is that they have now done just that themselves. In engaging in mass censorship that was clearly not in good faith this morning, and striking down Kayleigh McEnany’s account, they made a grave error. They stepped out of the shadows and revealed themselves to be a publisher. It is something that has been known by many for years, but they have now practically admitted it amidst their reckless actions. Facebook have done the same, making it clear as day when they said they chose to take down the article based on a publishing decision, a privilege that is not extended to platforms, rather being limited solely to publishers. Both companies have essentially ceded any rights they have as a platform.

This time, Big Tech have really bitten off more than they can chew. President Trump is not at all happy with what they have done, especially taking into consideration that they went after his Press Secretary. He is not the only one, with a host of other Republican members of Congress, including Texan Senator Ted Cruz, irate with the farce that these social media giants have become. Cruz in particular has been a vocal proponent of free speech on these platforms and others, including YouTube, having stood up for Conservative commentator and comedian Steven Crowder when he was demonetized by the video sharing “platform” last year after countless attacks. Crowder still faces such issues even now after he was re-monetized, unsurprising given his Conservative views and takedowns of Left-Wing ideologues and their talking points. Cruz, amongst others, has raised these issues in the Senate, however little has come of it.

But now, that is likely all about to change. President Trump has reportedly called a meeting with Republicans for this weekend to discuss the ramifications of the egregious actions partaken in by both Facebook and Twitter, with many calling for Section 230 to be repealed. It would appear some in the Trump administration have caught onto this, with McEnany today setting a broken clock she owns to 2:30 before appearing on Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News. This clock has been set to specific times over the last few days (including 3:11, to represent November 3, which is Election Day, and 3:16, representative of the famous Bible verse John 3:16) as she appears from home while isolating after testing positive to COVID-19. It is essential that Section 230 is repealed, or at the very least that Facebook and Twitter are officially classified as publishers so that they cannot claim the special privileges of the Section.

In addition to this, Zuckerberg and Dorsey should be hauled to front Congress and explain themselves. Although Dorsey and Twitter claim there was a communication error and that the Hunter Biden article was removed because it “contained personal information”, they must show how this was any different to the stories published and shared on the President’s taxes, and the recordings of private conversations of the First Lady. If they are going to take down tweets for these reasons, they need to be consistent across the board, no matter which political side is affected.

Essentially, if you are going to claim to be a platform, you take zero responsibility for the content posted on your platform and have nothing to do with it. Otherwise, if you want the ability to edit and take responsibility for what is posted, you declare yourself as a publisher. It is quite simple.

Facebook and Twitter must also explain why they are engaging in election interference. This is something the Democrats accused Russia of doing back in 2016, which turned out to be a hoax, but this time it is a very real issue. These Big Tech companies pose a threat to democracy, attempting to cover up for Joe Biden in the hope that he will win the election. It is something that must be dealt with to ensure the integrity of the 2020 Election, which takes place in just under three weeks.

Big Tech must not be allowed to control journalism. What occurred this morning was Orwellian, like something out of a political dystopia where the truth is censored so that falsehoods may be preserved in an effort to ensure political victory for one side. These companies must be held to account and regulated so as to prevent any further attempts to interfere with a democratic election. But while we await this, we must be wary that all Conservatives are under threat from these tech giants now. If they can take down the Press Secretary, they can take down anyone.

Big Tech have declared digital warfare. It is crucial we do not let them win.

The dominoes are falling in Victoria. The truth is beginning to escape the confines of the Hotel Quarantine Inquiry. After Peta Credlin’s appearance at last Friday’s press conference, Premier Daniel Andrews and a number of other senior staff were asked to provide their phone records by the Board of Inquiry. An astonishing development, given it came within two days of Credlin’s new line of questioning. These phone records have ultimately proven that Chris Eccles, Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, made a call to former Police Commissioner Graham Ashton at 1:17pm on March 27, the day the hotel quarantine was announced, a time which fell squarely in the key 6 minute period that was unaccounted for.

After this revelation, this morning Eccles, the head of the public service in Victoria, resigned from his position effective immediately. As Premier, Daniel Andrews is responsible for Chris Eccles, yet seems unwilling to take any responsibility for the Victorian head of public service, a man who was on a salary of $600k+ a year. For perspective, that is more than the Premier himself makes, even with his recent pay rise. Upon the announcement of this major resignation, the implosion of the Victorian Labor Party has commenced. Victorian Labor MPs have reportedly begun to do the numbers, calling for Daniel Andrews’ resignation. At his daily presser, it only got worse for him when Peta Credlin made a triumphant return.

At the presser Credlin asked Andrews about Eccles and his fated phone call. She discussed how Eccles had been in the room with Daniel Andrews at the National Cabinet meeting on March 27, and left the room at 12pm, prior to the meeting’s end, after having a conversation with the Premier. He then spoke to Andrews’ Chief of Staff, who still has not appeared at the Inquiry once, who in turn spoke to Simon Phemister, the Secretary of the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions. Eccles also made a call at 1:17pm to former Chief Police Commissioner Graham Ashton, a call in which he clearly told Ashton something significant, given Eccles was the only person Ashton had any contact within the fated 6 minute period, and Ashton proceeded to contact AFP head Reece Kershaw shortly after. At 12:36 pm, one of the private security companies that ended up obtaining a $30 million contract, Unified Security, was given a heads up about the Federal Government’s COVID-19 control course would have to be completed in order to gain the contract. They told their private security that they would have to complete the course by 2:30pm. There is no reasonable excuse to justify the notion that the security company would have been told about this opportunity before the National Cabinet meeting concluded.

In that same vein, at 2pm that afternoon, Police Minister Lisa Neville met with Emergency Management Commissioner Andrew Crisp and Graham Ashton and made the call that police would not be used for the hotel quarantine program, rather private security would be favoured. This all occurred prior to the announcement by the Prime Minister that hotel quarantine would be put in place, and prior to Daniel Andrews’ own press conference where he himself announced that private security would have a part to play. This is something that he continues to be in denial about when questioned on it, as was evident when Credlin brought it up today. It is clear Daniel Andrews knows far more than he is letting on.

Peta Credlin appears to have a strategy here. She is asking questions that will provoke a response from the Board of Inquiry. When she asked Andrews about the phone records on Friday, the Board requested them within two days. Today, she focused in on Andrews’ Chief of Staff. It would be unsurprising if his Chief of Staff is hauled before the Inquiry in the next few days. In addition to this, she raised an issue with the phone records, given that Telstra cannot provide encrypted messages. That falls under the Telecommunications Act, which is Commonwealth legislation. Credlin thereby asked the Premier if both he and his senior staff would provide their devices to the Inquiry, to ensure that these messages can also be retrieved. Andrews claimed he would provide what is necessary, so this may occur and is yet to be seen. Despite this, Andrews is likely teetering on the edge of a cliff right now, dangerously close to falling over the edge. He may find himself forced out of the leadership by his own Party very soon.

But Andrews is not the only Premier in the spotlight today. In news that is sure to surprise, it appears NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian may also be on her way out. Fronting the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) today on the matter of former Wagga Wagga MP Daryl Maguire, who resigned over corruption and was expelled from the Liberal Party, Berejiklian admitted to having a ‘close personal relationship’ with the former MP. In addition to phone taps that were played at the ICAC, this has impacted on the view of Berejiklian’s judgement. Despite her capable and measured response to COVID-19 in NSW, this link to a corrupt MP may just sink her political career. Talks are already reportedly underway as to replacing her, with Senior NSW Liberals being reported to have said her tenure as Premier is over. Names are already emerging as potentially replacements, including NSW Treasurer Dominic Perrottet, NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman, and the NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces Rob Stokes. Berejiklian appears defiant, with reports saying she does not plan on resigning and that she believes she can survive this politically, however, it seems unlikely. At best, she will remain until the next State election, where she will likely be replaced as Premier beforehand. It would be somewhat of a shame if she is sacked or has to resign, given she has been one of the only Premiers with common sense throughout this COVID-19 crisis. If she is to be replaced, her replacement must ensure that he/she will follow in her stead and oppose unnecessary and arbitrary lockdowns and restrictions.

It would seem apparent that Australia may be about to lose two Premiers in the same short period of time. In a year that has been completely absurd, it would be peak 2020 if Gladys Berejiklian and Daniel Andrews were both overthrown. Australia is no stranger to changes in leadership mid-term, so it would not be completely surprising. Essentially, if Gladys must go for this, Daniel Andrews must go for the 800+ deaths that have been caused by his utter lack of competence in his quest for ultimate power in Victoria.

They say lightning never strikes twice. It would appear that does not apply to politics.

For the last 100 days, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has emerged each and every day to front the press. Since the beginning of Victoria’s second wave of COVID-19, he has provided daily updates, including case numbers and deaths, fielding questions from journalists immediately after. Many a day he has stood at the lectern for anywhere up to an hour or more, dodging questions like they are bullets that will end his political career. He brings a Minister or health official to every presser, likely in the hope that they will be able to provide some distraction from the obvious incompetence occurring within his own Government. He held journalists in contempt, talking down to them, acting as if their questions had no substance. He hid behind the hotel quarantine inquiry, an inquiry he claims to have established not for the avoidance of questions and answers, even though this is exactly what he is using it for. For months we have borne witness to more of the same day in, day out. But today, that all changed.

Earlier this morning, former Health Minister Jenny Mikakos said in a final submission to the hotel quarantine inquiry that Daniel Andrews’ testimony should be “treated with caution”. She essentially implied he had lied to the inquiry. In addition, she named Jobs Minister Martin Pakula as bearing a fair amount of responsibility for the bungled hotel quarantine program, including the hiring of private security. Although Mikakos had been thrown under the bus by Andrews, it seemed apparent she was attempting to drag him under there with her. There is nothing worse for a Premier than a Minister scorned. Mikakos is made even more dangerous by the simple fact that she has nothing to lose.  

This set up a fresh line of questioning for the press to take on at the looming daily press conference. And so, after the Premier presented the daily update, and Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton discussed the epidemiology of the day, the questions began. After Sutton fielded a few questions on various outbreaks and cases, the journalists set their sights on the Premier. As was to be expected, there were several questions asked on the subject of Mikakos and her statement, Daniel Andrews using the inquiry to deflect one after the other. It appeared that this was going to be just another standard press conference where nothing interesting gets answered. But then, a new voice in the press gallery. A familiar voice that likely caused many to do a double take. Enter Peta Credlin.

Peta Credlin, former Chief of Staff to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, lawyer, journalist, and presenter of Credlin on Sky News, had turned up to an Andrews presser. And just like that, Day 100 got interesting. Credlin began by asking Daniel Andrews questions in relation to the inquiry and its powers. She told Andrews that in a submission made by Victorian Police overnight, they made it clear that there are not adequate powers to provide the full phone records of former Police Commissioner Graham Ashton. Their submission assert that “prior to 2pm, there was a decision made in relation to the use of private security in hotel quarantine, and that the decision was made and communicated by an individual at or around 1:12pm and 1:22pm”. The submission also makes it clear that the Victorian Inquiries Act does not give the head of the hotel quarantine inquiry, former Judge Jennifer Coate, the powers to get to the evidence of the incoming phone calls of Graham Ashton. This is an important point, considering these phone records are very likely the key evidence to proving a decision, rather than a creeping assumption, was made in relation to the use of private security in the hotel quarantine program, a decision that led to Victoria’s second wave, thousands of cases, and hundreds of deaths. In response to this, Andrews said that if Judge Coate thought she needed further powers, she could ask for them through the appropriate channels. The issue with this, as Credlin immediately pointed out, is that the powers that would be necessary to obtain these all-important phone records are ones that fall under the Telecommunications Interception Act, which is Commonwealth legislation. They are Federal powers, not State ones, and thus Daniel Andrews would not be able to provide these necessary powers to Judge Coate and the Board of Inquiry. What is more, in addition to Graham Ashton’s incoming call record, Police and Emergency Services Minister Lisa Neville’s records, Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet Chris Eccles’ records, Daniel Andrews’ Chief of Staff’s records, and the Premier’s own records have not been provided to the inquiry.

It beggars belief that any genuine Inquiry would lack the power to request the key evidence of the matter being investigated. Now it could just be that Daniel Andrews has no knowledge of the Victorian Inquiries Act, which is purely absurd considering he is the Premier of Victoria and has been claiming for months that he set up this inquiry to get answers. However, considering the record of the Premier and his Government, this seems like more than just pure incompetence and lack of understanding. It reeks of a cover-up. Andrews himself said that if a request were made, they would provide the phone records. There is a key six-minute period that is unaccounted for because the phone records have not been provided. If no-one has anything to hide, why not just release all the phone records now and clear this all up?

Credlin then switched to a different topic, that of Emergency Management Victoria Commissioner Andrew Crisp. In his original evidence to a Parliamentary Inquiry on August 26, Crisp said three times that he had briefed the Police Minister Lisa Neville on the day the decision was made in regard to hotel quarantine, March 27, and March 28. Earlier this week, in a stunning revelation, Crisp completely recanted that evidence and said that he did not brief the Minister over that two-day period. The problem with this is a legal one, and as a lawyer, Peta Credlin was completely around it.

Legally, Andrew Crisp is what is known as a statutory officer. He is not a regular public servant, and thus has a different legal foundation to his work. Under Section 32 of the Emergency Management Act, Crisp is required to continually brief his Minister, that being the Police Minister. By his own admission, Crisp did not brief his Minister in a critical two-day period when Victoria was under a State of Emergency and the apparatus of hotel quarantine was being set up. However, although he had the opportunity to correct the original testimony he provided to the Parliamentary Inquiry within the 24 hours that the Hansard (official record of what is said in Parliament) was provided to him, Crisp waited six weeks to make correct the record, after Lisa Neville gave evidence at the Coate Inquiry in which she made it known she was not briefed on those two days. Daniel Andrews claims Crisp is a man of integrity. A man of integrity would have told the truth the first time around, not six weeks later after the Police Minister had backed him into a corner.

Now under Section 29 of the Emergency Management Act, Andrew Crisp has serious obligations. If in any case he were to neglect his duty, Crisp should be stood down, suspended, or removed from his position. There are provisions in the Act that if he does not adhere to its requirements, which includes briefing his Minister, that he should be suspended, and further, his commission terminated. It is a profoundly serious matter. Crisp has clearly, by a correction given of his own volition, breached the very Act to which he must always adhere. Yet he has not even been investigated over this matter. Daniel Andrews claims that, because he personally does not see this matter in the terms that Andrew Crisp has breached the Act that he as Premier administers, it becomes a matter of confidence, and that he has full confidence in Crisp as Emergency Management Commissioner. This, however, is not how it works. This matter is one of law. It is one of a legal Act to which Crisp must abide but has instead breached. As Premier, Daniel Andrews has a duty to enforce this Act. Just because he does not personally agree with it does not mean the matter rescinds to one of confidence and he can forego his duty as Premier of Victoria. If Andrews does not implicate the ramifications of this Act, then he has no respect for the law, much less the position of Premier.

Today’s press conference was only the beginning of a nightmare for Daniel Andrews. Peta Credlin is doing what many other journalists have failed to do, holding the Premier to account. Tonight, on her program, Credlin said the following: “I am not going to let this go. I will not go away. If I have to go to the Premier’s press conference every day, I will, to get answers, to get to the bottom of this debacle. I will get the truth.”

Credlin is not going to let Daniel Andrews get away with this. She is going to get justice for over 800 people who have died in Victoria, their families and loved ones. She is the hero Victoria has been waiting for.

Daniel Andrews has made a formidable enemy. Peta Credlin will be his downfall.

As if this year could not get any crazier, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has tested positive for COVID19. When he announced via Twitter on Friday that both he and the First Lady had received a positive result and were going into quarantine for two weeks, there were two vastly different kinds of reactions. From those on the Right, there was nothing but sympathy and well wishes, accompanied by enthusiasm for Trump to recover and return stronger than ever to win a second term in office. Now while there were also some on the Left who wished the President and First Lady well, there were many that chose to go down another path, one which lacks all moral decency.

Many on the Left were in fact celebrating Trump contracting COVID19. They were out on social media expressing their elation that there “may be some hope for America after all”. There were those who said he deserved it. There were those who made light of the situation by saying he should drink bleach or inject disinfectant. Even Queensland’s Deputy Premier Steven Miles joined in, tweeting “Have you considered intravenous disinfectant?” Appalling behaviour from a representative of Australia, let alone the Deputy Premier and Health Minister of Queensland. But he was not the worst of the bunch. There have in fact been far too many wishing suffering and death upon Trump. I have seen some absolutely deplorable tweets over the last couple of days, with some joking about pulling the plug on Trump’s life support and others just saying they hope he dies. Some even hoped that his family and others in his administration would contract the virus.

The irony in all this is that only days before, these same people were upset at Trump for “not denouncing white supremacists” and allowing hate to spread. Yet here they are, mere days later, spreading some of the most vile and hateful comments you would ever see. For those who preach tolerance and hold others to certain standards, they sure do not practice what they preach. Clearly, it is one set of standards for them, and one set for those they despise.

Meanwhile, the usual suspects in the media have made fools out of themselves, being unable to choose between two extremes. The first, Trump does not actually have COVID19 and is faking the whole thing. The second, Trump is worse than he seems and is practically on death’s door. Trump has single handedly exposed the extensive lack of credibility in the media. Even today, after the President was driven in a car around the outside of Walter Reed hospital, where he has been staying so that his condition can be monitored, to wave to his supporters, media types like Brian Stelter and others at CNN and the typically anti-Trump media, alongside many others on the Left, including doctors and politicians, were outraged that he would do this. Why? Because they claim it would have put the Secret Service that travel with him at risk of infection. These are the very same people who for months on end have been calling for the police to be defunded, and now they suddenly care about the Secret Service. The irony is immense.

Trump will, no doubt, be fine and beat COVID19. But what does this mean for the campaign? Well, the campaign is likely as good as over, at least for Trump personally. It will be up to others in his campaign team and administration to continue spreading his message, to continue on the trail for him now. Vice President Mike Pence will still debate Biden’s VP nominee Kamala Harris this week, and will no doubt do his best to fight on Trump’s behalf.

The President himself continues to work hard from the Presidential office in Walter Reed, and it just goes to show his dedication to the American people. Trump does not stop working, even with COVID19, while his opponent Joe Biden consistently calls lids just after 9am every other day. For those unfamiliar with the lingo, a lid is called when a candidate does not plan to do any more public events nor appearances for the remainder of that day.

It would seem, however, that even though Trump is unable to host his famous rallies and attend events, even though the campaign trail for him personally may have come to an end, he has done enough to secure a second term. Some may be skeptical of this, in particular those who are not supporters of the President. Even those who are Trump supporters have shown concern, particularly after the first debate. However, as one would learn from ex-Secret Serviceman Dan Bongino, there was a strategy. Allow me to explain.

First, some background. Presidential Elections typically go a certain way. The voters are usually divided up as follows: 40% vote Republican, 40% vote Democrat, and 20% are what you might call “fence-sitters”. This 20% have not made up their mind and are basically up for grabs by either side. Typically, the Presidential candidates campaign to ensure not only their own voters, or “bases”, turn up, but also to get at least 11% of the 20% of undecided voters on their side, so that they can win the election. Now because the United States has non-compulsory voting, not everyone is going to show up to vote. In your usual Election, each side would get maybe 20% of their 40% to actually vote, which means those undecided voters become so much more important.

However, this Presidential Election is different. It is what Bongino refers to as a “base election”. Again, for those unfamiliar with this political lingo, a Party’s “base” is the group of voters that practically always supports that Party and its candidates. So, the base election is one where the two Parties’ bases become more important than the undecided voters. Now President Trump and his team seem to have worked this out. Over the course of this election campaign, Trump has held events, rallies, and fired up at the debate. Each time, he has attracted incredibly large crowds, his supporters, his base, showing out in droves. This demonstrates the enthusiasm of his base. Biden, on the other hand, has had far smaller numbers turn out to his events, and many days has forgone holding events at all. Thereby, his base was already fairly unenthusiastic.

When the debate occurred last week, it appeared on the surface to be a disaster. The moderator, Chris Wallace, was clearly biased, interrupting the President 76 times as compared to Biden’s 15. The President made a fair few interruptions himself when Biden was speaking, some more warranted than others. And at one point, Biden told President Trump to “just shut up”. There were mixed opinions on the debate, with Trump supporters even uncertain as to whether he had done well. But while Biden claimed victory, he was far from victorious.

See, Bongino provided one of the best takes on the debate and demonstrated how Trump actually won. Some may have thought that Trump would have lost voters. That is incorrect. Bongino received a host of messages from Trump supporters post-debate telling him how they though it was a train wreck. But when Bongino asked if they were still voting for Trump, they all said yes. Trump’s base is far more loyal to the man, and it shows.

But Trump did something far more spectacular that night than not losing a vote. He got Joe Biden to disown his base. The current base of the Democrats is not your standard Left-Wing base. Rather, it is the radical Left, the ones who would align with Alexandria Occasio-Cortez, the lovers of the Green New Deal. Yes, the same Green New Deal that Biden claimed he does not support at the debate. But Trump also said something else that was key to destabilizing Biden’s campaign. When Trump told Biden that he was being dominated by the Socialists, Biden said he was not, claimed he was not a Socialist, and then uttered the line “I am the Democrat Party.” In doing so, he made it clear that he does not represent the Socialist Left, the radical Left of the Party, the base of the Democrat Party, disowning them. This will result in a far less enthusiastic base, something which bodes terribly for Biden, given his base lacked enthusiasm as it were.

Trump has already won this election. Why? Because in firing up his own base, he is likely to have somewhere around 80% of his 40% turn up to vote. Considering the mail-in voting is tarnished by corruption, the vast majority of his voters will be more inclined to turn up on the day. In getting Biden to disown his own base, Trump is practically guaranteed to win, with Biden likely to get less than the standard 20% of his 40% to turn out to vote. The President does not even need to win over any of the undecided voters to win this election. His base will do enough.

So, while President Donald Trump may be off the campaign trail for now, while he may never return to the trail as he recovers from COVID19, you can be sure he will be back better than ever. He will trump COVID19 and move forward triumphantly to claim victory and four more years as the leader of the free world.