The 2024 election cycle has been marked by Democrats’ attempts to rig the election in their favor, much like they did four years ago. Yet despite left-wing control of government institutions that run elections and a media dedicated to Democrat victory, these largely unsuccessful attempts reek of desperation as we get closer to Nov. 5.

Noncitizens and the Justice Department

Democrats and their media allies have for months been pushing the false claim that noncitizens registering to vote or voting in U.S. elections is a made-up problem, running story after story suggesting that the phenomenon is not really occurring at any significant level, despite evidence to the contrary.

As The Federalist has reported, thousands of noncitizens have made their way onto voter rolls across the country. As Republicans made headway in protecting U.S. elections from noncitizen interference, Democrats and the Biden-Harris administration went from insisting noncitizen voting doesn’t happen to opposing these election integrity efforts in multiple states, essentially working to keep noncitizens on the voter rolls ahead of the 2024 election.

For example, the Biden-Harris Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Virginia earlier this month alleging that the state’s efforts to remove foreign nationals from its voter lists ahead of the 2024 election were illegal. On Friday, a Democrat-appointed federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate 1,500 allegedly “self-identified” noncitizens onto the voter rolls, as The Federalist reported, and a Biden and Obama-appointed three-judge panel upheld the decision Sunday. The state is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn those decisions and allow the commonwealth to remove the “self-identified” foreign nationals from the rolls.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act introduced earlier this year would have amended federal election law to require individuals to present documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, but 14 Republicans joined most House Democrats in ultimately killing the bill less than two months before Election Day.

Corporate Media and the Censorship Regime

The corporate media enablers of Democrat efforts to lie to the American people, cover up true information, and play defense for the Harris campaign have been in full swing this season, maybe even more so than in 2020.

In its most recent frenzied attempt to help advance the Democrat agenda, the propaganda press is breathlessly comparing Trump’s Sunday Madison Square Garden rally to a Nazi gathering. This came less than a week after propagandist Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, published a fabricated hit piece about Trump’s dealings with a Gold Star family. The piece also showcased heavily debunked allegations from former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly who claimed that Trump once wished for “the kind of generals that Hitler had.”

Like clockwork, Harris peddled these claims to the American people from the steps of her official Washington, D.C. residence last week, perpetuating the type of rhetoric that has already led to two assassination attempts against the former president and current Republican nominee.

Left-wing outlets were also key in staging a palace coup against Biden after his dismal debate performance against Trump in June. Once they got their replacement candidate in Harris, they rigged her only debate against Trump in which the ABC News moderators conducted a “criminally biased” show, “practically amounting to an in-kind donation to the Harris campaign,” as The Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson wrote.

After installing Harris, the corporate media also allowed the nominee to go months without sitting down for interviews or press conferences, apart from those with conveniently friendly and negligent interviewers.

One of the most egregious examples of the propaganda press running cover for Harris came when CBS News apparently selectively edited her “60 Minutes” interview with Bill Whitaker, making Harris appear more articulate than she actually was. The move raised questions about potential media coordination with the Harris campaign and the apparent attempt to hide the nominee’s incoherence from the American people.

While outlets slavishly work to deceive Americans in favor of a Harris win in 2024, congressional Democrats have likewise been calling for censorship by demanding that Big Tech conglomerates, much like they did in 2020, stop people from sharing information on social media and other platforms. And Big Tech seems willing to comply; just this week, YouTube kept podcaster Joe Rogan’s major interview with Trump out of search results.

Lawfare

Another set of people trying their best to rig the election are the multiple, openly left-wing prosecutors and judges hellbent on jailing the former president and current Republican nominee.

While Democrats’ first move was to try removing Trump from the ballots, they quickly turned to lawfare against the former president after those attempts failed. They have, however, been active in trying to remove or keep third-party candidates, like Cornel West or Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on ballots in swing states, in an effort to help Kamala Harris’ chances of winning.

Charges in several states and the District of Columbia have been brought against Trump by left-wing prosecutors and Biden’s Department of Justice. At the behest of a Democrat judge earlier this year, a slanted and coached Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg — who campaigned on “go[ing] after the former president.“

But perhaps the most prominent lawfare case in terms of election interference is the pursuit of special counsel Jack Smith and his colleagues in the Biden-Harris Justice Department to strip Trump of his First Amendment rights in the Jan. 6 case.

On Oct. 2, Smith released a 165-brief full of negative claims about Trump — as absentee ballots were already circulating the country. As The Federalist reported, such a move weeks before the election was designed to exact “maximum political damage to a Republican presidential candidate.”

Despite the fact that much of the information in Smith’s new brief was just regurgitated “old news” the media machine treated it as brand new, pumping out headline after headline about the so-called “damning details.”

The Jan. 6 charges are before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who has given Smith every latitude to stay the course, including by unsealing heavily redacted “evidence” brought by Smith against Trump earlier this month. Although the “evidence” did not substantiate Smith’s tired claim in the case, Chutkan released it less than three weeks before Election Day.

For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.