Key Takeaways
- Escalating Influence: Recent “election integrity” calls now feature prominent figures alleged to have been part of efforts to overturn the 2020 election, signaling a shift from fringe activism to a more entrenched, influential movement with direct access to powerful political circles.
- DOJ Under Scrutiny: Despite the Department of Justice actively undermining trust in elections by filing lawsuits and replacing experienced voting rights lawyers with loyalists, these influential figures still criticize the agency for not being aggressive enough in pursuing their baseless claims of widespread fraud.
- Strategic AG Appointment: The replacement of Attorney General Pam Bondi and the ongoing discussions around her successor highlight a deliberate effort to install a top law enforcement official aligned with election denial narratives, raising concerns about the future politicization of justice and its impact on democratic processes.
On Monday afternoon, the digital airwaves crackled with familiar refrains of election fraud and deep state conspiracies. The occasion was an “election integrity” call, helmed by conservative podcaster Steve Stern, which served as a virtual gathering for a formidable roster of election deniers. These individuals, some of whom are alleged to have played pivotal roles in President Donald Trump’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election results, once again rehashed years-old, thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories about rigged elections and hijacked voting machines.
While such calls have been a recurring feature of the post-2020 political landscape, this particular event marked a significant and troubling evolution. Unlike similar sessions I’ve monitored in 2021 and 2022, which often felt like echo chambers for then-unknown activists, Monday’s call was conspicuously stacked with figures of considerable notoriety and, more alarmingly, self-proclaimed proximity to the highest echelons of power. They assert, with unwavering confidence, that they retain the president’s ear, actively shaping his views and strategies concerning the integrity of American democratic elections.
This purported influence extends directly to critical personnel decisions. As President Trump navigates the process of selecting his next Attorney General, following last week’s decision to remove Pam Bondi, several speakers on the call claimed to have already weighed in, offering their “suggestions” for a leader who would be more aligned with their radical vision for the Department of Justice.
The Disconnect at DOJ: Unfulfilled Demands for “Justice”
A recurring and vocal point of contention among the speakers was their profound disappointment with the Department of Justice under Trump’s previous tenure. For all the perceived benefits of having an administration sympathetic to their cause, they argued, the DOJ had, in their view, egregiously “dropped the ball” on making “real changes” to how elections are administered in the country. This frustration, however, conveniently overlooks a fundamental tenet of the American constitutional framework: the regulation of elections is primarily reserved for the individual states and, to a lesser extent, Congress, not the federal Department of Justice.
John Eastman, the controversial legal scholar widely regarded as the principal architect of the audacious effort to overturn the 2020 election results, minced no words. Eastman, who recently announced his new role as a senior fellow at the influential far-right Claremont Institute think tank, articulated his deep concern: “The fact that this stuff isn’t being investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible”—referring to the persistent, unsubstantiated claims that voting machines were manipulated to rig elections—“is deeply troubling to me, because it means that some folks on our side or purportedly on our side, are literally doing drop, block and tackle.” Eastman’s sentiment points to a belief that even within their own political alignment, there’s a perceived lack of aggressive action, hinting at an internal struggle or a betrayal of their “election integrity” agenda.
Disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn echoed Eastman’s frustration with equal fervor. “We just wasted a year of not getting to what the Department of Justice should have been getting to,” Flynn declared, before escalating his rhetoric to dismiss perceived internal opposition within the agency as “Deep State goop.” Flynn’s characterization underscores a pervasive conspiratorial worldview that views any resistance to their agenda as evidence of an entrenched, anti-democratic bureaucracy.
Reality vs. Rhetoric: The DOJ’s Actual Record
The speakers’ impassioned complaints about DOJ inaction present a stark contrast to the documented reality of the agency’s behavior under the previous administration. Far from being passive or “doing drop, block and tackle,” the Department of Justice had, in fact, been actively engaged in efforts that, intentionally or not, worked to undermine public trust in elections. The agency filed dozens of lawsuits against states, aggressively demanding the sharing of unredacted voter rolls—a move widely seen by voting rights advocates as an attempt to facilitate voter purges and suppress turnout.
Perhaps even more consequentially, the DOJ systematically dismantled the hugely respected voting section within its Civil Rights Division. This critical unit, historically responsible for enforcing federal voting rights laws, saw its experienced lawyers replaced by individuals known for their loyalty to the previous administration and their willingness to propagate election conspiracies. This internal restructuring effectively neutered a vital safeguard for democratic elections, replacing expertise and impartiality with political alignment. Despite these significant, impactful actions aligned with the broader “election integrity” narrative, Flynn and his ilk remained conspicuously unimpressed, demanding an even more aggressive, politically driven federal intervention.
The Attorney General Vacuum: A Battle for Influence
The recent departure of Pam Bondi from the Attorney General post has opened a crucial front in this ongoing battle for influence over America’s electoral future. For the “election integrity” movement, the Attorney General is not merely the nation’s chief law enforcement officer but a potential instrument for implementing their radical vision. Wayne Root, a provocative right-wing radio host infamous for previously promoting the false conspiracy theory about former president Barack Obama’s birth certificate, seized the opportunity on the call to lambast Bondi’s performance.
“Pam Bondi was terrible, no arrests of terrible Deep State and Democrat thieves, and frauds and traitors, no arrests of any kind,” Root proclaimed, his words dripping with contempt for the perceived lack of punitive action against political opponents. Root, not content with merely criticizing, then escalated his claims, asserting he had personally urged the president to fire Bondi shortly before her removal from office. He also claimed, with astonishing specificity, that he had sent a text message to Trump just last month, advocating for an executive order on mail-in voting. According to Root, this text message led directly to Trump signing the order a few days later. (While Root declined to confirm to WIRED whether the president responded to his text, a White House spokesperson, Abigail Jackson, offered a standard non-committal response: “The President is the only one who decides if and when to sign an Executive Order.”)
Root’s list of preferred candidates for the Attorney General role, which he claims to have shared with the president, includes many of the figures currently being discussed as potential replacements for Bondi. Crucially, all of these individuals, widely tipped to assume the position permanently, possess significant bona fides when it comes to actively promoting election denial conspiracy theories. This isn’t merely about ideological alignment; it’s about selecting an official whose worldview fundamentally questions the legitimacy of established electoral processes.
Todd Blanche: A Deep State Denier in the Making?
Among the prominent names being considered, Todd Blanche stands out. Currently serving as the acting Attorney General, Blanche is remarkably well-versed in President Trump’s claims about rigged elections. His background offers a clear indication of his potential direction should he be appointed permanently. Blanche, who previously served as Bondi’s deputy attorney general, also has a history as Trump’s personal lawyer. In this capacity, he worked on the legal teams defending the president from a range of high-profile charges, including those related to Stormy Daniels, the retention of classified documents, and federal election obstruction.
This extensive experience defending Trump against charges that touch upon the very integrity of his conduct and the electoral process itself makes Blanche a particularly significant figure. His proximity to these legal battles and his work on obstruction charges demonstrate a deep familiarity with the strategies and narratives employed by the former president to challenge legal and electoral outcomes. Should he be confirmed, his leadership of the Department of Justice could profoundly reshape the agency’s approach to voting rights, election security, and the prosecution of politically sensitive cases, potentially mirroring the aggressive, state-level actions already seen in other areas of election “reform.”
Bottom Line
The “election integrity” movement, far from receding into obscurity, is evolving into a more organized and influential force, leveraging direct access to political power to push its agenda. The recent call, featuring figures deeply implicated in attempts to overturn the 2020 election, underscores a critical shift: what were once fringe conspiracy theories are now being actively championed by those seeking to shape federal policy and personnel. The intense scrutiny and alleged lobbying over the next Attorney General appointment reveal a strategic intent to weaponize the Department of Justice against perceived electoral fraud, potentially jeopardizing the impartiality of federal law enforcement and further eroding public trust in democratic institutions. As these influential voices continue to demand a federal response to unsubstantiated claims, the fundamental principles of electoral integrity and judicial independence face an escalating challenge.
{content}
Source: {feed_title}