Disinfo: A majority of American citizens recognise that the 2020 presidential elections were corrupt

Summary

According to a survey conducted by the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia, the great majority of American citizens recognise that the 2020 presidential elections were corrupt.

Disproof

The article is consistent with the recurrent pro-Kremlin narrative seeking to delegitimise the conduct and results of the 2020 US Presidential elections.

The article quotes the 2020 Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture (IASC) survey of American Political Culture, deceptively suggesting that the survey was conducted after the November 2020 Presidential elections, when in reality, the survey was fielded more than two months before the elections.

By means of manipulation, the article seeks to lead readers to believe that, according to the IASC survey, the overwhelming majority of Americans recognise that the conduct and results of the elections were corrupt, and thus that Joe Biden’s victory was fraudulent.

However, the survey does not deal with how Americans perceived the actual conduct and outcome of the elections after they had taken place. In reality, the survey states that, in the run-up to the 2020 elections, over half of Americans (56%) expected that the elections:

“would be the most corrupt in the history of the US”.

This is even though, according to the IASC study, there was no evidence to indicate that they would be corrupt at all.

Read similar cases claiming that the US 2020 presidential elections were the dirtiest in history and that Biden will have no legitimacy because frauds were massive in the US presidential elections.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 227
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15/01/2021
  • Language/target audience: Italian, English, Spanish, Castilian
  • Country: US
  • Keywords: US Presidential Election 2020, Manipulated elections/referendum, Elections

Disclaimer

Cases in the EUvsDisinfo database focus on messages in the international information space that are identified as providing a partial, distorted, or false depiction of reality and spread key pro-Kremlin messages. This does not necessarily imply, however, that a given outlet is linked to the Kremlin or editorially pro-Kremlin, or that it has intentionally sought to disinform. EUvsDisinfo publications do not represent an official EU position, as the information and opinions expressed are based on media reporting and analysis of the East Stratcom Task Force.

see more

“A weak, but strong wife”: The curators of Navalny are trying to sell the same worn-out scenario as in Belarus

Yuliya Navalny has issued her first statement as a “weak, but strong wife of a dissident”. It is surprising that they are trying to sell the same, worn-out scenario as in Belarus. It did not work out with Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya, but the curators have not lost their hopes.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about Alexei Navalny and Belarus.

Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny was arrested following his return to Russia from Germany, where he was treated for poisoning with Novichok-type chemical nerve agent.

The US system is not democratic, the Deep State makes the big decisions

The Deep State is a term frequently used in the alternative press to refer to a hidden or underground political order. Economic, religious and political elites that dominate the global public opinion are accountable to this Deep State, which remains despite the change of president every four years. Big politics are not discussed in the US election, only minor issues like abortion and similar things. All big decisions are actually secretly cooked from above by the Deep State, which is an economic, political, military, technological and media state. So the US electoral system, which is presented as a democratic system, actually is not, but a republican system.

Disproof

Recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about global elites secretly ruling the world, and specifically a so-called ‘Deep State’ in the United States which rules above elected officials. This narrative aims to question the legitimacy of democracy and Western institutions. No evidence is presented to back up these claims. No reputable political scientists or researchers confirm the existence of a “Deep State” in the United States.

See other examples of these disinformation narratives, such as claims that the result of the US 2020 election doesn’t matter because the real ruler is the Deep State, which will kill any US president that confronts it and is moving the country towards war with Iran and Russia; that Hillary Clinton published the Deep State strategy for the world; or that Covid-19 vaccines will lead to full spectrum dominance.

The EU stances on the assault of the US Capitol and on Juan Guaidó show its double standards

We have just entered the new year and the Double Standard Gold Award has already lots of contesters. The EU also rejected the assault on the US Capitol and showed its shock. The same European Union members that recognised Juan Guaidó as “interim president” of Venezuela, at a great extent due to his denunciations of the electoral and institutional illegitimacy of the Venezuelan government.

Disproof

By claiming that the EU denounced violent protesters protesting against electoral fraud in the US while it recognised Juan Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela, who made similar allegations, this disinformation narrative attempts to prove the EU’s “hypocrisy”. However, the comparison does not stand up to a serious analysis: in both cases, the EU defended democratic institutions and denounced attempts by one side to suppress the democratic choices of the other.

The reactions of EU leaders to the events in the US Capitol were informed by the fact that, contrary to the claims of Donald Trump and his supporters, there is no evidence of electoral fraud in the November 2020 election. In contrast, the EU’s recognition of Juan Guaidó as interim president followed an entirely peaceful move based on Venezuela’s own Constitution (articles 231, 233, 333 and 350), in a context of lack of democratic legitimacy of the government of Nicolás Maduro, and after Maduro himself failed to call for snap, free elections. All these factors were deeply weighed by European institutions during all this process in order to follow due procedure. In fact, when Guaidó’s mandate as head of the Venezuelan National Assembly expired in January 2021 and it was no longer possible to consider his position as interim president as legal, the EU withdrew its recognition.