December 17, 2025 – CNN shaped public perception before and after the 2020 election steal

In Email/Dossier/Govt Corruption Investigations, Featured Timeline Entries by Katie Weddington

(…) Mike Benz lays out what he argues was a coordinated effort to shape public perception around the 2020 election well before a single vote was cast, and as always, at the center of everything is CNN.

The claim centers on a concept known as the “Red Mirage, Blue Shift,” the idea that the election would appear to favor Trump on election night, only to flip days later as mail-in ballots were counted. According to Benz, this outcome wasn’t just anticipated. It was actively planned for, normalized, and protected from scrutiny through coordinated media messaging and censorship efforts.

Wall Street Apes:

This is so insane

Mike Benz literally just proved CNN worked with Democrats to cover up the steal of the 2020 election

There was a plan called ‘Red Mirage Blue Shift event’

The 2020 election would appear Red on election night, but Democrats would win it the next day. CNN even wrote an entire article on their plan 2 MONTHS BEFORE the election happened, clearly indicating their involvement

“It gets back to their one chance for winning the election in 2020, which is what they called the Red Mirage Blue Shift event.

This is CNN, for example, September 1, 2020, month before the Whitmer fending, two months before the election, four months before January 6th, deciphering the Red Mirage and Blue Shift uncertainty surrounding the election results. (Shown in video)

This was what CISA and the censorship operation to censor the 2020 election was all about. It was to pre-censor anything that might question or quote, de-legitimize an upcoming miraculous come from behind victory the day after or In the days after, where it would be a red mirage, Trump would win on election night, but then it would shift blue and Biden would win. They knew that was Biden’s only path to victory,

It would look to all hell, (very obviously stolen to anyone with a brain) so they had to pre-censor five months before that happened, starting in June 2020.

Any criticism on social media, that’s why you got banned for questioning mass mail in ballots. Because high ranking government officials at the Department of Homeland Security teamed up with their outside blob mob, who are all career specialists in toppling governments, and know that the crux of it is perceptions I’m not sure I understand the question.”

Again, none of this is about blind acceptance. This is about honesty about what actually happened, who knew what, and why questioning obvious irregularities was treated as some moral crime.

If Benz is even partially right on this, then the story of 2020 isn’t just about sketchy ballots. It’s about narrative control and preemptively declaring “certain questions” were illegitimate before they could even be asked. And it’s about why so many Americans, across all political lines, still feel like they were never given straight answers.

While Benz focuses on how the narrative was managed once ballots started coming in, there’s another piece of the puzzle that explains why so much effort went into shaping public perception in the first place. Months before the election, a group calling itself the Transition Integrity Project was already gaming out what would happen if Trump didn’t immediately concede.

That might sound harmless enough. But it wasn’t.

The Transition Integrity Project was introduced as some bipartisan “war game” meant to protect precious democracy. But of course, all its scenarios pointed in one direction. A Trump victory, or even a contested result, was treated not as a “democratic” outcome but as a national crisis requiring mass mobilization, censorship, and a whole slew of other extraordinary measures.

Revolver:

The author of this book, conveniently titled “The Democracy Playbook” just happens to have also participated in the Transition Integrity Project.

Now that we are armed with the Color Revolution framework, and the specific role that electoral legitimacy plays in that model, we are in a strong position to evaluate the true agenda behind the Transition Integrity Project’s “War Game” scenario suggesting that Trump won’t concede the election. The title of Rosa Brooks’s Washington Post piece is suggestive, prompting us to wonder whether it is a prediction or a threat: “What’s the Worst that Could Happen: The Election Will Likely Spark Violence and a Constitutional Crisis:”

(Read more: Revolver News, 12/17/2025)  (Archive)