#TheyHateYou: Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate

Judicial Watch shook his office to their core. How did they respond to Judicial Watch's claims? They systematically leveraged fact-checkers and Twitter to shut down negative press.

Thank you Tom Fitton. You’re a hero.

Source:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/JW-v-Iowa-Sec-State-June-2020-part-1-EQCE085973-1.pdf
—p.237-316

After a morning of seeding stories with all of the usual suspects within the usual less-than-forthright mainstream press, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate’s Communications Director, Kevin Hall, got into a hilarious back and forth with an Epoch Times reporter, Peter Svab (p. 48).

The reporter continued pushing back on the office’s manipulative bending of numbers and statistics, while the SoS office rebutted them over and over by citing the stories that they had seeded with their own selective information.

---

By cherry-picking and hand-selecting facts from which to cite, Iowa Director of Elections Heidi Burnham told Kevin Hall that if he need any help with posts, that NASED has "direct contacts" through Amy Cohen to "convince Twitter" to remove posts.

---

Mrs. Judi Evans seemed to be quite full of the back-and-forth obfuscation.

Why does the Executive Director of NASED have direct contacts to do their dirty work for them? In case you wonder how election concerns get buried, this is it.

After resolving, Iowa SoS suggested to be more like Facebook by default.

“When a group is falsely claiming there are more voters than there are actual people in the county, that IS voter suppression. It leads people to believe their vote is invalid or won't count. It absolutely does rise to the level of voter suppression. Their claims are false, we've proven their false, mainstream media like the Washington Post have proven their false. What more do you guys need?”

Why was Paul Pate’s campaign trying to collude with the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE ELECTION DIRECTORS (NASED) to suppress information?

And why does NASED have someone they can just “convince” to remove whatever they want? After TwitterGate, I think we need understand how deep this really goes.