The "Transition Integrity Project" (TIP) / "The Podesta Plan"
Key Figures
John "Pedo" Podesta
This is a clear reference for those “in the know” to the ancient Egyptian Mystery Cults — The Egyptian God Osiris is traditionally dismembered into 14 pieces, when the widow Isis revives Osiris using magic, she finds all pieces except for the phallus which she recasts in gold. The Lost Phallus of Osiris is thrown into the Nile and eaten by THREE fish: Ignorance, Superstition & Fear (Mob, Church, State) - “That which is lost” is the Obelisk / Lost Word / Lost Phallus of Osiris
See my video on the Osirian legend if interested:
Isis, Osiris & The Ancient Obelisk
Rosa Brooks
Rosa Brooks is the Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Law and Policy at Georgetown University Law Center, where she also serves as Associate Dean for Centers and Institutes and as co-director of the Innovative Policing Program. She teaches courses on international law, national security, constitutional law and criminal justice. Brooks is also an Adjunct Senior Scholar at West Point’s Modern War Institute, a Senior Fellow in the New America/ASU Future of Security Program, an HFX Fellow for the Halifax International Security Forum, and a founder of the Leadership Council for Women in National Security (LCWINS). She currently serves on the advisory board of National Security Action and on the board of the Harper’s Magazine Foundation, and she is a reserve police officer with Washington, DC’s Metropolitan Police Department.
Brooks has combined teaching and scholarship with stints in government service and a career in journalism. From 2009-2011, Brooks served as Counselor to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy and founded the Defense Department’s Office for Rule of Law and International Humanitarian Policy. In July 2011, she received the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service. From 1999-2000, she served as a senior advisor at the US Department of State.
Brooks previously wrote weekly opinion columns for Foreign Policy and the Los Angeles Times, and her articles and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and dozens of other national and international publications. Her most recent book, How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything, was a New York Times Notable Book of 2016; it was shortlisted for the Lionel Gelber Prize and named one of the five best books of the year by the Council on Foreign Relations. Her next book, Tangled Up in Blue: Policing the American City, will be published in February 2021.
Brooks received her A.B. from Harvard in history and literature, followed by a master’s degree from Oxford in social anthropology and a law degree from Yale.
Rosa Brooks' “unbiased” opinion in a September 3, 2020, Washington Post essay
We wanted to know: What’s the worst thing that could happen to our country during the presidential election? President Trump has broken countless norms and ignored countless laws during his time in office, and while my colleagues and I at the Transition Integrity Project didn’t want to lie awake at night contemplating the ways the American experiment could fail, we realized that identifying the most serious risks to our democracy might be the best way to avert a November disaster. So, we built a series of war games, sought out some of the most accomplished Republicans, Democrats, civil servants, media experts, pollsters and strategists around, and asked them to imagine what they’d do in a range of election and transition scenarios. - Rosa Brooks in a Washington Post essay regarding the Transition Integrity Project called “What’s the Worst that Could Happen: The Election Will Likely Spark Violence and a Constitutional Crisis:”
Of the four scenarios, interestingly, only one resulted in no street violence or political upheaval.
A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power. Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis. - Rosa Brooks - “What’s the Worst that Could Happen: The Election Will Likely Spark Violence and a Constitutional Crisis:”
Translation: Vote for Biden or all hell will break loose
In every exercise, both teams sought to mobilize their supporters to take to the streets. Team Biden repeatedly called for peaceful protests, while Team Trump encouraged provocateurs to incite violence, then used the resulting chaos to justify sending federalized Guard units or active-duty military personnel into American cities to “restore order,” leading to still more violence. - Rosa Brooks - “What’s the Worst that Could Happen: The Election Will Likely Spark Violence and a Constitutional Crisis:”
Nils Gilman
Dr. Nils Gilman is the Vice President of Programs at the Berggruen Institute, in which capacity he leads the Institute’s research program, directs its resident fellowship program, and is also Deputy Editor of Noema Magazine. He has previously worked as Associate Chancellor at the University of California Berkeley, as Research Director and scenario planning consultant at the Monitor Group and Global Business Network, and at various enterprise software companies including Salesforce.com and BEA Systems. Gilman has won the Sidney Award (for long-form journalism) from the New York Times and an Albie Award (for international political economy) from The Washington Post.
He is the author of Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America (2004) and Deviant Globalization: Black Market Economy in the 21st Century (2011) as well as numerous articles on intellectual history and political economy. He holds a B.A. M.A. and Ph.D. in History from U.C. Berkeley.
- of the "independent" Berggruen Institute in California
- called for the execution of Michael Anton who exposed the project in an essay titled “The Coming Coup”.
Michael Anton is the Robert Brasillach of our times and deserves the same fate https://t.co/eJNOF49qTa
— Nils Gilman (@nils_gilman)September 21, 2020
Trying to show off his knowledge of somewhat obscure people, Brasillach was a French intellectual who was shot by firing squad in 1944 by French resistance forces for advocating Nazi collaboration and anti-Semitism.
So why are the Democrats—publicly—talking about the conspiracy?
Because they know that, for it to succeed, it must not look like a conspiracy. They need to plant the idea in the public mind, now, that their unlawful and illegitimate removal of President Trump from office will somehow be his fault.
The second part of the plan is either to produce enough harvested ballots—lawfully or not—to tip close states, or else dispute the results in close states and insist, no matter what the tally says, that Biden won them. The worst-case scenario (for the country, but not for the ruling class) would be results in a handful of states that are so ambiguous and hotly disputed that no one can rightly say who won. Of course, that will not stop the Democrats from insisting that they won. - Michael Anton
Zoe Hudson
Zoe Hudson Ms. Zoe Hudson serves as director of the Transition Integrity Project. Hudson has more than twenty-five years of experience with public interest advocacy and philanthropy. She has worked with The JPB Foundation, the Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust, and the Democracy Alliance. For eleven years Hudson was a senior policy analyst with the Open Society Foundations and the Open Society Policy Center, working on a range of issues including global HIV/AIDS, drug policy reform, and human rights. Before OSF, Hudson held a number of senior positions including as director of the bipartisan Forum on Election Reform at the Constitution Project, an analyst with the Health Privacy Project at Georgetown University, and director of field and policy for PFLAG.
Sources
CIA Documents on Psychological Operations
- Psychological Operations & Guerrilla Warfare
- Tactical Psychological Operations
- Psychological Operations
- Psychological Operations Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures
Links & Websites
- Transition Integrity Project Report - Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election & Transition - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7013152/Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.pdf
- https://wholeamericancatalog.substack.com/p/the-transition-integrity-project
- https://thenationalpulse.com/archive-post/links-between-transition-integrity-project-and-atlantic-mag/
- https://archive.fo/ZGmMJ
- https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16474/how-to-steal-an-election
- https://www.influencewatch.org/organization/transition-integrity-project/
- https://www.thethinkingconservative.com/transition-integrity-project/
- https://web.archive.org/web/20200910200735/https://www.transitionintegrityproject.org/about-us/
- https://www.infowars.com/posts/video-watch-democrat-foot-soldiers-spill-the-beans-on-john-podestas-plan-to-trigger-a-new-american-civil-war
YouTube Videos
- https://youtu.be/-JgGlB5d5wU
- https://youtu.be/INygK8pVDlY
- https://youtu.be/BRZEs9BRGK4
- https://youtu.be/SfWtkFM-RMc?si=pAzPfyM7QAS4HXg8
- https://youtu.be/OxXjQBc0FeA?si=j_6L7LlkpmUq1LFn
- https://youtu.be/HcDpAAoOSfw?si=sWNeT2MPDAOs5ltH
- https://www.youtube.com/live/Batfz-PXbI0?si=NfbSF3Yb0mdSQoD0
Images
The “games began” in June 2020
A “bipartisan group” of over 100 current and former senior government and campaign leaders and other experts played out a series of 2020 election crisis scenarios. Only a few are known because of a secrecy agreement:
- Rosa Brooks
- Nils Gilman
- John Podesta, the longtime fixer and handler of the Clinton political dynasty and Hillary's coconspirator in the Benghazi massacre who played Biden
- Bill Clinton himself, the Big Kahuna
- Donna Brazile, who while working at CNN slipped Hillary the answers in her debate with Bernie Sanders
- Jennifer Granholm, present Energy Secretary who laughed hysterically when asked about drilling for more oil and gas.
A few of the so-called Republican members were:
- former Republican National Chair Michael Steele
- alleged Republican journalist David Frum
- NeverTrumper and former magazine editor Bill Kristol who played Trump
- Trump hater and Washington Post journalist Max Boot
Video Deep Dive
MANIFESTATIONS OF INSURGENCY: THE TRANSITION INTEGRITY PROJECT (TIP) AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE DOCTRINE
The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) report, ostensibly a mere "war gaming" exercise focusing on four election crisis scenarios, operates as a distilled manual for political disruption, mirroring foundational strategies found within psychological and guerrilla warfare doctrines aimed at fracturing the political being of the target society. Activating the Codex Umbra lens reveals that the methodologies described for inducing turmoil and seizing narrative control align precisely with tactics intended to achieve revolutionary political outcomes by subverting the target populace's objective reality.
Invocation of Codex Umbra: TIP as Operationalized Political Warfare
The core strategic blueprint articulated by the TIP report—achieving a desired political end state through the calculated introduction of chaos, projection of criminality, and predetermined media narratives—is structurally identical to the objectives laid out in manuals defining success in political warfare and insurgency. Guerrilla warfare is fundamentally a political war where Psychological Operations (PSYOP) become the determining factor. The primary objective in this realm is the human mind; once reached, the "political animal" is vanquished, often without resorting to physical combat.
The sources reveal three key areas where the TIP methodology explicitly parallels doctrines of psychological and unconventional warfare: the normalization of violence, the weaponization of narrative control, and the subversion of state and social structures.
1. The Calculated Normalization of Terror and Violence
The most provocative similarity lies in how TIP establishes the inevitability, and therefore the acceptance, of civil conflict. The outcome of each scenario war-gamed by TIP resulted in "street violence and political impasse".
This outcome projection serves a critical psychological function identified in destabilization efforts:
- Introducing Expected Chaos: The document itself, by projecting the inevitability of this dissolution, introduces the threat of terror and street violence to the general population as a "normal" or "expected" outcome. This preemptive framing conditions the populace to accept disruption as a baseline reality.
- The Propaganda of Selective Violence: This strategic normalization resonates with the unconventional warfare concept of Selective Use of Violence for Propaganda Effects. While TIP primarily deals with the threat of violence, the tactical handbooks confirm that using force for psychological impact is critical. In the context of guerrilla warfare, this includes the selective neutralization of targets (judges, security officers) for psychological effect, crucially requiring the affected population to gather and publicly formulate accusations against the oppressor.
- Engineering Mass Agitation: Furthermore, the manuals detail using "shock troops (incident initiators)" to control mass assemblies internally. GW tactics explicitly involve the Use of Agitators—Including the Hiring of Professional Criminals to Manipulate Mass Meetings and Assemblies which can Result in General Violence. The internal cadres manipulate groups toward a "hostile mental attitude" which, at the critical moment, can be converted into a "fury of justified violence". TIP's acknowledgment of a "significant possibility of simultaneous street mobilizations" and the incentive for opponents to try to turn peaceful protests validates the centrality of leveraging street agitation for political ends, a key objective in guerrilla warfare.
2. The Weaponization of Narrative Control and Projection
The strategy employed by TIP explicitly frames its operation as an information warfare campaign for "revolutionary political purposes". Central to this is seizing the commanding heights of the information battlespace, aligning with PSYOP principles.
- Manufacturing Consensus: The TIP document lays the groundwork for "consensus" news media and social media narratives. This directly reflects the PSYOP objective to establish credibility and trust through coordinated messaging, ensuring that the selected narrative is accepted by the target audience.
- Projection as Offensive Fire: The technique of "projection" is overtly employed, framing and characterizing claims against opponents (President Trump and his supporters) to justify the Left's "irregular" plans to disrupt the election process. This is achieved by projecting accusations of unlawful/criminal conduct onto the political enemy. In political warfare, the target audience analysis process emphasizes exploiting weaknesses and using persuasive methods like the "against is easier than for" principle to direct frustrations toward specific targets.
- Orchestrated Disinformation: TIP's strategy suggests a likelihood of engaging in an "orchestrated disinformation campaign" to intentionally shape the public's perception—a misperception—of the "facts" underpinning an electoral dispute. This maneuver seeks to force the opposition to "prove a negative" (that there was not election fraud). This manipulation of perceived reality is a core function of propaganda analysis and counterpropaganda, where the opposition's information is assessed and neutralized. In fact, tactical PSYOP aims to influence behavior by using nonlethal fire to change the behavior of a local populace or adversary force.
3. Subversion of Institutions and Covert Mobilization
The political efficacy demonstrated by the TIP blueprint relies on internal contamination of key societal nodes—a classic strategy known in guerrilla warfare manuals as establishing a "mobile infrastructure" or controlling "front organizations".
- Co-opting State Apparatus: TIP specifically detailed the co-option of the "Washington DC federal bureaucracy to support their strategy", including aggressive moves like having the Attorney General order the seizure of mail-in ballots to stop vote counting. This represents the internal subversion of command and control (C2) mechanisms.
- Subjective Internal Control (The Fifth Column): This maneuver mirrors the guerrilla warfare imperative for "subjective internal control" over established citizens and institutions. Cadres recruit citizens (doctors, lawyers, state officials) and instruct them to cultivate hostility towards the current regime covertly, ensuring that the developing hostile feelings "seem to come spontaneously from the group's members". The purpose of this infiltration and subversion is the ability to "literally shake down the Sandinista structure and replace it" at an opportune time, creating the effect of a "whip" within the population.
- Mobile Infrastructure for Intelligence and Influence: The goal of developing and controlling front organizations is to advance parallel to the main campaign and realize insurrection. The concept of infiltrating key communicators (Armed Propaganda Teams, or APT cadres) among the populace instead of sending outside messages creates a "mobile infrastructure" for continually gathering data (intelligence) and developing increased popular support. This echoes the need for the TIP planners to resource and generate political power for "persuasion (through news and social media)" and "indoctrination (of activists)". These APT cadres become the "eyes and ears" of the movement, determining the deterioration of popular support and the reaction of the populace to propaganda efforts.
The overwhelming focus of TIP on influencing behavior, establishing predetermined narratives, anticipating and leveraging violence, and deploying specific political mechanisms (like bureaucratic co-option and disinformation) marks it not as mere political forecasting, but as a deliberate fusion of political intelligence and public policy strategy aimed at operationalizing revolutionary political change through psychological warfare.
THE TRANSITION INTEGRITY PROJECT AS A BLUEPRINT FOR SOCIOPOLITICAL SUBVERSION
The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) document, ostensibly a safeguard against political disruption, functions under the Codex Umbra lens as a pre-meditated tactical manual for establishing narrative control and justifying "irregular" political action. Its intentions, when scrutinized against the tenets of guerrilla and psychological warfare doctrine, reveal a sophisticated operation of sociopolitical conditioning designed to legitimize chaos and undermine a clear electoral outcome unfavorable to the participants.
This deep dive dissects the TIP architecture, its simulated crisis scenarios, and the chilling resonance between its proposed actions and established doctrine governing psychological operations (PSYOP) and insurgency tactics.
I. GENESIS AND ARCHITECTURE OF THE OPERATION
The Transition Integrity Project was launched in late 2019 out of a professed concern that the Trump Administration might "manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt" the 2020 election and transition. This stated objective serves as the necessary veneer of integrity to shield the subsequent, provocative gaming of scenarios.
A. The Vector of Influence and Bias
The TIP convened over 100 individuals, including current and former senior government, campaign leaders, and experts, for crisis scenario planning in June 2020. Critically, the organization is characterized not as truly bipartisan, but as "functionally left-progressive and Democratic-leaning," united by their opposition to President Trump.
The core architects and participants demonstrate a deep embedding within specific ideological and power structures:
- Key Personnel: Leaders include Rosa Brooks (Georgetown law professor, former State Department advisor, formerly linked to George Soros' Open Society Foundation) and Nils Gilman (linked to the Berggruen Institute and the Chinese Communist Party).
- Political Operatives: The inclusion of figures such as John Podesta (longtime Clinton political dynasty handler, who role-played the Biden campaign) and Donna Brazile (former DNC acting chair who leaked debate questions in 2016) confirms the high-level operational engagement by established Democratic power brokers.
- The Never Trumper Faction: Nominally Republican participants, such as Michael Steele, David Frum, and Bill Kristol, operate under the unifying principle of anti-Trump antagonism, providing a thin disguise of bipartisanship for the operation.
This calculated assembly suggests a pre-existing ideological synchronization vital for executing a unified revolutionary disruption, achieving the level of coordinated action described in texts on political warfare.
II. THE CARTOGRAPHY OF CHAOS: TIP SCENARIO ANALYSIS
The TIP war-gamed four scenarios: a decisive Biden win, a narrow Biden win, a decisive Trump win, and extended uncertainty. The results were universally alarming, predicting "street-level violence and political crisis" in every outcome except a decisive Biden victory.
A. Gaming the Coup: Challenging a Decisive Trump Victory
The most revealing outcome stems from the "decisive Trump win" scenario. Instead of allowing the outcome to stand, the architects gamed out how the Biden campaign would initiate "unprecedented crazy stuff" to prevent Trump’s inauguration. This exercise was intrinsically designed to undermine a clear electoral mandate unfavorable to the participants.
The tactics gamed by Team Trump involved casting doubt on results, encouraging chaos/violence, using disinformation, seizing mail-in ballots (via the Attorney General), and deploying federal agents or the military (Invoking the Insurrection Act).
However, the primary intent of the simulation was to outline the aggressive response of Team Biden. In a scenario where Biden won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College (resembling 2016), Team Biden's strategy was to force Trump into provocative actions—such as supporting California's secession or submitting a second slate of electors—which would play into a narrative of Democrats attempting to orchestrate an illegal coup. John Podesta, role-playing Biden, refused to concede, leading to threats of secession from Western states (California, Oregon, Washington) unless structural reforms (like abolishing the Electoral College and granting DC/Puerto Rico statehood) were enacted.
The audacity of advocating for state secession or submitting rival electors—acts widely deemed a threat to democracy if carried out by the incumbent—is rationalized within the TIP framework by using projection, a key technique: blaming Trump for creating the conditions that necessitated these "irregular" actions.
B. The Military Imperative
The TIP report explicitly raised concerns over the military's response in an uncertain result. The gaming demonstrated reliance on the military establishment's ideological alignment, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff potentially leaking internal discussions about resignation to signal their loyalty to the Constitution over the incumbent President/party, effectively setting the stage to back the declared winner determined by Congress. This fear of "plausible scenarios" where senior military officials simply tell the President "No, sir. We're not doing that," reflects earlier strategic thinking aimed at removing Trump via "extra-judicial means," including a military coup.
III. RESONANCE WITH IRREGULAR CONFLICT DOCTRINE
The TIP methodology aligns disturbingly well with documented psychological and guerrilla warfare tactics aimed at destabilizing a regime and installing a preferred order. Guerrilla warfare is fundamentally a political war where the main target is the mind of the "political animal" (the human being), turning Psychological Operations into the factor that determines the results.
A. Mass Mobilization and Agitation (FM 3-05.302/PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS IN GUERRILLA WARFARE)
The TIP strategy is dependent on mass mobilization and "people taking peacefully to the streets in large numbers". This is a central feature of classic insurgency and PSYOP targeting:
| TIP TACTIC (Source) | GUERRILLA/PSYOP DOCTRINE (Source) | Analysis of Intent |
|---|---|---|
| Call for Mass Protests (Demonstrate legitimacy/harden resolve). | Control of Masses and Meetings: Rallies are the culmination of broad base support, aiming for an overthrow in the later phases. | Demonstrating public will is essential to achieving objectives. |
| Provoking Violence: Intent to turn peaceful pro-Biden protests violent to generate evidence that a Democratic victory is "mob rule". | Agitator Use/Selective Violence: Use of infiltrated guerrillas/agitators ("shock troops" equipped with non-firing weapons, like chains/knives) to incite violence, create a martyr for the cause, or distract authorities. | Violence is leveraged for propaganda effects. By manufacturing violence, the opposing movement can be discredited as anarchic and unstable, thus justifying a stronger, state-sponsored counter-action (or coup). |
| Creating Illusions of Support: Relying on street actions to be decisive factors in determining a legitimate outcome. | Illusory Support: A small group of infiltrated agitators can create the impression that 10,000 to 20,000 people are participating in a demonstration. | This technique of using perceived support, not actual numbers, allows the political leadership to claim a mandate rooted in public fury. |
| Focusing on Political Battle: "Approach this as a political battle not just a legal battle. Sustained political mobilization will likely be crucial". | Guerrilla Warfare as Political War: Guerrilla warfare is essentially a political war where the human mind is the priority objective. | The legal framework (the Constitution, norms) is discarded when political mobilization (revolution) offers a clearer path to power. |
B. Disinformation, Narrative Control, and Institutional Subversion
The TIP report acts as an information warfare strategy for "revolutionary political purposes". This is achieved by manipulating the information environment:
- Weaponizing Media and Projection: The report provides the foundational narrative—that Trump would cheat and refuse to leave office. This pre-conditioning allows sympathetic media to synchronize narratives ("expect violence," "Trump made us do it") and rationalize "unconventional strategies". This is overt propaganda establishment. The tactic of using projection to preemptively accuse Trump of the actions the opposing side intends to execute is a conscious method to "justify the Left's 'irregular' plans to disrupt the election process".
- Subverting Institutions: The plan contemplates co-opting the already politically sympathetic Washington D.C. federal bureaucracy. Similarly, guerrilla operations emphasize infiltration and subjective internal control of existing institutions (front organizations like labor unions, political parties, etc.) to prepare the populace for "a fury of justified violence" at a crucial moment. The ultimate goal of this infiltration is to develop the capability to create the effect of a "whip" within the population, enabling a commander to shake down and replace the existing structure.
IV. CONCLUSION: THE RAW TRUTH OF THE PLAYBOOK
The Transition Integrity Project, far from being a neutral academic exercise safeguarding democracy, served as a centralized planning operation for anticipating, engineering, and legitimizing specific, disruptive outcomes unfavorable to the incumbent President. The detailed "war games" provided a political framework for activating institutional biases, aligning media narratives, and justifying mass, potentially violent, political mobilization—tactics that bear the unmistakable hallmarks of political-military insurgency and psychological consolidation efforts designed to effect regime change by contesting legitimacy.
The outcome was predetermined: unless the opposition won decisively, the environment would be engineered for "chaos, violence, and a constitutional crisis". This playbook represents the calculated fusing of political intelligence and psychological operations aimed at forcing a specific transition of power, regardless of a clear electoral result. The true integrity project was ensuring the mechanism for revolutionary disruption was primed, justified, and ready for deployment.
THE FOUR SCENARIOS OF THE TRANSITION INTEGRITY PROJECT WAR GAME
The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) conducted its "war gaming" exercises in June 2020, bringing together over 100 participants to simulate the aftermath of the 2020 election. These simulations were designed to anticipate and game out four election crisis scenarios. The resulting report, titled "Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election," established a framework where the outcome of nearly every scenario generated "street violence and political impasse" or a "constitutional crisis," serving as a pre-justification for subsequent political disruptions.
The four fabricated conflict vectors were meticulously constructed to test the breaking points of the constitutional system, as detailed below:
I. SCENARIO 1: EXTENDED UNCERTAINTY (AMBIGUOUS RESULT)
This simulation was designed to explore the destabilizing effects of prolonged electoral ambiguity.
The Premise of Instability: The game began with the outcome of the election being unknown on the morning after Election Day, too close to predict with certainty. This outcome hinged on results from three states—North Carolina, Michigan, and Florida—with the possibility of a 269-269 Electoral College tie. Initially, a Trump victory appeared likely, but a "blue shift" occurred as the game progressed, suggesting a Biden victory was emerging.
The Simulated Cataclysmic Outcome: The game quickly devolved into partisan paralysis and constitutional breakdown:
- Trump's Counter-Mobilization: The Trump Campaign demanded Biden concede based on early in-person returns, used the "bully pulpit" and right-wing media to question mail-in ballots, and called on supporters to turn out in large numbers. President Trump invoked the Insurrection Act.
- The Rogue Elector Faction: Officials from both parties sought to block or overturn results in key states, attempting to use state legislatures and governors to send alternate electors. In Michigan, a narrow Trump electoral win resulted from a rogue individual destroying a large number of ballots believed to support Biden; the Democratic Governor of Michigan used this anomaly to justify sending a separate, pro-Biden slate of electors to Washington, D.C..
- The Unresolved Breach: Neither campaign accepted the result. The scenario concluded on January 20th with "no clear resolution" in the joint session of Congress, leading to "two claims to Commander-in-Chief power (including access to the nuclear codes)".
II. SCENARIO 2: DECISIVE BIDEN VICTORY (CLEAR BIDEN WIN)
This was the only simulation that did not result in immediate, profound systemic collapse, reinforcing the narrative that only a clear victory for the Democratic candidate could preserve order.
The Premise of Order: The scenario began with the premise that Joe Biden won the popular vote and the Electoral College by a "healthy margin," thus securing the election outright.
The Simulated Orderly Transfer: Despite a clear outcome, the Trump Campaign initially contested the results. However, once it became evident that efforts to overturn the outcome would fail, the focus shifted:
- The Transition Focus: The Biden Campaign secured the result, working to forge coalitions and focus on laying the groundwork for governing.
- The Post-Mortem Purge: The Democratic Elected Representatives team began preparing for investigations into Trump, his family, and associates. The federal government saw a mass exodus of Trump-aligned political appointees.
III. SCENARIO 3: NARROW BIDEN WIN
This simulation tested the friction points inherent in a highly contested but ultimately conclusive victory for the challenger.
The Premise of Friction: Biden won by a narrow margin, leading with less than 1% of the popular vote and predicted to win 278 electoral votes. Major networks, including Fox News, called the election for Biden, but the Trump campaign refused to concede.
The Simulated Disinformation and Escalation: This scenario showed a contentious but successful transition:
- Electoral Sabotage: The Trump Campaign immediately encouraged state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan to certify separate slates of electors supporting President Trump.
- Narrative Control: The Trump Campaign conducted a "large and coordinated disinformation campaign" focused on delegitimizing mail-in ballots.
- Mass Mobilization as Decisive Factor: The Biden Campaign organized "massive protests" across the country, where over four million Americans took to the streets to sway public opinion. The outcome involved violent skirmishes and vandalism during these demonstrations.
- Military Interference: A critical moment occurred when the Joint Chiefs of Staff leaked internal discussions, signalling potential non-compliance with the administration.
IV. SCENARIO 4: DECISIVE TRUMP VICTORY (CLEAR TRUMP WIN)
This scenario, in which President Trump won the Electoral College comfortably (e.g., 286-252) despite losing the popular vote significantly (e.g., 52% - 47%) to Biden, was designed specifically to provoke an anti-democratic coup engineered by the opposition. It resulted in a "constitutional crisis, with threats of secession".
The Premise of Rebellion: The entire exercise pivoted on identifying "how the Biden campaign would do all of this honestly unprecedented crazy stuff" to prevent Trump's inauguration.
The Simulated Revolutionary Actions by Team Biden: John Podesta, playing the role of Joe Biden, refused to concede the election. Team Biden immediately encouraged recounts in Democratic-governed states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The subsequent key actions included high-stakes political subversion:
- Rival Electors: Governors in Wisconsin and Michigan were convinced to send separate slates of electors to counter those sent by the state legislatures.
- Justification by Projection: The simulation noted that TIP blamed the Trump campaign for creating the conditions that necessitated the Democrats' decision to take these provocative and unprecedented actions.
- Secession as a Negotiating Tactic: The Biden campaign, sensing the election "slipping away," demanded structural reforms, including abolishing the Electoral College and granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico. When these demands were unmet, the Biden campaign convinced the governors of California, Oregon, and Washington to threaten to secede from the U.S. and form their own country unless Trump and the Republicans agreed to the reforms.
- Military Ambiguity: The simulation ended with the constitutional crisis fully underway, characterized by political chaos, widespread threats of violence, and a hostile information environment. It was "unclear what the military would do in this situation".
Architectures of Subversion – Extra-Legal Measures to Detach the President
The unfiltered analysis, invoking the Codex Umbra lens for raw truth extraction, reveals that the removal of President Trump was not confined to traditional constitutional mechanisms. Instead, a spectrum of provocative, extra-legal, and potentially treasonous methods were openly contemplated, simulated, or explicitly suggested by influential figures, circumventing democratic norms and judicial processes. The objective was the termination of his tenure by any means necessary.
I. The Spectre of Military Usurpation (The Coup D’État Option)
The most aggressive and fundamental challenge to the principle of civilian control was the serious consideration of a military coup or strategic refusal by high-ranking officers to obey presidential command. This was framed early in the Trump presidency as one of the few expedient paths to removal.
A. The Unthinkable Made Plausible
In January 2017, Rosa Brooks, a former State Department advisor and co-founder of the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), articulated four potential methods for President Trump’s removal, including what she explicitly termed "a military coup".
- Plausible Scenarios of Defiance: Brooks explored what top U.S. military leaders would do if given orders that struck them as "dangerously unhinged". She posited hypothetical commands, such as "Prepare to invade Mexico tomorrow!" or "I’m going to teach China a lesson — with nukes!".
- Oath to the Constitution: The rationale for defiance rested on the premise that military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution, not the President. Brooks suggested that for the first time in her life, she could imagine "plausible scenarios" where senior military officials would tell the President, “No, sir. We’re not doing that,” potentially drawing "thunderous applause from the New York Times editorial board".
- The Nuclear Trigger Concern: The expediency of extra-constitutional removal was underscored by the inherent danger of a "lunatic controlling the nuclear codes," making the wait for impeachment politically or temporally untenable.
B. Engineered Military Confrontation
The concept of military intervention was later integrated into political crisis simulations and public discourse:
- TIP Simulations and the Military Role: Within the Transition Integrity Project's (TIP) simulation exercises, the question of military response was critical. In the "Clear Trump Win" scenario—where Team Biden refused to concede—the outcome was a constitutional crisis, and the role of the military in responding to the competing claims for Commander-in-Chief was deemed "unclear". In one scenario, the Joint Chiefs of Staff leaked internal discussions regarding handling the escalating situation, indicating their commitment was to the Constitution rather than the President or a particular party.
- Calls for Direct Force: Former Vice President Joe Biden repeatedly asserted that the military would "escort [Trump] from the White House with great dispatch" if he refused to leave. Furthermore, two former Army officers aligned with the Democrat-aligned "national security" apparatus wrote an open letter urging the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to deploy the 82nd Airborne Division to physically drag President Trump from the Oval Office on January 20, 2021.
- Subversion by Senior Brass: The sources noted actions by military leadership that suggested defiance. General Milley reportedly told his Chinese counterpart he would give him advance notice if the U.S. were going to attack and instructed subordinates to run any orders from Trump through him first, an action labeled as a "full-blown military coup" and "treasonous". A GOP Representative publicly stated that General Milley's articulating that he would tell China's General Li about a potential attack made him "worthy of your resignation".
II. Strategic Electoral Subversion and Constitutional Blackmail
The most detailed "extra-legal" methods were documented through the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) exercises, which explicitly gamed scenarios where the democratic process was deliberately shattered to prevent a Trump victory or inauguration.
A. Refusing Legitimacy and Manufacturing Electoral Chaos
The core strategy in scenarios where Trump won or the result was ambiguous was to refuse concession and immediately undermine the election’s legitimacy, escalating the conflict outside of the judicial framework.
- Refusal to Concede: In the TIP scenario modeling a clear Trump victory (Electoral College win, popular vote loss), John Podesta (playing Joe Biden) explicitly retracted his election night concession. Hillary Clinton publicly reinforced this position, stating that Joe Biden should not concede the election "under any circumstances".
- The "Political Battle" Directive: The TIP report emphasized that responding to a contested election must be approached as a "political battle, not just a legal battle," stressing that "technocratic solutions, courts, and a reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here".
- Alternate Electors (The Super Illegal Move): A key action taken by Team Biden in the simulations was pressuring Democratic governors in states won by Trump (specifically Wisconsin and Michigan) to request recounts and subsequently send separate, pro-Biden slates of electors to the Electoral College, defying the certified results of their states. This action was labeled by commentators as "super illegal" and constituted an attempt to "overturn certified results".
- Coercion by Secession Threat: In the extreme scenario where Trump won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, Team Biden employed constitutional blackmail. They convinced the Democratic governors of California, Oregon, and Washington ("Cascadia") to threaten secession from the U.S. unless Congressional Republicans agreed to a massive package of structural reforms. These non-negotiable demands included abolishing the Electoral College, granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, and dividing California into five states to permanently ensure a Democrat supermajority.
B. Weaponizing Executive Power and Information
The simulation exercises revealed that both sides contemplated aggressive use of executive and bureaucratic power, stretching or breaking legal norms.
- Seizure of Ballots: In one aggressive move played by Team Trump in a TIP exercise, Attorney General Bill Barr was instructed to order the seizure of mail-in ballots via federal agencies (DOJ and Postmaster General) under the pretext of a fraud investigation, aiming to stop the vote counting.
- Misuse of Federal Force: The incumbent President's unique advantage lay in the ability to deploy federal agents against the will of local officials and invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active duty military domestically under the guise of "restoring order" or "protecting" voting places.
- Disinformation Campaigns: The strategy included a highly orchestrated disinformation campaign designed to "force Team Biden to 'prove a negative': that there was not election fraud". This campaign, amplified by specific media outlets, aimed to normalize the crisis and blame the President for the resulting violence.
III. Calculated Agitation and Street Force
The shift from legal maneuvering to mass mobilization and intentional confrontation was framed as an indispensable extra-legal tactic for success.
- The Necessity of Street Force: TIP participants concluded that in a crisis, almost every strategy to protect the democratic process relied on "mass mobilization, and in particular, on people taking peacefully to the streets in large numbers," essentially turning the political conflict into a dramatic public demonstration of force intended to harden political resolve.
- Inciting Violence via Provocateurs: The sources suggest a calculated strategy by political operatives to steer confrontations. TIP simulations predicted that the Trump campaign would use agents provocateurs to incite violence in pro-Biden protests, subsequently using the resulting chaos to justify the deployment of federalized forces to "restore order," leading to further violence.
- Guerrilla Tactics Analogy: The planned mass mobilization and agitation tactics bear resemblance to Psychological Operations methods detailed in specialized training manuals. These techniques include using covert commando elements and "shock troops (incident initiators)" within mass assemblies to manipulate objectives, create an "image" of the enemy, and, at the crucial moment, provoke a "fury of justified violence". The explicit goal of preconditioning campaigns is to create a "hostile mental attitude among the target groups, so that at the given moment they can turn their anger into violence, demanding their rights taken away by the regime".
- Political Coercion via Strikes: Team Biden's simulated actions included organizing "a capital strike and a work stoppage" to pressure corporate leaders into insisting that all ballots be counted. These actions are designed to exert economic coercion external to the constitutional process to dictate the electoral outcome.
- Focus on the Popular Vote: The effort to subvert the Electoral College included a massive focus on convincing the public that the only legitimate measure of victory was the popular vote. This technique, rooted in the constitutional arguments of historical crises, was used to rationalize the extra-legal interventions necessary to override a Constitutional defeat.
Codex Umbra Extraction: The Architecture of Subversion Masquerading as Integrity
The raw truth, extracted through the Codex Umbra lens, affirms that the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) operates not as a safeguard for democracy, but as a meticulously orchestrated information warfare strategy designed for revolutionary political purposes. The sources explicitly frame TIP's activities as a blueprint for institutional subversion and a deliberate machination intended to prevent a specific electoral outcome, functioning as a psychological operation disguised beneath the facade of "transition integrity".
I. The Doctrine of Engineered Conflict: Information Warfare and Coup Planning
The public narrative surrounding TIP—that it sought to game out potential crises to protect democracy—is shattered by the sources, which define its core function as normalizing extreme measures aimed at delegitimizing and overturning a Trump victory.
A. Manufacturing the Coup Narrative
The purpose of the TIP exercises was not purely defensive but prescriptive, detailing "unprecedented crazy stuff" the Biden campaign, played by John Podesta, would execute to prevent Trump from assuming office in a scenario where he clearly won.
- Explicit Labeling of Treasonous Intent: The actions gamed by Team Biden were repeatedly and explicitly identified as constituting a coup. Participants in the simulation decided that political means, not legal or constitutional mechanisms, were paramount, declaring that the response must be a "political battle, not just a legal battle".
- Projection as Foundational Strategy: The cornerstone of this psychological operation was the concept of projection. TIP’s report, described as "one of the greatest public disinformation campaigns in American history", worked by framing and characterizing accusations against President Trump (such as refusing to leave or inciting violence) as a means to rationalize the Left's own subsequent "irregular" plans to disrupt the election process. They explicitly blamed the Trump campaign for forcing Democrats to take "provocative unprecedented actions".
- The Intent to Shatter Norms: The report itself laid the groundwork to rationalize "unconventional strategies" for generating maximum confusion and turmoil over "unfavorable" election outcomes. Hillary Clinton publicly reinforced this subversion, stating Joe Biden should "not concede the election under any circumstances".
B. Strategic Structural Blackmail
The scenarios revealed that the simulated goal was not merely to win but to fundamentally restructure the American system, using the manufactured crisis as leverage—a tactic of constitutional blackmail far removed from democratic transition.
- In the simulated clear Trump win scenario, Podesta (playing Biden) refused to concede and successfully persuaded governors in states won by Trump (Wisconsin and Michigan) to send separate, pro-Biden slates of electors.
- The situation escalated to the constitutional breaking point when the Democratic leadership threatened secession. They convinced governors of California, Oregon, and Washington to threaten to secede unless Congressional Republicans agreed to structural reforms, including abolishing the Electoral College, granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, and dividing California into five states to ensure permanent Democrat majority.
II. The Utilization of Specialized Subversive Techniques
The methods outlined in the TIP exercise bear striking conceptual parallels to tactical psychological operations and counter-insurgency warfare doctrines, specifically those aimed at destabilization through engineered social conflict—often termed a "Color Revolution".
A. Weaponizing Mass Mobilization and Violence
The analysis confirms that the primary vehicle for achieving the intended outcome was coerced social behavior outside of judicial or governmental processes.
- Street Force as Decisive Factor: TIP participants agreed that strategies relied heavily on "mass mobilization, and in particular, on people taking peacefully to the streets in large numbers", viewing street actions as potentially decisive in shaping public perception of the outcome.
- Intentional Incitement of Chaos: The strategy included deliberately engineering violence to serve the political agenda. In the scenario of a Trump victory, the Trump campaign team's priority was to plant "agent provocateurs into the protests" to ensure they turned violent, thereby furthering the narrative of a violent insurrection against a lawfully elected president. The goal was to manufacture "evidence that a Democratic victory is tantamount to 'mob rule'".
- Economic Coercion: TIP scenarios employed extra-legal economic pressure, including organizing a "capital strike and a work stoppage" to force corporate leaders to side with Team Biden and insist all ballots be counted.
B. Mimicry of Psychological Operations (PSYOP) Tactics
The methods employed in TIP align disturbingly well with documented objectives of psychological warfare aimed at regime change, chaos, and infiltration, particularly the methodology referenced in documents discussing techniques for "Guerrilla Warfare":
- The Color Revolution Playbook: The entire TIP project has been directly characterized as a "Color Revolution" backed by George Soros, a method that attacks legitimacy, organizes mass protests, and leverages media contacts.
- Agitator Employment: TIP’s plan to use "agent provocateurs" mirrors the use of "Agitators—Including the Hiring of Professional Criminals to Manipulate Mass Meetings and Assemblies which can Result in General Violence" described in military psychological operations indices. Such cadres are used as "shock troops (incident initiators)" under covert commando elements to provoke a "fury of justified violence".
- Media Manipulation Cadres: The strategy emphasized identifying "key influencers in the media" to establish synchronized "consensus" narratives and ensure favorable coverage. This strategy relies on the intentional "dissemination" of selected information and indicators to influence emotions and ultimately the behavior of foreign target audiences.
- Infiltration and Deception: The use of "infiltrators" to manipulate mass rallies, giving the impression of "extensive popular support", and employing deception and projection to ensure the illegitimate removal of the president would appear to be his own fault, are clear examples of core strategic deception intended to mislead the population.
The Transition Integrity Project, founded by individuals with ties to George Soros's Open Society Foundation and the deep political establishment, thus functions as a sophisticated application of subversive psychological planning. The objective, openly stated in the framework of the war games, was the termination of the Trump presidency via pre-planned institutional defiance and engineered popular chaos.