J.D. Vance Deflects 2020 Election Question, Highlights Big Tech Bias


Follow America's fastest-growing news aggregator, Spreely News, and stay informed. You can find all of our articles plus information from your favorite Conservative voices. 

Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH), who is also President Trump’s running mate in the 2024 presidential race, recently demonstrated his media savvy during a heated interview with the New York Times. In a moment that has since gone viral, Vance skillfully navigated a tough, potentially divisive question about the 2020 election results, turning the conversation towards the issue of media censorship instead.

During the interview with New York Times reporter Lulu Garcia-Navarro, the discussion, which was initially meant to cover the 2024 presidential campaign, quickly took a turn when Garcia-Navarro pressed Vance to directly address whether or not Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. The line of questioning seemed designed to cause friction within the Trump campaign and pressure Vance to take a definitive stance that could either alienate Trump supporters or cast doubt on his own credibility.

However, Vance refused to fall into the trap. Instead of offering a simple yes or no response, he shifted the conversation to what he saw as the real controversy of the 2020 election: big tech censorship. Specifically, Vance pointed to the suppression of the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop, which occurred in the weeks leading up to the election. According to Vance, this censorship of a legitimate story likely swayed the outcome of the election, costing Trump significant support.

Vance argued that big tech companies played a substantial role in shaping public opinion by silencing stories that were damaging to Joe Biden’s campaign. “Millions of votes were affected,” Vance said, reiterating his belief that the actions of tech giants like Twitter and Facebook amounted to unfair interference in the democratic process.

Garcia-Navarro, determined to get a straightforward answer, continued pressing Vance to clarify his stance on Trump’s loss in the 2020 election. She repeated the question several times, seemingly hoping to catch him off-guard or force him to concede that Trump lost. Yet, Vance remained composed, repeatedly steering the conversation back to the issue of censorship, highlighting it as a more significant problem than rehashing the election results.

By refusing to engage with the reporter’s framing of the question, Vance exposed what he described as a common tactic used by left-leaning media outlets—focusing on divisive slogans rather than addressing substantive issues. Vance argued that the media’s role in censoring key stories about Hunter Biden not only influenced the election but continues to have ripple effects today, contributing to the rise of political figures like Vice President Kamala Harris.

Vance’s performance in the interview was well-received by Trump supporters, who viewed his handling of the question as a strong defense of Trump and a pointed critique of the media’s role in shaping the narrative around the election. The New York Times interview followed an earlier debate where Vance similarly refused to engage directly with accusations that Trump had lost the 2020 election, maintaining his focus on other issues.

The issue of election interference through big tech censorship has been a central talking point for Trump’s 2024 campaign. Both Trump and his allies, including Vance, have argued that tech companies and the media were complicit in undermining Trump’s chances of re-election by selectively censoring information that could have swayed voters.

As the 2024 campaign ramps up, Vance’s media appearances and his ability to handle tough questions are seen as key assets for the Trump ticket. In this latest interview, his calm and confident deflection of the 2020 election question may have strengthened his standing within Trump’s base, reaffirming his commitment to the campaign’s key talking points while avoiding the pitfalls of media “gotcha” tactics.

TRANSCRIPT:

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Do you believe he (trump) lost the 2020 election?

VANCE: I think Donald Trump and I have raised a number of issues with the 2020 election, but we are focused on the future. I think there is an obsession here with focusing on 2020; I’m more focused on what happened after 2020 which is a wide-open border, groceries that are unaffordable…

GARCIA-NAVARRO: “Senator, yes or no. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?”

VANCE: Let me ask you a question: Is it okay that big technology companies censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, which independent analysis of said it cost Donald Trump millions of votes?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Senator Vance, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?

VANCE: Did big technology companies censor a story that independent studies have suggested would’ve cost Trump millions of votes?

GARCIA-NAVARRO (annoyed): Senator Vance, I’m going to ask you again: did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?

VANCE: And I answered your question with another question. You answer my question and I will answer yours.

>GARCIA-NAVARRO: I have asked this question repeatedly…There is no proof, legal or otherwise, that Donald Trump did not lose the 2020 election.

VANCE: You’re repeating a slogan rather than engaging with what I’m saying, which is that when our own technology firms engage in industrial-scale censorship, backed up by the federal government in a way that independent studies suggest affects the votes.

I’m worried about Americans who feel like there were problems in 2020. I’m not worried about this slogan that people throw.

Well, every court case went this way. I’m talking about something very discreet, a problem of censorship in this country that I do think affected things in 2020 and, more importantly, that led to Kamala Harris’ governance, which has screwed this country up in a big way.

WATCH:

Share:

GET MORE STORIES LIKE THIS

IN YOUR INBOX!

Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

Advertisement

Trending

Discover more from Liberty One News

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading