Last night, Tucker Carlson broke an explosive story featuring internal Google documents indicating that the company made a "silent donation" – its own term – to the Hillary Clinton campaign by using its information channeling might to mobilize voters it thought would cast ballots for the Democrats' candidate.  The move was unsuccessful, but it illustrates the enormous power to shape elections by bringing some information to the voting public while suppressing other information.

As Carlson points out, if Russian purchases of a hundred thousand bucks' worth of Facebook ads is supposed to be worrisome, the power of Google, which is the information funnel for about 90% of the public, is catastrophe once the giant decides to use its power to control elections.

Screen grab via Grabien.

Both Carlson's initial presentation of the information and his later discussion of its implications with Mark Steyn are embedded below.  Breitbart received the  texts of the emails in question and features them for your review.

In essence, Eliana Murillo, Google's Multicultural Marketing department head, wrote a series of emails to Google executives, at first carefully maintaining the guise of political neutrality while discussing her (and Google's) efforts to heighten Latino turnout.

But following the shock of Trump's victory, Murillo let the mask slip and revealed the partisan intent, using the words "silent donation" to describe her efforts.  This ought to trigger a Federal Election Commission investigation and ought to be grist for legislators contemplating antitrust measures against this near monopoly in information.

Tucker Carlson did not reveal how these emails came into his hands, but I have a strong suspicion that they are the result of the discovery process in the lawsuit filed by James Damore, the software engineer who was fired by Google after writing a polite internal email questioning some aspects of the diversity initiatives there.  He is represented by attorney Harmeet Dhillon, who has been a guest on Carlson's show a number of times.

I raise this point not to criticize anyone – not Carlson, not Drudge, and not Dhillon – but rather in expectation that even more information will be coming our way.  The discovery process in civil litigation may be even more effective than a criminal probe would be in excavating secrets from the (formerly "don't be) evil" empire.

Watch and be informed about the Lords of Information.  Tucker presents the case:

Mark Steyn reacts:

Rush transcripts via Grabien:

>> Tucker: Good evening, welcome to tucker Carlson tonight. Ken Starr joins us with more investigation on the Clinton investigation that made him famous. He considered perjury charges against Hillary Clinton we now now. We’ll tell us about that. First an exclusive investigation from the show. For two years the alleged threat that Russia poses to our elections has been official Washington obsession. The usual business of government has come to a halt as Democrats and their allies in the press fret that Russian agents may be interfering with our democracy. The root of these fears, a handful of Russian ads on Facebook that almost nobody saw, in a small number of efforts to hack Democratic Party e-mail accounts. Now, let’s assume that all of these deeply worried people are sincere, that they really care about the integrity of our democracy. Then why has almost nobody said anything about T monopolies that dominate the exchange of information in this country? If a few dozen Facebook ads are enough to subvert an election shouldn’t we be worried about Facebook itself which controls literally bill Lons of ads? A couple of times on this show social scientist Robert Epstein has pointed out that Google alone could determine the outcome of almost any American election just by altering its search supgts. We’d never know what happened. Oh, say tech defenders don’t worry, these are businesses, they exist to make money not push plirt Cal agendas. Turns out that’s not true and woe can prove it. An e-mail obtained exclusively by this show revealed that a senior Google employee deployed the company resources to increase voter turnout in ways she believed would help the Clinton campaign win in the last election. The e-mail came from a woman named eliono Mario, the head of the multi cultural marketing department. She sent it one day after the president election. That e-mail was subsequently forwarded by two Google vice presidents to more staff members throughout the company. In her e-mail, she touts Google’s multi facetted efforts to boost Hispanic turnout. Latinos voted in record-breaking numbers especially in Florida, Nevada, and Arizona of the last of which she describes as, quote, a key state for us. She brags that the company used its power to ensure that millions of people saw certain hash tags and social media impressions with the goal of influencing their behavior during the election. Elsewhere in the e-mail, she says Google, quote, supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states. She describes this assistant as the silent donation. She then says Google helped Voto Latino ad campaigns to promote the rides. Officially it is a nonpartisan entity but that’s a sham. It is vocally partisan. Recently the group declared that hispanics all hispanics are in President Trump’s, quote, crosshairs. They said they plan to respond by registering another million Hispanic voters in the next presidential cycle. Voto Latino has clear political goals, goals that Google supported in 2016. We ask both Google and Voto Latino for clarification, what did she mean by a silent donation. This is a potentially significant legal question. Neither company responded to us. At the end of her e-mail she makes it clear that Google was working to get Hillary Clinton elected. This wasn’t a get out the vote effort, whatever they say, it was not aimed at all potential voters. It wasn’t even aimed at a balanced cross section of sub groups. Google didn’t try to get out the vote among Christian Arabs in Michigan or persian Jews in Los Angeles, they sometimes vote Republican. It was aimed only at one group, a group that Google cynically assumed would vote exclusively for the Democratic Party. Furthermore this mobilization effort targeted not the entire country but swing states vital to the Hillary campaign. It was not an exercise that civics, it was political consulting, an in-kind contribution to the Hillary Clinton for president campaign. In the end Google was disappointed as Mario conceded, quote, ultimately after all was said and done the Latino community came of the to vote and completely surprised us. We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for trump. No one did F you see a lane Tino googler in the office give them a smile, they’re probably hurting right now. You can rest assured that the will tinos of these blue states need your thoughts and prayers for them and their families. I had planned a vacation and thought I would be taking the time to celebrate. Now it will be time to reflect on how to continue to support my community through these difficult times, end quote. Nobody at the DNC was more upset by the results than Mario. Google tried to get Hillary elected, they failed this time. We reached out to Google, the company did not deny the e-mail was real or showed a clear political preference. Their only defense was the activities it described were nonpartisan or weren’t taken officially by the company. But of course they were both. Plenty of people in Google knew what was going on and we’ve seen no evidence that anyone at Google disapproved of it or tried to reign it in.
— Rein it in. Google is more powerful two years later and the left has increasingly become radical in what it’s willing to do to regime political power. What could Google be doing this election cycle to support its candidates? What can they do in 2020? A question almost nobody with a seems interested in even asking. They ought to be interested.

Steyn segment:

Mark steyn is an author and columnist, he joins us of the outlines are clear, Google is the most powerful company in the world, they have a choke hold on human information, they can clearly guide the outcome of the election if they chose to do so. They tried to influence the last election. Why shouldn’t we be deeply concerned about this?
>> We should be deeply concerned. As you said, Russia, everyone goes bananas about they bought 100 grand worth of Facebook ads. Google is already more powerful in terms of its control over people’s lives than almost every government on the planet. I would say arguably, it has more control over American lives than, say, the government of Russia does as a practical matter. People are very naive about Google searchs, they think it doesn’t — whether you’re in a hotel in Des Moines or whether you’re hanging upside down in your bondage Dunn Jan? Poughkeepsie, when you enter the search results everything is the same. As this lady Mario has explained, they’re capable of targeting election content, specifically to certain voting groups. So this isn’t like, you know, rock the vote or public attempts to get out the vote. This is where the world’s most powerful company is using data mining to channel election, be partisan election information to key voting DEM graph yibs.
— Demographics. They would steal the election and you’d never know it.
>> Tucker: Well, what is interesting to me is the left has been very agitated for the past six or seven years about citizens united and the influence of money on politics. I don’t think all of their concerns are stupid by the way. But this is the example, the most powerful influenceer of elections potentially the world has ever known. I don’t think I’ve heard a single liberal say anything about Google’s effect on elections, subverting our democracy, why is that?
>> I think for the obvious reason that they’re doing it for, as Mario would say, for our side, for our team, for the left’s team, for liberalism’s team. And that’s very different N a sense there’s something quaintly old fashioned about the citizens. Jeb Bush blew $100 million to get to 2.4% in Iowa, the old-fashioned way, sticking up billboards, making Robo calls. What if you had a monopoly on people’s access to information, and without them even knowing about it, just when they happen to open up their phone or their laptop in the morning, you were able to direct them to your candidate without anybody knowing it. That is far m05ore important, that’s far more scary. The implications are absolutely terrible. And this memo is absolutely terrible in what it reveals about Google. The silent low donation bit is very interesting. As you said, has legal implications. Whatever legal implications they are, they’re a lot more solid than whether some guy paid off some porn star just to take a random example.
>> Tucker: I hope our elected officials pay attention to this. Mark, we’ll see you later in the show, thank you very much.
>> Thank, tucker.