A new recording shows a retired diplomat pitching a plan to replace the federal government if enough voters simply refuse to accept the results. Washington’s Secretary of State sat in the room and compared the idea to how foreign officials handle right-wing parties. The criteria for calling the whole system illegitimate are loose enough that ordinary disagreement can trigger the next steps.
🚨🚨THE DEMOCRACY FILES / ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK, PART 5: Washington state’s Secretary of State weighs in 🚨
The below clip shows Danielle Reiff of DRG pitching her vision to an audience including Washington state’s Secretary of State, Steve Hobbs.
She explains the red-line scenarios and ultimately a vision of creating a “cross-partisan” government in the wake of an illegitimate federal government.
Her three “democratic emergency” scenarios should be familiar by now:
· Election meltdown – which includes a widespread public loss of trust in election results
· Insurrection Act deployed against protesters
· An attempt to delay seating of legitimately elected officials post-electionIf the federal government becomes illegitimate in her view because of the above, then she proposes a cross-partisan system of transitional governance. She names a cross-partisan board of governors, as well President Obama and President Bush as potential transitional leaders.
WA SoS Hobbs replies to Reiff that he has had the exact same conversation with German and Japanese officials regarding how to deal with AfD and right-wing nationalist parties. Now, to be fair, he does not want to commit because, in his words, “we’re winning.” But he doesn’t disagree either.
Note also that here and in other recordings, “election meltdown” does not mean some sort of flashy media crisis. It means, simply, a large segment of the population doesn’t believe the election results are legitimate.
— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) October 22, 2026
The Pitch to a Sitting Election Official
Danielle Reiff of the Democracy Renewal Group laid out three “democratic emergency” scenarios in a session that included Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs. The first is an election meltdown, defined as a widespread public loss of trust in the results. The second is the use of the Insurrection Act against protesters. The third is any attempt to delay seating of officials who won their races. If any of those lines are crossed, she said, the federal government should be treated as illegitimate. In its place she proposed a cross-partisan transitional arrangement run by a board of governors, with former Presidents Obama and Bush named as possible leaders.
Hobbs answered that he has held the same kind of conversation with German and Japanese officials about how to handle parties like AfD and other right-wing nationalist groups. He did not reject the framing. He only declined to commit fully because, in his words, “we’re winning.” The recording makes clear that “election meltdown” does not require fraud proven in court or a failed count. It requires only that a large segment of the public rejects the outcome as legitimate.
Who Is Drawing the Lines
Reiff spent two decades as a diplomat specializing in democratic transitions and peacebuilding abroad. After USAID was dismantled she and other former officers formed the Democracy Renewal Group. They later joined the Renew American Democracy platform and the larger United Democracy Alliance network. Earlier releases in this series described the same group coordinating with protest organizers, tracking “red lines,” and preparing responses that include handing legitimacy to governors if the federal government is declared invalid. The new clip places a state official who runs elections inside that discussion.
The group’s public writings call for a “Fourth Founding,” a renegotiation of the social contract, and structural changes that would alter how power is exercised. In the recorded session the trigger for moving to transitional rule is not a court finding or a constitutional breach that both sides recognize. It is a judgment that enough people no longer believe the election was fair. That judgment is left to the same network that has already planned how to respond.
Another one confirms the recordings are real
— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) October 23, 2026
What the Subjective Standard Means
Once the standard for illegitimacy is “many people see the results as illegitimate,” the outcome can be engineered by the very groups that decide when the line has been crossed. Coordinated messaging, selective challenges, and sustained claims of fraud can create the public perception the plan requires. The same network has already described protest groups as ready to turn out large numbers when called. A Secretary of State who oversees elections in a major state heard the proposal and treated it as familiar terrain rather than a threat to the constitutional order.
The plan does not require a failed election. It requires only that a large enough share of the public can be convinced the results cannot stand. Former officials who once managed transitions in other countries are now describing how the same tools would apply here, and a sitting state election officer sat in the audience without objecting to the premise. That is the concrete addition this release supplies.
Help American Liberty PAC in our mission to elect conservatives and save our nation. Support – American Liberty PAC