Total MELTDOWN: Harriet Hageman SHREDS 2020 Census Lies as Raskin & Entire Democrat Side Have No Answers!!

In what is being described as one of the most explosive congressional hearings of the year, Wyoming Representative Harriet Hageman didn’t just ask questions—she dismantled a narrative. The subject was the 2020 Census, an event usually relegated to the dusty corners of bureaucratic history, but Hageman transformed the room into a courtroom where the very integrity of American representation was on trial.

As the dust settled, the ranking Democrat, Jamie Raskin, and his colleagues were left visibly scrambling, unable to provide substantive answers to a series of devastating technical and procedural exposures.

The Costco Rice Distraction

The hearing took a bizarre turn early on when the discussion veered into the purpose of the census. In a sharp exchange, Hageman rejected the notion that the constitutional requirement for a census exists to help retailers like Costco determine “different varieties of rice” to stock.

When a fellow committee member attempted to label her comments as “racist,” Hageman didn’t flinch. She doubled down, clarifying that the census is a constitutional mandate for apportionment and governance—not a market research tool for food preferences. “That isn’t why we conduct a census,” she firmly stated, brushing off the “vibe” checks from across the aisle to get to the heart of the data manipulation.

The “Differential Privacy” Bombshell

The most damaging portion of the testimony involved “differential privacy,” a methodology used for the first time in the 2020 Census. Hageman, alongside expert witness Mr. Mayfield, exposed how this algorithm intentionally introduces “structural inaccuracy” into the data.

According to the testimony:

Unauthorized Implementation: The decision to use this method was made at the civil servant level without a formal legal opinion.
Falsified Data: The “top-down” algorithm ensures that no data below the state level is released in its original, unaltered form.
The 100% Variance: A 2023 study by Harvard, NYU, and Columbia researchers found that in some blocks, the algorithm could take a count of three Hispanic residents and report it as zero or six—a 100% margin of error.

Hageman’s conclusion was blunt: “They cooked the books, and they did so intentionally.”

A Bipartisan Rejection

Perhaps most embarrassing for the Democrats was the revelation that the opposition to these census changes wasn’t just a “Republican grievance.” Mr. Mayfield noted that “every single statistical group” and a massive range of political entities objected to the methodology, including:

Blue States: Maine and the city of Alexandria.
Red States: Utah and Maricopa County.
The House Progressive Caucus: Even the most left-leaning members of Congress initially flagged these concerns.
Advocacy Groups: The Mexican-American Legal Fund and various Native American Tribes.

Despite this universal pushback, a small group of civil servants moved forward, effectively creating a “black box” census where the numbers in individual towns and neighborhoods are no longer based on actual enumeration, but on mathematical modeling.

The Fallout: Power and Apportionment

The article’s core argument rests on the consequences of these “inaccuracies.” Hageman argued that the manipulation of data led to an overcount in six liberal-leaning states, potentially granting them additional seats in the House of Representatives and more electors in the Electoral College.

While some witnesses argued the errors were born of “professional pride” and an obsession with new technology, Hageman framed it as a systemic failure of accountability. By skipping the Administrative Procedures Act and avoiding public notice and comment, the Census Bureau operated in the shadows.

Raskin’s Quiet Retreat

Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, known for his quick-witted legal arguments, found himself in a rare position: defensive and hushed. As Hageman laid out specific timelines and figures, the Democratic strategy shifted from defense to deflection, leaning on broad institutional support that the testimony had already proven was non-existent.

The message of the hearing was clear: When the data used to distribute trillions of dollars and hundreds of political seats is “intentionally inaccurate,” the foundation of the republic is at risk.

Conclusion

Harriet Hageman’s performance was a masterclass in using facts to cut through political spin. By the end of the session, the “2020 Census Lies” weren’t just theories—they were documented procedural failures. This wasn’t just a debate about numbers; it was a battle for the truth of who we are as a nation and how we are counted.

As Hageman concluded, the goal now is ensuring “we never have this kind of a mess again.” For the American people, the question remains: Can we trust the next count?