Image : Stefani Reynolds / Getty Images
News (1)
U.S. election law war hits Congress, Senate will hold first fraud hearing
The U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will hold a hearing next week to review violations in the 2020 presidential election. This is the first time that the Trump camp has extended a legal battle to Congress.
According to Fox News, a hearing by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee regarding election violations is scheduled for next Wednesday (December 16). The chairman of the committee and Republican senator Ron Johnson issued a statement on the hearing.
Johnson said that he understands that many of the issues raised about the election have been brought to court, and he believes that relevant issues will continue to be properly resolved in the courts. He also pointed out that "the fact is that a large part of the American public believes that the 2020 election results are illegal because there are obvious violations, and these violations have not been fully reviewed."
Johnson went on to emphasize: "For our country, this is not a sustainable state, and the only way to resolve doubts is to be fully transparent and let the public know. That will be the goal of the hearing."
He expressed the hope that this hearing can identify the main issues in the election, and also hope to find some answers and identify areas that need strengthening. This is not just about the integrity of this election, it will also have an impact on future elections.
In the past month, US President Trump’s campaign and legal teams have launched legal battles in several key swing states in response to large-scale fraud in the general election. Lawyers allege that the 2020 presidential election has been rigged, and various illegal operations and violations have resulted in millions of illegal votes being counted and severely distorted the election results.
On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton directly filed a lawsuit in the Federal Supreme Court, accusing Pennsylvania and other four states of unconstitutionally amending election laws in this general election, not treating voters fairly, and relaxing management measures on vote integrity. . These unconstitutional acts have opened the door to widespread fraud, leading to various chaos in the general election process and undermining the security and integrity of this general election. Therefore, the Supreme Court is requested to rule that the current election results in these four states are invalid.
Up to now, 18 Republican states have expressed their support for the Texas lawsuit. Of these, 6 states have formally submitted a motion to join the lawsuit to the Supreme Court. 106 members of the House of Representatives have signed in support of the Texas lawsuit and requested the Federal Supreme Court to approve "Friends of the Court" application.
News (2)
Texas GOP Chair Floats Forming Union of ‘Law-Abiding’ States After SCOTUS Election Ruling
Reporter : Ivan Pentchoukov, contributed by Janita Kan / Publisher : The Epoch Times PREMIUM
Texas Republican Party Chairman Allen West on Friday mused whether a group of “law-abiding states” should form a union after the Supreme Court rejected an election challenge filed by Texas earlier this week.
“This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic,” West said in a statement. “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected Texas’s bid to challenge the outcome of the 2020 election results in four battleground states.
In an order, the justices denied Texas’s request to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, opining that the Lone Star State lacked legal standing—or capability—to sue under the Constitution because it has not shown a valid interest to intervene in how other states handle their elections.
“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the order (pdf) read. “All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
Justice Samuel Alito, with Clarence Thomas concurring, issued a separate statement to say he would have granted Texas’s request to sue, but not the preliminary injunction, as he believes the Supreme Court is obligated to take up any case that falls within its “original jurisdiction.”
“In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. … I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue,” Alito wrote in his statement.
President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign requested to join the lawsuit before the court rejected the case. Nineteen Republican state attorneys general backed Texas in the lawsuit. Twenty Democratic state attorneys general backed the defendants.
Trump has not conceded the 2020 election. His campaign and a handful of third-party groups are still litigating election challenges in several states. Texas sought to invalidate the elections in the four defendant states.
Hours before the Supreme Court order, Trump called the Texas case “the most important in history.”
“If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!” the president wrote on Twitter.
News (3)
Trump: 'Supreme Court Really Let Us Down'
Reporter : Janita Kan / Publisher : The Epoch Times
President Donald Trump late Friday responded to the Supreme Court order rejecting Texas’s bid to challenge the 2020 election results in four battleground states.
“The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!” Trump wrote in a statement on Twitter following the top court’s ruling.
“So, you’re the President of the United States, and you just went through an election where you got more votes than any sitting President in history, by far – and purportedly lost,” he continued.
“You can’t get ‘standing’ before the Supreme Court, so you ‘intervene’ with wonderful states that, after careful study and consideration, think you got ‘screwed’, something which will hurt them also. Many others likewise join the suit but, within a flash, it is thrown out and gone, without even looking at the many reasons it was brought. A Rigged Election, fight on!”
Ref: https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-supreme-court-really-let-us-down_3615193.html
News (4)
Trump’s Legal Team Considering Alternate Options After Supreme Court Rejects Texas Election Suit
Reporter : Mimi Nguyen Ly / Publisher : The Epoch Times
Attorneys on President Donald Trump’s legal team, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, shared on Friday that the team is considering filing separate lawsuits to district courts in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of a lawsuit from Texas to challenge the 2020 election results in four battleground states. The two attorneys also called for courage from the courts to allow hearings on the lawsuits.
Justices on the nation’s highest court late Friday denied the Lone Star state’s request to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They opined that Texas lacked legal standing—or capability—to sue under the Constitution because it has not shown a valid interest to intervene in how other states handle their elections.
In an interview with Newsmax, Giuliani called the court’s decision a “terrible terrible mistake.”
“Basically the courts are saying they want to stay out of this, they don’t want to give us a hearing, they don’t want the American people to hear the facts,” the former New York City mayor said. “These facts will remain an open sore in our history unless they get resolved. They need to be heard they need to be aired and somebody needs to make a decision on whether they’re true or false. And some courts are going to have to have the courage to make that decision.”
“The case wasn’t rejected on the merits the case was rejected on standing,” Giuliani said. “The answer to that is to bring the case now to the district court by the president by some of electors alleging the same facts where there would be standing and therefore get a hearing.”
“There’s nothing that prevents us from filing these cases immediately in the district court, in which the president would have standing,” he continued. “Some of the electors would have standing in that their constitutional rights have been violated.”
Ellis, a Trump campaign senior legal adviser, told Newsmax that there is still a “line of attack.”
“The mayor said that we’ve contemplated filing this as separate lawsuit in district court because obviously the president himself would have standing. It’s amazing to think that these other states, these voters who are disenfranchised, wouldn’t,” she said.
She signaled that the team still has time up until Jan. 6 when Congress officially counts the Electoral College votes.
“That date in January. That’s the date of ultimate significance. And the Supreme Court has recognized that,” she said. “We still have time, the state legislatures still have time to do the right thing. They can inquire, they can hold hearings, they can reclaim their delegates, and they should and I hope that now all of the evidence we have brought forth in these hearings will give them the inspiration and courage that they need to act.”
Ellis said that what has transpired is “a moral failure” across all three branches of government.
“First you have the executive branch. The problem there is that they changed the rules. We know that, we have the clear evidence that shows that,” she said. “Then the state legislators—there are significant number of them in the swing states that want to do the right thing, they want to exercise their Article II authority, but it’s been leadership that’s refusing to do the constitutionally appropriate thing.”
She called the Supreme Court’s decision one that appears to be “on a political whim.”
“How they could pass on this I think is shocking. I think it’s morally outrageous,” she said.
“I think that regardless of the outcome here we’re going to continue to do the right thing,” Ellis added. “President Trump is courageous, he is standing for truth, the Constitution, election integrity, and it is always a fight that is worth fighting.”
Giuliani stressed the need for the courts to hear evidence filed by lawsuits challenging election results.
“These facts need to be heard,” he said. “Because this kind of voter fraud can continue to go on if it is not nipped in the bud. If we don’t stand up to it, if we allow the big media, the big tech, the Democrat politicians, and the Washington elite—if we allow them to roll over this, it’s going to get worse and worse and worse.
“This is the worst in our history so far, and it’s got to be stopped. And I think the only person who has the courage to stand up to it is Donald Trump. We’re not finished, believe me.”
Ref: https://www.theepochtimes.com/trumps-legal-team-considering-alternate-options-after-supreme-court-rejects-texas-election-suit_3615140.html
News (5)
Supreme Court Rejects Texas Election Lawsuit
Reporter : Janita Kan / Publisher : The Epoch Times PREMIUM
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected Texas’s bid to challenge the 2020 election results in four battleground states.
In an order, the justices denied Texas’s request to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, opining that the Lone Star State lacked legal standing—or capability—to sue under the Constitution because it has not shown a valid interest to intervene in how other states handle their elections.
“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the order (pdf) read. “All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
Justice Samuel Alito issued a separate statement to say he would have granted Texas’s request to sue, but not the preliminary injunction, as he believes the Supreme Court is obligated to take up any case that falls within its “original jurisdiction,” meaning the court has the power to hear a case for the first time as opposed to reviewing a lower court’s decision. Justice Clarence Thomas joined Alito in his statement.
“In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. … I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue,” Alito wrote in his statement. He did not address the questions in the case.
Ref: https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-rejects-texas-election-lawsuit_3615058.html
News (6)
Update: 126 congressmen support the Texas lawsuit, including Republican leaders
After Texas sued four swing states, President Trump and six states have submitted motions to the Supreme Court to join the lawsuit. As of Friday (December 11), 126 Republicans in the House of Representatives supported the Texas lawsuit and challenged the 2020 election, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
Republicans in the House of Representatives signed an amicus curiae statement in support of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the Supreme Court prosecuting four swing states for unconstitutional legal challenges in the election. The statement was led by Louisiana Representative Mike Johnson. On Friday, the statement corrected the "clerk error" and signed an increase of 20 members. A total of 126 Republican congressmen signed in support of the Texas lawsuit, including veteran Republican McCarthy.
The statement read: "This statement expresses (our) concerns as members of Congress, and countless thousands of voters also agree with this. They believe that the violations of the constitution and regulations involved in the 2020 presidential election will affect the outcome of The integrity of the electoral system raises doubts."
By signing this amicus curiae statement, Republicans encouraged the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Other heavyweight Republican members of the House of Representatives who signed the statement include Steve Scalise (Louisiana), the minority whip of the House of Representatives, and Jim Jordan (Ohio), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, who will soon take office Chairman of the Republican Research Committee Jim Banks (Indiana) and Chairman Andy Biggs (Arizona) of the conservative Liberal Party group.
Johnson, one of the House Republican leaders and a staunch supporter of President Trump, said in a statement: "Most of the Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives and millions of voters across the country are now seriously concerned about the integrity of our electoral system. The reason why we published the amicus curiae statement is to express this concern and express our sincere conviction. This issue is very important and deserves full and serious consideration by the court."
On Friday, 18 members of Congress jointly proposed a resolution in support of Trump's legal action on election fraud, demanding that those who committed election fraud be brought to justice.
On Monday night, the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, accusing these four states of violating the constitution in the election. On Wednesday, Trump also filed a motion to the Supreme Court in his personal capacity to join the Texas lawsuit.
On Thursday, six states including Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah filed a motion to intervene to the Supreme Court, requesting to join Texas's election litigation against the four swing states.
On Thursday, “state legislators and voters” represented by the Justice Foundation and the Thomas More Society’s Amistad Project filed a motion, hoping to intervene as a plaintiff Participate in this case; their appeal has been filed.
Some state lawmakers from Michigan and Pennsylvania also filed motions to join the Supreme Court, requesting to join the lawsuit. The Georgia Senate and House of Representatives also have more than two dozen congressmen supporting the Texas lawsuit.
On Thursday, the District of Columbia attorneys general on behalf of 22 blue states and territories filed a legal brief against the Texas lawsuit. The attorneys general of these states are all Democrats.
News (7)
Lin Wood: The Supreme Court has accepted the case of fraud in the Georgia State election
On December 11, the Trump team’s barrister Lin Wood tweeted, “(Georgia fraud case) was finally listed in the Supreme Court pending trial case!"
The official website of the Supreme Court published in Lin Wood’s tweet shows that Lin Wood’s case against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was accepted by the Supreme Court on December 5. List of trial cases.
Lin Wood's case against Raffensperger began on November 13. Lin Wood filed a lawsuit against Raffensperger and other state officials in Atlanta Federal Court, accusing him of an unconstitutional agreement with the Democratic Party of the state to change the procedures for handling absentee votes in Georgia.
News (8)
Texas litigation: National side selection team to promote Supreme Court trial pressure
The Texas Attorney General of the United States sued the Federal Supreme Court for unconstitutional elections in four swing states, which was called the "ultimate" case by the Trump team. At present, the attorney generals of most states have expressed their positions along the party lines. President Trump and many Republican lawmakers support Texas. Trump’s advisers said that the pressure to push the Supreme Court to hear the case was “very strong.”
President Trump’s legal adviser and expert on the U.S. Constitution, John Eastman told Newmax TV on Thursday (December 10) that the Supreme Court has been subject to the President, the Vice President, members of Congress, and 18 states. "Strong" pressure called for the case to be heard.
He said that after receiving the pleadings and objections from the four defendant states, the Supreme Court will next review whether to accept the case as a “court of first instance”.
"I suspect that the Supreme Court will hold a meeting (on Friday) to decide whether to approve Texas' motion to file the original lawsuit." He said, "then they will face issues like President Trump's motion to join the lawsuit. ".
"If they approve the Texas motion, they will develop a briefing schedule. They may even appoint a special officer to investigate some potential fraud allegations."
Eastman said that the Supreme Court has the original jurisdiction over disputes between these states in Texas litigation and will assume the special role of the "court of first instance".
He said, "This is not their usual role. Normally, they will finally appoint an adjudicating judge as the special officer to sort out the evidence."
Eastman also said that the pressure on the Supreme Court to accept the case has increased. "There are now 18 states, the President of the United States personally acts, and the press exercises any discretion to follow it (the case), these are very powerful."
In addition, 106 Republican congressmen also requested the Supreme Court to approve their amicus curiae statement in support of the Texas lawsuit.
Eastman added that Democrats and the Biden campaign should also welcome legal reviews to legitimize the election and the next president.
Eastman also said that the Democratic-led states will also stand up against the Texas lawsuit, but this can only prompt the Supreme Court to finally accept the case.
At present, Trump himself has filed with the Supreme Court to join the Texas lawsuit in his own name and become one of the plaintiffs. Vice President Pence also publicly expressed support for the Texas lawsuit.
Six states including Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah have filed motions in the Supreme Court to allow them to join the Texas litigation as plaintiffs.
The attorneys general of 17 states, including the 6 states mentioned above, have jointly issued a briefing to the Supreme Court, requesting that they support Texas’s lawsuit against the 4 swing states as an amicus curiae.
In addition, the attorney general of Arizona, which is caught in the controversy of election cheating, also expressed support for the case, but the position is not so clear.
There are a few Republican state attorneys general who have yet to make a statement.
In addition, in Pennsylvania, one of the defendants in the Texas lawsuit, the state House of Representatives controlled by the Republican Party also submitted a statement supporting the Supreme Court to hear the case.
For the Democratic Party, the Democratic attorneys general of 23 states have already declared their opposition and demanded that the Supreme Court reject the Texas lawsuit.
News (9)
Game-changing Video Shows Blank Geogia Ballots Turned Into Votes Using Dominion Machine
News (10)
Georgia House of Representatives holds election fraud hearing, Secretary of State refuses to attend
On Thursday (December 10), the Georgia House of Representatives held a hearing on suspected fraud in the 2020 election. The State House of Representatives Government Affairs Committee supervised the hearing. But Joe State Secretary of State refused to participate.
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has yet to explain why he did not attend the hearing. Gabriel Sterling, the manager of the voting system in the Office of the Secretary of State, has responded to news of their absence from the hearing on Twitter.
Sterling explained that their legal counsel advised them not to attend because of pending litigation. He also argued that the hearing invited Trump's legal team and accused the team of "spreading false information," which is "life-threatening."
However, Sterling did not further explain what he meant by "life-threatening".
In response to the state officials' refusal to attend the hearing, attorney Lin Wood also tweeted that unless a special meeting of the parliament is held, the Secretary of State cannot be summoned to attend the hearing.
"Secretary of State Raffensperger was originally scheduled to testify in court on election fraud on election day at the House of Representatives hearing. He has just withdrawn, and he cannot be summoned unless a special meeting is held." Lin Wood said, "Governor Brian Kemp refused to convene a special meeting, which is really easy. The Patriots need answers."
Lawyer Lin Wood also released an impressive video, emphasizing that bad guys will not win.
Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was still in the recovery and isolation period after contracting the CCP virus, so he attended the hearing by video. He and two witnesses read a copy of the sworn testimony. J. Christian Adams, the chairman and general counsel of the conservative legal group "Public Interest Legal Foundation," laid out a list of deficiencies in mail voting.
Adams said that in general, mail voting is bad because it deprives voters of their rights, undermines transparency, creates loopholes and storage problems, and lacks centralized supervision. He pointed out that it is impossible to correct the mailed ballot, and voters cannot confirm whether the ballot was actually received.
Well-known data expert Matt Braynard submitted a list of more than 460,000 “illegal votes” to the House committee as a witness, including felons, minors, deceased or out-of-state voters Votes cast. Brainard noted that of these ballots, 305,701 mailed ballots were submitted too early, and 66,247 voters were minors.
The Speaker of the Georgia State House of Representatives, David Ralston, also proposed at the hearing to amend the Georgia Constitution and change the selection process for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall be elected by Congress.
Ralston said that this adjustment is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State’s Office remains accountable to the people and faithfully fulfills its duties in accordance with the law passed by Parliament, adding that it is "the only way to correct this ship."
News (11)
Powell's Arizona lawsuit was dismissed and will appeal to the Supreme Court
On December 9 (Wednesday), a U.S. District Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by well-known lawyer Powell in Arizona. In this regard, Co-Attorney Colotin said in an interview with The Epoch Times that he was not surprised and that he would advance the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. Watch the report.
A team of lawyers led by attorney Powell represented the general election-related litigation against the governor and secretary of state in Arizona. On Wednesday, a district court judge rejected the case on the grounds of lack of qualifications and too late filing of the case.
In this regard, Colodin, the co-lawyer of the lawsuit, told the Epoch Times reporter that they plan to quickly appeal the case to the US Supreme Court.
Powell’s co-lawyer Alex Kolodin said, "The results are always disappointing. I think the judge made a mistake." "But I disagree with her decision. My client also disagrees with her decision. We always know that this is ultimately It will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. So we are ready to carry this battle to the end, that is, the U.S. Supreme Court."
He also mentioned that this appeal case will not go to the circuit court, but will be directly submitted to the United States Supreme Court at the federal level, because the Supreme Court has a requirement for urgent transfer.
In addition, he also mentioned that the lawsuit filed by him and Powell’s lawyer contained evidence of two types of election fraud.
Powell’s Co-Attorney Alex Kolodin said, “The report we submitted contains data analysis from statisticians and cybersecurity experts, explaining how the voting machine used fraudulent evidence when producing results.”
On December 2, Powell and Clodin, on behalf of many Arizona congressmen, Republican Chairman Kelli Ward and others, reported Arizona Governor Doug Ducey and Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. court. Allegations that the state has up to 410,000 illegal votes and that the Dominion voting machine is involved in election fraud.
News (12)
How big is Trump's win in the Supreme Court? Expert analyzes seven possibilities
The US election fraud storm has entered the Supreme Court. How big is Trump's win? Current affairs commentator Zhang Tianliang analyzed seven possible outcomes. If the Supreme Court lets the state legislatures decide the electors, or if the four disputed states re-elect, Trump will have a chance to win the election.
Zhang Tianliang, a commentator on YouTube’s “Dawn Hour”, said, “The United States has entered a complete division, a state of red and blue duel. We said yesterday that 20 states belong to Texas, including Texas. There are a total of 20 states. On the issue of strategy, it is basically half and half, here are 20 red states, here are 20 blue states, and the United States has a total of 50 states, which means so far, there are still six states that have not expressed their views."
Tianliang analyzed, “If you have the first possibility, the High Court refused to hear the case. I think it’s unlikely that this will happen. The United States is now in a very serious division. The court can no longer make a decision. If it does not intervene, it has not upheld the Constitution. The second possibility, I think, is the greatest possibility, that is, after the High Court’s hearing, announcing the return to the states for ballot settlement. If each state advocates electors by people, there are a total of 62 electoral votes in these four states. Trump now has 232 votes, plus 62 votes for 294 votes. If it is easy to pass 270, Trump will win."
Tianliang believes that the third possibility is that the High Court’s judgment is returned to the states, only counting legal votes to exclude illegal votes. When counting votes, there must be strict voting procedures. The fourth possibility is the re-election of the disputed states on the day of the election. If there is a result, you must vote in person, and Trump will definitely win. The fifth is that all the votes in the four defendant states will be voided, which will be a difficult situation for Trump. The sixth is to sentence Texas to lose.
Tianliang analyzed, “In the sixth case, of course, the Supreme Court might reject the Texas lawsuit against the four swing states. If the Supreme Court decides that Texas loses the case, the country will be divided, because now the Red (Republican) States are very angry. They have joined this lawsuit. The seventh possibility is that the Supreme Court says forget it. I don’t want any of your states. Congress has one vote for one state. For the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, we have one vote for one vote."
The Texas lawsuit, involving 62 electoral votes, is decided by the Supreme Court and is decisive for the outcome of the US general election.
News (13)
Former special forces officer: Trump is facing a Marxist rebellion
A former Special Forces officer warned that the color revolution strategy used to deal with foreign leaders is now being used by forces opposed to President Trump to oust him.
The officer, who requested to remain anonymous, told The Epoch Times, "The color revolution is a strategy to influence the change of regime." "What I see is a Marxist rebellion that is using the color revolution to influence the change of regime. "
According to the officer, the Transition Integrity Project launched in 2019 (note: this project aims to identify potential risks to the integrity of the general elections and transition procedures on November 3 this year) shows that this year the events that took place in the presidential election were "obviously orchestrated by Marxists in the Democratic Party and their Marxist allies in foreign governments."
"This may not happen as they once hoped, because whenever they take such an action, the enemy (note: referring to Trump's side) will get votes. But their plan is not to admit defeat. The goal here is absolutely nothing. Not the presidency." The officer said, "The objective of the opposition is to fundamentally change the country. They are attacking the effectiveness of the constitution."
The officer said that in order to achieve their goals, anti-Trump forces will focus their energy on influencing the election.
Some of the most famous color revolutions occurred in the turmoil caused by disputed elections. In 2004, large-scale protests in Ukraine following charges of fraud in the presidential election prompted a new vote in the country. The candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, backed by the European Union and the United States, won. The election initially showed that the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych won.
The officer said that the strategies used by anti-Trump forces can be found in the special forces' guide to overthrow the government.
"What you learned from me can be confirmed in all the older unconventional warfare doctrines," the officer said. "You can read our manual and extract the information I told you from it. This is what is happening."
The officer then talked about how President Barack Obama used his eight-year term to “seed his political allies all the time through various institutions” to build a “deep government” supported by traditional (mainstream) media and thugs or "shadow government".
"Because (Trump) President can't let his own people into the government, we are actually the third Obama administration." The officer said, "So, we have reached this point: the underground forces are the people within the government. We are. See how they opposed the president and how they tried to impeach him."
"The news media are external auxiliaries. The only thing we haven't encountered is a real guerrilla. We would mistake it for Antifa or 'Black Lives Matter.' There are professional revolutionaries in the movement."
No comments:
Post a Comment