The 2024 US POTUS Election - and now the aftermath

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/TheWakeninq/status/174...555957473?s=20

CNN, MSNBC refuse to air Trump victory speech, Watching liberal media meltdown is always priceless.

(added to previous post later now on previous page)

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1...619726472?s=20

Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
In order to prevent fascism, we must incarcerate, censor, and prevent Donald Trump from running for office, say the media, Democrats, and NGOs. They are thus undermining democracy in the name of saving it. Elites are in the grip of what is best understood as a kind of madness.



https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1...405608965?s=20

Elite Psychopathology Driving Democrats’ “Soft Coup” Attempt

To stop Donald Trump from becoming president, journalists, activists, and government officials are undermining democracy in the name of saving it

After Donald Trump’s landslide victory in the Iowa caucuses yesterday, both CNN and MSNBC refused to carry his speech, instead airing speeches by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said that the danger of Trump’s triumph came not just from him but also from his supporters. “If we’re worried about our democracy falling to an authoritarian and potentially fascist form of government, the leader who is trying to do that is part of that equation,” she said, “but people wanting that is a much bigger part of that equation.”

If reelected in 2024, Donald Trump is likely to politicize the US military, NBC News reported on Sunday. During his last term, according to NBC, some of Trump’s appointees prevented him from abusing his presidential powers, but in 2024 Trump will surround himself with only loyalists. “Now, bracing for Trump’s potential return,” wrote NBC reporters, “a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers is quietly devising plans to try to foil any efforts to expand presidential power, which could include pressuring the military to cater to his political needs.”

But this one-sided portrayal of Trump as a potential dictator ignores the abuses of power perpetrated by Democrats and anti-Trump government bureaucrats over the last seven years. In partnership with civil society and the mainstream media, federal government agencies created a vast censorship network and appear to have used offensive counterterrorism and influence tactics against the American people after 2016.

And in 2020, Democrats pursued strategies that closely resembled color revolution techniques used abroad. These activities, in addition to a pattern of entrapment and demonization of Trump supporters as violent domestic extremists, were anti-democratic and authoritarian.

Some of the media’s criticism of Trump is legitimate....

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1...187200656?s=20

The Last Call Podcast with Chris Michaels
@lastcallcaravan
·
1h
That NBC article basically implies they’re going to use the military and Continuity of Government to oust a sitting president

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1747111676761997607?s=20

Looks like Donald Trump just won Iowa. He’s the clear front runner on the other side at this point.

But here’s the thing: this election was always going to be you and me vs. extreme MAGA Republicans. It was true yesterday and it’ll be true tomorrow.

So if you’re with us, chip in now: http://joe.link/Donate.



https://x.com/thevivafrei/status/174...472238203?s=20

Your daughter says you molested her…

Your son grew up to be a degenerate crackhead and alleged sex trafficker…

You are so corrupt, you make Al Capone look like a choir boy.

And you have the audacity of calling half of America extremists?

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/WarClandestine/status/...591062978?s=20

[mountain_jim]

from the jokers 'in power'

https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1747...301031795?s=20

from the 'adults in the room'

https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1747...144133963?s=20

NEW - Space Force commander: "I'm here to testify about the ongoing Marxist-inspired efforts to subvert and weaken our military and broader American society."

[jaybee]

.

video description ....

Nauseating Neocon Nikki Haley unleashes a Bizarre Rant linking September 11 with Russia, China & Iran - calling them "an unholy alliance" bound together in hatred for freedom, democracy & the USA (1:18)

Source: https://www.brighteon.com/embed/7e7a13f3-00e6-4229-8cd5-df05e22eff85


Nikki Haley is so hopeless you can see why the Deep State Cabal want her to become the Republican Candidate...they need a compliant puppet like her to carry on the 'work' - ie the work of destroying America and the West -

Being an embarrassment and bad at public speaking (like Biden) seems to be an asset in their eyes... it adds more demoralization and humiliation to the mix, I suppose...which is what they want...

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/TheWakeninq/status/174...512349028?s=20

https://x.com/_johnnymaga/status/174...422637396?s=20

johnny maga
@_johnnymaga
🚨The WEF globalists are terrified at the prospects of a second Trump presidency

“Everyone is talking about it”

“Sheer panic!”

Greatest endorsement yet 🇺🇸



updated:

https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/tru...gital-currency

Trump Vows To "Never Allow" A Central Bank Digital Currency

BY TYLER DURDEN
THURSDAY, JAN 18, 2024 - 06:11 AM
Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday vowed to never allow the use of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), as it would "give the government absolute control over your money."



"This would be a dangerous threat to freedom – and I will stop it from coming to America. We are also going to put in place strong protections to stop banks and regulators from trying to de-bank you for your political beliefs. That will never happen while I am your president," Trump told a crowd in Portsmouth, New Hampshire - as first reported by The National Pulse.

Trump's comments come hours after Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) revealed that federal agencies have been flagging financial transactions using politically sensitive words such as "MAGA" and "Trump" in yet another egregious example of the establishment targeting political rivals.

As we've reported for years, CBDCs - touted by globalists such as French Central Bank deputy governor Denis Beau as "the catalyst for improving cross-border payments by enabling the build-up of a new international monetary system" - are in fact the ultimate tools of oppression.

Even Fed Governors know 'this way lies danger':

"In thinking about the implications of CBDC and privacy, we must also consider the central role that money plays in our daily lives, and the risk that a CBDC would provide not only a window into, but potentially an impediment to, the freedom Americans enjoy in choosing how money and resources are used and invested," Federal Reserve Governor Michelle Bowman told a Harvard Law School Program on International Financial Systems last year.

Central bank digital currencies are part of a broader "war on cash."

A cashless society is sold on the promise of providing a safe, convenient, and more secure alternative to physical cash. We’re also told it will help stop dangerous criminals who like the intractability of cash.

But there is a darker side – the promise of control.

The elimination of cash creates the potential for the government to track and control consumer spending. Digital economies would also make it even easier for central banks to engage in manipulative monetary policies such as negative interest rates.

But they seem to be an inevitability, as according to data from the Atlantic Council CBDC Tracker, 130 countries - representing over 98% of global gross domestic product - are exploring or developing CBDCs, marking an outsized increase from just a few years ago.

< more at link >

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/174...359930962?s=20

JUST IN: 🚨🚨

A New US Supreme Court brief was just filed by 177 members of US Congress, including 46 Senators, in support of President Trump remaining on the 2024 Presidential ballot. The brief Casts doubt on whether or not President Trump bears responsibility for what took place at the Capitol on J6 and challenges the claim that Trump should be removed over Sec.3 of the 14th Amendment.

It is nice to see the GOP actually do something for President Trump for once.

About damn time!!! #Trump2024

👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2...Ted%20Cruz.pdf

[norman]

Kash Patel | The Roseanne Barr Podcast #31
1 hour 16 minutes - Posted Jan 18, 2024

SHOW NOTES
Few Americans have done more to save this country than Kash Patel. He joins the podcast to talk about Trump winning Iowa and what it’s like to be a target of the corrupt Biden DOJ. If you want to know how to defeat the deep state, listen in now!

Kash Patel:

https://governmentgangsters.com

https://truthsocial.com/@Kash

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mr9nqkoonP4

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/reBurningBright/status...818152542?s=20

BurningBright
@reBurningBright
Trump's CBDC comments represent a pretty seismic development as it relates to the Info War, and they run in parallel with Chris Paul's framing that Trump reflects the views of MAGA back at them as the War of Stories evolves.

I personally like to imagine Trump as the central pillar of the current sociopolitical Overton Window, with Anons and Truthers front-running that window to various degrees.

This creates an energizing feedback loop between Anons and Trump, as our ability to front-run topics and distill subject matter beyond the current scope of understanding of the Normie Layers of the Collective Mind grants Trump the ability to shift that central pillar (and thus, the Macro Overton Window at large) progressively forward in terms of disclosure and understanding.

This community understands the dangers CBDCs present; Trump is confirming them.

We also understand what true decentralization looks like, and I think Trump is prepping the Normie hivemind for those conversations.


https://x.com/JRLiberty1742/status/1...484117950?s=20

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/VDHanson/status/1748419523856986488?s=20

See new posts
Conversation
Victor Davis Hanson
@VDHanson
What Are “They” Afraid That a "Dictator”/President Trump Might Do?

As Joe Biden’s political viability implodes, the exasperated Left has yet a new narrative: front-runner Trump and his extremist/semi-fascist/Ultra MAGA 160 million are out for “revenge” and “retribution—and that Trump might well become a “dictator” and “trample” the Constitution.

Ok, let’s examine what a supposed dictator Trump might do if he were to be elected this November?

1) Will he hide the fact that in 2024 he attempted to hire a foreign ex-spy to work with Russian sources to create a fake anti-Biden dossier (while sneakily hiding his payments behind three paywalls), seed it with the media, and hatch lies that Biden was a “Putin poodle” and “Russian asset”?

2) Would a Trump president weaponize a vengeful FBI to begin contracting with X and Facebook to suppress stories he feels will hurt MAGA candidates? Would his FBI alter FISA warrants to go after his leftwing opponents? Would he and his FBI henchmen have leftwing newspapers blacklisted from X?

3) Would Trump’s future Secretary of State round up 51 right-wing ex-CIA “authorities” to swear and lie on the eve of the balloting that the Russians created the Stormy Daniels nondisclosure agreement?

4) Maybe Trump will get his DOJ to go easy on any future accusations of tax fraud on behalf of his sons by weaponizing the IRS.

5) Maybe Trump will dictatorially cancel student loan debt on the eve of the 2026 midterms. Or would he dare by fiat drain the strategic petroleum reserve merely for Republican advantage in the midterms?

6) Maybe a dictator Trump might appoint a special counsel to investigate the entire Biden family. Would his legal counsel consult with local and state Republican prosecutors to coordinate 90 or so more indictments against ex-president Joe Biden? Will he order the FBI to sweep down on one of the Biden residences to hunt for more missing classified files that Biden removed as a senator and vice president?

7) Will he postfacto declare the 2020 riots to be an armed “insurrection” and retroactively start trying, convicting, and jailing the some 14,000 who were arrested and released—on charges of rioting, looting, arson, murder, and assault, in addition to “illegal parading” and conspiracy to burn a federal courthouse, a city police precinct, a historic church? Would dictator Trump keep in preventative detention indefinitely those arrested in 2020 for rioting and violent protest?

8) Maybe dictator Trump will refuse to discuss all medical questions concerning his 78-year age.

9) Will Trump minions in the media and military start talking about rooting out “leftwing rage”, or Antifa and BLM “domestic terrorists” from the military ranks? Would Trump order the Pentagon to discharge any soldier who refused to get one of his Operation Warp Speed COVID mRNA boosters?

10) Will dictator Trump protect some 500 “sanctuary cities” from ignoring federal laws—as they nullify the endangered species list or federal gun registrations statutes?

11) Would dictator Trump’s America destroy the southern border deliberately and invite in 10 million illegal aliens from countries he thought would ensure new conservative voters?

12 ) Would dictator Trump's America start seeing red-states removing the names of Democratic candidates from the ballot?

13) Would dictator Trump start jailing ex-Biden officials who refused Republican congressional subpoenas?

14) Would dictator Trump’s America turn over $50 billion in weapons and supplies to terrorists like the Taliban?

15) Would dictator Trump’s America see an epidemic of big-city lawlessness, as conservative prosecutors deliberately let out felons convicted of smash and grab and car-jacking, and exempted theft and shoplifting from punishment?

16) Would dictator Trump start shaking down foreign governments to send $30 million into the Trump family coffers?

17) Would dictator Trump camp out at Mar-a-Lago for 3-4 days a week, and turn the presidency into a pastime job?

So what exactly would a “dictator” Trump do that our "civil libertarian” Joe Biden already has not done?

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/Ultrafrog17/status/174...588663300?s=20

Green Lives Matter
@Ultrafrog17
Alex Soros:
"One man, Donald Trump took that all away." *Hangs head in shame*

Yuval Harari:
"If Donald Trump is elected again, it is likely to be the death blow to what remains of the global order."

Maher:
"I was afraid for my own well-being. I thought I could end up in Guantanamo Bay, I think I still could."

MSNBC:
"A lot of us joke darkly that in a second term, a lot of us will end up in orange jumpsuits in Guantanamo Bay."

Comey:
"Think about what four years of a retribution Presidency might look like."

Is this all just shock and awe rhetoric or are these people really this afraid?

[Ernie Nemeth]

Wouldn't you be if you thought you might be held to account for your crimes?

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/AwakenedOutlaw/status/...899383024?s=20

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/174...178545678?s=20

Laura Loomer
@LauraLoomer
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨

SOROS ASSASSINATION THREAT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPOSED!

Additionally, further exposing how @AlexanderSoros just sent out a cryptic assassination hit on President Trump, John F Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.

The $10 bill in the photograph next to the bullet says “WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND”. That writing on the bill was replaced with “IN GOD WE TRUST” in 1963.

Alex Soros and @TheAtlantic specifically used this old $10 bill to highlight the JFK assassination.

In fact, all of the paper currency in this photo is associated with political assassination.

*Abraham Lincoln was Assassinated

*Alexander Hamilton pistol duel with Aaron Burr

*Andrew Jackson was the first President to have an assassination attempt against him in 1835.

*The 2 one dollar bills are silver certificates. The silver is referring to Kennedy being on a silver coin as well as the silver bullet.

The Bills Show As Followed:
10
02
5
01
1
1
The 4th bill is a TEN upside down that spells “NET”.

So the offer is $100,250,111 NET.

@AlexanderSoros should be arrested immediately and @TheAtlantic needs to be investigated for publishing this.
@SecretService
@FBI
@JasonMillerinDC
@LaCivitaC
@TeamTrump
@EricTrump
@DonaldJTrumpJr

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/17...797682084?s=20

Trump did not try to illegally "overturn" the results of the 2020 election.

He legally challenged the results of the 2020 election.

I am not sure why news publications keep using verbiage to imply challenging elections is illegal. It's not.

It's a guaranteed right under the U.S. Constitution and a key feature of our democratic process.

Also, Democrats have objected to presidential elections in 2000, 2004, and 2016.

Publications that use verbiage implying Trump tried to "overturn" the election are undermining America's election process by insinuating that it is illegal or nefarious.

That is political propaganda, not reporting.



https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/17...836457404?s=20

So, the Trump legal team filed dozens of lawsuits. Regardless of the results and dismissals, that is a legal effort.

Trump never called for violence on January 6, in fact he called for peace. Multiple times, including during the rioting.

The rioting disrupted the election challenges at the Electoral College. Donald Trump did not even have an interest in disrupting these proceedings.

Again, the election challenges were part of a legal process. Indeed, they changed the ECA law after the Electoral College certification so that, arguably, the President of the Senate could not easily send slates of electors back to the states.

However, this process is constitutional, and has had legal precedent throughout American history, such as in 1876 and 1960.

The Democratic Party attempted to object to slates of electors in 2000, 2004, and 2016, but lacked Senate support.

Regardless of Pence's decision, and as he later suggested, if he would have sent slates of electors back to the states there would have been "chaos," potentially leading to a vote in the Republican-led House — a tacit admission that it was an option — it would have been litigated and eventually adjudicated by the Supreme Court, just as Bush v. Gore was in 2000.

After the 2020 election was certified, on the same day, Donald Trump stated that he would step down from office on January 20.

Again, there was no illegal effort to "overturn" the 2020 election. This is a fantasy cooked up by Trump's political opponents.

Elections law is stipulated by the U.S. Constitution. It applies to everyone regardless of political affiliation; if it does not, there is no election system that Americans can trust.

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/WarClandestine/status/...767407758?s=20

Clandestine
@WarClandestine
⚠️Final New Hampshire Analysis⚠️

Approximately 40,000 more people voted in the NH GOP Primary in 2024, than in 2016. Roughly a 15% increase in voter turnout. Biggest ever for a NH Primary.

Meaning Democrats were voting for Haley. However, Trump’s support outweighed the Dems’ attempt to cheat, in a State that has voted blue the last 2 General elections.

This is a catastrophic result for the establishment. Haley couldn’t even keep it within single digits, even with Democrat help, and Trump is trending to perform better than he did in 2016.

These early primaries were important for the Deep State to gauge how much they will need to cheat in order to prevent Trump from winning. New Hampshire just confirmed they will need mass mail-in voting, a new scheme, or perhaps cancel the election altogether.

If the status quo remains, Trump is going to win in a landslide.

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/WarClandestine/status/...868608666?s=20

See new posts
Conversation
Clandestine
@WarClandestine
Trump’s support is stronger than its ever been.

Despite the Biden regime weaponizing all levers of government against Trump, raiding his home, indicting him, deploying all assets against him, etc.

This confirms the People are not buying what the MSM are selling. Meaning they are getting their news from independent/alternative media.

Trump’s rise in support can be largely attributed to Elon leveling the playing field on Twitter. Elon allowed for the free flow of information, and truth has risen to the top of a marketplace of free ideas. None of this would be happening if Elon does not buy the de facto public square and remove the algos that were brainwashing the masses.

Some of the most impactful citizen journalists currently shaping public perception, were banned from Twitter and were not allowed to speak, myself included. Stories that were 100% factual were labeled as disinformation, Hunter’s Laptop, US funded Biolabs in Ukraine, the list goes on and on.

This is why I have been so supportive of Elon. His actions made all of this possible. He gave us the tools to fight back against the machine, and it’s working. We are waking up millions of people with truth by circumventing the corrupt legacy media.

We are starting to see the rise of citizen journalist bear fruit. It’s reflecting in the polls and at the ballot box. We are winning.

[norman]

WHAT IF . . . .

The people running the destroy America administration are plotting to bring forward the election so that the immediate aftermath period is the summer months when they can better organise 'popular unrest' and revolution ( from the left ) after Trump walks it.

They could engineer a crisis to blame on Biden, replace him with a temp and call a snap election early. Trump will win ( they are already talking up that scenario ) and they will have a long hot summer to rally the softy revolutionaries and try to get a full blown civil war going before the winter sets in.

A November election, I imagine, would be the worst possible timing for them to get ousted from government to be replaced by Trump.

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...al-fix-already

Taibbi: Is The Electoral Fix Already In?

BY TYLER DURDEN
FRIDAY, JAN 26, 2024 - 11:00 AM
Authored by Matt Taibbi via 'Racket News' substack,

The fix is in. To “protect democracy,” democracy is already being canceled. We just haven’t admitted the implications of this to ourselves yet...



On Sunday, January 14th, NBC News ran an eye-catching story: “Fears grow that Trump will use the military in ‘dictatorial ways’ if he returns to the White House.” It described “a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers” that is “quietly” making plans to “foil any efforts to expand presidential power” on the part of Donald Trump.

The piece quoted an array of former high-ranking officials, all insisting Trump will misuse the Department of Defense to execute civilian political aims. Since Joe Biden’s team “leaked” a strategy memo in late December listing “Trump is an existential threat to democracy” as Campaign 2024’s central talking point, surrogates have worked overtime to insert existential or democracy in quotes. This was no different:

“We’re about 30 seconds away from the Armageddon clock when it comes to democracy,” said Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, adding that Trump is “a clear and present danger to our democracy.” Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward, one of the advocacy groups organizing the “loose” coalition, said, “We believe this is an existential moment for American democracy.” Declared former CIA and defense chief Leon Panetta: “Like any good dictator, he’s going to try to use the military to basically perform his will.”

Former Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice and current visiting Georgetown law professor Mary McCord was one of the few coalition participants quoted by name. She said:

We’re already starting to put together a team to think through the most damaging types of things that he [Trump] might do so that we’re ready to bring lawsuits if we have to.

The group was formed by at least two organizations that have been hyperactive in filing lawsuits against Trump and Trump-related figures over the years: the aforementioned Democracy Forward, chaired by former Perkins Coie and Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias, and Protect Democracy, a ubiquitous non-profit run by a phalanx of former Obama administration lawyers like Ian Bassin, and funded at least in part by LinkedIn magnate Reid Hoffman.

The article implied a future Trump presidency will necessitate new forms of external control over the military. It cited Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal’s bill to “clarify” the Insurrection Act, a 1792 law that empowers the president to deploy the military to quell domestic rebellion. Blumenthal’s act would add a requirement that Congress or courts ratify presidential decisions to deploy the military at home, seeking essentially to attach a congressional breathalyzer to the presidential steering wheel.

NBC’s quotes from former high-ranking defense and intelligence officials about possible preemptive mutiny were interesting on their own. However, the really striking twist was that we’d read the story before.


Summer, 2020. The TIP media blitz.

For over a year, the Biden administration and its surrogates have dropped hint after hint that the plan for winning in 2024 — against Donald Trump or anyone else — might involve something other than voting. Lawsuits in multiple states have been filed to remove Trump from the ballot; primaries have been canceled or invalidated; an ominous Washington Post editorial by Robert Kagan, husband to senior State official Victoria Nuland, read like an APB to assassins to head off an “inevitable” Trump dictatorship; and on January 11th of this year, leaders of a third party group called “No Labels” sent an amazing letter to the Department of Justice, complaining of a “conspiracy” to stop alternative votes.

Authored by former NAACP director Ben Chavis, former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, former North Carolina Governor Dennis Blair, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Iran-Contra Special Counsel Dan Webb, the No Labels letter described a meeting of multiple advocacy groups aligned with the Democratic party. In the 80-minute confab, audio of which was obtained by Semafor, a dire warning was issued to anyone considering a third-party run:

Through every channel we have, to their donors, their friends, the press, everyone — everyone — should send the message: If you have one fingernail clipping of a skeleton in your closet, we will find it… If you think you were vetted when you ran for governor, you’re insane. That was nothing. We are going to come at you with every gun we can possibly find. We did not do that with Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, we should have, and we will not make that mistake again.

The Semafor piece offered a rare glimpse into the Zoom-politics culture that’s dominated Washington since the arrival of Covid-19. If this is how Beltway insiders talk about how to keep Joe Lieberman or Ben Chavis out of politics, imagine what they say about Trump?

We don’t have to imagine. Three and a half years ago, in June and July of 2020, an almost exactly similar series of features to the recent NBC story began appearing in media, describing another “loose network” of “bipartisan officials,” also meeting “quietly” to war-game scenarios in case “Trump loses and insists he won,” as the Washington Post put it.

That group, which called itself the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), involved roughly 100 former officials, think-tankers, and journalists who gathered to “wargame” contested election scenarios. The “loose” network included big names like former Michigan governor and current Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, and former Hillary Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, who in his current role as special advisor to President Joe Biden overseeing the handout of roughly $370 billion in “clean energy” investments is one of the most powerful people in Washington.

The TIP was hyped like the rollout of a blockbuster horror flick: In a second Trump Term, No One Will Hear You Scream… Stories in NPR, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post and over a dozen other major outlets outlined apocalyptic predictions about Trump’s unwillingness to leave office, and how this would likely result in mass unrest, even bloodshed. A typical quote was from TIP co-founder, Georgetown law professor, and former Pentagon official Rosa Brooks, who told the Boston Globe that every one of the group’s simulations ended in chaos and violence, because “the law is... almost helpless against a president who’s willing to ignore it.”

Podesta played Joe Biden in one TIP simulation, and in one round refused to accede to a “clear Trump win,” threatening instead to seize a bloc of West Coast states including California (absurdly dubbed “Cascadia”) and secede. Podesta’s “frankly ridiculous move,” as one TIP participant described it, was so over the top that a player leaked it to media writer Ben Smith of the New York Times.

The latter in Timesian fashion stuck the seeming front-page tale near the bottom of an otherwise breezy August 2nd story titled, called “How The Media Could Get the Election Story Wrong”:

A group of former top government officials called the Transition Integrity Project actually gamed four possible scenarios, including one that doesn’t look that different from 2016: a big popular win for Mr. Biden, and a narrow electoral defeat… They cast John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the role of Mr. Biden. They expected him, when the votes came in, to concede...

But Mr. Podesta… shocked the organizers… he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College. In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office…

News that Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chief rejected a legal election result, even in a hypothetical simulation, was obvious catnip to conservative media, which took about ten minutes to repackage Smith’s story using the same alarmist headline format marking earlier TIP write-ups. Breitbart published “Democrats’ ‘War Game’ for Election Includes West Coast Secession, Possible Civil War,” and a cascade of further red-state freakouts seemed inevitable.

“At that point,” says Nils Gilman, COO and EVP of Programs at the Berggruen Institute think tank, who served alongside Brooks as TIP’s other co-founder, “we decided we needed to be out about having run this exercise, to prevent the allegation that this was a ‘shadowy cabal’ — not that that narrative didn’t take hold anyways.”

The final TIP report was released the next day, August 3rd, 2020. Titled “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition,” the full text was, as any person attempting an objective read will grasp, sensational.

The Podesta episode was worse than reported, with the secession proposal coming on “advice from President Obama,” used as leverage to a) secure statehood for Washington, DC and Puerto Rico b) divide California into five states to increase its Senate representation, and c) “eliminate the Electoral College,” among other things. TIP authors also warned Trump’s behavior could “push other actors, including, potentially, some in the Democratic Party, to similarly engage in practices that depart from traditional rule of law norms, out of perceived self-defense.”

More tellingly, there were multiple passages on the subject of abiding by and/or trusting in the law, and how this can be a weakness. TIP authors concluded that “as an incumbent unbounded by norms, President Trump has a huge advantage” in the upcoming election, and chided participants that “planners need to take seriously the notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle.” They added the key observation that “a reliance on elites observing norms are [sic] not the answer here.”

Asked about that passage, Gilman replied that it was “the right question,” i.e. “Why can’t we just rely on elites to observe/enforce norms?” Noting that two-thirds of the GOP caucus voted not to certify the 2020 election, he went on: “If I had had total confidence in the solidity of the institutions, I wouldn’t have felt the need to run the exercises.”

This answer makes some sense in the abstract, but ignores the years-long campaign of norm-breaking in the other direction leading up to the TIP simulation. In the eight-plus years since Donald Trump entered the national political scene, we’ve seen the same cast of characters appear and reappear in dirty tricks schemes, many of which began before he was even elected (more on that below). The last time we encountered this “loose-knit group” story, the usual suspects were all there, and the public by lucky accident of the Smith leak gained detailed access to Democratic Party thinking about how to steal an election — if necessary, of course, to “protect the democratic process.”

That incident acquires new significance now in light not only of this NBC story, but also the dismal 2024 poll numbers for Biden, a host of unusually candid calls for preemptive action to prevent Trump from taking office, the bold efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in states like Colorado and Maine, and those lesser-publicized, but equally important campaign to keep third party challengers like No Labels or Robert F. Kennedy from gaining ballot access in key states.

The grim reality of Campaign 2024 is that both sides appear convinced the other will violate “norms” first, with Democrats in particular seeming to believe extreme advance action is needed to head off a Trump dictatorship. Such elevated levels of paranoia virtually guarantee that someone is going to cheat before Election Day in November, at which point the court of public opinion will come into play. The key question will be, who abandoned democracy first?

The TIP report provided an answer. It contained long lists of theoretical Trump abuses that sounded suspiciously more like the extralegal maneuvers already deployed against Trump dating back to mid-2016, particularly during the failed effort to prosecute him for collusion with Russia. Interpreted by some as a literal plan to overturn a legal Trump victory, its greater significance was as a historical document, since it read like a year-by-year synopsis of all the home team rule-breaking. In other words, the TIP read like a Team Clinton playbook, only with hero and villain reversed.

Bearing in mind that many of the people involved were also Russiagate actors, here’s a abbreviated list of abuses the TIP authors supposedly feared Trump would commit:

“The President’s ability… to launch investigations into opponents; and his ability to use Department of Justice and/or the intelligence agencies to cast doubt on election results or discredit his opponents.”

It’s true a president so inclined can do these things, and possible a re-elected Trump might, but they were clearly done first to Trump in this case. The FBI’s road-to-nowhere Crossfire Hurricane probe of Russian collusion, which made use of illegally obtained FISA surveillance authority, began on July 31, 2016. Trump opponents have been “launching investigations” really without interruption ever since, with many (including especially the recent Frankensteinian hush-money prosecution) obviously politicized.

Likewise, the office of the Director of National Intelligence published an Intelligence Community Assessment in early January 2017, again before Trump’s inauguration, that used information from the bogus Steele dossier to conclude that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances.” If that isn’t using intelligence agencies to “cast doubt on election results,” what is? Worse, the trick would be repeated, over and over:

“The President and key members of his administration can also reference classified documents without releasing them, manipulate classified information, or selectively release classified documents for political purposes, fueling manufactured rumors.”

This phenomenon also began before Trump’s election, notably with the story leaked on January 10, 2017, about four “intel chiefs,” including FBI Director James Comey, who presented then-President-elect Trump with “claims of Russian efforts to compromise him,” including the infamous pee tape. “Selective” release of “classified documents” then continued through the Trump presidency. Other incidents involved the “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence” story (February 2017), a Washington Post story about Jeff Sessions speaking to the Russian ambassador (March 2017), the (incorrect) story about Trump lawyer Michael Cohen being in Prague (April 2018), the infamous “Russian bounty” story (June 2020), and many, many, others.

Podesta himself participated in one of the first and most damaging “manufactured rumor” episodes, beginning in late 2016, involving the use of the Elias-commissioned Steele dossier to illegally obtain a FISA warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page. Podesta, who of course knew the real source of the story, reacted to it as if it was news generated by government investigators and publicly derided Page as a Russian cutout, before adding that the 2016 election “was distorted by the Russian intervention.” This was a textbook example of using “manufactured rumors” from intelligence agencies to “cast doubt” on election results as you’ll find.

“Additional presidential powers subject to misuse include… his ability to restrict internet communications in the name of national security.”

As for restricting internet communications “in the name of national security,” Racket pauses to laugh. The growth of state-aided censorship initiatives like the ones we studied all last year in the Twitter Files began well before Trump’s election, for instance with the creation in Barack Obama’s last year of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which later worked with Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership to focus heavily on posts deemed to be attempts at “delegitimization” in the 2020 election. Stanford’s group even flagged a story about the TIP in its final report as “conspiracy theory.”

Not to say that these bureaucracies couldn’t be abused by a second Trump administration, but so far they’ve been a near-exclusive fixation of Democratic politicians and security officials. There’s a reason Joe Biden is the only candidate slated to enjoy a censorship-free campaign season, while Trump and third-party challenger Robert F. Kennedy have been repeatedly removed or de-amplified from various platforms.

“There is considerable room to use foreign interference, real or invented, as a pretext to cast doubt on the election results or more generally to create uncertainty about the legitimacy of the election.”

This may have been the most amazing line in the TIP report, given that the entire Trump presidency was marked by stories like “How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump” (New Yorker) “Did Russia Affect the 2016 Election? It’s Now Undeniable” (Wired), “Russia ‘turned’ election for Trump, Clapper believes” (PBS), “Yes, Russian Election Sabotage Helped Trump Win” (Bloomberg), and a personal favorite, “CIA Director Wrongly Says U.S. Found Russia Didn't Affect Election Result” (NBC). There was so much “Russia hacked the election” messaging between 2016 and 2020, in fact, that our Matt Orfalea made two movies about it. Here’s one:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=uoMfIkz7v6s

In the 2018 midterm elections, officials warned that Russia was going to “attack” the congressional vote. Stories like “U.S. 2018 elections ‘under attack’ by Russia” (Reuters) and “Justice Dept. Accuses Russians of Interfering in Midterm Elections” (New York Times) were constants, until the Democrats retook the House in a “blue wave,” at which point headlines began saying the opposite (“Russians Tried, but Were Unable to Compromise Midterm Elections, U.S. Says” from the Times was a typical take). The TIP was written during a repeat version, as stories like “Lawmakers are Warned that Russia is Meddling to Re-Elect Trump” (New York Times) were near-daily fixtures in 2020 pre-election coverage. After Biden won, headlines like “Putin Failed to Mount Major Election Interference Activities in 2020” again became fixtures in papers like the Washington Post.

This brings us to the last and most controversial angle on the TIP report. When the original TIP text came out, Michael Brendan Daugherty in National Review wrote in an offhand tone that he got the feeling “some progressives are steeling themselves for a Color Revolution in the United States,” because winning a normal election “just isn’t cathartic enough.”

To this day, the color revolution idea makes TIP organizers laugh.

“The idea that some rando in Los Angeles,” Gilman says, referring to himself, “was secretly planning a color revolution (which he published a report about months in advance, which you gotta admit is a pretty weird move for a guy allegedly plotting a revolution) is a textbook example of Hofstadter’s Paranoid Style.”

Brooks is also incredulous, saying the color revolution thesis is a “profound misunderstanding” of the TIP report. “They aren’t plans or predictions, they’re efforts to understand how things might play out,” she wrote, adding that the TIP participants were merely asking, “What could go wrong?”

They may have asked that. Still, the group’s final report contained a string of references to “plans and predictions,” with entries like “Plan for a contested election,” “Plan for large-scale protests,” and “Make plans now for how to respond in the event of a crisis.” As for the “profound misunderstanding,” Brooks gave a friendly interview to a New York Times writer who was apparently laboring under the same “profound” delusion.

Weeks after the National Review piece, Michelle Goldberg in the Times wrote of Daugherty: “He’s right, but not in the way he thinks.” She explained that Democrats don’t relish the thought of an uprising, but look upon it as something to be dreaded, that “must nonetheless be considered.”

She then quoted Brooks. The Georgetown professor, who in her most recent book about life in the Defense Department described getting “a coveted intelligence community ‘blue badge’” to pass into “the sacred precincts of the CIA,” told Goldberg that in the event of a Trump power grab, “the only thing left is what pro-democracy movements and human rights movements around the world have always done, which is sustained, mass peaceful demonstrations.”

That did sound like a description of the Eastern European color revolutions, which generally involved mass street actions, sustained negative press pressure, and calls by NGOs and outside countries for the disfavored leader to step down. A major reason the “color revolution” theme struck commentators in connection with TIP had to do with the presence in the TIP simulation of Barack Obama’s former chief ethics lawyer, Norm Eisen. Eisen wrote a manual called The Democracy Playbook for the Brookings Institution that is often referred to as the unofficial how-to guide for America-backed regime-change operations abroad. Anyone who’s been forced to read a lot of “democracy promotion” literature, as I had to in Russia, will recognize familiar themes in the TIP report.

One of the controversial features of “color revolution” episodes is that the U.S. has at times supported ousters of perhaps unsavory, but legally elected, leaders. Was the TIP group contemplating the “sustained” protest scenario only in the event of Trump stealing an election, or if he merely won in an unpleasant way, i.e. via the Electoral College with a popular vote deficit? Brooks at first indicated she didn’t understand the reference.

“I am not sure what the question is?” she wrote. “Peaceful protests, mass or otherwise, are constitutionally protected.”

I referred back to the Times piece and the “movements around the world” quote, noting that while those outcomes might arguably have been desirable, it’d be hard to call them strictly democratic.

“I am not an expert on the color revolutions,” she replied. “It is certainly true that on both left and right, in both the US and abroad, there are nearly always... I guess I’d say spoilers, or violence entrepreneurs — who try to hijack peaceful protest movements.”

Lastly: one TIP simulation also predicted, with something like remarkable anti-clairvoyance, that Trump would contrive to label Biden supporters guilty of “insurrection” for protesting a “clear Trump win”:

The Trump Campaign planted agent provocateurs into the protests throughout the country to ensure these protests turned violent and helped further the narrative of a violent insurrection against a lawfully elected president.

That passage was published on August 3, 2020, long before most Americans knew or cared that the word “insurrection” had political significance. We’d be instructed in its use within hours of the riots, when Joe Biden said, “It’s not protest. It’s insurrection,” and everyone from Mitt Romney to Mitch McConnell to media talking heads to the authors of the articles of impeachment like Jamie Raskin fixated on the word. Still, not until December 2021 did a public figure explain how the 14th Amendment might be deployed strategically in the post-January 6th world. The insight came from Elias, who has since deleted the tweet:



We’re of course now seeing that litigation, notably in the form of a Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove Trump from the ballot, which was handed down after complaints filed citing the 14th Amendment provision alluded to by Elias.

All this is laid out as background for the coming nine months of campaign chaos, if we even end up having a traditional campaign season. Revolt of the Public author and former CIA analyst Martin Gurri summed up the situation in a piece for The Free Press titled “Trump. Again. The Question is Why?” The money quotes:

The malady now exposed is this: the elites have lost faith in representative democracy. To smash the nightmare image of themselves that Trump evokes, they are willing to twist and force our system until it breaks… The implications are clear. Not only Trump, but the nearly 75 million Americans who voted for him, must be silenced and crushed. To save democracy, it must be modified by a possessive: “our democracy.”

The Biden campaign, stuck in a seemingly irreversible poll freefall, has put all its rhetorical chips on the theme of “protecting democracy.” Biden mentions Trump’s “assault on democracy” at every opportunity, and even recently resorted to Apollo Creed-style imagery, campaigning at Valley Forge flanked by a dozen American flags and red, white, and blue lights. (Red-and-white striped trunks can’t be far off.) The DNC’s daily “talkers” memos for months have asked blue-party pols and friendly reporters to stress “the existential threat to freedom and democracy that Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans represent,” while pointing to stories like Vanity Fair’s, “There Is No ‘Both Sides’ to Donald Trump’s Threat to Democracy,” in its CONTENT TO AMPLIFY section.



The DNC’s “talkers” mailers

This messaging would likely have worked after January 6th, when Trump’s post-electoral conduct rankled voters, as evidenced by an exit approval rating of 34%. It can’t now, since the word “democracy” has been appropriated to refer exclusively to the party that declared its New Hampshire primary “non-binding” and “meaningless,” canceled its Florida primary, is preparing mass technical challenges against third-party challengers like No Labels or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (and has a rich history in that area; see accompanying Nader piece), is seeking to kick the GOP front-runner off the ballot, has mass-filed bar complaints against attorneys who represented that candidate, and has piled criminal counts atop its main electoral opposition.

Many who couldn’t stand Trump, would never vote for him, and have been willing consumers of the awesome amount of propaganda published on the Trump subject, now need to face the fact that they’ve been had. Transformed into the avatar of all bad things — a crude domestic combo platter of Saddam, Milosevic, Assad, and Putin — this vision of the über-villain, Trump, has been used to distract mass audiences from the erosion of “norms” at home. “Protecting democracy” in the Trump context will be remembered as having served the same purpose as Saddam’s mythical WMDs, the shots fired in the Gulf of Tonkin, or Gaddafi’s fictional Viagra-enhanced army. Those were carefully crafted political lies, used to rally the public behind illegal campaigns of preemption.

Voters, by voting, “protect democracy.” A politician who claims to be doing the job for us is up to something. The group in the current White House is trying to steal for themselves a word that belongs to you. Don’t let them.

< huge number of embedded links at link >

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/...715407504?s=20

You really can’t make this up.

“Right-wing Extremists will steal the 2024 Election…” -Hilary Clinton.


https://x.com/ColonelTowner/status/1...053237996?s=20

Major General (ret) Paul Eaton
@PaulDEaton52
Retired Major General Eaton here. Please review my message and help get the word out we must defeat Trump.


ColonelTowner-Watkins
@ColonelTowner
Does Eaton know about Operation Gladio? Does he know it’s ran out of NATO? Does he know it directed the activities of Nazis? Set up stay behind units all over the world killing millions of ppl? Responsible for over 70+ coups? Does he know it’s operated via NATO by the CIA and runs the world’s drug, weapons and human trafficking networks? Research operation Gladio. Discover the number of US military generals that participated in it. Complicit in its operations. Research Operation Northwood. It was a fellow Army 4 star who created a Gladio plan to blow up American cities to instigate a full scale invasion of Cuba. Gen Lemnitzer thought it was a great idea to dress up like Castro agents, blow up U.S. targets INSIDE the U.S., sacrifice untold hundreds of Americans so the CIA and mafia (redundant) could get their drug trafficking hub of Cuba back. Luckily JFK said no and reassigned Lemnitzer. Unfortunately no one told JFK that NATO ran Operation Gladio who coup’d heads of state that didn’t play along. Less than a year later JFK was dead. France’s OAS Gladio unit ran by former Nazi Skorzeny ran the op. It’s in his papers revealed by Major Ganis who wrote about it all in his book. He bought Skorzeny’s papers.

So either this general is ignorant OR his is gaslighting you on behalf of the MIC. You decide after researching Operation Gladio.


ColonelTowner-Watkins
@ColonelTowner
Here’s what Maj Gen Eaton did when he retired: The National Security Network (NSN) was a non-profit foreign policy organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States, that focused on international relations, global affairs and national security. Characterizing itself as "progressive," the NSN's mission statement asserts the group aimed to "build a strong progressive national security and counter conservative spin."

His father flew interdiction missions for the CIA in Laos. He ran the school at Ft Benning that trained Operation Gladio international students. The US destroyed the entire military structure in Iraq after 2001 ensuring it would remain a weak appendage of the U.S. and Israel. Don’t forget it was Israel that wanted us to destroy Iraq. He was the general responsible for training the new Iraq army. How’d that work out? It didn’t and that’s why he retired as a 2 star.

He has spent a good part of his career destroying countries on behalf of the MIC and then immediately cashed in on that track record by hiring himself out to a MIC nonprofit to warmonger on their behalf.

Trump is a direct threat to ppl like this guy. If we aren’t in multiple wars, conflicts and destroying other countries on behalf of corporations he doesn’t get paid as well.

You are a disgrace to anyone and everyone who has served.



https://x.com/klaviercop/status/1751...210177366?s=20