Last week, Biden’s corrupt and weaponized DOJ just issued the third most serious criminal indictment of Trump. The formal charges of “conspiracy to defraud the United States” do a puzzlingly half-baked job of disguising the indictment’s obvious purpose, which is to codify the “disinformation” scam in criminal law generally, and specifically to criminalize what we might call “electoral denial”
Indeed, there’s a reason the indictment begins with the false, absurd, and legally irrelevant claim that Trump made “knowingly false claims” about the 2020 election that “created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger” and eroded “public faith in the administration of elections”.
Despite losing, the accused was determined to stay in power. Thus, for more than two months after election day on November 3, 2020, the defendant spread lies that there had been fraud in determining the outcome of the election and that he had actually won. These statements were false, and the defendant knew they were false. But the defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway: to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, to create an intense national atmosphere of distrust and anger, and to erode public faith in the administration of the election “.
Never mind for a moment that questioning the legitimacy of an election is speech protected by the First Amendment. We now focus on the ludicrous insistence that Trump “knowingly lied” in his statements about the election. To say that Trump “knowingly lied” is not only to dispute his objective (and in our view entirely justified) questions about the election, it is to claim that subjectively, privately, in his mind, Trump actually thought the election was legit, which he legitimately lost, but he lied anyway.
How the hell would Biden’s corrupt DOJ boast of knowing that? The answer is they don’t. To prove that Trump “knowingly lied,” the DOJ is resorting to one of the darkest and most ridiculous sleight of hand tricks imaginable: assuming that Trump must have known better because supposed “experts” told him the election was not they had been stolen. Yes, you read that right. The basis of the DOJ’s allegation that Trump actually believed he lost the election despite his public statements is the fact that other people, in many cases people in the intelligence community, told him so. If that’s not absurd enough, check out the experts the DOJ deems so undeniably authoritative that simply telling Trump “oh no, the election was fair and square, nothing to see here” is enough to assume Trump believed them. :
According to the DOJ, Trump knew his election claims were false because “people in a better position to know the facts” had advised him otherwise, and those people include Mike Pence, senior DOJ officials, Director of National Intelligence, DHS CISA. , And others. In other words, Trump must have believed his claims of voter fraud were false because people he should have trusted told him otherwise, like the very establishment snakes and intelligence community operatives who they had demonstrably worked to sabotage his presidency from day one. That’s one hell of a theory!
The DOJ’s decision to invoke CISA as an authority is particularly egregious given that agency was recently exposed for engaging in and then attempting to cover up rampant unconstitutional censorship leading up to the 2020 election.
“CISA made a swift move on the American public by creating a social media censorship division in the name of fighting foreign influence, but then also quickly took long-arm jurisdiction over domestic opinions online,” Benz told Fox News Digital. “The CISA officials knew they did not have the legal authorization to do what they were doing. Now, CISA appears to be burying evidence of its domestic censorship activities, just as scrutiny of potential malfeasance is heating up.” [Fox News]
CISA’s flagrant misconduct was subject to a main report by the House Subcommittee on Armaments of the Federal Government:
Although the investigation is ongoing, the information obtained so far has revealed that CISA has facilitated the censorship of Americans directly and through third-party intermediaries. The report also details how:
- CISA considered the creation of a “Rapid Response Team” against disinformation capable of being physically deployed in the United States.
- CISA moved its censorship operation to a non-profit organization funded by CISA after CISA and the Biden Administration were sued in federal court, implicitly admitting that their censorship activities are unconstitutional.
- CISA wanted to use the same non-profit organization funded by CISA as a spokesperson to “prevent the appearance of government propaganda.”
- CISA advisory committee members said it was “only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work.”
- In response to growing public scrutiny, CISA purged its website of references to its domestic surveillance and censorship activities. [House.gov]
To get an even better idea of what this internal government censorship agency was all about, consider the following facts about CISA’s founding director, Chris Krebs.
- Krebs, who administered the federal portion of the 2020 election after DHS effectively nationalized election infrastructure on Jan. 6, 2017, said all attorneys representing conservative clients in claims of 2020 election irregularities should be permanently disqualified and banned from the practice of law for life.
- Krebs said the 2020 incumbent, Donald Trump, was a threat to national security because he adopted domestic “disinformation”.
- Krebs has said this repeatedly on the record “Disinformation” is the biggest threat to electoral security. Note that Kreb’s role in government was not to be as an arbiter of truth; he was supposed to be a Microsoft cybersecurity expert. However, the views of US national citizens on social media became, in Kreb’s estimation, the number one “cyber” security threat facing the US, replacing hacking and foreign malware. [FFO]
We are now in a better position to appreciate the sheer Orwellian absurdity of the DOJ’s position. According to them, Trump should have lied in his claims about voter fraud, because other undeniably authoritative sources told him the election was above board, and one of those sources is an organization recently exposed for violating the Constitution by aggressively pressing censorship. until the 2020 election, and then further exposure to cover it badly. This is an organization led by a man who championed government pressure to censor Hunter Biden’s laptop story and didn’t care that every official in the intelligence community was wrong about the hack to the Russians: these are the same intelligence agencies that Trump is supposed to consider so authoritative that for him to deviate from his position is tantamount to lying.
It’s interesting to note that his same ridiculous tactic appears in a civil context in Ray Epps’ recent lawsuit against Fox News by Revolver’s Tucker Carlson and Darren Beattie who reported on Epps’ involvement on January 6th.
Once again, the legal civil complaint against Fox in this case makes the ridiculous claim that Tucker knowingly lied in his reporting on Epps and January 6th. On what basis can the Epps legal team pretend to guess Tucker’s thought process? Well, for one, Epps’ lawyers claim that Tucker acted with reckless disregard for the truth because he didn’t take the committee’s word for it on Jan. 6 when they claimed that Epps wasn’t a Fed. That’s right, to not accept the verdict of the corrupt and partisan January 6 committee of Adam Kinziger and Liz Cheney is to show a reckless respect for the truth. You can’t make this up!
For the cherry on top, the legal complaint alleges that Tucker acted with reckless disregard for the truth by quoting and amplifying Dr.’s own reports. Darren J. Beattie of Revolver News! The argument goes that if you trust Darren Beattie’s reporting, you’re lying because Beattie is a discredited conspiracy theorist; just ask CNN and the New York Times!
Far from being a discredited conspiracy theorist, Beattie’s reporting in Revolver News that changed the national conversation on January 6th has been confirmed time and time again. Months after Revolver’s first January 6th report, the New York Times was even forced to admit the presence of government informants on January 6th. The former public face of the January 6 pipe bomb investigation largely corroborated the suspicions raised in Revolver’s extensive and detailed report on this darkest of Fedsurrection hoaxes. And more recently, a leaked interview between Tucker and former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund reveals that Sund believes the suspicions about Epps are absolutely legitimate.
It is important that we do not allow the ridiculousness of these charges to overshadow their danger. The strategy described above is both subtle and extremely dark, and effectively amounts to the government saying that if you give credence to sources not approved by the regime, you are guilty of “reckless disregard for the truth” and punished accordingly; likewise, if you don’t take the word of demonstrable liars in the intelligence community and criminal organizations like CISA, you are guilty of “knowingly lying” and criminally liable, as in Trump’s case. With this legal innovation deployed on the civil side of the Ray Epps lawsuit and on the criminal side against Trump, we’ve descended into sub-Orwellian territory in which we don’t bow to regime-approved experts, no matter how malicious or discredited they are. they are, it will pour us. bankruptcy, prison or worse.
English 
Español de Venezuela