Deep State Unraveling

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 minutes ago, merjet said:

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UBSG.SW/holders?p=UBSG.SW

Come on, Merlin.

UBS Securities is a separate company from UBS Group.

It is affiliated with USB Group.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1827586/000182758620000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml

Incidentally, I got that link in the tweet in my post right above yours.

If you want to play gotcha while the adults are trying to talk about real issues, at least try to get the name of the goddam company right you are snarking about.

You show you are not the least bit interested in the topic, but instead interested in trolling even to the point of doing gotcha with the wrong company based on similarity of names.

You embarrass yourself this way.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's cement this a little better to show how bad a mistake can be when the name of a company is not even looked at right.

Evidence needs to be looked at.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's rub it in a little bit more.

Just to be clear.

What is Lin Wood doing?

He is saying, "efforts underway to verify."

Then he is looking at evidence.

I highly recommend this process.

Michael

[merjet]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[blah, blah, blah]

What I quoted was: "The parent company of Dominion Voting Systems received $400 million from an Investment Bank in Switzerland that is 75% owned by the Chinese government."

UBS Securities is located in China, not Switzerland. The Chinese government does not own 75% of UBS Group.

You embarrass yourself this way.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, merjet said:

What I quoted was: "The parent company of Dominion Voting Systems received $400 million from an Investment Bank in Switzerland that is 75% owned by the Chinese government."

UBS Securities is located in China, not Switzerland. The Chinese government does not own 75% of UBS Group.

You embarrass yourself this way.

Merlin,

You are being silly now.

Nobody ever said the Chinese government owned any part of UBS Group.

You fucked up and thought USB Securities was USB Group and jumped in with a belly flop in front of the entire forum.

I've got a lot to do, so I'm not going to address you anymore on this issue.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The buzz has started.

If this gets to fever pitch in the public, it will most likely happen.

Attorney Lin Wood: President Trump Should Declare Martial Law to Hold New Election

Quote

The We The People Convention published a full page ad in the Washington Times on Tuesday calling on President Donald Trump to declare a limited martial law and hold a new election if the US Courts and Congress do not follow the US Constitution.

Attorney Lin Wood tweeted this out today.

“Our country is headed to civil war. A war created by 3rd party bad actors for their benefit – not for We The People.

Communist China is leading the nefarious efforts to take away our freedom.

@realDonaldTrump should declare martial law.”

Michael

[Peter]

I have worries about any suggestion to declare martial law, especially if it interferes with the Presidential swearing in, in January. From Biden's and half of America's point of view, that might be considered treason. In the meantime the presumptive President elect is selecting his cabinet. I am certainly hoping for the right outcome in the courts.    

[Peter]

Caution! A bumpy road is ahead. Any push for a “civil war” or insurrection will bring a knock on your door from the FBI or some other state or federal law enforcement agency. If martial law is declared by the President, it would open the doors for retaliation that would be greater than the Watergate fiasco. To declare martial law would require the military and law enforcement to be totally behind President Trump, and that may not be the case, especially with individual state’s national guard units.

Some or all of the Supreme Court justices could swear Biden into the office of the Presidency. After that any attempts for a “coup” would tear the country apart, and the result could be life terms for the perpetrators. I am curious about what percent of Trump voters would join in the fray? edit. I am wrong. It would be the chief justice who would swear in Biden. Peter   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 minutes ago, Peter said:

I have worries about any suggestion to declare martial law, especially if it interferes with the Presidential swearing in, in January.

Peter,

Just checking.

Do you have any worries about election fraud and voter fraud on the scale it was carried out?

Also, I wouldn't be concerned if martial law would be called treason. The power to invoke martial law has strict conditions and it is Constitutional. Notice that Lin Wood's call for marital law is conditioned by the statement, "if the US Courts and Congress do not follow the US Constitution."

On the other hand, committing large-scale election fraud is not Constitutional. The people who did that actually do have to worry about having committed treason. And they don't have to worry about being called traitors on a partisan divide. They have to be worried about being called traitors in a court of law.

5 minutes ago, Peter said:

Some or all of the Supreme Court justices could swear Biden into the office of the Presidency.

Without due process?

I don't know where your information is coming from, but it's not from anything based on US law.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

Trade you.

You can take Trudeau, We will take Biden.

We will throw in Freeland for free...

[merjet]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[blah, blah, blah]

LOL. Your mind-reading ability is atrocious. Do you know how to read correctly, silly boy?

[Brant Gaede]

24 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

Just checking.

Do you have any worries about election fraud and voter fraud on the scale it was carried out?

Also, I wouldn't be concerned if martial law would be called treason. The power to invoke martial law has strict conditions and it is Constitutional. Notice that Lin Wood's call for marital law is conditioned by the statement, "if the US Courts and Congress do not follow the US Constitution."

On the other hand, committing large-scale election fraud is not Constitutional. The people who did that actually do have to worry about having committed treason. And they don't have to worry about being called traitors on a partisan divide. They have to be worried about being called traitors in a court of law.

Without due process?

I don't know where your information is coming from, but it's not from anything based on US law.

Michael

I believe any Federal judge can swear in a President, at least if it's constitutional.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just now, Brant Gaede said:

... at least if it's constitutional.

Brant,

That's the rub on all of this.

I don't think any American should be happy with a President who gets sworn in based on unconstitutional actions. I fear, though, many Americans would be just fine with it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

30 minutes ago, merjet said:

LOL. Do you know how to read, silly boy?

You shouldn't poop in public.

--Brant

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Do you have any worries about election fraud and voter fraud on the scale it was carried out?

AG Barr reported today that they have NOT found wide spread fraud.

Of course there was fraud and law breaking, and those people will go to prison. Where fraud occurred there should be a recount and possibly a revote.    

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

I believe any Federal judge can swear in a President, at least if it's constitutional.

You are right! I did not know that, though I remember “swearing ins” after Kennedy and Reagan were shot.  

From Wikipedia: Sarah Tilghman Hughes (August 2, 1896 – April 23, 1985) was an American lawyer and federal judge who served on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. She is best known as the judge who swore in Lyndon B. Johnson as President of the United States on Air Force One after John F. Kennedy . . . .

From Wiki: Any public official such a notary or JP that is authorized to administer oaths could swear in the president in an emergency. By current custom, the chief justice of the US swears in the president under ordinary conditions.

From Microsoft.  . . . . The chief justice of the Supreme Court swears in the president of the United States on Inauguration Day. That means Chief Justice John Roberts will swear …

[william.scherk]

26 minutes ago, Peter said:

AG Barr reported today that they have NOT found wide spread fraud.

Here's a link to AP, who broke the story and offer the fullest details. It also came out today that John Durham has been given a designation of Special Counsel Prosecutor, which will shield his investigation from Presidential Interference (by, presumably, Biden). I think it is important to "read past the headlines" ...

Barr: No evidence of fraud that’d change election outcome

Quote

[...] The comments are especially direct coming from Barr, who has been one of the president’s most ardent allies. Before the election, he had repeatedly raised the notion that mail-in voter fraud could be especially vulnerable to fraud during the coronavirus pandemic as Americans feared going to polls and instead chose to vote by mail.

[...]

Last month, Barr issued a directive to U.S. attorneys across the country allowing them to pursue any “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities, if they existed, before the 2020 presidential election was certified, despite no evidence at that time of widespread fraud. That memorandum gave prosecutors the ability to go around longstanding Justice Department policy that normally would prohibit such overt actions before the election was certified. Soon after it was issued, the department’s top elections crime official announced he would step aside from that position because of the memo.

[...]

Trump has railed against the election in tweets and in interviews though his own administration has said the 2020 election was the most secure ever. Trump recently allowed his administration to begin the transition over to Biden, but has still refused to admit he lost.

The issues Trump’s campaign and its allies have pointed to are typical in every election: Problems with signatures, secrecy envelopes and postal marks on mail-in ballots, as well as the potential for a small number of ballots miscast or lost.

But they’ve also requested federal probes into the claims. Attorney Sidney Powell has spun fictional tales of election systems flipping votes, German servers storing U.S. voting information and election software created in Venezuela “at the direction of Hugo Chavez,” – the late Venezuelan president who died in 2013. Powell has since been removed from the legal team after an interview she gave where she threatened to “blow up” Georgia with a “biblical” court filing.

Barr didn’t name Powell specifically but said: “There’s been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that,” Barr said.

He said people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said such a remedy for those complaints would be a top-down audit conducted by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department.

“There’s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all, and people don’t like something they want the Department of Justice to come in and ‘investigate,’” Barr said.

He said first of all there must be a basis to believe there is a crime to investigate.

“Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. They are not systemic allegations and. And those have been run down; they are being run down,” Barr said. “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on.”

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by william.scherk
Corrected Special Counsel

[Peter]

3 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I think it is important to "read past the headlines" ...

Thanks William, that clears it up. I did worry that someone on the incoming Biden team, once installed, would try to meddle with the investigation. 

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Jules Troy said:

We will throw in Freeland for free...

I knew you were Canadian, but I did not know if Freeland was a place or a person so I looked it up.
From Politico. Trudeau tasks Chrystia Freeland with Canada’s comeback By Andy Blatchford  6 days ago. OTTAWA — Chrystia Freeland is known as Justin Trudeau’s “minister of everything,” deployed in service of national unity, continental trade and relations with the combative Trump administration. Now she’s Canada’s finance minister and her latest mission is epic . . . .

[Jules Troy]

Peter, she is Trudeau’s “do everything I want” person....

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

AG Barr reported today that they have NOT found wide spread fraud.

Peter,

If the press says it, it must be true. Right?

Lin Wood blasted the Barr statement, then started doubting it was a Barr statement.

In other words, Barr said, except he didn't say. At least not yet...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

CBS is getting in on the truth.

For people who get their reality from the mainstream press and not from facts, I doubt this will sink in for any length of time except for the moment.

Tomorrow they will go back to thinking the now-debunked press spin about Barr is reality.

Why?

Because the press will spin it some more.

And press spin, you know, is reality.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Of grapevines and grapes. What I think about incoming "plausible" claims and tellings is that among my first cognitive tasks is to find out the earliest instance of a claim being made.  Going to the original source makes me feel like a "researcher," which as with QAnon "research," gives a warm inner glow.

More seriously, it's hard to know what to spend time with. Which tellings of which stories contain enough associated claims so that we can cross-check? Which claims may be re-tellings, or renovated stories that have a history (and previous challenges)? Where do you put your shovel in to do the hard work of what Michael calls "Cognitive" (before Normative), to use an analogy?  Which tools in our Reason kit are best deployed at this first step?

On 11/28/2020 at 10:32 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On 11/28/2020 at 9:56 PM, ThatGuy said:

That's the first time I heard about this in relation to the Germany server seizure; wow.

Gen. McInerney was careful to say he hasn't verified the casualties, yet. But this information came from an "initial report" he received. (Watch those two short clips above.)

On the grapevine I frequent, I have heard that these casualties were reported as due to a training accident. Apparently, that's the way the hidden powers report casualties for covert operations.

I even remember a tweet from President Trump not too long ago mentioning an Army training accident overseas and casualties. I think it was a helicopter accident. I would have to look it up, though.

That extra information is not fact, though. It's grapevine talk. I, for one, find it plausible.

There's also grapevine talk--a little less compelling in my view--that servers were also confiscated by special forces in Toronto and Barcelona. Could be...

He ends with the fun stuff, but I think Michael's "first shovel" is pretty Objectivishly smart: "General McInerney was careful to say he hasn't verified the casualties, yet." 

So, I can ask "find out the earliest instance of a claim being made," and in that search perhaps sift out the "necessary" associated claims, in situ.  Then share, of course. 

"What is the important claim being made? What associated claims are implicated by the main claim?" 

Ultimately -- can the important claim/s be pleaded effectively in court before the December 8 so-called "Safe Harbour" deadline?

I think the latest Wisconsin suit on the docket is most likely to be relevant to any state's now-"certified" results being formally kicked into appeals-and-up court. It's tight and well-argued and is impressing The Enemy. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by william.scherk
Minor spelling, grammar fixes; fixed error about the safe-harbour deadline. It's not in the constitution; added last paragraph

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, william.scherk said:

More seriously, it's hard to know what to spend time with.

William,

Here is a suggestion.

Why don't you spend time repeating what the mainstream fake news said Bill Barr said but didn't say?

 

Michael

[Jules Troy]

I predict 4 yrs of whinging...