Recommended Posts

I'm at a real loss about whether to post the following information here in Deep State Unravelling or open a new thread on Chinese Communist Party infiltration throughout the world. I think I will do both and make my opening post in the new thread with this post.

I will call the new thread "China Blue and China Dirty" as a dig against the Democrats :evil: .

In short, a list of almost 2,000,000 members of the CCP has been leaked and many of the members work in major companies and governments throughout the world.

Shit meet fan.

First look at this video from Sky News--a lady saying this will be front page in Australia tomorrow:

Then this, which includes a link to the actual list:

and

 

And here is something most interesting I saw.

This one is by inference.

Twitter constantly censors President Trump's tweets about election rigging.

President Trump made the following two tweets an hour ago and nada, zip, nothing from the Twitter censors.

and

I wonder if any executives of Twitter are on that CCP list of members, I wonder...

:)

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PDS said:

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.   Fraud allegations can be added to civil proceedings as a separate (Civil) cause of action.   The allegations need only be proven by a preponderance of evidence.  There is no reason for the Trump lawyers NOT to include fraud allegations in their swing states’ lawsuits—assuming they have the goods.

I think that there's a strategy reason why the Trump lawyers haven’t included fraud allegations in their swing states’ lawsuits - trying the fastest and neatest way first.  Fraud allegations are difficult, messy, and time-consuming to prove.  The procedural issue could have done the job in one swipe.

(I don’t understand the "no standing" ruling.  Seems to me that State X should have "standing" in regard to State Y's unconstitutional proceedings in a national election.  The results of such proceedings affect all other states.)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Lin knows something and is helping set the table for a major change.

I'm down with that.

If the system in place refuses to look at evidence, constantly censors people who talk about it, and puts on sham audits and so forth where detection is impossible, the military has to come in and do the job for them.

And, of course, get rid of the bad actors.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Have you looked at the evidence?

It's quite striking.

I can't think of a single reason why that would not be admissible in court as allegations of fraud.

Look at videos of Rudy's road show of hearings and tell me what the witnesses said is not admissible in court.

If you haven't looked, it's an eye-opener.

I don't know what to call that evidence other than testimony about fraud.

And yes, some of it comes with concrete facts that people can look at like more votes tallied than there are voters. When this is sporadic, it could be a mistake. When it is a lot and it always favors Biden, it's more than just an opinion of fraud.

There's a ton load of stuff like that.

Michael

“There’s a ton load of stuff like that.”

This comment proves my point.   If so, then why haven’t Trump’s lawyers made fraud allegations? 

I jumped in above after you posted the video about “election fraud” from EconomicWarRoom.  If there is so much “election fraud”, and if it so easily demonstrable, then Trump’s lawyers have committed malpractice by not pleading it.    I’m not criticizing the Trump lawyers’ win loss record—which isn’t exactly pretty—I’m criticizing their failure to plead the very cause of action that so many Trump supporters have been led to believe is the cornerstone of stolen election claim itself.    

If you have the goods, and you have less than 45 days to make your claim stick before the other guy is inaugurated, you don’t forget to plead the fraud claim.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be right about the strategy you outline above, Ellen.   [Good to talk to you, by the way].

That would be a very high-risk, high-reward strategy, and there really is no downside to including the fraud claim in the original pleading or complaint, so I tend to doubt this is what the thinking was.   In complex civil litigation, there are usually an abundance of causes of action plead, and when it looks like one or two don’t pan out, those claims can then be voluntarily dismissed.   There’s almost no risk to that.  

There’s a ton of risk to your suggestion, because once the underlying case is dismissed with prejudice (as several of them have been), there is almost no chance that a separate, independent claim for fraud would then successfully be filed.  Such a second lawsuit would generally be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.   Not to mention that the time constraints that the Trump team is working under would tend to not favor holding anything back in the first instance.  

Believe it or not, I’m really not trying to Monday-Morning-Quarterback Trump’s lawyers.   I’m just trying to make sense of a legal strategy that intimates to the public that there are massive amounts of “election fraud” issues while at the same time failing to take the opportunity to actually litigate those very issues.  

Something doesn’t add up here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think Lin knows something and is helping set the table for a major change.

I'm down with that.

If the system in place refuses to look at evidence, constantly censors people who talk about it, and puts on sham audits and so forth where detection is impossible, the military has to come in and do the job for them.

And, of course, get rid of the bad actors.

Michael

“And, of course, get rid of the bad actors.”  

How many Justices of the Supreme Court would this include?   7, 9, or just the 3-4 liberals?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, PDS said:

How many Justices of the Supreme Court would this include?   7, 9, or just the 3-4 liberals?  

David,

My guess: none.

That would depend on evidence of a SCOTUS justice accepting bribes, being blackmailed by fear of disclosure of sleaze or malfeasance, or that kind of thing.

But on general principle, nah...

Well...

Maybe Roberts.

:evil: 

Michael

 

btw - Even though I didn't see this term for the Texas lawsuit, I have heard it said that this case was dismissed essentially without prejudice. Meaning if Texas can find standing, it can re-submit the case. I can't say if this is true or not, but in my understanding and observation, it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, PDS said:

If there is so much “election fraud”, and if it so easily demonstrable, then Trump’s lawyers have committed malpractice by not pleading it.

David,

Hold your horses there, twinklefoot.

:evil:

There are many plausible explanations other than malpractice, despite how exciting the prospect of accusing Rudy Giuliani of malpractice may be...

I think Ellen's comment is correct. I recall there was a hugely publicized split between Rudy's team (the Trump team) and Sidney Powell. They stated openly back then that they were pursuing two different legal premises and were separating so that one would not overlap with the other. I even recall someone saying (was it Jenna?) that the main reason was agility and speed. As we all know, Sidney's premise is about nothing but fraud.

Of course, the fake news media had a ball with this back then (Trump is deranged and disorganized, yada yada yada), but I believe that's probably why.

Sidney has since been shown to be on Trump's team, although informally. So in effect, his lawyers are presenting fraud to the courts, even if that unity is informal.

After all, formally, there can only be one Trump team and there can only be one Kraken.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L Lin Wood: "If US Supreme Court does not stay Electoral College, @realDonaldTrump is bound by his oath to do so by imposing partial martial law."

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm down with that.

Interesting interview with Maria Bartiromo:

Michael Flynn says Americans will 'not allow' Biden inauguration - YouTube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If the system in place refuses to look at evidence, constantly censors people who talk about it, and puts on sham audits and so forth where detection is impossible, the military has to come in and do the job for them.

In other words:

Like I said, I'm down with that.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, December 18th is a day real shit should start happening. This is the day (45 days after the election date) that the DNI has to present a formal report to President Trump about foreign influence in the 2020 election.

If the Dominion machines are, according to the DNI, run by foreign agents interfering in the US election, I believe that will trigger a military option to apprehend all of the ballots everywhere a Dominion machine was used, including the machines themselves.

(btw - That's just about Dominion machines, not about other forms of foreign interference. Just think about that leaked list of almost 2 million CCP members with 58,000 Americans on that list... What's more, think about the timing of that leak... :) )

If nationwide rioting starts as a result, President Trump will issue a Proclamation to cease and desist within a certain time (I can't remember the formal wording right now), and if the riots continue, he will invoke the Insurrection Act.

It's going to get messy for a while.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Hold your horses there, twinklefoot.

:evil:

There are many plausible explanations other than malpractice, despite how exciting the prospect of accusing Rudy Giuliani of malpractice may be...

I think Ellen's comment is correct. I recall there was a hugely publicized split between Rudy's team (the Trump team) and Sidney Powell. They stated openly back then that they were pursuing two different legal premises and were separating so that one would not overlap with the other. I even recall someone saying (was it Jenna?) that the main reason was agility and speed. As we all know, Sidney's premise is about nothing but fraud.

Of course, the fake news media had a ball with this back then (Trump is deranged and disorganized, yada yada yada), but I believe that's probably why.

Sidney has since been shown to be on Trump's team, although informally. So in effect, his lawyers are presenting fraud to the courts, even if that unity is informal.

After all, formally, there can only be one Trump team and there can only be one Kraken.

:)

Michael

I am assuming that Rudy G is NOT committing malpractice.   This is the way lawyers talk:  i.e.,  you presume the strategy employed by a fellow lawyer does NOT include malpractice.  Here,  I am assuming that, instead, Rudy’s team cannot meet the evidentiary standards for fraud.   Thus the two if’s used in my formulation.    

Let’s not get personal, MSK.   No need to call me names, and no need to speculate about my motives for making statements here on OL.   I might turn out to be wrong in places, but you can at least presume good faith.  I’m not interested wasting my own or anybody else’s time.

By the way, there is no such thing as an “informal” legal team as you suggest above.   I am pretty certain that the fraud claims have not been “farmed out” to Sydney Powell’s team by the Trump legal team.   There would be no attorney-client protections under such an arrangement, and any communications between the respective legal teams would be subject to discovery.   That’s not a plausible arrangement in this context, and I just can’t imagine the Trump legal team being sanguine about another law firm addressing those issues in a manner that adequately protect’s Trump’s legal interests.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, PDS said:

Let’s not get personal, MSK.

David,

Testy?

It's a quip.

Not your kind of humor?

:) 

Besides, I have difficulty in reconciling these two statements:

14 hours ago, PDS said:

If there is so much “election fraud”, and if it so easily demonstrable, then Trump’s lawyers have committed malpractice by not pleading it.

 

12 hours ago, PDS said:

I am assuming that Rudy G is NOT committing malpractice.

I learned the English language a bit differently than this. Under no circumstances in the way I learned English do these two statements mean the same thing. Yet you are saying they do.

For me, it's time for a lawyer joke.

:) 

But I won't go there. I've heard (from Scott Adams) that some people have no sense of humor. I didn't figure you for one of those.

(Incidentally, ignoring the evidence when it is so easily observable with an "if" is the same thing as starting a statement with "if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists...". I believe you are competent, so I don't believe you will claim "no evidence" as a fact. And if it is only speculation, it's hot air--silly hot air--and nothing more. And I don't believe you are a silly man.)

Still, if you don't like the heat, don't go into the kitchen. You are not my anointed superior. Nor am I yours. That's the kitchen. I banter and will not be pressured into not bantering. If you seek something else, you won't find it here.

12 hours ago, PDS said:

 I am pretty certain that the fraud claims have not been “farmed out” to Sydney Powell’s team by the Trump legal team.

And I am pretty certain I didn't say that.

12 hours ago, PDS said:

There would be no attorney-client protections under such an arrangement, and any communications between the respective legal teams would be subject to discovery.   That’s not a plausible arrangement in this context, and I just can’t imagine the Trump legal team being sanguine about another law firm addressing those issues in a manner that adequately protect’s Trump’s legal interests.

In order to write that, I humbly suggest you have no inkling about how Trump people think. Different planet. 

They are not in it for the money and not in it to outsmart the other side on technicalities and not in it to rule over each other and "farm" stuff to each other. They are all in it to protect the Constitution first and Trump second. Even Trump. And Sidney is on a mission from God of good against evil. That goes for Lin, too. Both of them started their journeys way before communicating with the Trump team.

They play by the rules and use what they've got rather than defraud and try to get away with it (which is different than, say, the Perkins Coie mob). 

That's how they think. 

So when I said informal, it did not mean they coordinate with each other regularly outside of office hours. I meant they divided up the tasks and said God Speed and each played within the rules on their respective tasks. They are all equals and they are all after the same thing.

It's a different way of approaching a legal problem than I am starting to detect your way of approaching things is. They trust each other to do the right thing and do it to the best of their respective abilities. They are comrades in arms who came together from the bottom up. They were not appointed from the top down. That may sound odd given Trump's public persona and the big boss man, but that's the way they are.

There are no legal gotchas between them.

12 hours ago, PDS said:

Here,  I am assuming that, instead, Rudy’s team cannot meet the evidentiary standards for fraud.

Man, is that a wrong assumption. It shows me you have not looked at their evidence at all.

Granted, all of us, at times, opine over things we have not looked at. But when I see I keep getting feedback that I am way off base, I look. I may or may not keep my opinion, but I look. I highly recommend the practice.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

They are all in it to protect the Constitution first and Trump second. Even Trump. And Sidney is on a mission from God of good against evil. That goes for Lin, too.

David,

Sidney will pound some stakes in the hearts of the globalist technocratic dictatorship Dracula wannbe and the Chinese master of the world Dracula wannbe, at least as far as the 2020 election in America goes, and regardless of who looks down on her.

When people can see raw good and naked evil side by side, they always choose the good. The problem is the deceptive wrappers. The public is not very good at looking beneath the wrappers. But Sidney is quite good at taking those wrappers off of the bad guys.

And she has a track record to prove it.

As her work with Michael Flynn shows, she even beats corrupt judges who are hell bent on abusing their power to the limits of their muscle and calling in all their markers with cronies. If she has to step outside the court to do defeat that kind of evil, she will.

I once asked a lawyer in Brazil who was barking in my face, "Are you primarily interested in justice or the law?" He asked me what kind of question was that to a lawyer like him? He was so far gone in the system of the law being separate from human reality, he had no idea what I was asking. 

We were on opposite sides of a dispute. He lost. Even in Brazil. :) 

People choose the good when they can see it. 

Michael

 

LATER EDIT: Here's the full interview with Sidney.

(I just now saw this video. I absolutely love Sidney's legal and moral clarity and her ability to put it in simple language.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as we are on cybersecurity getting ready to take down the Deep State, there's this, too, from yesterday.

BREAKING: US Treasury Reportedly Breached by Hackers Backed by a Foreign Government

There's a tweet in the article.

And Joe Hoft the author of the article, asked:

Quote

Was this action in response to the release of the identities of millions of members of the Chinese Communist Party around the world that was reported earlier today?

Good question...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2020 at 10:14 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For those who think Lin Wood and Sidney Powell are going to fade into the background

Here's a 25 minute video from Sidney Powell out today, from the American Thought Leaders series of the Epoch Times:

Exclusive: Sidney Powell on 2020 Election Lawsuits, Supreme Court Decision & Gen. Michael Flynn Case - YouTube

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the pun goes, De-Barred.

BREAKING: Attorney General Bill Barr to Step Down Just Before Christmas

Quote

President Trump announced Monday evening that US Attorney General Bill Barr will be stepping down “just before Christmas.”

“Deputy Attorney General Jeff Rosen, an outstanding person, will become Acting Attorney General,” Trump said.

A couple weeks ago President Trump was asked if he had confidence in US Attorney General Bill Barr after comments Barr made to the Associated Press earlier this week on voter fraud.

President Trump said if the DOJ actually looked at the evidence of massive voter fraud they would see it was widespread.

“This is not civil, it is criminal,” Trump said.

On whether he has confidence in Barr, Trump replied, “Ask me that in a number of weeks from now.”

Michae;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering what kind of "lame duck" scorched Earth stuff Trump will be willing to pull prior to leaving office. Obviously there are some interesting potential pardons, but what about other maneuvers, declassifications, releases, etc.? Will he go out with a bang?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now