How do we establish that an election was illegitimate? (thread)

The first thing we have to do is agree on a standard for "fraud."

The problem right now is that we are operating with three different standards at the same time.

* The "popular opinion" standard

* The "media" standard

* The "legal" standard

And that is why we are talking past each other, and fighting.

The reality is that the "media" standard is the one all sides can agree on.

Popular opinion is easily dismissed.

Legal doctrine is not well understood, and takes too long for national security purposes.

When the media tells us to do something, we do it, and that is why the media is a significant intelligence asset.

Yesterday someone was talking with X, a typical clueless liberal, who said, 'If you can't believe The New York Times, then you are truly Alice in Wonderland."

Yes, Alice in Wonderland.

Don't we know.

"Alice" of course is an MKUltra mind control program.

A doctor said to me, "So you still don't believe in Covid?"

I said, "I think Covid accelerates other illnesses, and some are predisposed."

I know that my words are socially illegitimate because the media has constructed a narrative.

So the standard for election fraud is "what does the media say?"

Right now the media is saying "that never happened."

It isn't enough to argue that the media is biased, of course, because the programming against Trump is such that he was called "illegitimate" from the get-go.

You see, they brought the media in to poison the well during the campaign.

They took someone who was already a popular celebrity.

They turned him into Hitler.

You don't want Hitler in charge.

They brought the lawyers in to feed the media with stories.

They brought law enforcement in to make those stories true in the first place.

(Flynn)

We have a saying: You can't fight the whole world.

So how do we prove election fraud?

And this is where Hollywood comes in.

Hollywood is paid to show us what might be possible, for the purpose of training us to accept those future possibilities.

If Hollywood shows you men having sex with horses, you will be repulsed at first, but if they show it often enough, you will soon be making man-horse wedding cakes for Vogue.

Hollywood has given us lots of spy movies, gangster movies, and cop shows, not to mention "Judge Judy."

Did I ever tell you that we used to watch "Judge Judy" together -- and decide if she was right?

And so I will tell you what I learned from Hollywood, that translates very well into media justice.

If you can prove intent, you do not need to show the crime in order to establish guilt.

In other words, if a movie shows a man buying guns, duct tape, a van, and a house isolated in the woods -- we know he is setting up a crime scene.

If the cops show up before he ever hurts anyone, we accept that they were right.

What if I told you that the voting software used to count the ballots was a crime scene in progress?

What if I told you that Canada is more like a satellite of the CIA than a country unto itself?

Remember the Uranium One deal?

How did the Uranium go overseas?

What country did it go through? Canada.

There is this company, Dominion, which sounds to me like someone trying to take control of what they make.

Branding.

The software allows for a tremendous amount of latitude beyond strict counting.

It has a trigger that sets off a change in actual choices.

Let's not focus on the other stuff. Just on that.

I would argue that if you create a software which goes well beyond the strict capability for counting votes, and instead has a capability for changing them --

If you recruit people to collect ballots en masse --

Then you are setting up a crime scene.

How you justifies those things speaks not to reality, but to a form of mind control programming.

"It's a technical capability"

"We don't want voter suppression...people can't get to a mailbox..." -- huh?

I submit to you that these things don't pass the smell test.

I submit to you that these things can be discussed and debated over the televised media, with both "pro" and "con" making their case.

You can't argue that a certain choice of candidate is illegitimate - on either side.

If you can establish that someone made an effort to create a crime scene, and your evidence is clear, then it is also clear that the person wanted to deploy the weapon if the need arose.

In other words, the criminal will try to get their way the nice way (maybe they'll take the victim out to dinner, and get her roses - or in the case of an election, spread mass propaganda) -

but if they can't, then they go to Plan B.

The great thing about using this standard is that it's timely, and unbiased, and transparent, and promotes national security because both sides accept the rendering of a decision when they agree on the standard of fact.

Now, am I suggesting that we change the law itself, and run our country by a series of media calls?

Of course not.

I am suggesting that we follow what President Woodrow Wilson said in his timeless work "The Study of Administration," and that is to make explicit the role of popular sentiment in legal decisions.

When popular sentiment is based in reason, people do not have to agree, but at least they can have a conversation with one another based on a shared set of standards.

In the case of nationwide election fraud, let's face it -

You cannot possibly prove massive fraud in 50 states quickly enough to ensure a peaceful transition between Administrations.

But you can prove clear intent to defraud the election.

And logically, that is enough to hold us together until a legal decision is reached.

Remember - in any discussion, if you're trying to only make the case for one side, and the hell with the other, you have lost the argument from the get-go.

This requires, however, a good faith effort on all sides.

Absent that, we need to agree on a standard, and then let the debate commence.

(End.)

@threadreaderapp unroll

@threader_app compile