Trump Indictment Criminalises Political Dissent

And Other News

The goal of former President Trump’s ongoing investigations and prosecutions is to rig the 2024 presidential election, but the most recent indictment goes above and beyond by controlling even the election’s immediate aftermath.

The indictment by Democrat special counsel Jack Smith on January 6 criminalises election challenges, breaking new legal territory from converting misdemeanours into crimes to concluding that the statute of limitations is only a suggestion or at least opposition to Democrats in elections. And all political dissension with it.

Trump’s election challenges, according to the indictment from January 6, were illegal. What new information does this indictment include that the other ones did not? This one is meant to frighten any Republicans who might try to contest the results of the 2024 presidential election.

Democrats are criminalising political dissent before and after the forthcoming election because they were dissatisfied with indicting the top GOP primary contender in order to rig the election.

With its assertion that Trump was “determined to remain in power” and “spread lies” that there had been fraud, the indictment looks more like a Washington Post editorial. This is because it claims that Trump “created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and eroded public faith in the administration of the election.”

Where is Al Gore’s prosecution if claiming that a presidential election was rigged is unlawful? Democrats have never been held accountable for spreading lies and starting investigations about their false claims that Trump was elected by the Russians, even when they did so in an effort to “create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger,” claiming that Bush was elected using hanging chads, contesting his election in Congress both times, or claiming that Bush was elected using hanging chads.

Democrats receive book deals, nighttime spots on MSNBC, and occasionally, like Al Gore, they even receive Oscars and Nobel Peace Prizes when they propagate false information about an election.

Election challenges have been a common practise for more than 200 years, dating back to the presidential election of 1800. Election challenges are not a threat to free societies with transparent elections, and the Democrats have sunk a lot of money into their own attempts. In 2020, the Biden campaign invested $20 million in more than 60 post-election lawsuits.

Longtime Democratic ally Smith won’t be charging Marc Elias or Joe Biden. He is accusing Trump of conspiring to “obstruct” the “lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government,” as well as “obstructing and impeding the January 6 congressional proceeding” and “conspiracy against the right to vote.”

The 18 U.S. Code 371 becomes a flexible instrument for repressing a variety of political protest when publicly held election challenges are characterised as an attempt to “defraud” the United States government. By construing lobbying or any form of advocacy as the legal equivalent of tampering with evidence, 18 U.S. Code 1512 is weaponized against pretty much everyone attempting to affect the way the government works. This includes almost everyone with a political interest. Election fraud is turned into a civil right by using 18 U.S. Code 241, which was initially created to combat the KKK, against Trump and anybody attempting to confirm accurate election results.

Jack Smith’s indictment will result in an unparalleled repression of the political opposition, which will continue after Trump’s presidency and the election of 2024, in addition to the malicious misuse of federal law to target a political opponent. In order to criminalise most political parties and activities, Smith has done nothing less than take legal provisions and utilise them to create a criminal infrastructure comparable to that of communist China or Russia.

This was the totalitarian situation that Russiagate had only hinted at, but which is now fully realised with an indictment that is not only unconstitutional but also seeks to replace any kind of open political system with a paranoid surveillance state that ruthlessly eliminates any threat to “democracy” by abusing existing laws to target and imprison political opponents on the basis of their political affiliation.

And that’s truly what’s at risk here.

The indictment from January 6 heavily leans on editorialising about the danger to democracy, accusing the former president of “destabilising lies about election fraud” that “targeted a bedrock function of the federal government” without establishing why impinging on such functions should be illegal. If seeking out alternate electors and persuading state lawmakers are crimes, then almost every president before 1900 would have been imprisoned. ambitious politicians like Alexander Hamilton not included. Democrats have been trying to do away with the electoral college through the back door by adopting comprehensive measures like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This is because every time they lose an election, they begin to scheme ways to do away with it.

Should the NPVIC be viewed as a criminal conspiracy against a “bedrock function of the federal government” together with the member states? The indictment of Jack Smith established a standard.

The indictment constantly accuses Trump and his associates of “fraud” on the basis that Biden won the election and that consequently contesting it is fraudulent, which is self-evident to Democrats. With language like “baseless fraud claims,” “sham election investigations,” and “false claims of election fraud,” Smith’s indictment grounds its allegations of fraud on those made by his own party. Instead of being governed by the law, all of them are the prosecutor’s political opinions.

And the indictment boils down to that. Is it against the law to oppose Democrats? All kinds of political resistance would be prohibited if it were true, as Smith claims in his indictment.

Democrats and their media claim that the indictment is politically neutral, despite the fact that it is not only the result of political prejudice but also can only exist as a Democratic political document with no application to a court system that is free from political bias. Democrats believe that Trump was making “false claims” about a contest that he didn’t win.

But that’s just an opinion, not a reality, like so much in politics.

Smith relentlessly presses Trump’s beliefs despite the fact that you can only arrest someone for their actions and not their beliefs since without them, there would be no crime. Furthermore, since there is no crime without a belief, then there never was a crime in the first place.

Because the Nevada Secretary of State had issued a “Facts vs. Myths” paper, among other things, Smith alleges that Trump made “false claims” with knowledge. The indictment states that it is unlawful for the Secretary of State of Nevada to disregard the authority of the President of the United States and that they cannot disagree.

Democrats who disagreed with Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ findings in 2000—who were afterwards criticised, intimidated, and made fun of—were not placed on trial. The relative politics of Republicans and Democrats, not their respective beliefs, are the problem.

For the past two generations, Democrats have made political disagreement a crime. Because they “deny” global warming, environmental activists demand that oil and gas firms be charged with fraud. If police forces deny claims of systemic racism, civil rights investigations may be launched. The indictment from January 6 is a component of a totalitarian programme that rejects the notion of political dissent and the importance of discussion in our system’s marketplace of ideas.

This indictment concerns a danger to the Bill of Rights as well as to a previous president.

Dissent becomes unlawful and freedom is killed if Jack Smith’s indictment from January 6 is upheld. Disagreement with leftists now results in arrests, court cases, and jail terms in addition to job loss and social media debates. The survival of America is at risk in this situation.

Bill Gates talks about “death panels”

Bill Gates, a globalist millionaire and fan of reducing the world’s population, has told world leaders that it’s time to use “death panels” to put regular, law-abiding people to death for the crime of being useless to the elite.

As part of their Great Reset, Bill Gates and his colleagues at the World Economic Forum want to bring about a world like this, where people are cruel and kill each other. We can’t let their bad ways of thinking become the new standard.

Gates doesn’t say why we can’t pay teachers and let people have a peaceful life. Why can’t it be both? After all, we used to be able to pay teachers’ salaries and let our grandparents spend their senior years with their grandkids without any trouble.

If you want to know what else they have planned, you should look at what happened at the G20 in Bali, Indonesia, at the end of last year.

The G20 is a meeting of the leaders of the most important businesses in the world. They come from both “advanced” and “developing” countries.

Aside from the rooms where world leaders meet to talk about different problems, there are dozens of side events where “dignitaries” get together.

A Burisma accountant who blew the whistle on financial crimes by Biden has been found dead.

Why did people like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab go to the G20? They didn’t get any votes.

People who ask this question are being called conspiracy theorists by the main stream media. But it is a perfectly fine question to ask.

Gates, for his part, is using the meeting to tell world leaders that “very, very high medical costs” will soon make it necessary to end the lives of sick and dying people through “death panels.”

The international elite’s concern with getting rid of people has everything to do with Gates’ death panels.

Bill Gates’s plans sound a lot like what the World Economic Forum says about suicide and what the Canadian government says is a wicked new way to deal with inflation, homelessness, rising crime rates, and food shortages: death panels for the useless.

The Trudeau government says they will now pay for euthanasia for people who are “too poor to continue living with dignity.”

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Canada is becoming more and more barbaric. The WEF has reached every part of the Canadian government. Both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his second-in-command Chrystia Freeland are WEF Young Global Leaders who have given Klaus Schwab and his vision for the future their whole hearts.

And don’t be confused: this plan includes getting rid of most of the world’s people. The technocrats in charge at the WEF are so excited about their plan to kill most of the world’s people that they can’t stop talking about it.

How do we know when to stop and say “enough”? How many times does the World Economic Forum have to say it wants to do bad things before the rest of the world pays attention?

Yuval Noah Harari is Klaus Schwab’s right-hand man. He has a habit of saying things that shouldn’t be said out loud, and last month he said what many people have thought for a long time.

Harari, who was pushing his new book, said that the big question for those in power in the 21st century is, “Why do we need so many people?”

Titanic Proved by a Bombshell Piece of Evidence The disaster with the submersible was a “inside job.”

And this isn’t the first time Yuval Noah Harari has said something about what they have planned for people. He recently said that the WEF thinks that the vast majority of people are useless and no longer needed.

Harari says that so-called “common people” are right to worry that they will become “redundant” in the future.

When Harari’s words are put together with those of other WEF advisors, like Bill Gates and his desire for “death panels,” it becomes clear that they are planning to kill a lot of people.

How much proof does a conspiracy idea need to turn into a conspiracy fact?

You can be sure that going after the infirm is part of a “stepping-stone” process where, a short while later, the people slated for death would be those over a 65 age; ; then it will be the “Caucasian males”; then those who hold beliefs that go against the government narrative, etc.

Russia: Unimpressed by the captured Swedish armour

The defence minister was informed that the CV90 vehicle provided to Ukraine was deficient in spare components and could not withstand an RPG-7.

Source: The Russian Defence Ministry

The Swedish CV90 tracked armoured vehicle, which was taken by Russian forces during the conflict with Ukraine, has drawn criticism from the Russian military for its capabilities.

The disparaging remarks can be heard in a video that the Defence Ministry published on Friday in order to document Sergey Shoigu, the ministry’s director, visiting a command post associated with the Ukrainian operation. The visiting official saw the prize from Commander Andrey Mordvichev.

The Swedish-built vehicle, which has been in use since 1993, resembles a tank, according to Mordvichev. A “simple and cheap” RPG-7, a shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenade launcher that has been in use since the 1960s, however, was able to take out the one that was taken by the Russian soldiers.

The commander responded, “The vehicle was stopped with the tool of our grandfathers.”

Mordvichev informed the minister that although the donated armour was deficient in field repair equipment and replacement parts, it did carry an emergency stop kit.

The Russian Defence Ministry is the source.
According to the Russian military, the CV90’s primary armament has a very sluggish rate of fire due to its reloading system and is rather tall, making it a pretty simple target.

The vehicle that the Russian forces captured seems to be equipped with a Bofors 40/70 autocannon. It shoots 40mm bullets that are loaded into a magazine with a total capacity of 24 rounds and three distinct compartments for three different types of ammunition. The magazine is manually loaded.

Although Mordvichev acknowledged that the CV90 was equipped with a variety of cartridges, he claimed that the total number was small.

Swedish armour was taken by the Russians, according to reports from the end of July. This was the first time this specific weapon platform had been taken during the fighting in Ukraine. The commander said during the trip that its driver and gunner were deceased.

Dumping old and outdated military equipment in the war will give the governments of the West an excuse to update their arsenal. The industrial/military complex must be delighted in this.