WAS JANUARY 6 A FALSE FLAG OPERATION?
A sham committee produced more questions than answers about January 6, 2021, events...
According to the Democrats, the events on January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol were not a false flag operation, a covert operation in which one party stages an event to make it appear that another party is responsible.
While the Democrats claim that there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the events of January 6 were a false flag operation, the actions of the highly partisan "Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol," ignored long-standing rules of the House, was fraught with irregularities, inconsistencies, and outright manipulation of evidence, and never asked pertinent questions of responsible parties charged with the safety and security of the Capitol complex.
Moreover, partisan political agents of our deeply compromised preeminent intelligence and law enforcement agencies, at least in this case, could not be trusted to tell the truth as many had previously perjured themselves before Congress.
Suspicion remains…
While loudly and vehemently rejected as a “conspiracy theory,” we have come to see that similar serious events derided as conspiracy theories by progressive communist democrats and their media propagandists were accurate and, often, worse than thought possible.
"They" confessed to interfering in an election...
Time Magazine, a progressive publication, published a lengthy article titled “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election” on February 4, 2021. In that article, a well-planned, well-executed game plan to oppose the candidacy of Donald Trump is detailed.
The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election
There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.
The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted.
[OCS: As with the progressive's mantra, "We didn't interfere with an election, and pleased that we did."]
For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.
Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.
War gaming a disputed election on January 6?
Well before the following electoral analysis was published in the Winter of 2019, Professor Edward B. Foley, a recognized and well-regarded constitutional law scholar, war-gamed the 2020 election and scenarios that could affect the outcome. In his theoretical analysis, he used the example of a matchup between Democrat Elizabeth Warren and Republican Donald Trump. This prescient analysis was circulated among the Democrat elites and other interest parties.
Here are the highlights which, unlike a conspiracy theory, posit the desperate need for the Democrats to disrupt the official Congressional proceedings on January 6, 2021, before Vice President Mike Pence acting as the President of the Senate can accept electoral votes cast by any alternate state of electors.
|
I. FROM NOVEMBER 3, 2020 THROUGH DECEMBER 14, 2020 A. What Could Happen Despite protests and counter-protests, and lawsuits and counter-lawsuits—each side accusing the other of attempting to steal an election that is rightfully theirs—Pennsylvania’s election officials certify the result as a miniscule 2,500-vote victory for Warren, based on the strength of the “overtime” votes counted during the canvassing process. This official certification, of course, is not technically that Warren herself has won Pennsylvania’s electoral votes, but rather than the slate of presidential electors pledged to Warren have won, based on the popular vote, the right to serve as the state’s electors. Pennsylvania’s governor so certifies pursuant to state law. Also, as required by Congress, the governor sends this “certificate of ascertainment” to the National Archives, thereby notifying the federal government who has been officially appointed the state’s electors.16 These electors then meet on the day appointed by Congress (Monday, December 14) and indeed cast their 20 electoral votes for Warren. These electors then dutifully transmit a certificate of their votes to “the President of the Senate,” as well as sending a copy to the National Archives, both submissions as specified by Congress. But this is not all that happens in Pennsylvania during this time. At Trump’s urging, the state’s legislature—where Republicans have majorities in both houses—purports to exercise its authority under Article II of the Constitution to appoint the state’s presidential electors directly. Taking their cue from Trump, both legislative chambers claim that the certified popular vote cannot be trusted because of the blue shift that occurred in overtime. Therefore, the two chambers claim to have the constitutional right to supersede the popular vote and assert direct authority to appoint the state’s presidential electors, so that this appointment is in line with the popular vote tally as it existed on Election Night, which Trump continues to claim is the “true” outcome. The state’s Democratic governor refuses to assent to this assertion of authority by the state’s legislature, but the legislature’s two chambers proclaim that the governor’s assent is unnecessary. They cite early historical practices in which state legislatures appointed presidential electors without any involvement of the state’s governor. They argue that like constitutional amendments, and unlike ordinary legislation, the appointment of presidential electors when undertaken directly by a state legislature is not subject to a gubernatorial veto. Although the governor refuses to certify this direct legislative appointment of presidential electors, the Republican-pledged electors who have been purportedly appointed by the legislature proceed to conduct their own meeting on the day that Congress has specified for the casting of electoral votes (again, Monday, December 14). At this meeting, they cast “their” 20 electoral votes for Trump. They, too, purport to certify these votes by sending a certificate to the President of the Senate and a copy to the National Archives, according to the procedures specified by Congress. Thus, when Congress meets on January 6, 2021 to count the electoral votes from the states, there are two conflicting certificates of electoral votes from Pennsylvania. One submission, from the Democratic electors and reflecting the governor’s certificate of ascertainment, records Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes for Warren. The other, from the Republican electors and reflecting the legislature’s purported direct appointment, records Pennsylvania’s electoral votes for Trump. And so, the controversy over Pennsylvania has reached Congress. The legislature may require concurrence of the governor before any such move could be considered a valid rescission of the statute authorizing popular appointment. Even so, if the two houses of the state legislature purport to do this, and if the electors purportedly appointed meet and cast their electoral votes—and, most importantly, if these electors send their electoral votes to the President of the Senate—then the President of the Senate has these electoral votes in hand. That is enough for Congress to consider the votes and potentially accept those votes as the authoritative electoral votes from Pennsylvania. In any event, this analysis will proceed on the assumption that Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, receives two sets of electoral votes from Pennsylvania: one reflecting the count of the canvass, certified by the governor; and the other reflecting the legislature’s assertion of its authority to directly appoint the state’s electors. II. FROM JANUARY 6, 2021, THROUGH JANUARY 20, 2021 A. What Could Happen As January 6, 2021 approaches, the two parties take to cable news and social media to test various arguments as to why their candidate is the winner entitled to be inaugurated as president on January 20. Some Republicans take the especially aggressive position that Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, has the unilateral authority under the Twelfth Amendment to decide which certificate of electoral votes from Pennsylvania is the authoritative one entitled to be counted in Congress and that he, accordingly, will count the certificate from the electors appointed by the state legislature because the Constitution authorizes the state legislature to choose the method of appointing electors. These Republicans point to the historical pedigree of this position, observing that Republicans made the same argument during the disputed election of 1876 and that at least some recent law journal scholarship has supported this position. Unembarrassed by the apparent conflict of interest caused by Mike Pence simultaneously being a candidate for reelection and arbiter of the electoral dispute, these Republicans observe that Thomas Jefferson was in essentially the same position during the disputed election of 1800 and yet the Twelfth Amendment left this provision in place when Congress rewrote the procedures for the Electoral College afterwards. While it is true that an incumbent Vice-President might have a direct personal stake in the electoral dispute to be resolved, the Republicans argue, at least the glare of the spotlight is focused on whatever the vice president does in this situation, and everyone will be able to judge whether the vice president acted honorably or dishonorably in resolving the dispute. |
So, what we have is …
-
A well-researched Democrat document war-gaming a likely election scenario featuring: the anticipation of delayed election results, a “blue shift” phenomenon, whereby adjustments in vote tallies during the canvassing of returns tend to advantage Democratic candidates” after the initial vote counts suggested Trump won the election, and a likely electoral scenario that would allow Trump to capture the presidency.
-
An attempt to challenge irregularities in the ballots, the counting procedures, and discrepancies and anomalies in the counts presented to the public. As a sideshow, we saw fanciful explanations for the "blue shift" and tales of foreign election interference spun by a few outspoken attorneys who appeared to be certifiably crazy.
-
An attempt to name alternate slates of electors based on state legislatures declaring certification issues in swing states.
-
A GOP legal memo, the Eastman Memo, was authored by a constitutional scholar and appeared to convey the constitutional authority for Mike Pence to select electors favorable to Donald Trump.
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL January 6 scenario -- "7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate. The 12th Amendment merely provides that “the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes (as Adams and Jefferson did while Vice President, regarding their own election as President), and all the Members of Congress can do is watch."
-
And the glaring necessity for the Democrats to interrupt any debate over alternate slates of electors and to lock out any opposition to already certified and seated electors.
What we don’t know…
Did the Democrats and unnamed external parties, including the leadership of the House and Senate, conspire with members of intelligence or law enforcement agencies to create a false flag event to prevent the presentation of alternate electors and prevent any constitutionally-appropriate debate in both chambers with a final acceptance vote by Congress?
Bottom line…
I do not have the answer. But my gut feeling, based on the prior bad acts of the Democrats, politically-corrupted intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the media coverups, is that there is an 80/20 chance of a false flag operation involving trained activists and agitators. I am still waiting for a valid explanation of Ray Epps' clear and unambiguous participation in the riot and why he was never charged by the DOJ as were so many who continue to languish in jail, bail denied, and not guilty of any crime.
This feeling is also enhanced by the actions of the DOJ in prosecuting many innocent individuals, the video of visitors being welcomed into the Capitol and being escorted by the police, the failure to thoroughly investigate the death of Ashley Babbitt, the lies knowingly told about Officer Sicknick and many other unexplained events.
We are not only screwed, but they will likely repeat this in 2024.
-- Steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS