Does anyone understand what he was trying to say? It's alarmingly incoherent.

In the appeal filed on January 23, Brunson argued that the court should grant a rehearing because the case "represents a very powerful domestic covert operation that is so benign that it cannot been seen on how it has breached our national security, and how it is affecting the national security of both Canada and Mexico, and how it has circulated fears that we might soon see the destruction of property along with a large volume of bloodshed in our own streets."