It would appear that McCarthy and fellow swine were caught completely off guard here. He’s been acting like he’s had it in the bag since before the election. Culminating with squatting in the office he has yet to win. They had no idea this was coming or they would have had at least a theoretically viable plan B. They don’t have that.

Side note: what kinda dumbass subjects themselves to 6 failed votes for speaker? Why would you not at least wait to have the vote till you were reasonably sure you’d get the votes? This is truly embarrassing, emasculating, and humiliating for him. On an entirely new level. Unbecoming of the office.

So what do we have now? We have effectively kneecapped the swamp’s gatekeeper of the House. This guy isn’t gonna last because the dems won’t respect him, and the reps just saw how a handful can basically bring us back to this point again on a simple motion. I cannot see a viable swamp creature emerging that can take over in such circumstances who would avoid this outcome. McCarthy is going to be eaten alive by the rinos who can yank his chain in this manner as well. You can’t function in that office when you weren’t respected or supported before you started.

The other thing this does is expose people like Crenshaw, Don Bacon, and other installed controlled opposition for what they are. Hannity sure disgraced himself tonight with Boebert. Media basically has to cover this because its such a unique level of dysfunction. Rank n file republican voters who don’t follow this in much depth or perhaps are full NPC are noticing this and scratching their heads.

If this fight didn’t occur and we just sucked it up with McCarthy, 30-60 days from now when he fucks Jim Jordan’s investigation into whatever subject, we couldn’t do a helluva lot about it. Now he is fully informed of what he will find out if he decides to fuck around. Plus it has been proven that it can be done. If McCarthy decides to find out 30-60 days by thwarting effective oversight and running DS protection racket, it won’t be 20 standing in his way. It will be 80. Because the scared/coerced/intimidated but not fully corrupt reps will feel free from the threats because he’s been neutered. And there won’t be any ability to smear them as extremists or what have you because even NPCs will have noticed that it is now being said by R’s and R media that it is extreme to demand votes on the same issues you have been campaigning on for multiple election cycles. That really can’t be spun like they always attempt.

Honestly, I would rather have a kneecapped swamp rat at this point. Easy to control, puts DS into a huge defensive posture, and will likely screw up bigly during all this panic and desperation; further outing and neutering the swamp.

Seems to me that state officials being sued in their official capacity should have to rely on state lawyers to defend those cases. Otherwise, we need to fire all those lawyers on the public dole.

People can dislike this message. Or they can dislike the messenger. That is fine. Hopefully everyone will understand what I am saying.

As the Great Awakening train speeds up, there will be a lot of people popping by to see what is going on over here. People that have absolutely no clue who we are, what we think, how we think, and why we gather here will be browsing. This is prime time to add bodies to the ranks from the formerly narcoleptic normies.

However...unsubstantiated/unsupported/unverifiable claims presented as factual are going to blow this massive opportunity. It makes all of us look as buffoonish as the left. And it will only deepen the confirmation bias of normies.

Our community exists to hypothesize, postulate, debate, and evaluate information in pursuit of the truth...wherever that might lead. It is healthy to entertain a wide variety of theories, brain farts, hypotheticals, or whatever. It is also the way that we process all the non stop propaganda bs being sprayed from a firehose across the world. But before you post, comment, upvote, or downvote...be sure you have some kind of reliable substance behind it. If you don't, that is ok. Just be sure that your dialogue distinguishes your thoughts and opinions from a factual assertion.

Put yourself back in your own shoes however many years ago before you realized something wasn't adding up. Ask yourself how you'd feel if you stumbled upon a community where all sorts of seemingly outlandish stuff was being said. You looked into some of it, and it all came back as bogus or completely unsupported. Do you go back to that place after figuring that out?

None of the above is directed at anyone in particular. Nor am I calling for self or community censoring. All I am saying is that this movement is larger than one person. And everyone here needs to keep in mind that what they say or do here can have an affect on all of us. Especially with the hopes that what we are doing is going to continue bringing people out of their slumber with an awareness of the false reality they have been living. To be the most effective, we need to do our homework, cross all I's and dot all T's.

Be vigilant, anons! One day it will all make complete sense.

edit: Did I really just say cross all I's and dot all T's? 😳

Now that we know all of the “they haven’t counted Election Day ballots for Lake yet” was all cope, why isn’t there much noise about it? Are we all blackpilled now? I am fighting the black pill, but its getting harder by the day.

Where is Greg Phillips? Lindell? Other fraud spotters?

I didn’t expect such a whimper to follow such fraud. On the other hand, neither did Katie Hobbs. But what does that do besides make them laugh at us?

Color me jaded, but “MSM wants you dooming so don’t fall for the trap” is not working. Besides, it isn’t dooming to interpret what we have just seen in the most logical and rational way:

1. they robbed us openly, notoriously, flagrantly, and callously.
2. Trump blue balled us with a “historical announcement” build up resulting in an announcement of the obvious; far from the outcome such a build up would suggest.
3. nobody is talking about election fraud.
4. nobody substantive is doing anything about election fraud.
5. nobody we’d want will win in 2024 without fixing fraud
6. vote harder is not a fix
7. having the house stops radical left legislation; not having the senate puts radical left judges on the bench to enforce leftism.
8. Garland will not jail those who defy rep subpoenas
9. nobody will give a shit about the double standard
10. reps will still send Ukraine our grand kids wealth
11. my business will continue to be in shambles from leftist policies
12. did I mention nobody is doing anything about fraud?

Noting the obvious is not dooming. Polishing this turd doesn’t make it anything but a turd. Cope is not a viable strategy to undo this, and neither is “vote harder.” I’m still voting; but if people can’t see how deflating this is to the movement, that is a problem.

So back to the question: why is nobody making real noise about fraud??

I remember people being a lot more pissed off about 2020. And we didn't know 3% of what we now know about rigging. Are we all desensitized? This is the quietest open, flagrant, and notorious rig we've ever watched in real time with no cover story like 2020...NV senate race goes blue before our eyes. AZ is going blue in both Senate and Governor. GA is going to get stolen in the runoff. Meanwhile, its like we just accept this is happening.

Please, no cope about how this was part of the plan, we will get them at some uncertain date it some uncertain point in the future. We don't have a future if this stands.

Not dooming, just pointing out the obvious. Riggers gonna rig, and are rigging while I type this.

I have no better an idea of what is going on in that cesspool than anyone else does. But I have narrowed down the possibilities. Which one do you think, and why?

1. They are cheating - this is the obvious one. Riggers just gonna rig.

2. They are wanting to cheat but having difficulty for some reason - plausible

3. They are throwing a tantrum over losing

4. They are trying to cover for the ongoing Nevada steal - this seems plausible; Clark county (Vegas) has been 100% reported for several days now. How the hell can the dem be gaining from rural NV voter counts?

5. They are planning on fucking this up so bad, dragging this on for ages to influence the GA runoff - if GOP gets NV and AZ, dems voters won’t show up in GA because it won’t matter. This makes rigging very hard.

6. They are deliberately sabotaging so that the Senate themselves take Kelly instead of Masters per their constitutional role of being the sole judge of the qualifications and elections of members. (We are gonna lose our shit if they go this route)

7. Katie Hobbs and the election commissioners are sub 70 IQ morons and don’t know wtf they are doing - least likely

Just had the following brain fart: The purpose of the Q movement is to build public support for a changing of the guard. The subsequent result of this is not consequential to the validity of the theory.

We don’t need to know the veracity of the information derived from Q posts to understand that the entire purpose of them is to turn people away from the western powers that be. You would not do this without then making a move to replace them with others.

Perhaps it could be argued that the purpose is to convince people to seek out the truth on their own. But I argue that this is simply the methodology utilized to turn people against western elites. What need would there be to seek out truth on your own if you weren’t supposed to do something with that truth? A frivolous exercise is to upend someone’s entire psychological existence and then have them watch the horror in real time with no options to change it.

This isn’t to debate the merits of various deep dives into common deep state bullshit narratives. Rather, it is to illustrate that this movement exists as a call to action against the status quo. Whether or not it will be successful is also not the point of discussion. Perhaps I will make a follow up post on the various possibilities that exist as consequences of the movement.

Some of the consequences lack sufficient information to gain meaningful insight. A major consideration to all of this is “Who the hell are we getting in place of the perverts we need to get rid of?” Because history tells us things repeatedly. Like the evils of Chang Kai Shek get replaced with Mao. The crimes of the Tsar are replaced with the Bolsheviks. The Shah of Iran is ousted in favor of the Ayatollah. None of which were better than the asshat in charge before. Is there a general getting too big for his britches? Military Coups rarely turn out favorably for the public.

A lot of analysis fails to consider valid reasons to behave as the deep state does. For one, imagine the Soviets utilizing similar techniques to bring us all into becoming satellite states of the USSR? We would obviously want to counter this. And that might mean doing some really filthy shit. Sometimes reality is messy and quite ugly. Is the main complaint just surrounding gratuitous excesses arising as a natural byproduct of the filth industry that might actually have our best interests in mind? These are things that ought to be explored more in depth than I’ve ever seen.

Note: I am not purporting to promote any of the above ideas. Rather, I assume nothing anymore these days that doesn’t lack sufficient substance beyond platitudes and hope behind it. It is a lot easier to convince people when you have gone down all of these trees and reached a supported conclusion on evidence.

Could that be possible?

The only qualifications to be President are (1) having not served more than 1.5 terms; (2) Be over 35; (3) Been a resident for 14 years; (4) Be a natural born citizen

No other qualifications are needed. No other qualifications can be added without amending the Constitution. Dude should run from prison if he has to, then pardon himself.

We need a “stop the shills” campaign against this larp. I just read it in more than one place that you would expect to know better.

Curious if we might see some sacrificial lambs brought forth…seems like the logical thing to do if you were in their shoes. Which is an opportunity to flip them to turn on their handlers. Thoughts?

I think they might. Especially when it seems clear this was a small group acting independently of the DOJ on behalf of Hillary…gotta deter those wandering off the reservation. 2 birds 1 stone here.

Perhaps some of the Whitmer hoax boys are gonna go down?

Just pondering this....

Obama never would have nominated Garland to SCOTUS if he actually believed that Garland would receive a vote. He was cannon fodder to smear the Republican Senate's refusal to hold a vote. If he actually thought he'd get a vote on a nominee, he would have nominated another dipshit in the mold of Sotomayor.

How'd you like to be a political pawn nomination and forever be tarnished as the SCOTUS nominee that nobody gave a shit about? Talk all you want about how he was likely aware of the situation...but people in that field take themselves way too seriously. A man like that has an ego that is not remotely pleased to be played. Might even piss a guy off...

Garland's record as a federal judge is far from Scalia. But also far from a Sotomayor...or that complete buffoon Brandon just appointed. Hell...if Garland was a good ole boy, why not just nominate him and give the guy a real vote to make up for the shafting he got?? Can't be too difficult to find a stooge to fill the AG spot. Then you save yourself the idiocy of someone not knowing what a woman is. Of course, this doesn't fit muh diversity requirement. Perhaps that is the simplest answer. But is it the right answer?

I guess what I'm saying is that there is more than meets the eye here. And I'd be shocked if Hillary would have gone ahead with it. Perhaps the lame duck senate would have confirmed him right after the election if hillary won? We are missing something with this guy. There is a helluva lot of possibilities here we aren't considering. He'd have more reason to be pissed off at Obama for dangling him out there to look stupid for political gain than he would be to not be the choice of a different president.

If Trump gets re-elected in the 2024 election, optics apparently aren't important. He can't be the guy who's admin is doing all of this, or it looks similar to the current witch hunt. Or at least...so we've been led to believe...

Now there's all these crazy theories being floated around about how "Trump just got all this dirt in the hands of the DOJ now never trumper rinos are goin down!" & other such incomprehensible explanations.

Are we to actually expect the Brandon admin to start laying it down? Why does that strike such a strong feeling of incredulity in me? Please enlighten me...

Anne Heche just finished working on a sex trafficking Lifetime Movie when she had the accident:

https://www.avclub.com/lifetime-moves-forward-with-plans-for-anne-heche-film-g-1849403944

Ellen very cold and odd when approached for a comment...

https://www.tiktok.com/@the.tiser/video/7130526715390004481

Too damn coincidental, isn't it?

So as a highly cynical admitted skeptic, I facially reject the idea that the FBI seizing "classified" stuff from Mar-a-lago magically morphs it into becoming admissible. If we presume for the sake of argument that this was classified, and now the FBI reclaimed what shouldn't have left custody of the government, how does this magically make it admissible? It would be akin to saying all you needed to do was get someone to steal it, tell the fbi, have them reclaim it, and now its open season on whatever materials we want to see. This makes no sense whatsoever.

However, in my unable to be shut off constantly war gaming mind, I came up with a possibility. But I find it unlikely. Perhaps someone else could add to this. Or perhaps it will be agreed this is too far fetched. Looking forward to thoughts.

What governs admissibility of evidence in federal criminal and civil trials? That is simple. The Federal Rules of Evidence. What FRE rules would admit this evidence? Well...that isn't simple...I'll start at the beginning. Here is a link to the rules for those so inclined. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

This is not intended to be an exhaustive dive into the many rules of evidence and exceptions. I will try to stick with those most applicable here. To start, FRE 402 covers the big picture on what is admissible, subject to many caveats. It states as follows:

"Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:

the United States Constitution; a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible."

Plainly, the gateway question on admissibility that must be answered is "Is this relevant?" If it is not relevant, we stop the analysis right here.

What is considered relevant? The answer to that is found in FRE 401:

"Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action."

It only requires just the ever so slightest hint of a tendency to prove a fact is more probable or less probable. It is a very low burden. If some piece of evidence makes a fact more or less probable than without the evidence, it is admissible if that particular fact is of consequence in the action. "Of consequence in the action" is best explained like this: In a first degree murder case, the state, in most circumstances, must prove the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. First degree murder is commonly defined as the unlawful killing of a human that is premeditated, deliberate, and willful. Evidence of the defendant's email exchange with a third party about plotting to kill his ex wife is relevant, because it makes it more likely than without the email evidence that the killing was premeditated.

But the analysis does not stop here. Just because evidence is relevant does not automatically make it admissible. But if evidence is not relevant, we have no need to continue the analysis. It is not admissible.

Sometimes, a judge can still refuse to admit evidence even if it is relevant and also satisfies the rules. FRE 403 states:

"The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."

It is not often that judges will rely on FRE 403. But it can and does happen sometimes. The key is the danger "substantially" outweighs the probative value. Not just that the danger outweighs the value. This is a high burden to meet.

Now to the meat and potatoes: If one wishes to introduce a document as evidence, aside from satisfying the threshold question on relevance, and complying with other rules, this document must be authenticated. FRE 901(a) states:

"In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is."

FRE 902 describes self-authenticating documents. None of these categories appear facially to apply to non-public classified government documents. This appears to be a problem. Or is it? FRE 902(1)-(2) states documents with the below are self authenticating:

"(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:

(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and

(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.

(2) Domestic Public Documents That Are Not Sealed but Are Signed and Certified. A document that bears no seal if:

(A) it bears the signature of an officer or employee of an entity named in Rule 902(1)(A); and

(B) another public officer who has a seal and official duties within that same entity certifies under seal — or its equivalent — that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine."

(see TLDR at the end for this application)

FRE 901(b)(1) provides that a witness with knowledge testifying that the item is what it is claimed is both the most common method utilized for satisfying the authentication requirement. But who is going to do that? This is a problem. (see discussion below on FRE 1003)

But we are still not over the hurdle. Trump almost certainly did not have boxes of the original documents. They are most likely copies and the originals are retained by the respective agencies that originated them. Even if he did, he most certainly doesn't have the originals now - the FBI does. More importantly: he would be the biggest dumbass in world history to not have made 500 other paper and digital copies and stashed them in various places. We know he didn't fail in that regard. And that sets up an entirely new problem to surmount. FRE 1002 states:

"An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise."

Yikes. Seems like he's screwed now? Not so fast...

I think FRE 1003 gets us on our way to solving this problem but not without its own hurdles:

"A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate."

A cucked judge would happily toss this evidence upon first objection by the defense that they "doubt" the authenticity. This is highly problematic. Second to this, "authentication" by one of Trump's inner circle - Kash Patel, John Ratcliffe, or Richard Grenell is likely to provide a cucked judge enough wiggle room to find the same, due to potential conflicts of interest. However, an uncucked judge is likely to accept their authentication. Except we cannot rely upon having an uncucked judge in this trial.

What happens now? Well, if you are looking at the admissibility of this evidence in a criminal prosecution of deep state actors, you are looking in the wrong place. Plainly, "how do you lawfully admit evidence" is talking about Trump's civil RICO case. Durham doesn't have near the same hurdles as Trump does. And Durham represents the government. It would be pretty insane to see a judge tell the government that a government document copy submitted by the government is not authentic without some credible evidence to the contrary from the defense - which is simply not going to happen. And would likely be referred to the jury as a finding of fact to answer this question - is the government's evidence credible? And Durham would have some pretty broad leeway under the "Best evidence rule" which is not something I'll go into in this post. Those so inclined can google that to find out more.

Now the specific procedure and order here is kind of up in the air. But Trump has to petition the court for return of his property seized in the warrant, as is his right. It is slightly more complicated than I am describing, but not necessary in order to get to the point. The government will then have to either return it, or explain why it can't be returned. When they claim "it is classified, he's not entitled to have it" then he's got them. He can call the agents involved in the raid to authenticate his copies. No conflict exists with the people who busted in his house for a judge to reject this. And those agents can either (1) authenticate them or (2) find themselves in a position of either lying under oath refusing to return his property or lying under oath claiming that the documents Trump wants admitted as evidence are not authentic.

TLDR; perhaps the crooked FBI agents that raided his house are going to be put in the position of helping Trump get them admitted in his RICO case by having to authenticate copies of the very documents they were sent to retrieve to prevent Trump from using them; because a refusal to authenticate them would be perjury. Or forcing them to admit they are not classified, thus providing FRE 902 self authentication of the documents as public records that bear the signature of an FBI or DOJ agent/representative.

I read this and its one of the few times, if there ever was a time, where they were so cavalier and flamboyant in claiming or owning the NGO + CIA coups we run all over the place. The last time I recall this was when Bolton said he’s planned coups before. But beyond that, I recall all of this coming from places like revolver that do in depth reporting ex post facto.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/former-security-officials-did-everything-possible-bring-russia-international-systems

I can’t seem to get anything thru searching news during the last Obama Ukraine color op. It’s like scrubbed or just useless results turn up. Anyone know of an archive somewhere with usual suspect news during that time period? I’d really like to see how open they were at the time and understand how I failed to pick up on it.