3
Monomial 3 points ago +3 / -0

Unfortunately the Senate must vote to adjourn. No matter who is presiding over the Senate, they don't have unilateral authority to adjourn. This is why the bill from the House requesting an adjournment would be required. Then, even if the Senate refuses, Article II section 3 comes into play and Trump can force it.

9
Monomial 9 points ago +9 / -0

My only question is whether this is actually going to happen, or is all of this just to bait the deep state into doing something overtly stupid so that the military can enter the picture?

I'm really not sure what the script writers have in store for us at this point, but it sure is getting interesting.

5
Monomial 5 points ago +5 / -0

Exactly. Which means he needs the cooperation of Mike Johnson in order to be able to invoke this clause. There is no way the Senate is going to adjourn voluntarily to allow him to make the recess appointments.

But if Johnson requests an adjournment, and the Senate refuses, then Trump has the Constitutional authority to force the adjournment for as long as Trump thinks proper.

Anyone want to take bets that this is the "secret", and this is why Trump has backed another term as Speaker for Johnson? Would also explain why Johnson had to play the role of good little globalist these last few years.

Once Matt Gaetz is AG, even for just a few days, the gloves can come off. Mass arrests incoming.

3
Monomial 3 points ago +3 / -0

Title 52 defines all the conditions of voting in the USA. In particular 52 USC 21081 specifies the voting standards and equipment states are currently required to use in any election involving federal officials. Since the federal government does it already, in theory, all Congress has to do is a pass a law that changes this regulation.

Note however, that if states break these rules, there must be a court that is willing to hold them responsible for it. At present, I don't believe our corrupt courts are up to the challenge.

2
Monomial 2 points ago +2 / -0

Brunson claims that he has been told unofficially that SCOTUS will apply Rule 11 to this case and resurrect it. Rule 11 is a way for SCOTUS to deviate from normal practices in cases that are of extreme public importance, in this instance it would mean reviving a case they previously declined to hear.

Nobody knows if this is true. It is a rumor spread by Brunson himself.

4
Monomial 4 points ago +4 / -0

BTW, on the other thread I asked for more information about this case. I have since found the actual case under consideration that he is requesting to be re-examined under rule 11:

*https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-1028/264270/20230425133210857_20230425-132551-00002580-00000251.pdf * It is basically names every Congressman and Senator who certified the fraudulent 2020 election without properly considering the claims of fraud as they were Constitutionally required to do, plus Harris and Biden.

Would love to see all of them deposed under oath.

3
Monomial 3 points ago +3 / -0

Of course Q is a psyop. That doesn't mean it is bad. Q is intentionally manipulating us to perceive events in a certain way so that the military can do what needs to be done behind the scenes.

We've been living through a psyop for these last several years. That does not mean the people running the psyop aren't in service to humanity. Merely that they aren't telling us the whole truth.

Twice in my life I have been living overseas in countries during a military coup. I much prefer that kind of direct and honest intervention to remove a corrupt administration. But I understand most Americans wouldn't accept that. So we get a psyop instead. As much as I don't like being manipulated, I get why they're doing it.

Still would absolutely prefer an overt coup.

1
Monomial 1 point ago +1 / -0

Does anyone know who these 388 officials are? I can't find any genuine information on this case. Google buries any information on this, except for the "fact checkers" who say it's debunked. I would like to take a look at the details of who they might be able to depose.

2
Monomial 2 points ago +2 / -0

Can you imagine being the guy who spent 30,000 Bitcoin to buy a pizza back in the day?

Ouch. Wish I had not been such a skeptic back in 2009. You could have it for free back then.

2
Monomial 2 points ago +2 / -0

Of course. And since they were stopped doing it on the presidential election, it means the white hats want this to happen. Or at least don't feel it's necessary to stop it.

Given that we've been told over and over the military is the only way, I interpret this to mean that this Congress is not going to be around too long.

Remember we still have that legislation floating around out there about how to replace hundreds of congress critters in a hurry.

12
Monomial 12 points ago +13 / -1

Or, as any good engineer knows who works in stabilizing dynamic systems, you merely need enough overhead so that you can bleed away exactly enough stress to get your desired outcome.

So if you know the Senate vote is going to be massively pro Republican, and you know they are going to cheat like crazy to oppose that, you can prevent just enough cheating in races to arrive at your goal while letting the steal go ahead on the others. You don't need perfect knowledge of the future. Just enough to make sure it falls within a controllable range.

Why would you do this? I don't know. But there have been a lot of things that the Whitehats have done that don't make sense to me. There may be a larger purpose to this specific ratio.

I think it would be great if time travel were possible, but I tend to believe Q uses more traditional technologies to manipulate events throughout this stage play.

6
Monomial 6 points ago +6 / -0

The Constitution specifically does not specify the number of judges. We already have a law stating the number is 9, but Congress can simply override that law whenever they choose. So without a Constitutional amendment, there really is no way to prevent the number from changing.

9
Monomial 9 points ago +10 / -1

You can absolutely impeach a Supreme Court judge if you want to remove them. You just need 2/3rds of the Senate in order to do it. That's a pretty high bar, but then again we really don't want it to be easy. The last thing we need is each new government replacing every judge on a political whim.

If you wanted to change this process to remove a judge, it would require a Constitutional amendment.

2
Monomial 2 points ago +2 / -0

Listen to Jamie Raskin.

He specifically chastised SCOTUS for leaving it up to Congress on Jan. 6 to tell America "why Trump (an insurrectionist) cannot be president"

Certain members of Congress do intend on trying to ban Trump from taking office on these grounds. They may not succeed, but they will try. And that may kick off the riots and threats of secession we always hear about.

Ultimately, the military will have to become involved to resolve the dispute.

8
Monomial 8 points ago +8 / -0

I've often thought that the proper script for this movie is that on Jan. 6 they will scream fraud and try not to certify the election. At first, the radical left will be very happy.

Congress will then retire back to their respective chambers, but instead of the nonsense that occurred in 2021, this time they will genuinely discuss the election fraud. Ultimately of course, this won't look good for the Democrats, because the fraud will show that Trump should have won by much more.

This is what will trigger the 10 days of darkness, followed by deployment of the national guard. Ostensibly to prevent riots, but in reality to perform arrests. Just seems to fit with "think mirror". Everything gets reversed.

6
Monomial 6 points ago +6 / -0

Just to be clear, Trump absolutely can fire him, but only in the case of misconduct. Otherwise, Powell will simply run to the courts and they will suspend the order.

So it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Expose Powell as a treasonist and fire him? That could be fun to watch. Heck...Powell could even be the "first arrest" for that matter.

2
Monomial 2 points ago +2 / -0

Did you read some of those comments though?

With a 40% fatality rate on the likely incoming H5N1 pandemic COVID may turn out to be a relatively mild warm-up for the main event.

bi-annual vaccination is probably optimal

I really hope people don't fall for this a second time.

1
Monomial 1 point ago +1 / -0

Except you can't actually buy $300 billion worth of Bitcoin. Even OTC. Just 10% of that would completely exhaust the existing float. At best you could buy paper derivatives on Bitcoin, but at that level you'd need an investment bank the size of the IMF to backstop the gamble. Even the BTC ETF's are minuscule compared to that kind of cash.

That much money can only be held in fiat/US Treasuries. There simply are no investments with enough financial depth to absorb it.

2
Monomial 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not completely true. An ectopic pregnancy absolutely is a life threatening condition for the mother. Usually within 16 weeks. And even if it doesn't rupture the fallopian tubes killing the mother, it's very unlikely the fetus could survive until 24 weeks where there is even a small chance of saving it.

Don't get me wrong. I HATE the idea of abortion. But to say there is never a time when it is warranted to save the life of the mother is just not true.

1
Monomial 1 point ago +1 / -0

It WAS lower turnout for the Democrats. By a lot. But that doesn't explain the numbers.

Based purely on common sense, no way did Trump get fewer votes this time around (71 vs. 74). That means they must have increased the electronic vote flipping this time around. But you can only do that in certain places and to a small degree. A hand count will reveal electronic fraud like this, so this system of cheating has hard limits if you want to avoid detection. You can only pump it up in places where hand counts are expensive and difficult to qualify for.

My guess is Trump legitimately got around 80 million votes this time, so if true that means they were able to swap about 9 million to Harris. (That assumes they didn't e-swap any in 2020, which is unlikely but we'll go with it for the moment.)

That pushes her numbers down to around 58 million. And that was the best they could do, because they were prevented in many places from bringing in pallets of fake ballots like they did in 2020 when the electronic rigging was insufficient. They almost certainly stuffed the mail in ballot areas like New York and the Left Coast, but nothing like what they were able to pull off last time.

Overall, I suspect Harris maybe got, legitimately, around 40 million votes to Trump's 80. 2:1 matches what most people report anecdotally.

So yes, the number is probably that low because nobody was inspired to vote for her. Urban voters and women were just one demographic that said no.

5
Monomial 5 points ago +5 / -0
  1. This only takes effect when enough states have joined the alliance to push it over 270 electoral votes. Only 14 states have joined so far, comprising only 209 votes, so it does not reach the threshold, therefore it is not in effect.

  2. There is no way this will be allowed to stand if they ever do get enough states. It completely undermines the Electoral College and goes directly against the Constitution. The voters of these states would no longer decide who they select for president. I understand the electors are not necessarily required to vote for the choice of the people, but in this case Colorado is binding electors to vote for someone externally selected and completely disenfranchising the Colorado voters.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›