US Officials Turned Regime Change Tactics Developed Abroad Against Trump, Evidence Suggests

This week, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office and cannot be on the state’s ballot in the 2024 Republican primary. The court’s ruling, journalists and legal experts said, was justified because Trump incited the January 6 “insurrection” in which a violent mob stormed the Capitol to assist Trump in overthrowing the government. This event was, Democrats have argued, nothing less than an attempted coup.

Yet as Public’s reporting over the past year has shown, the January 6 Capitol riot was not a premeditated action that rises to the level of a “coup” or “insurrection.” There were dozens of confidential informants and undercover agents present at the riot, some of whom allegedly encouraged the rioters. And former Capitol Police chief Steven Sund has also claimed that key leaders decided not to deploy the National Guard to the Capitol despite warnings that the rally could get out of hand.

This information, along with video evidence from recently released January 6 tapes, suggests that the storming of the Capitol was the result of a major security failure, and that law enforcement informants or officers may have allowed, or even encouraged, it to happen.

What’s more, the January 6 prosecutors have failed to produce evidence clearly linking the rioters to Trump or his associates. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith, in choosing not to indict Trump for inciting an insurrection, tacitly conceded that Trump’s words leading up to the riot were legal speech, however false and inflammatory.

Many Democrats argue that Trump’s guilt is not because of his rhetoric, so the First Amendment does not protect him. “The problem was not Trump’s speech, but his alleged actions,” wrote David Cole, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Ben Wizner, ACLU’s Director of Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, in August.

These actions, the ACLU attorneys said, included Trump’s attempt to get states to invalidate election results and to send alternative slates of electors, as well as his effort to pressure Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the election results.

“Of course, many of these actions involved communication,” wrote Cole and Wizner.

“But the fact that a crime includes speech does not turn the First Amendment into a defense. A conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime and almost always takes the form of words.”

But Trump’s efforts to contest the election were political maneuvers that Democrats had previously proposed in both 2016 and in 2020. In 2016, liberal journalists implied that competing elector slates were legal, and pushed elector schemes that would allow Hillary Clinton to win.

And as Public reported on Wednesday, political operatives and journalists held a summit called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) in 2020. During the TIP simulation exercise, the players plotted how to challenge the election results in the event of a Trump victory, and in one of their simulations they had states send alternate slates of electors. Yet when Trump and his team attempted this strategy, Democrats decided it was a criminal felony.

Democrats’ “insurrection” narrative rests on manipulative arguments and cynical language games, and this narrative is being used to destroy a foundation of our democracy: the people’s right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

As much as we may dislike it, whether it’s Clinton saying that Trump is an illegitimate president because of “Russian disinformation,” or whether it’s Trump saying that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president because of vote-by-mail and ballot harvesting schemes, losers have a legal right to deny, challenge, and contest elections. This right is actually part of what makes our elections free and fair.

The idea of imprisoning political rivals or preventing candidates from running is something Democrats justifiably condemned seven years ago when Trump threatened to jail his opponent Hillary Clinton. Said CNN’s Dana Bash in 2016, “What makes this country different from countries with dictators in Africa or Stalin or Hitler or any of those countries with dictators and totalitarian leaders is when they took over, they put their opponents in jail.”

Before the 2016 election, CNN compiled a list of country leaders who had imprisoned their political opposition. Doing this in the United States, CNN suggested, would be to follow in the footsteps of Augusto Pinochet, Abdel Fatah el-Sisi, Robert Mugabe, and Kim Jong Un. “A line was crossed that I don’t know has been crossed in my lifetime, maybe ever. He threatened to jail his opponent,” CNN’s Van Jones said.

If Trump had really led a “coup,” he would have seized the means of communication (i.e., the legacy media and social media) and secured the support of high-level military and intelligence officials. This “coup” would have involved attempts to take political prisoners and to control major civil society institutions.

What the Democrats have done since 2016, and what they continue to do now, much more closely resembles a coup d’état than what Trump and his allies accomplished. Through their soft coup, the Democratic Party and government bureaucrats worked with the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to control communications and construct a vast censorship complex across social media. Since 2020, they have issued extremely harsh sentences for hundreds of Trump’s January 6 supporters, many of them for non-violent offenses. And now, in 2023, Democrats are trying to prevent their only real political challenger from ever taking office again.

Such a situation should create intense cognitive dissonance for Democratic leaders and activists due to the contradiction between their behavior and their proclaimed belief in democracy. And yet there are few signs of such dissonance. Why is that?

A Domestic “Color Revolution”

This open letter provided a window into the mentality of the national security and foreign policy establishment and adjacent think tanks. The Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security should be arbiters of the election, they determined, not the electorate or the courts.

Public has previously reported that, as the CTIL Files and other documents show, military contractors used counterterrorism tactics against the American people to control narratives and censor citizens after 2016. Now, it appears that tactics security agencies have used to interfere in foreign countries’ affairs may have also been employed by government operatives in the 2020 election.

The 2020 TIP simulation, organized by a former Defense Department senior official, stated in a report that, “Planners need to take seriously the notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle; technocratic solutions, courts, and a reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here.” TIP also suggested taking advantage of Black Lives Matter protests to secure a victory for Democrats.

BACKSTORY Ukraine Tried to Tip the 2016 Trump/Hillary Election in Clinton’s Favor
Ukraine intervened for Hillary in favor of its own national interests
Ukranians blithely suggested “electors of the US electoral college defect from Trump.”
While Trump was lambasted for having a shady “elector scheme.”

observer.com, By Michael Sainato, 01/12/17

EDITED—Politico reported the Ukrainian Government dedicatedly worked to aid Hillary Clinton’s
2016 presidential bid. The actions taken by Ukranian government officials included
<><>disseminating false documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption
<><>first announcing they were investigating the matter,
<><>then nervously backing away after Trump defeated Hillary
<><>helping Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.

The supposedly incriminating government documents Ukraine brought forth implicated Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who once worked as an adviser for now-ousted Ukrainian President Viktor F. Yanukovych.

However, the concerns that the Ukranian documents raised weren’t over any quasi-Russian ties the partisan MSM rigorously reported, pushing this narrative 24/7. Rather, the dubious documents raised question about “declared income” that only the Ukraine government was ostensibly privy to WRT Manafort.

The Podesta Group, a notorious lobbying firm co-founded by Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta, also conducted work for the Ukranian president Yanukovych but was studiously ignored. The Ukranian narrative not only painted Trump as pro-Russian, but also provided the Clinton campaign with a wholly invented “Trump smear campaign” which helpfully reaffirmed Ukraine’s stance “against Russia” and which earned Ukraine billions in US tax dollars.

It was in Ukraine’s best interest to tilt the election in support of Clinton, b/c she strongly advocated for providing Ukraine with billions of US tax dollars in military aid and financial support in order “to fight” Russian separatists then-operating in the Ukraine. Which presents the more recent US financed “Russian invasion of Ukraine” in an entirely new light.

Politico noted that Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American working as a consultant for DNC, met with top Ukrainian Officials in Washington D.C. about “forcing” Manafort’s resignation with the goal of cementing the Ukraine/Hillary narrative that Trump was “connected” to Russia.

Manafort was subsequently jailed and slapped into solitary confinement due to Ukranian efforts.

Both Ukranians, Chalupa, and her sister Andrea, have strongly pushed the anti-Russian narrative on social media.

Shockingly, the Ukranian sisters also advocated that the state electors of “the US electoral college defect from Trump.” The Chalupas’ outrageous elector gambit was ignored but Trump was said to have an “elector scheme.”

The report added, “Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the Trump/Hillary 2016 race strains diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.”

In addition to the Chalupas, the co-founder and CTO of Crowdstrike, the cyber security firm that the DNC hired to investigate the alleged hacks, Dmitri Alperovitch, also serves as a senior fellow to the Washington-based think tank Atlantic Council, which is an openly anti-Russian organization.

The Atlantic Council is funded by Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who is one of the most prolific donors to the Clinton Foundation. The DNC denied multiple requests from the FBI to access their servers, effectively forcing the FBI to rely on CrowdStrike’s assessment of the hacks.

The Ukranian-centered Atlantic Council has propagated anti-Russian sentiment and advocated for bolstering NATO forces in anticipation of a Ukranian military conflict with Russia long before Wikileaks released emails from the DNC and Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta.

In 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton its Distinguished International Leadership Award. In 2014, the Ukranian-biased Atlantic Council hosted one of several events with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who took over after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych’s 2014 removal.

In August 2015, Politico was apparently cued to report that “Donald Trump’s favorable rhetoric to Russia was concerning to Ukraine.” The article stated, “Russia wants Trump for U.S. president; Ukraine is terrified by Trump and prefers Hillary Clinton.”

In response to their preferred candidate losing the election, Ukrainian officials were now scrambling to revert from their lobbying for Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

<><>Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko rushed to sign a $50,000-a-month contract with a US lobbying firm to set up meetings with US officials in the new Trump administration.

<><>Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who paid Hillary to come to Ukraine for a speech, now sang a different tune and wrote an WSJ op-ed Dec 29 in which he argued that Ukraine needs “to make compromises” to establish peace with Russia.

<><>Post-election, Ukranian Pinchuk donated to Trump’s charity to try to gain the same favor and access that his donations to the “Clinton Foundation” afforded him.

<><>“The sole reason the Victor Pinchuk Foundation has reached out to President-elect Trump—as well as other world leaders—has been to promote strengthened and enduring ties between Ukraine and the West,” a spokeswoman for the Pinchuk foundation told ABC News with a straight face.

While past elections in Ukraine have been viewed as proxy battles between the US and Russia, it appears that the 2016 US presidential election faced influence from Ukraine—a beneficiary of billions of US tax dollars—attempting to influence an election outcome biased for Ukraine’s national interests, and its hungering after US foreign aid from 2016 up to and including the “Russian invasion, and into its 2023 beg-a-thons for US dollars.

WATCH ON FR link: Nancy Pelosi’s Daughter Caught
on Hidden Camera Admitting January 6 Was a Hoax
PJ Media ^ | 11/25/2023 | Ben Bartee
Posted on 11/25/2023, 9:24:52 PM by SeekAndFind

Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra, was caught on camera admitting that January 6, and the ensuing prosecutions, were a marketing gimmick to propagandize for the benefit of the Democrat Party.

The video, apparently filmed surreptitiously in the style of Project Veritas and released by CitizenLens, reportedly between Pelosi and a January 6 defendant she was courting so as to appear in her documentary of the event, featured Pelosi discussing the political implications of the Jan 6 show trials and their effects on the upcoming 2022 mid-term elections.

After the Democrats lose the House and then they get rid of the committee, people may lose interest. The first trials are gonna get a lot of attention. It’s like [an] anniversary; the first one is a big deal… No one’s gonna care after the Democrats are out of power. And then take Biden out of office, then who cares?...

I know you’re not the bad guys [to the Jan 6 defendant]…

If it was an insurrection… you were supposed to have a plan…. You’re going to be able to laugh about this one day.

👀
On January 6, 2021, Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra Pelosi, was filming the events surrounding her mother for a documentary.

The following video was filmed during a meeting with a January 6 defendant whom she wanted desperately to be in her documentary.

Alexandra Pelosi admits that the J6 hysteria is purely political and that a fair trial in the DC judicial swamp is nonexistent.

Pelosi then openly admits that the insurrection narrative is baseless, and that the Proud Boys and Gavin McInnes are being calculatedly labeled as “White Supremacists” for Democrats’ political purposes...

pic.twitter.com/Xh2aWUBJoN— CitizenLenz (@CitizenLenz) July 18, 2023

(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...

Investigators Release Damning Report Showing
Pelosi Orchestrated Security Breakdown on Jan 6
en-volve.com/ ^ | 6/24/2022
FR Posted on 6/25/2022, 7:36:44 AM by bitt

According to a preliminary report made public by investigators, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is largely to blame for the security lapse at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. While the Capitol Police were understaffed, Pelosi’s House Sergeant at Arms repeatedly turned down requests from the Pentagon for National Guard assistance, and officers were ill-equipped and undertrained.

It’s almost as if she wanted the entire thing to happen…

The full report from Republican investigators Reps. Jim Banks and Rodney Davis won’t be made public for a few weeks, but Banks and Davis said their decision to do so was motivated by the Jan. 6 Committee’s hyper-partisan attempt to present a “slanted viewpoint as if it were impartial fact” and that it “will help Americans understand the extent of the Committee’s misrepresentations and omissions.”

“The Committee has lied and made numerous unsupported and disputed claims that have been thoughtlessly parroted by their media and ‘fact-checking’ allies,” said Banks and Davis.

The Federalist report: No Republican-appointed members serve on the committee, and no minority rights have been granted or observed by the committee. Those breaches of House rules have led Administration Committee ranking member Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., to announce there will be an investigation of the J6 Committee itself once Republicans take control of the House, as they are expected to do following the November elections.

Despite the J6 Committee’s attempts to blame the Capitol riot on former President Donald Trump and election integrity supporters, the GOP members found that Pelosi, who is responsible for Capitol security according to House rules and has led the Democrat majority for years, repeatedly failed to implement necessary improvements to the Capitol’s security system.

“This inaction left the Capitol unnecessarily vulnerable,” Banks and Davis noted.

(Excerpt) Read more at en-volve.com ...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.