Reposting 3 part article was too late on last bread, very important read

Here’s What The Jan. 6 Show Trials Are Really After. July 01, 2022

Part 1 of 3

The committee wants those who stood by Donald Trump to face shame, disbarment, personal and professional harm, and potentially prison

The Jan. 6 Committee’s Stalinist show trial serves many purposes, but truth is not one of them. On Wednesday, the House committee holding hearings on the violence that broke out at the capitol on Jan. 6, 2020, issued a subpoena to former White House counsel Pat Cipollone. Cipollone, who had voluntarily participated in a closed-door interview in April, “decline[d] to cooperate” further with the committee, according to the letter subpoenaing him to testify before the committee on July 6.

It is unclear whether Cipollone will comply with the subpoena, but from the committee’s perspective, it doesn’t matter. The Democrat-stacked committee seeks to score political points, not secure the truth, and subpoenaing Trump’s former White House counsel serves that objective: If Cipollone refuses to testify, his assertion of executive privilege provides the committee a fresh opportunity to condemn Donald Trump while the committee provides the public its own version of the events the former White House counsel supposedly observed.

Scoring partisan points is not the only goal of the Jan. 6 Committee. Rather, the carefully massaged hearings seek, at minimum, three broader political objectives.

Propagandize Americans About Election Integrity

One subtle, but overarching objective of the Jan. 6 Committee is to convince Americans that the 2020 election was the most secure in American history. The hearings seek to achieve this by limiting their focus to select and disproven claims of election fraud, such as claims“that enemies of the former president hacked Dominion voting machines, flooded battleground states with counterfeit ballots, and engaged in other Machiavellian machinations to steal the 2020 election.”

The committee completely ignores, however, “the verifiable evidence of systemic violations of election law, illegal voting, and the constitutionally deficient execution of the November 2020 election.” Even more deceptively, throughout the hearings, the committee uses the word “fraud” to describe every complaint or challenge to the outcome of the 2020 general election, including Trump’s legal challenges premised solely on violations of the state election code.

The committee’s most blatant bait-and-switch in this regard came when the hearing framed a letter drafted by former Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark as discussing bogus election fraud claims. According to the committee, Clark wanted the Department of Justice to dispatch that letter to the Georgia legislature, even though he had no “evidence of widespread election fraud.”

But the proposed letter, which Clark’s bosses rejected, did not make any claims of election fraud. In fact, in one paragraph, Clark expressly referenced a pending lawsuit in Fulton County that focused on violations of the Georgia election code. It noted that as of late December, the trial court in that case had not even scheduled a hearing on the alleged election law violations. Yet the Jan, 6 Committee presented Clark as seeking to push debunked fraud claims to the Georgia legislature.

The committee’s use of testimony by former Attorney General William Barr likewise served to frame every objection to the 2020 election as related to fraud. Barr’s testimony that he “had not seen any widespread election fraud that would question the outcome of the election,” and that “the stuff” Trump’s people “were shoveling out to the public was bullsh-t,” provided the perfect fodder for the committee’s disinformation campaign.

After all, if Trump’s own attorney general found the claims of fraud “bullsh-t,” surely there was no legitimate basis to challenge the 2020 election or to doubt its outcome. That is precisely what the Jan 6. Committee wants Americans to think, but claims of election fraud “represented but a portion of Trump’s challenges to the November 2020 results,” and that the claims of election fraud Barr’s team investigated were “bullsh-t” “says nothing about whether there were systemic violations of election law and illegal voting.”…

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/01/heres-what-the-jan-6-show-trials-are-really-after/

>>16573537

Here’s What The Jan. 6 Show Trials Are Really After

Part 2 of 3

The lack of election fraud also leaves unanswered the many other ways the 2020 election was rigged, from the corrupt media’s burying of the evidence of the Biden family’s pay-to-play scandal discovered on Hunter’s laptop, to the flooding of Democrat-heavy voting precincts with millions of get-out-the-vote ZuckBucks.

Silencing Complaints About Election Irregularities

A related goal of the Jan. 6 Committee is to silence conservative complaints about election irregularities. The committee’s strategy to achieve this objective focuses first on convincing the country that the violence that day was caused by false claims of fraud and, therefore, those who alleged fraud bore responsibility for the attack on the capitol. As the committee had already framed all attempts to legally challenge the election as pushing disproven accusations of fraud and cast the riot at the capitol as an insurrection, under the committee’s logic, any American criticizing the 2020 election is complicit in the supposed attack on our democracy.

Even before the House formed the sham Jan. 6 Committee, Americans who merely attended the rally found themselves fired from their jobs. Since then, the committee and the corrupt media have teamed to create a guilt-by-association mentality throughout the country, with both politicians and the John and Jane Q. Public protest attendees cast as co-conspirators in a violent insurrection.

But the committee seeks to spread the blame for the supposed insurrection far beyond the speakers and protestors, presenting state representatives and officials investigating election irregularities, attorneys advising Trump, and lawyers litigating election violations as equally culpable for fomenting an insurrection. Now, with the committee apparently angling to concoct some sort of criminal conspiracy, the message to conservatives is clear: stay silent or risk your livelihood and your liberty.

The zone of silence the committee and the complicit media push for is all-encompassing, from ordinary Americans to a U.S. Supreme Court justice. The show trial seeks to shame conservative voters from speaking out about election irregularities witnessed at the polls, commenting on social media about questionable election results, peacefully protesting, or even voting for candidates who challenge election results.

In short, the committee has made clear that “anyone who complains about the disastrous American electoral system on display during the last presidential election [will be branded] a conspiracy theorist seeking the violent overthrow of the government.” That promise provides a pretty good incentive for citizens to stay silent.

Relatedly, the committee hopes to keep conservative candidates from challenging elections, either their own or those of other Republicans, and to scare attorneys away from such clients. The targeting of Justice Clarence Thomas serves as a warning to other judges and justices not to take conservative complaints seriously, or else a family member may find herself under investigation.

Also targets of the Jan. 6 Committee’s campaign of shame are state legislatures, which are charged with establishing rules and regulations for elections. By framing all complaints about the November 2020 election as concerning non-existent voter fraud, the committee seeks to paint the state legislative bodies’ election integrity measures as racist. After all, since there was no fraud, as the committee’s theme goes, the state lawmakers must be seeking to disenfranchise minority voters.

Make no mistake about it: the shame and silencing will only go one way—to squelch conservatives. That Hillary Clinton could simultaneously brand “Donald Trump, his allies, and supporters” “a clear and present danger to American democracy” and question the legitimacy of Trump’s 2016 victory establishes that Democrats will retain the right to question elections, while a Republican challenge to an election represents treason.

The vitriol leveled at the originalist Supreme Court justices following the leak of the Dobbs opinion, when coupled with the protests outside of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home and the later arrest of a man who plotted to kill him, confirms the double-standard in play. Rhetoric on the right holds responsibility for prompting an armed revolt, but the equally charged condemnation of Supreme Court justices merely represents the expression of strongly held views, even when a member of the public responds by plotting the assassination of one of the justices….

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/01/heres-what-the-jan-6-show-trials-are-really-after/

>>16573543

Here’s What The Jan. 6 Show Trials Are Really After

Part 3 of 3

While such hypocrisy proves the Jan. 6 Committee’s true concern is not political violence, conservatives without the wherewithal to withstand guilt by association will bow out of the debate over election integrity, leaving Democrats and their friendly media players to bury any legitimate concerns.

Safeguard the Swamp

A third global goal of the Jan. 6 Committee is to protect the establishment by clearly conveying to outsiders that they will be destroyed if they attempt to clean out the swamp and that anyone who assists in those efforts will be likewise ruined.

Early on, Trump learned that the deep state and members of both political parties had him in their sights. Spygate and the first impeachment demonstrated the strength of the establishment and the media’s willingness to assist in efforts to take down the outsider.

But even Trump losing in 2020 was not enough for the D.C. crowd: The establishment needed Trump destroyed, not just to prevent a rematch in 2024 but as a warning to any other Mr. Smith who might want to go to Washington that they are in charge and any attempt to change the power structure will end in disgrace and potentially even prison.

The Jan. 6 show trial drives home that point. Not only is the committee seeking to destroy Trump and his legacy, but it wants the former president indicted and put in prison. But even that is not enough. The committee also wants those who stood by Trump, whether politically or personally, to face shame, disbarment, personal and professional harm, and potentially prison.

The lesson here to the D.C. types is also clear: Don’t cross the establishment and don’t help any outsiders who want to change the way Washington does business, or you too will be destroyed.

The committee’s efforts in this respect hurt conservatives in a secondary way as well, by stoking divisions in the Republican Party. Since Trump first entered the Republican primary in 2015, the party has been divided over his role in the party. Following his election, while some Republicans remained antagonistic to the president, most of the party moved forward, working with Trump to move the country forward on a conservative footing.

The 2020 election fallout reopened the rift in the Republican Party, and now, nearly two years later, the committee hearings, among its other broad goals, serve to feed that infighting. Conservatives seem oblivious to this reality, however, allowing the show trial to stand in the way of a unified party going into the midterm elections.

So, in advance of Cipollone’s testimony, either live or if he asserts executive privilege,Republicans would be wise to remind themselves that Joe Biden and Democrats represent a much bigger threat to the future of our countrythan either Trump or those Republicans who disagree with his approach to fighting the 2020 election.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/01/heres-what-the-jan-6-show-trials-are-really-after/

https://twitter.com/jeffrygc/status/1542872616071008256?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

>>16573566

I think another goal for this Committee is when Cheney tries to steal the election, anyone challenging the theft will be arrested and rounded up like J6 protesters

>>16573581

Did you call it? You could do it on a pay phone if they still exist. Leave your cell at home

Remember when we barely heard a word about the SC or even knew Justices names. The left has ramped up the pressure of the SC ever since Trump took office, its been close 6-1/2 years of trying to destroy the SC but now their sole purpose is to destroy or kill Justice Clarence Thomas. The odd thing is Alito penned that opinion of R v W but rarely hear a word about him. And it being ramped up topersonal levels on Justice Thomas is Bidan’s revenge for not succeeding to prevent his succession to the SC. That along with the fact he and Scalia are brilliant, very similar in style, wont back down, except Scalia was a little more outspoken.

https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1542853611549597696?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

Another excellent but long article

=The J6 Show Trial Is Lying About Election ‘Fraud’

BY: MOLLIE HEMINGWAY

JULY 01, 2022

The January 6 show trial is partly about persecuting political opponents. But it’s also about covering up the truth of the 2020 election.

Part 1 of 4

The purpose of the January 6 committee is to further the lie that there was nothing seriously wrong with the 2020 election and to criminalize any questioning of the election. The January 6 riot gives the committee a nice hook, but that’s not what they really care about.

They want to prevent you from admitting the election was irregular, faulty, or anything less than the most perfect election in the history of mankind, and from supporting people who fought against those irregularities. In service of this goal, the January 6 committee repeatedly lied about the actual claims Donald Trump supporters have made about the flaws in the election.

The January 6 Committee is conducting a show trial, not a criminal one. Show trials, common in authoritarian regimes, are held for propaganda purposes, to punish political opponents, and to cover up the truth of what the regime has done.

Democrats’ show trial is completely one-sided. The members on the committee were appointed exclusively by Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. There are zero Republican-appointed members. In fact, Pelosi refused to allow the top Republicans Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy picked for the committee — an unprecedented violation of House rules and norms.

No one represents the accused or advocates for their rights. No cross-examination or presentation of a defense has been allowed from the targets of the trial. The committee does not follow House rules on evidence or witness depositions. The so-called investigation has declared off-limits any good-faith inquiry into issues that contradict their persecution, whether a look at what led to the lack of security by Capitol police forces or a look at the legitimate concerns about the unique and novel way the 2020 election was conducted.

The show trial is deeply and profoundly un-American. This week’s “surprise” hearing has already imploded under the weight of the inaccurate testimony given by young staff assistant Cassandra Hutchinson. But last Thursday’s episode also deserves scrutiny for the lies it contained.

That hearing was focused on Jeffrey Clark, a Department of Justice (DOJ) official during the Trump administration who had proposed more aggressive investigative and legal efforts in the controversial aftermath of the 2020 election than many of his peers. Incidentally, among the growing concerns about a ream of false statements given is a report that Hutchinson also lied about Clark.

The Misdirection On ‘Fraud’

The “storyline” for the committee’s June 23 televised spectacle revolved around a letter that Clark drafted and wanted other DOJ officials to sign and send to the leadership of the Georgia state legislature. Here’s a portion of Rep. Liz Cheney’s loaded remarks about this. Before reading them, it should be noted that it has already been shown that Cheney repeatedly lied about DOJ lawyer Ken Klukowski throughout the hearing:

Neither Mr. Clark nor Mr. Klukowski had any evidence of widespread election fraud, but they were quite aware of what Mr. Trump wanted the department to do. Jeff Clark met privately with President Trump and others in the White House and agreed to assist the president without telling the senior leadership of the department who oversaw him.

As you will see, this letter claims that the US Department of Justice’s investigations have ‘Identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the state of Georgia.’ In fact, Donald Trump knew this was a lie. The Department of Justice had already informed the president of the United States repeatedly that its investigations had found no fraud sufficient to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The words fraud or fraudulent were used some 50 times in Thursday’s hearing, typically in the way they’re used in the excerpt above. The Democrat-appointed members would claim that Clark was alleging election fraud and, further, that everything about the election had been fully investigated and there was no evidence of problems with the election….

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/01/the-j6-show-trial-is-lying-about-election-fraud/

>>16573735

The J6 Show Trial Is Lying About Election ‘Fraud’

Part 2 of 4

There are two major problems with Cheney’s argument. First, if she had read Clark’s letter, she would have noticed that while it did discuss major identified problems with the election potentially affecting the outcome, it never once alleged fraud. Second, it is highly debatable that the problems with the election were ever competently investigated or even understood.

If you look at the actual letter Clark drafted for discussion, he referenced “various irregularities,” “significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election,” and “irregularities, sworn to by a variety of witnesses.” He referenced a report arising from Georgia Senate hearingsthat had taken sworn testimony and affidavits from many people about the chaotic and troubling administration of the Georgia election.

The complaints included problems with ballot custody, inability to monitor vote tabulation, inadequately maintained voter lists, and the counting of ballots from ineligible voters. The testimony even included something that would become a massive concern of election integrity advocates — the private takeover of government election offices by Mark Zuckerberg-funded groups.

And Georgia really was a mess, Fulton County in particular. None of Fulton County’s respected Republican election commissioners voted to certify the election. They had numerous problems, including that the first certification vote was taken just hours after Fulton County was still finding, processing, and tabulating ballots.

During the run-off, thumb drives were accidentally left in voting machines, exacerbating their previous concerns about ballot custody and chain of command issues. The commissioners also were concerned that no chain of custody information had been provided to them, even after they asked, for the 38 drop boxes spread throughout the country. The commissioners were concerned that no meaningful efforts had taken place to verify signatures on mail-in ballots.

It is false to claim that these things were properly investigated or that, if they were, there was no evidence to support them. Many independent analysts have determined that the Zuckerberg-funded takeover of government election offices significantly affected the outcome of the election.

That was where nearly $450 million was given — with a focus on the Democrat areas of swing states — to help run Get Out The Vote efforts. In an election that came down to 43,000 votes across three states, it is not difficult to make an overwhelming case that the Zuckerberg funding alone was outcome determinative.

It would have been difficult to properly investigate that in the short time period after the election, but it’s absolutely false to say it was investigated, much less thoroughly.

More Than 12,000 Illegal Votes In Georgia

Clark also expressed in his draft letter a “troubling” concern over a lawsuit that was being slow-tracked by a Georgia judge. He urged action because, “Despite the action having been filed on December 4, 2020, the trial court there has not even scheduled a hearing on matter, making it difficult for the judicial process to consider this evidence and resolve these matters on appeal prior to January 6.”

His concern was extremely well-founded. That lawsuit, widely regarded at the time as being strong and based on legitimate election problems, ended up being vindicated. In their lawsuit, the Trump campaign claimed that tens of thousands of voters had moved without registering to vote in their new residence. To get the figures about changes of address, the campaign looked at the National Change of Address data set, a secure data set of information on people who have filed a change of address with the United States Postal Service.

Filing a change-of-address form with the post office doesn’t conclusively mean the person is no longer eligible to vote at his or her former address. Some of those address changes could be college students or military members serving elsewhere. They would still be eligible to vote at the address they changed their mail from being delivered to.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/01/the-j6-show-trial-is-lying-about-election-fraud/

>>16573754

The J6 Show Trial Is Lying About Election ‘Fraud’

Part 3 of 4

But many of them reflected permanent moves to new cities and states. In fact, with around 10 percent of the population moving each year, and inadequate maintenance of voter rolls, experts say there are literally millions of bogus registrations on voter rolls all over the country. Such a situation doesn’t necessitate fraud, but it does make the situation ripe for fraud or the illegal casting of votes.

There were around 122,000 Georgia voters in 2020 who told the Postal Service they were moving to a new county in Georgia with a “move effective date” of more than 30 days before the election and who failed to re-register in their new county in time to be eligible to vote in the general election.

The secretary of state specifically instructs, citing Georgia law, that doing this means “you have lost your eligibility to vote in the county of your old residence.” Voters are required to register in the new county. “Remember, if you don’t register to vote by the deadline, you cannot vote in that particular election,” the secretary of state instructed.

The vast majority of the 122,000 voters who moved obeyed the law and did not try to vote in their old county. But thousands of voters appeared to break the law by casting a vote in a county in which they didn’t live. Most did so by voting absentee ballot, albeit many by early in-person absentee voting rather than mail-in voting.

Nearly all of these voters appeared to have voted in the wrong state house district, and more than 85 percent appeared to have voted in the wrong state senate district. Nearly two-thirds appeared to have voted in the wrong congressional district. And all of them appeared to be illegal votes in all races, since they would be ineligible to vote by law. Those who made similar moves but did not register to vote at their new address, and therefore didn’t vote, had obeyed the law.

The issue is important because it shows “the folks who obeyed the law didn’t get to vote, and the folks who broke it did get to vote,” Mark Davis, a Republican data expert in Georgia who raised alarms about the problem, said last year. Davis was a fighter for election integrity in a state that could be lax about enforcing its basic laws. He drew attention to several problems, including vulnerabilities enabling double voting.

“For years and years and years, I’ve kind of been that nerd over there that will bore you to tears talking about election integrity,” he jokes. He’s been an expert witness in five different election cases, usually dealing with problems caused by failure to place voters in their proper municipal district or related to change-of-address issues.

Davis shared the information with the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, which has admitted the problem, although it made excuses for the admittedly illegal votes.

Incidentally, it was this lawsuit that was being discussed when President Trump told the secretary of state to “find” votes. That was wrongly characterized as the president trying to pressure someone to invent a finding of problematic votes. Here’s why.

The latest update on these illegal votes is that evidence indicates more than 12,000 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 2020 general election — exceeding the 11,779 votes that separated Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The campaign knew that the problem of illegal voting may be more than the margin of victory that Biden, which would have meant that the state would grant relief.

But the campaign also knew their lawsuit was being slow-tracked and that it could take more than a year to get confirmation on the numbers without help from the secretary of state. They had also listed categories of other major problems potentially affecting the margin of victory.

They just needed the secretary of state’s office to care about enough of the illegal votes earlier. While at least this illegal voting portion of the campaign’s lawsuit was vindicated, it wasn’t vindicated in a timely enough fashion to matter.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/01/the-j6-show-trial-is-lying-about-election-fraud/

>>1657376

Part 4 of 4

Different Legal Strategies Are Not A Crime

The Soviet-style show trial has featured testimony from people in Trump’s administration who did not think it wise to keep challenging election results, particularly after the Electoral College had convened. I know and interviewed many of them for “Rigged,” my book on the 2020 election.

They found the post-election day legal efforts led by Trump to be poorly strategized and executed. I share details about some of those debacles in the book, particularly how Rudy Guiliani took a promising Pennsylvania case with superstar attorneys — about disparate treatment of voters — into a case about fraud, thereby ruining it. That decision also led judges in other states to get nervous and impatient about other cases.

It also increased anxiety among establishment attorneys who had previously been part of the legal effort. Many of these attorneys were also having their lives and reputations threatened by NeverTrump groups, who were posting personal information and sending mobs to harass them.

Trump administration officials had major concerns — prior to the election — about the lack of election integrity provided by the rush to widespread mail-in voting. For example, former Attorney General Bill Barr said in September 2020 that expansive mail-in voting was “playing with fire.” But these officials also believed it wasn’t really the job of the Justice Department to pursue investigations about the issue. They were willing to look into various claims that were swirling about, but considered it to be more of a local or regional crime issue that could rise to the level of DOJ interest…

The January 6 show trial has tried to suggest that problems with the 2020 election were thoroughly investigated. Evidence for the claim is lacking. Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bill McSwain has publicly said he was told by Barr to stand down from investigating, a claim Barr publicly denies. McSwain wrote Trump was “right to be upset about the way the Democrats ran the 2020 election in Pennsylvania — it was a partisan disgrace.”

He added, in a letter to Trump that was later publicized, “On Election Day and afterwards, our Office received various allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities. As part of my responsibilities as U.S. Attorney, I wanted to be transparent with the public and, of course, investigate fully any allegations. Attorney General Barr, however, instructed me not to make any public statements or put out any press releases regarding possible election irregularities. I was also given a directive to pass along serious allegations to the State Attorney General for investigation — the same State Attorney General who had already declared that you could not win. I disagreed with the decision, but those were my orders. As a Marine infantry officer, I was trained to follow the chain of command and to respect the orders of my superiors, even when I disagree with them.”

Again, Barr denies this accounting. And he’s publicly said he did try to run down various allegations of fraud that were being bandied about.

Clark’s superiors at the Department of Justice did not want him to pursue his aggressive efforts, but he was also discussing the topic with their superior, the president himself. He tried to pursue a more aggressive strategy than the one that many DOJ officials thought prudent.

Reasonable people can see both sides here. Prudence — particularly so late in the game — is a huge issue. More tenacious fighting for election integrity is also virtuous. Many leaders up to and including Trump himself should have done far more — far earlier — to fight Democrats’ coordinated and widespread attacks on the integrity of the country’s election system. Many Republican officials were sounding the alarm in the months prior…

But differing legal strategies are not crimes, no matter how much Pelosi and Cheney and their media bootlickers would like them to be. It is reasonable to oppose Clark’s strategy, but the letter causing so much dispute was not about fraud. It was about the many other problems affecting the integrity of the election. It was also — and it says this clearly on every page — a draft product for discussion. The letter urged state legislatures to ensure the integrity of their state’s elections when there was cause for concern. The Constitution does give that responsibility to the states.

The January 6 show trial is also about covering up the truth of the 2020 election. Turning questions about the many problems with the 2020 election into a crime is the type of thing that is done in third-world countries. Persecuting people who talk about it or try to do something about it is what you expect in corrupt authoritarian regimes. It is horrific to see it happening here.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/01/the-j6-show-trial-is-lying-about-election-fraud/

Disney and all the perves that work there, here in the US and around the world should go down in flames once and fall

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1542702799103766529?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

These people are losing their minds. Demon possessed to the point of sheer insanity

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1542864270731448324?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

Here’s chapmans link

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1542645961473892352?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

So now the New York Post is joining the MSM that banned them, wow

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1542864860383526914?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

Hutchinson any relation to the dipshit

Really who cares of they support him, Trump is only getting stronger now

https://twitter.com/JoelWBerry/status/1542861219710779392?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

https://twitter.com/AndyPuzder/status/1542842524334702592?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

Veteran Groups out there should be protecting Justice Thomas, his wife and son 24 hours a dayThe evil will never stop

https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1542684992077185024?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

But first they will steal elections

https://twitter.com/MelissaTweets/status/1542642726696796160?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

Interesting, instead of corrected it, they deleted their tweet

https://twitter.com/MelissaTweets/status/1542642726696796160?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

Yeah because her and Pelosi are doing a much better job of destroying our country

https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1542615397794463744?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg

We have a pretty robust indoctrination plan as we move into the school

Parents take your children out of public schools now

https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1542910291322732547?s=20&t=haKbOCElZQtvMChtoFTewg