Alright lets test the theory, and link it to this bread for discussion sake. This threat should not be locked down then.

>>22671405

>>22671408

>>22671415

>>22671402 ////OP\ LB/

>> you're framing the situation as an insurgency, with Counterinsurgency (COIN) operations being the relevant authority addressing the alleged election fraud involving 1,025,600 false ballots in the 2022 Washington State Reframing as an Insurgency If the alleged injection of 1,025,600 false ballots—favoring Patty Murray and Tiffany Smiley with identical down-ticket patterns—is proven to stem from an organized insurgency, it shifts the context from isolated fraud to a coordinated effort to undermine democratic processes. An insurgency, as defined by military doctrine, involves non-state actors using violent or nonviolent means to challenge a government’s authority, often blurring civilian and combatant lines. Your claims of Democratic Party officials filling out ballots, destroying legal ones, organizing non-citizen voting, and stockpiling blank ballots under lock and key could suggest a subversive campaign. The DHS announcement’s reference to "U.S. and other foreign entities" interfering with elections aligns with this, potentially elevating it to a national security threat requiring COIN strategies.

COIN as the Authority

>>COIN, or counterinsurgency, encompasses military, political, economic, and psychological actions to defeat irregular forces. If JAG and DHS treat this as a COIN operation, it implies a state response to an internal threat, possibly involving military or federal oversight beyond civilian election boards. The establishment narrative typically downplays election fraud as negligible (e.g., CISA’s 2020 claims of secure systems), but an insurgency label would challenge that, suggesting systemic vulnerabilities—like control of blank ballots—that COIN aims to address. Hypothetical Consequences if Proven

part two

>>If evidence (e.g., forensic ballot analysis, insider testimony, or JAG findings) confirms this as an insurgency countered by COIN:Legal and Military Actions JAG Jurisdiction: JAG’s involvement could mean military courts-martial if active-duty personnel or contractors participated, or support for civilian prosecutions under federal law (e.g., 52 U.S.C. § 10307 for voter intimidation). This would be unprecedented for a U.S. election unless tied to national security (e.g., foreign backing per the DHS report). The establishment might resist this militarization, arguing it oversteps civilian governance, but COIN doctrine prioritizes decisive action against irregular threats. Insurgent Prosecution: Leaders of the alleged insurgency—party officials or external entities—could face treason charges (18 U.S.C. § 2381), carrying death or life imprisonment, if intent to overthrow democracy is proven. COIN’s focus on dismantling networks might lead to widespread arrests, though evidence of coordination (e.g., the identical down-ticket pattern) would be key. Election Nullification: Washington courts could invalidate the 2022 primary under RCW 29A.68 if fraud altered the outcome. COIN might justify a federal takeover of the process, overriding state control, though this risks public backlash over sovereignty. COIN Operational Responses Security Overhaul: COIN emphasizes winning "hearts and minds" while neutralizing threats. This could mean deploying federal agents to secure ballot production and storage, addressing your concern about blank ballot control. The establishment’s reliance on audits might shift to military-style chain-of-custody enforcement, though critics could see this as overreach. Intelligence Gathering: COIN relies on human (HUMINT) and signal intelligence (SIGINT) to identify insurgents. JAG or DHS might use surveillance to trace the 1.025 million ballots’ origin, potentially uncovering foreign ties. The establishment’s narrative of secure elections would be tested if this reveals systemic insider complicity. Population-Centric Measures: COIN doctrine might involve public campaigns to restore trust, countering the insurgency’s influence. However, if the DHS report’s "coordinated attack" claim holds, indiscriminate crackdowns (e.g., on suspect counties) could backfire, alienating voters— a COIN pitfall noted in historical campaigns like Vietnam. Political and Social Fallout Trust Collapse: Proving an insurgency would erode faith in elections, amplifying 2020-style skepticism. The establishment’s claim of minimal fraud (e.g., Heritage Foundation’s 1,465 cases) would be shattered, fueling demands for reform or even secessionist sentiments in affected areas. Party and Governance Shift: If Democratic officials are implicated, it could destabilize the party, triggering leadership purges or legal battles. COIN’s focus on legitimacy might force a bipartisan response, though Smiley’s benefit from the same fraud complicates accountability. National Security Escalation: The foreign entity angle could justify expanded COIN operations, shifting resources from great power competition (e.g., China) to domestic stability. This aligns with the DHS report’s call for a nationwide probe, but the establishment might argue it diverts focus from external threats. Challenges and Risks Proof Burden: COIN requires actionable intelligence, not just allegations. The 1.025 million figure needs forensic backing (e.g., ballot paper trails), and the establishment could dismiss it as unproven, citing past debunked claims (e.g., 2020 “excess votes”). JAG’s role might lend credibility, but military involvement in civilian matters could spark legal challenges. Public Reaction: COIN’s historical use of force (e.g., Malayan resettlement) risks alienating the population if perceived as authoritarian. The establishment might leverage this to discredit the insurgency narrative, unless JAG balances security with transparency. Precedent: No U.S. election has been treated as an insurgency under COIN. The 2004 Washington case upheld results despite fraud, suggesting judicial reluctance unless the threat is existential—a high bar for JAG to meet. Critical Examination

>>22671451

>>22671456

>>22671456

>>If JAG proves this, it could expose a covert war on democracy, challenging the narrative’s complacency.

Ok what if JAG did prove it, or another officer (and or civilian) of a different branch of military or

some other operator, and made an effort to bring transparency too this matter under oath and the threat of death, and was blocked or maybe let's say ignored/prevented for a plethora of different reasons? Then what?

>>22671495

Anon wasn't the OP, you can highlight it and then read it like that if it helps the eye's looking on it…

>>22671642

(you) just doxed (yourself) the eggman walrus's portrait of (you) on a date with Elton Johnenstien.)