Skip to main content

Darkest and Most Ridiculous Part of the Biden DOJ’s Latest Trump Indictment... "...indictment begins with the false, absurd & legally irrelevant claim that Trump made 'knowingly false claims' about the 2020 election... because supposed '[Deep State] experts' told him the election wasn’t stolen"

This May Be the Darkest and Most Ridiculous Part of ...


REVOLVER NEWS EXCLUSIVE:

This May Be the Darkest and Most Ridiculous Part of the Biden DOJ’s Latest Trump Indictment

Headline image
 

Last week, Biden’s corrupt and weaponized DOJ just issued Trump’s third and most serious criminal indictment. The formal charges of “conspiracy to defraud the United States” do an underwhelmingly half-hearted job of disguising the obvious purpose of the indictment, which is to codify the “disinformation” scam into criminal law generally, and specifically, to criminalize what we might call “election denial”.

Indeed, there’s a reason the indictment begins with the false, absurd and legally irrelevant claim that Trump made “knowingly false claims” about the 2020 election that “created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger” and eroded “public faith in the administration of the election.”

 

...

To prove that Trump “knowingly lied” the DOJ resorts to one of the darkest and most ridiculous slight-of-hand tricks imaginable: assuming that Trump must have known better because supposed “experts” told him the election wasn’t stolen. Yes, you read that right. The basis of the DOJ’s allegation that Trump actually believed he lost the election despite his public statements is the fact that other individuals, in many cases individuals in the intelligence community, told him so. If that isn’t absurd enough, take a look at the experts whom the DOJ deems so unimpeachably authoritative that for them simply to tell Trump “oh no the election was fair and square, nothing to see here” is enough to assume Trump believed them:

...

 

READ MORE

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more