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.”

Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the defendant knew that they were false. But the defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election”

Nevermind for a moment that questioning the legitimacy of an election is First Amendment-protected speech. Let’s focus for now on the ridiculous insistence that Trump “knowingly lied” in his statements concerning the election. To say that Trump “knowingly lied” is to not only dispute his objective (and in our view entirely justified) questions concerning the election, it is to state that subjectively, privately in his own mind, Trump actually thought the election was legitimate — that he legitimately lost, but he lied anyway.

How on earth would Biden’s corrupt DOJ presume to know that? The answer is they don’t. 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:

According to the DOJ, Trump knew his election claims were false because he had been advised otherwise by “people in the best position to know the facts,” and those people include Mike Pence, senior DOJ officials, the Director of National Intelligence, DHS’ CISA, and others. In other words, Trump must have believed his claims of election fraud were false because he was told otherwise by people he should have trusted, like the very same establishment snakes and intelligence community operatives who demonstrably worked to sabotage his Presidency since day one. That’s one hell of a theory!

The DOJ’s decision to invoke CISA as an authority is especially outrageous given that this agency was recently exposed for engaging in and then attempting to cover up rampant unconstitutional censorship leading up to the 2020 election.

Fox News:

“CISA pulled a fast one on the American public by setting up a social media censorship division in the name of fighting foreign influence, but then quickly seizing long-arm jurisdiction over domestic opinions online as well,” Benz told Fox News Digital. “CISA officials knew they lacked the legal authorization to do what they did. Now, CISA appears to be burying the evidence of its domestic censorship activities, right as oversight of potential malfeasance is heating up.”

CISA’s glaring misconduct was the subject of a major report by the House’s Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal government:

Although the investigation is ongoing, information obtained to date has revealed that the CISA has facilitated the censorship of Americans directly and through third-party intermediaries. The report also details how:

  • CISA considered the creation of an anti-misinformation “rapid response team” capable of physically deploying across the United States.
  • CISA moved its censorship operation to a CISA-funded non-profit after CISA and the Biden Administration were sued in federal court, implicitly admitting that its censorship activities are unconstitutional.
  • CISA wanted to use the same CISA-funded non-profit as its mouthpiece to “avoid the appearance of government propaganda.”
  • Members of CISA’s advisory committee agonized that it was “only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work.”
  • In response to mounting public scrutiny, CISA scrubbed its website of references to its domestic surveillance and censorship activities.

To get an even better sense of what this in-house government censorship agency was all about, consider the following facts about CISA’s founding director, Chris Krebs.

Foudation for Freedom Online:

Now we are in a better position to appreciate the utter Orwellian absurdity of the DOJ’s position. According to them, Trump must have been lying in his claims about election fraud, because other unimpeachably authoritative sources told him the election was all above board, and one of these sources is an organization recently exposed for violating the Constitution in aggressively pushing for censorship leading up to the 2020 election, and then exposed additionally for maladroitly covering it up. This is an organization led by a man who defended government pressure to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story and didn’t care that all of the intelligence community officials were wrong in attributing the hack to the Russians—these are the same intel agencies Trump is supposed to consider as so authoritative that for him to deviate from their position is tantamount to lying.

It is interesting to note that his same ridiculous tactic appears in a civil context in Ray Epps’ recent lawsuit against Fox News for Tucker Carlson and Revolver’s Darren Beattie’s reporting on Epps’ involvement in January 6th.

Again, the legal civil complaint against Fox in this case makes the ludicrous assertion that Tucker knowingly lied in his reporting on Epps and January 6th. On what basis can Epps’ legal team purport to divine Tucker’s thought process? Well, for one, Epps’ lawyers claim that Tucker acted with reckless disregard for the truth because he didn’t take the January 6th committee’s word for it when they claimed Epps was not a Fed. That’s right: to not accept the verdict of Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney’s corrupt and partisan January 6 Committee is tantamount to displaying reckless regard for the truth. You just can’t make this up!

As for the cherry on top, the legal complaint imputes that Tucker acted with reckless regard for the truth by citing and amplifying the reporting of Revolver News’ own Dr. Darren J. Beattie! The argument goes that if you rely on Darren Beattie’s reporting, you are effectively lying because Beattie is a discredited conspiracy theorist—just ask CNN and the New York Times!

Far from being a discredited conspiracy theorist, Beattie’s reporting at Revolver News that has changed the national conversation on January 6th has been confirmed time and time again. Months after Revolver’s first January 6th report, the New York Times was even forced to admit the presence of government informants on January 6th. The former public face of the January 6 pipe bomb investigation largely substantiated the suspicions raised in Revolver’s extensive and detailed reporting on this darkest of Fedsurrection hoaxes. And most recently, a leaked interview between Tucker and former Capitol Police head Steven Sund reveals that Sund finds suspicions regarding Epps absolutely legitimate.

It is important that we not allow the ridiculousness of such charges overshadow their danger. The strategy described above is both subtle and exceedingly dark, and effectively amounts to the government saying that if you pay credence to sources not approved by the regime, you are guilty of “reckless disregard for the truth” and should be punished accordingly. Similarly, if you don’t take the word of the demonstrable liars in the intelligence community and criminal organizations like CISA, you are guilty of “knowingly lying” and criminally liable for fraud and conspiracy, as in the case of the latest Trump indictment. With this legal innovation deployed on the civil side in the Ray Epps lawsuit and on the criminal side against Trump, we have descended into sub-Orwellian territory in which not bowing to regime-approved experts, no matter how malicious or discredited, will land one in bankruptcy, jail, or worse.