Wednesday, December 02, 2020
View Blog
Minimize
Nov 12

Written by: Diana West
Thursday, November 12, 2020 4:43 AM 

Over and over and over again, media "explain" the story of President Trump's "unsubstantiated claims of fraud."   

We read it, we see it, we hear it. Everywhere. All the time, in a continouus loop, as at CNN:

Sources tell CNN that top aides suggesting that the defeated president, President Trump, hold rallies to drum up bogus conspiracies about election fraud...the GOP keeps spreading completely unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud...there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud ...no evidence of widespread flaws in the mail-in voting process... 

and on and on.

There is no famine in the Ukraine, there are no gas chambers, no gulags, either. There is no evidence of election fraud...

That's how brain-washing works: repetition. And that's how Big Lies take hold. "The communists know well the corrosive effect of repetition on a man's mind and reactions," brain-washing expert Edward Hunter wrote, discussing the use of repetition in pre-mass-media communist group meetings.

Everyone in a people's discussion must speak up. Everyone must express the communist point of view in his own words. Then he must rephrase it and continue doing so endlessly, and listen to others doing it endlessly for hours on end.

Hunter has described 24/7 cable and network news to a tee.

The subject for repetition might be only a slight detail in Red dogma, but like children reciting a new word or phrase until they can never forget it, everyone must repeat this tiny bit of dogma until it becomes etched in his thinking, becomes spontaneous. 

There is no evidence of election fraud ...  

But brainwashing is not enough, and the evil powers that be know it. This is why the media, acting in conjunction with radical organization such as The Lincoln Project and ShutDownDC, have set out to destroy the very institutions that threaten their Big Lies with revelation, destruction and restitution.

I refer to an alarming and aggressive campaign that has been swiftly mounted against the legal process itself by which the Trump campaign is seeking to present evidence that key state elections were decided by fraudulent votes. This campaign of smear, doxxing and client-pressure is targeting leading law firms which represent either the president or related entities such as the RNC. Their purpose is to deprive the president of legal representation. 

Already, two such firms are reported to have buckled.

I can't recall seeing or hearing about anything like this before, at least not in America. Ingrained in American law and tradition is our right to seek legal redress without fear or favor, our right to counsel in the BIll of Rights. Where Lady Justice is blind, the lawyers are not supposed to have look over their shoulders. However, just as the president's foes subvert the voting process, they subvert the legal process, too. 

Shakespeare understood them and their goals completely. 

In Henry VI, Part 2, Jack Cade, the leader of the pretender to the throne's forces, has just promised redistribution of wealth and the end of private property, anticipating the Biden-Harris-Great-Reset by four or five centuries.

There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop'd pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer; all the realm shall be in common; ... there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

"Dick the Butcher" knows exactly what must be done to bring about this communistic utopia: 

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

 --

The first firm to play dead was Snell & Wilmer, which on Tuesday pulled out of the president's Maricopa County, Arizona case. As Reuters told the story:

Two other large law firms that have represented the Trump campaign in election litigation, Jones Day and Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, have faced an onslaught of online criticism this week from critics who say the cases erode confidence in the democratic process, sparked by a Monday New York Times story focused on the firms' roles.

"Sparked by a Monday New York Times story," huh?

I discussed and derided that story in Election News 7, but I misunderstood its significance. The story's absurd focus on the poor widdle hurt feelings of a tiny handful of left-wing lawyers at mega-firms Jones Day and Porter Wright aside: It was really just a marker. The New York Times put it down as an act of anti-Trump advocacy. The fuzzed-up story was quickly overblown into alarm at top gun laws firm over undermining the Constitution or whatever, and seized upon and sensationalized by the rest of the media and their allies in an effort to deny the president his right to due process. 

The thoroughly rancid Lincoln Project, led by a former registered agent of Russia, not incidentally, cranked right into gear, with a generous assist by the Washington Post:

Here's a typically juiced-up Times follow-up: 

Now Porter Wright has dropped its presidential caseload in Pennsylvania, just a couple of days after the Lincoln Project released personal info on two of its lawyers.

Are these firms just cowards or are they also victims of stalking? Slander? Terrorist threats? One would think and hope top American law firms would be able to fight off such a campaign of intimidation, and would want to, as part of their committment to the law. 

Onto King & Spalding, as Shut Down DC promises to show up today at their offices in DC, and continue the pressure campaign.

 

The stakes couldn't be higher for the mobsters. If the president is able to make his case in court they know they will lose everything. After all, if they were certain that the Biden-Harris media-called-victory was clean and assured, they would be thrilled to bits by the prospect of Donald Trump blowing a fortune only to lose a string of court decisions.

But no. Just as they seek to brainwash the American people into believing there is no evidence of election fraud, they seek to deprive the president of his right to prove it in court.

  

 

Tags:
Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West