When I happened on the Jeffrey Clark story as it was breaking days ago, it seemed clear this was the leading edge of a new assault in national pysops against clean elections, rule of law, free speech and the rest of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- oh, and breathing if you happen to be a supporter of any of the above and voted for Donald Trump, which turn out to go together.
Here is a close reading of the agit prop in Part Two of the new psyop assault. Part One targets Jeffrey Clark, also discussed here. Part Two targets House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, thereby framing normal, lawful, ordinary (if you operate at the highest level of national politics) behavior as illegal, just as it would be in a totalitarian state.
NB: On January 6, 2021, Rep. Perry joined Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri to object to the counting of Pennsylvania's electoral votes.
By Katie Benner (Beijing Review alum) and Catie Edmondson (fresh from Columbia whose mother is on fire with anti-Western hatred back home in Appleton, Wisconsin)
Pennsylvania Lawmaker Played Key Role in Trump’s Plot to Oust Acting Attorney General
Before going further, pause over this headline. An elected official has some connection to what the New York Times is styling "Trump's Plot to Oust Acting Attorney General."
The attorney general, acting or other, serves at the pleasure of the President. There can be no "plot" to "oust" an appointee.
If the president so chooses, and for any reason, he fires him.
Reporters and editors at the New York times know this. They are openly manipulating their readers, into viewing the acting attorney general, an appointed official, an unelected bureacrat, as the rock of the republic, whose unthinkable "ouster" from the government could only come about as a result of the conspiratorial machinations ... of the President!
No, not crazy. Deceptive and dishonest -- the essential traits of the agit prop operation the New York Times is engaged in.
This is the twisted basis of the "scandal."
The congressman’s involvement underlined how far the former president was willing to go to overturn the election, and Democratic lawmakers have begun calling for investigations into those efforts.
The congressman's "involvement" doesn't "underline" anything -- and certainly not how far the former president was "willing to go" to do anything, let alone "overturn the election."
President Trump has never sought to overturn the election, but rather to expose and discount fake ballots and election fraud; in fact, he has sought to restore the election; to protect the election by ensuring that only legal votes are counted.
"Projection" is real: It's the Biden-Harris cabal that overturned the election way back on the night of November 3, starting when the vote-counting inexplicably stopped in five key swing states.
But note the false charge ("overturn the election") has a real consequence: "Democratic lawmakers have begin calling for investigations."
History tells us show trials will follow.
WASHINGTON — When Representative Scott Perry joined his colleagues in a monthslong campaign to  undermine the results of the presidential election, promoting “Stop the Steal” events and supporting an  attempt to overturn millions of legally cast votes, he  often took a back seat to higher-profile loyalists in President Donald J. Trump’s orbit.
 "Overturn the election" is now "undermine the results of the presidential election."
 "Undermine the results of the presidential election" is now "attempt to overturn millions of legally cast votes."
Such slogans, endlessly repeated, are the basis of the brain-washing process. They are also lies. No one from Trump to Perry to "Stop the Steal" wanted to do anything other than engage in due processes provided by law to disqualify millions of illegally cast votes.
 Subtext: And so he should have continued. How dare he stand on up his hind legs?
But Mr. Perry, an outspoken Pennsylvania Republican, played a significant role in the crisis that played out at the top of the Justice Department this month.  when Mr. Trump considered firing the acting attorney general and backed down only after top department officials threatened to resign en masse.
 To normal people, "the crisis" = the stolen election. To the Deep State, "the crisis"= the President of the United States considering whether to fire an appointee he had every right to fire in order to uncover election fraud.
It was Mr. Perry, a member of the hard-line Freedom Caucus, who first made Mr. Trump aware that a relatively obscure Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, the acting chief of the civil division, was  sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s view that the election had been stolen, according to  former administration officials who spoke with Mr. Clark and Mr. Trump.
 A practically straightforward phrase -- how did that get in there?
 "Former administration officials" dishing with the Viper Times should never have been administration officials.
Mr. Perry introduced the president to Mr. Clark,  whose openness to conspiracy theories about election fraud presented Mr. Trump with a welcome change from the acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who stood by the results of the election and had  repeatedly resisted the president’s efforts to undo them.
 Clark's "openness to conspiracy theories" vs. Rosen's steadfastness in resisting them is a pillar of the psyop. All evidence of fraud in the 2020 must be framed as "conspiracy theories."
 Another repetition of the "overturn" slogan: "the president's efforts to undo" the election results.
Mr. Perry’s previously unreported role, and the quiet discussions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Clark that followed, underlined how much the former president was willing to  use the government to subvert the election, turning to more junior and relatively unknown figures for help as ranking Republicans and cabinet members rebuffed him.
 "The president's efforts to undo" the election results is now the president's willingness "to use the government to subvert the election."
It should be needless to say that investigating massive and mutivarious evidence that the 2020 election was stolen was the duty of the Department of Justice. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the top Justice officials the Times heralds as saviors of the election (fraud) are in fact guilty of obstructio of justice. In Timesworld, however, to take legal measures to ensure the integrity of our vote is to "subvert the election." No, it's to "overturn" (their favorite word) the fraud -- to stop the steal.
Mr. Perry’s involvement is also likely to  heighten scrutiny of House Republicans who continue to advance  Mr. Trump’s false and thoroughly debunked claims of election fraud, even after President Biden’s inauguration this week and as Congress prepares for an impeachment trial that will examine whether such talk incited the Capitol riot.
 The purpose of the hit piece: to hammer Republicans outraged by election in the dock of endless show trials.
 Again, I don't know how the phrase "Mr. Trump's view that the election was stolen" made it into the article (above). Here, we are back on message with a vengeance: "false and thoroughly debunked claims of election fraud." It's not enough to be "false"; the claims are "thoroughly debunked." No word on by whom.
It is unclear when Mr. Perry, who represents the Harrisburg area, met Mr. Clark, a Philadelphia native, or how well they knew each another before the introduction to Mr. Trump. Former Trump administration officials said that it was only in late December that Mr. Clark told Mr. Rosen about the introduction brokered by  Mr. Perry, who was among the scores of people feeding Mr. Trump false hope that he had won the election.
 The president's willingness "to use the government to subvert the election" is now Mr. Perry plus scores of people "feeding Mr. Trump false hope that he had won the election." It's almost as if the blame is shifting -- or better, being spread around. Let the purges begin.
 But it is highly unlikely that Mr. Trump would have known Mr. Clark otherwise.
 See how evil Scott Perry really is?
Department officials were  startled to learn that the president had called Mr. Clark directly on multiple occasions and that the two had met in person without alerting Mr. Rosen,
 Translation: Doesn't the President of the United States know who's in charge? How dare he act outside Deep State command and control?
those officials said. Justice Department policy stipulates that the president initially communicates with the attorney general or the deputy attorney general on all matters, and then a lower-level official if authorized.
 And Justice Department policy always trumps the President's (if his name is Trump).
As the date for Congress to affirm Mr. Biden’s victory neared, Mr. Perry and Mr. Clark  discussed a plan to have the Justice Department send a letter to Georgia state lawmakers informing them of an investigation into voter fraud that could invalidate the state’s Electoral College results. Former officials who were briefed on the plan said that the department’s dozens of voter fraud investigations nationwide had not turned up enough instances of fraud to alter the outcome of the election.
 They discussed a plan? Freely? Without minders? Did the acting attorny general say they could do that? No!
Mr. Perry and Mr. Clark  also discussed the plan with Mr. Trump,  setting off a chain of events that nearly led to the ouster of Mr. Rosen, who had refused to send the letter.
 Wait a minute. Perry and Clark were allowed to talk to Trump? But muh acting attorney general ....  And the discussion "nearly led to the ouster of Mr. Rosen"???? Oh no!!!!!!!!!
After The New York Times disclosed the details of the scheme on Friday, the political fallout was swift. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told the Justice Department in a letter on Saturday that he would  investigate efforts by Mr. Trump and Mr. Clark to use the agency “to further Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election.”
 From the Times conveyor belt to the Durbin show trials.
 The president's willingness "to use the government to subvert the election" is now "Trump's efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election" -- and they will be "investigated."
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said that it was  “unconscionable that a Trump Justice Department leader would conspire to subvert the people’s will.” He called on the department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, to investigate  “this attempted sedition.”
  I'm not kidding about show trials. The "plan," the "scheme" -- the discussion, for crying out loud -- is now "attempted sedition." These words are meaningless, except insofar as to stoke emotion to fuel purges.
Mr. Horowitz has already opened an investigation into whether Trump administration officials improperly pressured Byung J. Pak, who abruptly resigned this month as the U.S. attorney in Atlanta after being pressed to take actions related to the election, according to a person briefed on the inquiry. Mr. Durbin is investigating that matter as well.
Mr. Trump also tried to force Justice Department officials, including Mr. Rosen and the acting solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall,  to file a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that would challenge Mr. Biden’s victory, according to a person briefed on the request.
 Surrounded by gangsters.
 One of Mr. Trump’s outside lawyers even drafted a brief for the department to file to the court. Department officials and the White House counsel,  Pat A. Cipollone, told Mr. Trump that the plan would fail for several reasons, including the fact that the department did not have the grounds to challenge the outcome, the person said.
 Cipollone is a beauty.
The fight between Mr. Trump and Justice Department officials over the Supreme Court filing was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
The episode with Mr. Clark and Mr. Perry is yet another example at impeachment managers’ disposal as they put together their case that Mr. Trump should be disqualified from holding office again.
Mr. Clark declined to comment on his relationship with Mr. Perry, and he categorically denied devising any plan to oust Mr. Rosen. He said that there had been “a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president” that had been inaccurately described by The Times, but he declined to provide details. He declined to say anything more about his conversations with Mr. Trump or Justice Department lawyers because of “the strictures of legal privilege.”
Asked whether his conversations with the president had violated the department policy governing contact with the president, he said that senior lawyers at the agency provided legal advice to the White House as part of their duties. “All my official communications were consistent with law,” he said.
Mr. Clark, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, had been appointed the acting head of the civil division in September. He also oversaw the department’s environmental and natural resources division, where he had worked under President George W. Bush.
Neither Mr. Perry nor his top aides responded to repeated requests for comment.
 Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have grown increasingly worried that if they do not intervene and distance themselves from Mr. Trump, the havoc wreaked by the former president could hurt Republicans’ political fortunes for years to come. The episode amounts to an unwelcome reminder that damaging information around his presidency could continue to emerge even though Mr. Trump is no longer in office.
 The voice of the controlled opposition.
And Mr. Perry’s role in the discussions could further escalate tensions in the House, where Democratic lawmakers were  already livid at Republicans for fanning the flames before the Capitol riot, with some rank-and-file members calling for the expulsion of lawmakers who led efforts to overturn the election.
 Jacobins hate the First Amendment.
 The pressure that Mr. Trump placed on the Justice Department, including any plan that he may have considered to remove Mr. Rosen, also raises legal questions for him.
 We've seen this all before. The fires will consume us.