Patrick Byrne - exposing Hillary Clinton: May you live in interesting times! John Durham, where are you? https://video.parler.com/QL/1R/QL1RTdypp0fO

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

May you live in interesting times!
John Durham, where are you?
https://video.parler.com/QL/1R/QL1RTdypp0fO_small.mp4

JimMe

ACP45 wrote:

May you live in interesting times!
John Durham, where are you?
https://video.parler.com/QL/1R/QL1RTdypp0fO_small.mp4

ACP45... Almost interesting... The fact that he stated the Election 2020 went "as planned" by "the Powers that be" all but admits nothing will come of this...

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

ACP45 wrote:

May you live in interesting times!
John Durham, where are you?
https://video.parler.com/QL/1R/QL1RTdypp0fO_small.mp4

I am not surprised and it fits with most information we have open to us.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

JimMe wrote:

ACP45... Almost interesting... The fact that he stated the Election 2020 went "as planned" by "the Powers that be" all but admits nothing will come of this...

While you may be correct, I tend to think that all the various hearings in the state legislatures, the Senate Homeland Security & Govt. Affairs Committee that occured this afternoon, and the report due no later than this Friday by the DNI is setting the stage for public awareness of the problem. What ultimately transpires will depend upon the various actions of state legislatures and perhaps the Supreme Court. If all else fails, their is the nuclear option in the form of the Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a US Election that was issued on September 12, 2018, and perhaps even martial law.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

ACP45 wrote:

While you may be correct, I tend to think that all... (show quote)

You are correct, ACP. Although, I am not too comfortable with Trump in the leadership position of martial law, I suppose it IS possible he might do something like that. It all needs to be pursued but I think not at the expense of civil conflict which is, I think, why the SCOTUS didn't hear the Texas case.

EmilyD

nwtk2007 wrote:

You are correct, ACP. Although, I am not too comfortable with Trump in the leadership position of martial law, I suppose it IS possible he might do something like that. It all needs to be pursued but I think not at the expense of civil conflict which is, I think, why the SCOTUS didn't hear the Texas case.

Welcome back! Hope all is well...and I agree with you. Martial law would be an extreme move. I've also heard the "theory" that SCOTUS didn't want riots and crime and possibly threats to them and their families, so they caved to that. Although, being a Justice makes them targets all the time for lots of reasons...

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

ACP45 wrote:

May you live in interesting times!
John Durham, where are you?
https://video.parler.com/QL/1R/QL1RTdypp0fO_small.mp4

When you got nothing, fall back to the good ole "Obama!, hillary clinton!" mantra.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

EmilyD wrote:

Welcome back! Hope all is well...and I agree with you. Martial law would be an extreme move. I've also heard the "theory" that SCOTUS didn't want riots and crime and possibly threats to them and their families, so they caved to that. Although, being a Justice makes them targets all the time for lots of reasons...

Thanks EmilyD! I have often wondered just how perilous a justice's life is.