The Gathering of Sovereigns, Part 8

John Durham's Probable Strategery

The decision yesterday by a District of Columbia jury yesterday to acquit Michael Sussmann of his obviously criminal act of lying to the FBI is – basically -- an irrelevant verdict. That does not mean, however, that Sussmann is a small fish in the investigation.

Not at all.

Today, I feel we need to take a minute to step back and broadly survey the current landscape when it comes to John Durham and his criminal investigations. He and his team are a truly unique gathering of First Sovereigns but he is the point man chosen for this special job of bringing down the criminal syndicate of criminal syndicates.

BATTLE PREP

For me, and I suggest it should be your approach as well, effective battle prep begins with a full reading of Donald Trump’s civil RICO lawsuit (oh yeah, remember *that* supposedly nothingburger filing ???). That’s what I began over the Memorial Day Weekend.

As an example, you might want to take a look at his first entries in Count One of the lawsuit, outlining what he terms as The RICO Enterprise:

   268. The Defendants, Clinton, the Clinton Campaign, the DNC, Perkins Coie, Elias, and Sussmann (collectively, the RICO Defendants ) are all persons within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(3).

   269. At all relevant times, the RICO Defendants, [Hillary] Clinton, the Clinton Campaign, the DNC, Perkins Coie, [Marc] Elias, and [Michael] Sussmann, constituted an association in-fact enterprise (the Enterprise) within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4).

   270. The members of the Enterprise are a group of persons associated together for the common purpose of carrying on an ongoing enterprise; specifically, the Enterprise had a common, unlawful goal of dismantling the Plaintiff’s political career and / or impeding his ability to effectively govern through fraudulent, deceptive, and criminal means, including, but not limited to, falsely implicating the Plaintiff, the Trump Campaign, and the Trump Administration as colluding with Russia.

   271. By virtue of the RICO Defendants professional relationships and frequent business collaborations, the Enterprise had an existence and legitimate business and political purpose separate and apart from the racketeering activity itself.

   272. Since the Enterprise’s activities had a significant effect on the 2016 presidential race, and affected fundraising and electoral spending, the Enterprise affected interstate and foreign commerce.

   273. The Enterprise was formed as early as April 2015 and remains ongoing and continuing to the present day.

   274. Considering the nature of the RICO Defendants longstanding political and professional relationship, the continuing nature of Clinton s political career, her ever-present political rivalry with Plaintiff, and the nature of the Enterprise s goals, the longevity of the Enterprise is sufficient to permit the RICO Defendants to pursue the Enterprise s ongoing goal of damaging the Plaintiffs political career with the continuing proliferation, and / or threat of proliferation, of disinformation, obstruction of justice, and other unlawful tactics intended to damage the Plaintiff s political career and to impede his ability to effectively govern.

   275. The members of the Enterprise have longstanding inter-relationships rooted in their political and professional connections, in addition to common control, ongoing business dealings, and mutual interest and participation in common activities and dealings.

   276. The Enterprise has, or at all relevant times had, an organized, clearly delineated, ongoing organizational framework and command structure for carrying out its objectives: the Clinton Campaign and the DNC were at all relevant times mutually controlled by Clinton, who worked in tandem with their joint counsel, Perkins Coie, whose partners, Sussmann, and Elias, simultaneously served as general counsel for the Clinton Campaign and the DNC.

   277. No RICO Defendant has withdrawn, or otherwise dissociated itself, from the Enterprise.

These are substantive entries on a wrongdoing ledger, okay?

That’s how the Sussmann trial should be viewed. For the average American, the civil RICO lawsuit necessarily informs – on the front end – your comprehension of the building of a more complicated criminal RICO prosecution.

Does this begin to make clear Team Trump’s very confident strategery? Can you start to accept John Durham’s probable strategery?

That lawsuit, filed on March 24th of this year, is a must-read.

A must-read!

I suspect many have not read it given its length (there are a whopping 508 itemized entries).

In my personal opinion, however, you have a duty as an American to sit down and read it. They’ve tried to dismiss its importance and its skillful presentation. That should tell you how important it is to read it in full.

THE CIVIL INFORMS THE CRIMINAL

I find it instructive, just as a matter of outline, to especially ponder three aspects of the civil lawsuit.

First, the named defendants:

1.            HILLARY R. CLINTON,

2.            HFACC, INC.,

3.            DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

4.            DNC SERVICES CORPORATION,

5.            PERKINS COIE, LLC,

6.            MICHAEL SUSSMANN,

7.            MARC ELIAS,

8.            DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ,

9.            CHARLES HALLIDAY DOLAN, JR.,

10.          JAKE SULLIVAN,

11.          JOHN PODESTA,

12.          ROBERT E. MOOK,

13.          PHILLIPE REINES,

14.          FUSION GPS,

15.          GLENN SIMPSON,

16.          PETER FRITSCH,

17.          NELLIE OHR,

18.          BRUCE OHR,

19.          ORBIS BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE, LTD.,

20.          CHRISTOPHER STEELE,

21.          IGOR DANCHENKO,

22.          NEUSTAR, INC.,

23.          RODNEY JOFFE,

24.          JAMES COMEY,

25.          PETER STRZOK,

26.          LISA PAGE,

27.          KEVIN CLINESMITH,

28.          ANDREW MCCABE,

29.          JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10 (said names being fictious and unknown persons), and

30.          ABC CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH 10 (said names being fictitious and unknown entities).

Second, how they chronologically outlined their case in the lawsuit:

·         The DNC and the Clinton Campaign Become One

·         The Clinton Campaign and DNC Conspire With Their Attorneys, Perkins Coie, to Frame Republican Candidate Donald J. Trump

·         Elias Recruits Fusion GPS and Others to Manufacture a Falsified Set of Reports Known as the Steele Dossier

·         Sussmann Recruits Neustar to Lead a Cyberattack Against the Trump Campaign

·         As the Presidential Race Takes Form, The Steele Dossier Is Used To Mislead Federal Law Enforcement

·         The Defendants Spread Their False Narrative Through the Media While Sussmann Makes False Statements to Law Enforcement

·         A String of Federal Investigations Clear Donald J. Trump and Uncover the Defendants Illicit Conspiracy

·         The Defendants Malicious Conspiracy Remains Active to This Day

Third, not merely how they walk through and title each count in the lawsuit but . . . which defendants do they include in what counts:

Count I, RICO, (18 U.S.C. 1962(C)), Against Clinton, Clinton Campaign, DNC, Perkins Coie, Elias, and Sussmann.

Count II, RICO Conspiracy, (18 U.S.C. 1962(D)), Against Clinton, Clinton Campaign, DNC, Perkins Coie, Sussmann, Dolan, Sullivan, Podesta, Mook, Reines, Elias, Fusion GPS, Simpson, Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Ltd., Steele, Danchenko, Neustar, and Joffe.

Count III, Injurious Falsehood, (18 U.S.C. 2701-12), Against Clinton, Sullivan, Schultz, Danchenko, Sussmann, and Steele.

Count IV, Conspiracy to Commit Injurious Falsehood, Against Clinton, Clinton Campaign, DNC, Perkins Coie, Sussmann, Dolan, Sullivan, Podesta, Schultz, Mook, Reines, Elias, Fusion GPS, Simpson, Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Ltd., Steele, Danchenko, Neustar, and Joffe.

Count V, Malicious Prosecution, Against Sussmann, Elias, Danchenko, Fritsch, Simpson, Nellie Ohr, Steele, Joffe, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, and Clinesmith.

Count VI, Conspiracy to Commit Malicious Prosecution, Against Clinton, Sussmann, Schultz, Dolan, Sullivan, Elias, Simpson, Fritsch, Steele, Ohr, Danchenko, Joffe, Podesta, Mook, Reines, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, and Clinesmith.

Count VII, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, (18 U.S.C. 1030), Against Neustar, Joffe, DNC, Clinton Campaign, Clinton, Perkins Coie, Sussmann.

Count VIII, Theft of Trade Secrets, (18 U.S.C. 1830-32), Against Neustar, Joffe, Perkins Coie, Sussmann, Clinton Campaign, DNC, and Clinton.

Count IX, Stored Communications Act, (18 U.S.C. 2701-12), Against Neustar and Joffe.

[ note: here begins the RICO claims against individual people & individual businesses, and it is no surprise at all who is up first ]

Count X, Agency, Against Hillary Clinton.

Count XI, Respondeat Superior / Vicarious Liability, Against Perkins Coie.

Count XII, Respondeat Superior / Vicarious Liability, Against the DNC.

Count XIII, Respondeat Superior / Vicarious Liability, Against the Clinton Campaign.

Count XIV, Respondeat Superior / Vicarious Liability, Against Fusion GPS.

Count XV, Respondeat Superior / Vicarious Liability, Against Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd.

Count XVI, Respondeat Superior / Vicarious Liability, Against Neustar.

I’ve long felt Donald Trump has mounted, since at least 2015, a public-private military style battle plan to rescue us from an “infiltration from within” invisible enemy. When he identified his transition team leading up to inauguration day as, instead, his “landing teams,” I had in my mind sufficient confirmation of an historic battle plan being employed.

John Durham has been a stealth member of the plan to Save The American Republic. If I still had use of my Twitter account I would link to my usage of that term leading up to the 2020 elections. Trump has multiple “tips of the spear” effectuating the attack, any one of which could effectively get the job done.

Given our absolute need, however, to get back to the rule of law in our nation, no First Sovereign serving as a tip of the Team Trump spear may be more important than John Durham. If you’re paying attention to the beginning of this opinion piece, the lawyers named in the civil lawsuit are incredibly important, too.

Namely, the TICKTIN LAW GROUP of Deerfield Beach, Florida featuring PETER TICKTIN, JAMIE ALAN SASSON, and SHAINA VAN MEHREN.

And HABBA MADAIO & ASSOCIATES LLP of Bedminster, New Jersey featuring ALINA HABBA and MICHAEL T. MADAIO.

Both law firms clearly have lawyers ready for the task.

RISK-FREE

So, how might John Durham as but one tip of the spear effectively get *his* job done?

Here’s how.

I suspect John Durham has just completed his first risk-free prosecution. The Michael Sussmann prosecution for lying to the FBI has concluded. He is clearly and obviously guilty but the wild card was always the venue: Washington, D.C.

But the verdict, in my honest opinion, doesn’t matter and I hope this column will help to explain why.

John Durham more than likely has another risk-free trial all set to go, against Igor Danchenko. Perhaps more interesting to me is his next indictiment, most likely against Rodney Joffe. More on that below, my friends, but let me first set the table for my contention of Durham conducting a risk-free prosecution of Michael Sussmann by referencing a recent discussion featuring attorney Robert Barnes.

He’s discussing with Viva Frei (David Freiheit) the implications of the Michael Sussmann trial and Robby Mook’s testimonial bomb – for the Sussmann defense, mind you – that it was Hillary Clinton who signed off on the opposition research dirty tricks first designed to torpedo Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, after his victory, imperil the administration of a sitting president.

This discussion occurred on May 26th, before the not guilty verdict was returned.

For a number of reasons, Barnes is skeptical of John Durham and is somewhat dismissive of Donald Trump while being simultaneously impressed by him. To me, it’s a quite schizophrenic view of Trump especially prevalent among lawyers who are either independent or lean right-of-center (leftwingers totally underestimate him).

Here’s the applicable discussion (I have slightly modified and paraphrased it):

Robert Barnes: Unfortunately, there's doubt as to whether even Sussman will be convicted and, unlike some of my friends, I don't think it will go any further. I think this pretty much will be the end. This will be the wrap-up of the Durham investigation. Nobody higher up is going to get hit, they're all going to get to walk.

You know, friends like Kash Patel and some others that are optimistic. I predict they are going to be deeply disappointed as they discover how the deep state really operates.

Viva: Why is that so?

Robert Barnes: Because people have to appreciate that Sussmann is not even on trial right now for having participated in the fabrication of a fake dossier or having facilitated the funding and dissemination of politicized opposition research. That's all water under the bridge now. He's only there because he lied so even if he gets confused no

By the way, here’s why he can't say he wasn't there for a client, okay? He’s on trial for one lie, right? The lie he told to the FBI. A second lie, however, would be mail fraud. That would be the sending of a bill that contradicts his assertion he wasn’t there for a client. This goes to the great  John Grisham original film, The Firm. Mail fraud, remember? Everybody who sends a legal bill through the mail and they falsify what they billed a client for has committed a RICO violation.

That’s a criminal offense.

So Sussman, once he billed *anyone* for it, could never say he wasn't there for a client, has to just admit the obvious. But he's so arrogant, like many in the Deep State, that he's like, ah, I shouldn't have to face *any* consequence for this action I willingly undertook.

Think about that. It’s a crime he clearly knows he committed.

He's probably going to get real time now if he gets convicted because of his arrogance. But, this gives you a sense of his thinking and that of the DC crowd. They think they're above the law and never should be held accountable. Period, end of story.

I believe Barnes is both correct and incorrect. One of my first posts on Truth Social helps to explain why I think he is, in part, incorrect:

https://truthsocial.com/@RattlerGator/108381370360816396

THE PATH FORWARD

Presented below are ten points somewhat hastily thrown together.

Instead of presumptively opining based on your own individual biases, what is at least one best-case scenario for Durham proceeding as he is? It’s not hard to conjure one up for a sunshine pumper like me. I see a clear path forward that serves multiple objectives.

First, remember my theory: there’s a public-private military style battle plan actively underway for years now to rescue America from an “infiltration from within” invisible enemy.

Second, if a RICO prosecution is contemplated as one of the culminating events of this public-private military style battle plan . . . is there any rush to go for a killshot at the outset? Hell no, keep your weapon ready and your ammunition nearby.

Third, it may in fact be an optimal approach to bleed your freaking adversary by making them shoulder the burdens of public service.

Fourth, if a RICO prosecution is contemplated, years must be taken to build an airtight prosecution (often, on the down low; secretly). Isn’t that what John Durham has done? After all, he’s been informally on the case since 2017 and wasn’t publicly disclosed until 2019 (after all kinds of wrongdoing had been done pre- and post-presidency of Donald Trump). And even that disclosure didn’t fully admit what he was comprehensively doing (U.S. Attorney John Durham To Investigate Origins Of The Russia Probe).

One particular focus for me has been these clearly wrongdoing nodes within certain agencies, such as the DOJ National Security Division (EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Prevented FBI From Pursuing Gross Negligence Charges Against Clinton) and the FBI Counter-Intelligence Division.

But . . . how do you first investigate wrongdoers and then get evidence introduced at trial?

Well, one sure way is to operate in the shadows when the burdens and responsibilities of public service are flouted. Know what I means?

Fifth, because you’re dealing with an “infiltration from within” invisible enemy you may, as a prosecutor serving as but one tip of the Team Trump spear, have to get creative yet lawful in building your ultimate case. You have to shake so many damn trees, and instill sheer panic in so many wrongdoers, you may have to formally indict a private citizen (Michael Sussmann) as you informally prosecute public servants (nodes within the FBI).

Sixth, because you’re dealing with an “infiltration from within” invisible enemy, you may have to construct a component within the battle plan that allows you to nominally “lose” even as you advance an airtight RICO prosecution towards completion.

Durham most definitely knows the DC jury pool was likely infested with the woke mind virus currently driving huge numbers of America’s leftwing towards remarkable stupidity. In fact, he may have strategically allowed a juror to remain sitting in judgment of Sussmann who self-reported a possible conflict arising from the fact that her daughter not only attends the same secondary school as Michael Sussmann’s child but is also on the same athletic team at that school.

But Durham knows America will be undeterred, and unsurprised, by the DC jury allowing an obvious wrongdoer to escape justice.

He also knows he doesn’t need Sussmann’s conviction on this charge.

Remember, he’s building a criminal RICO prosecution in part by indicting Michael Sussmann and introducing evidence along the way from a wide range of public servants and private citizens that is incredibly damning.

Just ask Hillary Clinton about Robby Mook, okay?

Seventh, Durham surely remembers that Jim Comey prosecuted the hell out of Hillary Clinton in that infamous Summer of 2016 press conference about Hillary Clinton’s outrageously reckless (and apparently illegal) use of a private, non-governmental server to secretly conduct the nation’s business as Secretary of State. History may ultimately fixate, in part, on this one sentence from his press conference about the Department of Justice:

They do not know what I am about to say.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . .

If a world-historic sting has been conducted over multiple years, that sentence about the Obama Administration Department of Justice certainly fits the occasion.

Back to Durham. He further knows how much that Jim Comey press conference perplexed the nation. Another often-repeated sentence comes to mind as I contemplate Comey’s July 2016 press conference.

It had to be this way.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . .

OPINIONS

Will some of the individuals in the civil lawsuit turn out to be good guys? Quite possibly so. What we cannot know is whether Durham was already essentially on Team Trump pre-Inauguration or whether he joined after the Inauguration. Whatever the case, he likely has a much better handle on the Jim Comey question than we currently do. That said, this tweet from Ron Coleman spoke for many then and still speaks for many now:

Ron Coleman on Twitter, August 29, 2019

Ron Coleman @RonColeman

@DawsonSField @PatriotStealth @Dust_Off70 @MonsieurAmerica @ezy06001 @oldmanluvsmineo @markjohnt2 @Knowita47918362 @birockin @truthforu2020 @Joestradamus91 @JarradKushner @MSH3RIDAN @MissiWhite4 @Ryan_VanSickle @BenardoDeLaPaz @JohnBrennan > No matter how impressive the indictments and prosecutions arising out of the Xfire Hurricane coup might seem in our glittering thoughts, below lie the smoking cinders of our politics, justice system, law enforcement, media and culture. >

He spoke for many then, he speaks for many now. I can’t help but wonder if Ron Coleman, almost three years later, feels the same way. As for me, Comey has often hovered around the 51/49 mark with respect to the good guy / bad guy question. I’ve gravitated much more towards the good guy assessment over the last few puzzling years. This coincides with my continued move away from agnosticism when it comes to the whole “Q” situation and general acceptance of it as a clear part of the battle plan.

Q or no Q, I’ve never bought the Peter Strzok & Lisa Page as lovers thing. I still don’t quite know what to make of them. And Strzok’s over the top congressional testimony sold me on him engaging in a public “performance” to hide some kind of undercover mission. And doing so in a way to tell people like me he’s clearly faking the funk.

But for whom? Who really knows, but time for me to Soldier On and head back to the path forward for Durham.

Eighth, Durham knows that presumptive opining isn’t merely an occupational hazard for lawyers (the professional class that populates more of the Deep State than any other) but – because of our Advertised Mind here in America, much more than in any other nation – we’ve been trained to be receptacles of manufactured narratives. Durham is using that fact, and his knowledge of the “lawfare” game, to inform his strategy for developing an airtight RICO prosecution.

I’ll include a good review of the Advertised Mind book from Amazon to provide some context, as well as food for thought regarding how Durham may also go after Big Tech in the future (important factoid, this is a 2007 review of a book published in 2005 concerning a subject mostly of interest back then to the advertising industry):

This treatise is designed for patient, methodical readers with a quest for insight. Erik Du Plessis is committed to explaining how advertisements work on consumers' consciousness, so he reviews existing research on advertising, and includes cognitive science's understanding of how the brain works on a chemical and cellular level. His research is accessible, since he often recaps and provides analogies that bring it to life, but some of the material remains dense and even obfuscates key points. Du Plessis' results are accurate but may seem self-defining − such as the idea that ads you like are ads you remember − and they can be difficult to apply. This is an impressive attempt to bring social science and neurological theory to bear on advertising. Given the intangible nature of creativity, a strong intuitive understanding of what makes advertisements likeable might help ad designers get more from this dissection. Of course, the industry also wants to know how it can reach a tech-oriented audience that records its favorite programs on TIVO and fast-forwards through the ads anyway. We find that this innovative book may be most useful for professionals in areas that involve a quantifiable, systematic approach, such as methods for determining how many ads to buy and how to allocate them across television outlets and other media.

Big Tech devoured this book, I have no doubts about that. So did our Intelligence Community. So did the Democrat Party, Globalists everywhere, and our controlling leftwing – but I repeat myself.

All of them, as far as I’m concerned, are being targeted by Team Trump and John Durham.

Ninth, keeping in mind the power of advertising and narrative, Durham (I suspect) has strategically decided to first prosecute an unquestionable criminal act that allows Team Trump to alert the public to the criminal enterprise that is his focus. Conviction of the identified perpetrator, in many ways, is somewhat irrelevant.

If you doubt me on this, go back and read Sussmann’s indictment with fresh eyes. Then contemplate what we learned during the course of Sussmann’s trial. Yes, there was a formal indictment and case presented but . . . wasn’t there also an informal prosecution of the FBI?

Doesn’t the nation now have testimony at trial that seriously calls into question just what the hell is going on with the FBI? Isn’t the cozy, company town ways of D.C. seriously called into question? Do you remember Donald Trump’s Schedule F initiative? I don’t think that’s an irrelevant factor here.

In my honest opinion, if you’re paying attention, Team Trump’s private sector battle commanders are making pincer movements everywhere.

Tenth, if you are supremely attentive to the power of advertising and narrative, and the Sussmann indictment allowed you to publicize a narrative that aids in your development of a RICO prosecution, might not a Rodney Joffe or Marc Elias indictment serve your purposes even better? An indictment where conviction and prison time as a result *will* matter?

In fact, might any person of interest in a possible upcoming indictment have paid particular attention to the Sussmann trial and be having second thoughts right now about accepting a possible plea for a lighter sentence?

Confusion to the enemy, Mr. Durham, confusion!

CHOICES, CHOICES, CHOICES

For a humorous example, contemplate this:

Calling Service: Hello, Rodney Joffe? It’s John Durham on line 1 for you, sir.

RattlerGator, simultaneously sending a telepathic communication: Think three times before you decline his offer, Mr. McCain Republican.

I mean, what would be sweeter at this point: [1] a Rodney Joffe / Marc Elias plea, or [2] a Rodney Joffe / Marc Elias trial?

If I was forced to be a reckless man betting his hard-earned money on what will subsequently be revealed as Durham’s strategy for building his cases and completing his job as Special Counsel, I’d bet he’s building a prosecution tree upwards, with dual branches. One branch will be the formal focus, that would be a specific focus on the person indicted. Another branch however will be the informal focus, public servants and nodes within certain agencies who have actively failed us. Or, worse, engaged in open sedition.

This approach by Team Trump methodically generates panic all the way up the food chain, slowly but surely.

Who has been secretly indicted?

Who has secretly flipped?

Who got trapped within the two-hop FISA warrants?

Who? Who? Who !?!

Clinesmith was indicted and plead, got a light slap, and is likely cooperating bigtime. That was a strategic appetizer. Appear weak when you are strong. It’s only up from there, as was evidenced by the Sussmann indictment.

I singularly mention the indictment here, and not the jury verdict, because that’s the real deal.

The indictment is what mattered with Sussmann, not so much the resulting non-conviction. It was a win-win case for a prosecutor with an extraordinarily broad investigatory mandate. He not only easily advanced his very strong RICO narrative but he stacked substantive piles of evidence for later use to convict the conspirators, including Michael Sussmann.

What of that Danchenko indictment, hmmmmmmmm? Shaking that tree will certainly bear future fruit.

All the while many, many of us are now conversant with the overall narrative. We can confidently share it with family and friends.

And defend it.

CONCLUSION

If you aren’t, however, comfortably conversant with what Team Trump is methodically proving, take a step back and go read his civil lawsuit. It’s a brilliant walk-through of some of the crimes committed.

Sussmann leads to Joffe, right? Or Elias, right?

If not them, who do the investigatory facts lead to next? Durham holds all the cards. Everyone is tap dancing to a tune he is playing.

Wrongdoers everywhere are wondering who is the next one to be indicted. Who? Who? Who !?!

It’s a target-rich environment. How many defendants did Donald Trump name in his civil RICO lawsuit? That’s right, at least 30. Take your pick on precisely who is next up. It could be any of the 30 who haven’t already been indicted.

Or it could be someone or some business not named in the civil RICO lawsuit.

As I wrote on TruthSocial days ago, it feels as though the Cavalry has arrived and “we the people” are finally on the offensive. They, Team Trump, have been on the battlefield for quite some time. Many of my fellow First Sovereigns have tried to engage the irregular warfare fight in various ways. But this is a moment for the masses. This summer appears to be the moment for the masses. The battle for Saving The American Republic may finally, finally be ready for its climax.

Or, in all truth, this could merely be the end of the beginning of a long fight.

Either way, nothing can stop what is coming.

MAGA / MEGA