Insecurity On Trial


I have an announcement for those who have been confined to deep underground caves for the last month: President Trump is the subject of an impeachment trial, again.

I believe there is a bigger picture than meets the eye, which I’ll discuss in a moment, but for now let’s take inventory of the most important aspects of this trial: the charges, the defense, and yes, the underlying issue which led to all of this trouble, election irregularities.


The Charges


This is pretty simple and straightforward. President Trump faces the lone charge of “incitement of insurrection.” The articles of impeachment primarily focus on the speech made in front of the Capitol on Jan. 6, which preceded a storming of the Capitol building by a minute fraction of the crowd.

But the prosecution is not and will not be limited to that speech. Lawyers will make the larger case that the entire “Stop the Steal” movement was part of the incitement. There will be melodramatic speeches about the sanctity of democracy and how casting doubts on election results erodes everything for which our Founders stood. You know, the same Founders they’d be calling racists and architects of a white supremacist system any other day of the week. By God, it’s a miracle, Democrats have become flag-waving patriots overnight, all because some folks don’t feel confident about an election decided by malleable mail-in laws and overnight vote dumps.


The Defense


This is a bit more multifaceted. The first defense offered by Team Trump will be one of constitutionality, namely that the Senate has no power to put a private citizen on trial. When our Constitution was written, its framers went out of its way to separate the American Constitution from its forefather in Britain. This argument is laid out magnificently by Dr. Shmuel Klatzkin in an article that can be read at the following link:

While Dr. Klatkin lays out the differences between the English tradition which Democrats are now embracing and the American tradition that Democrats should be embracing, perhaps these are the most important excerpt of this analysis:

“Nowhere does the Constitution say or suggest that one can impeach and try someone who is not in office. Nowhere does it grant Congress the power to remove a person’s right to run for office except as part of the process of removal from office.

The Senate has no right to act as a judiciary body to try a private citizen, only to remove someone’s hands from power. And most certainly the Senate was never given the power by the People to tell them they may not elect this private citizen if they so choose.”

Then comes President Trump’s second layer of defense, which I find to be most potent: He simply didn’t do that of which he’s being accused. Claiming that our electoral process contained too many weaknesses and questions to be trusted is not a call to violence, no matter how badly some would like it to be. And as to his speech on Capitol Hill, Trump explicitly told his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.” At no point did he instruct anyone to take the Capitol, nor did he call for violence against any members of Congress. Any implication that he did is purely subjective, meaning only those trained to listen for incitement can actually hear it.

The fact is, Americans have the right to question any damn thing they want, and the First Amendment gives a very wide berth to do so. Absent a direct call to insurrection, President Trump’s speech was protected. This is what makes today’s proceedings so egregious; they infringe on the very thing that separates the United States of America from the majority of countries throughout human history. We get to be offensive, provocative and controversial because our Founders understood that it was necessary in order to preserve a voice for the People, which is in turn critical to holding our rulers accountable. Some so-called constitutional scholars may have forgotten this underlying truth, but the entire point of our Constitution was to decentralize power in the hands of the People as much as humanly possible so as to maximize freedom. The First Amendment is important to that end.

Speaking of underlying truth, that brings us to the elephant in the room that even the so-called elephants are hesitant to address.


Election Irregularities


Since President Trump is now standing trial for the actions of those who stormed the Capitol, I think it only fair that the entire picture of that incident be examined. That means exploring reasons for the siege other than “Trump made me do it.” Indeed, any court worthy of the name would explore all avenues of reasonable doubt for a defendant. And dare I suggest that those who exploded into rage on January 6th may have done so for reasons other than presidential speeches.

To be clear, this is NOT a comprehensive list of every eyebrow-raising fact regarding the election. To do that would require many pages of reading, much of it esoteric, which isn’t feasible for the purpose of this piece. However, I can give just a small example of the types of legitimate concerns that have been expressed by good, hardworking and patriotic Americans across the country. The unholy alliance of media and government have done everything in their power to criminalize this discussion, which is all the more reason it must be had.

  1. The GOP lost ZERO House race toss-ups. This isn’t only mathematically improbable; it signals a ‘wave’ election. In other words, when close races in various and disparate states all go in the same direction, it reflects a strong bias among the larger population as a whole. That Biden could win in this type of election year is questionable at best.

2. Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in ALL urban/metropolitan areas except those in MI, WI, PA, GA. The thing to realize is political races are virtually always dominated by trends. It is highly unlikely that a candidate who underperformed someone who herself underperformed with urban demos would compensate by doing amazingly well in a few select places, all of which were critical to the electoral map.

3. Ballot rejection rates plummeted as low as 0.03% in the 2020 election. This is a massive red flag. The sheer number of votes allowed by mail suggested that many more ballots would be thrown out compared to previous years, yet the exact opposite happened. Somehow, miraculously, in an election where voting rules were often changed mid-course and the smaller percentage of the electorate in history voted in person, the process turned out as pristine as ever. Perhaps the most egregious example is Georgia, where in 2016 — before a virus allowed Democrats to weaponize the mail-in voting system — the state registered a 6.4% rejection rate for mail-in ballots. The rejection rate in 2020: 0.2%. Pennsylvania went from a 1% rejection rate in 2016 to 0.3% in 2020. Nevada’s rejection rate fell from 1.60% in 2016 to 0.75% in 2020. North Carolina — which Trump managed to pull out anyway — went from 2.7% in 2016 to 0.8% in 2020. We are supposed to believe—unquestionably—that the most chaotic election in modern US history also happened to be the most well run. Pardon me if I’d like further investigation.

4. Trump one all 19 bellwether counties but *ONE.* They’re called bellwether counties for a reason, folks. However they go, the country tends to follow. It is true that bellwether counties change over time with the electorate, but the idea of 18 of 19 bellwether counties getting it wrong all of a sudden is a virtual mathematical impossibility. Again, this isn’t a mere irregularity. It’s a borderline miraculous occurrence that demands vigorous investigation, one that has been largely denied by our judiciary on the false and cowardly premise of “lack of standing.”

5. Scores of sworn affidavits. Following the election, the RNC presented 234 pages containing 500 sworn affidavits alleging over 11,000 incidents of various types of voter fraud. It’s not just mathematical anomalies that should make us suspicious. Hundreds of people have sworn under penalty of perjury to have seen fraudulent activity with their own eyes, many of them very detailed accounts. One person in Wayne County, Michigan alleged that 60% of a batch of voter ballots had the same signature on them. Another affidavit claimed to have seen 35 ballots counted despite not being cast by registered voters. One alleged that 50 ballots were counted multiple times in a tabulation machine. One details how a woman’s dead son somehow voted from the grave. Another tells of Democrats handing out documents on how to distract Republican vote challengers.

As RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel explained during an appearance on Hannity:

“It’s been rigged from the beginning, rigged from the laws that were being passed in the name of COVID to create a porous election, rigged in the sense that they kicked Republicans out of poll watching and observing… and now you have a media that’s rigging it again by saying we’re not going to even listen to these stories.”

Believe me when I tell you that we are just scratching the surface of the election fraud issue. Unfortunately, it appears the Trump legal team will not be helping to scratch further. For all intents and purposes, what you just read is banned speech. That’s why we must spread it to every platform possible. Otherwise, the rising informational monopoly enforced by Silicon Valley will erase these questions from history. We cannot allow that to happen.


Big Picture

Today, the United States Senate began proceedings for an impeachment trial that would never have been entertained by a deliberative body that actually cared about truth and/or the Constitution. That begs the question — could there be something else afoot here? To some, a question such as that may imply conspiracy. And make no mistake, it absolutely does. But not the type you’re likely to see in the dark corners of the internet that assume levels of governmental competence that exist only in the wildest of imaginations. Rather, I posit that this impeachment is a conspiracy of interest; which is to say, a concerted effort based on shared interest that requires no centralized plan of action with an expressed aim. Chuck Schumer didn’t need to call a secret summit in some nondescript location to inform Congress that a big show was needed to deter any forays into forbidden knowledge. Democrats know the media are on their side and that offense is the best defense. Thus, it takes very little in the way of conspiracy to get the entire team on the same sheet of music. They needed to make an example before the legitimate questions surrounding the 2020 election became mainstream. They needed a show, like they always do. And like always, they’re getting it.

That’s because those most insecure about electoral inquiry won’t feel protected from truth until the very pursuit of it becomes a crime. And what better way to criminalize a particular line of thought than inexorably linking it to a small number of people who brought their anger to the next level. To the powers that be, we must all be seen as Capitol stormers, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists or worse.

I’m sure in the minds of some of these politicians, their cause is just. I’m sure some legitimately believe themselves to be taking proactive measures against an ascendent terrorist ideology — the dimwitted ones, anyway. Everyone else knows this is political theater and most don’t care so long as it hurts Trump supporters. Then there is the prospect of disqualifying Trump from holding office ever again, which is surely a motivational factor for a Swamp who hates outsiders. But if I may be so bold, I would suggest that there is one true driving force in the subconscious minds of the crucifixion mob: fear.

Fear of the debate that was never truly had in the courts. Fear that the everyday, apolitical American will begin taking notice of the tech oligarchy that has all but taken complete control of our country. Fear that if news outlets are free to discuss in earnest all the different elements of authoritarianism taking our freedom, the proverbial frog will jump from the boiling pot before the Power of the People is extinguished entirely. Fear that should the working class unite, no amount of concertina war or National Guard protection will be sufficient to stave off a revolution.

The ruling class will do anything to project the fear from their hearts onto the population they purport to serve. Deep down, they know that truth has a lasting power that can’t be manufactured, whereas lies require a great deal of maintenance. And that is why we must be fearless in questioning their narratives whenever, wherever and however we can. Do it now and do it often, so that our children may know the feeling.






WordPress makes it hard for conservatives to receive donations, but if you feel I’ve earned one, there are various methods of payment. If using PayPal, I recommend using the following link if you’re having trouble: My Venmo is: @Trey-Vaught and my CashApp is: $DeweyVaught. If you would like to give more than $1.00 below, simply change the number in the donation box. Thank you in advance for your generosity. It is very much appreciated.


Categories Uncategorized

1 thought on “Insecurity On Trial

  1. Excellent article Trey.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close