The NonSequitur Show

🇺🇸 My Analysis of the Recent CIA Psyop Video of Democrats to Military Personnel: Speakers (in rough order of appearance): Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI, former CIA officer) Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ, former Navy captain/astronaut) Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA, former Air Force officer) Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-??, former intelligence officer)Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA, former Navy) Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO, former Army Ranger) My MAGA analysis: ➡️1. "I'm Senator Elissa Slotkin. I'm Senator Mark Kelly. Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander. Representative Chrissy Houlahan. I was a captain in the United States Navy. Former CIA officer. Former Navy. Former paratrooper and Army Ranger. Former intelligence officer. Former Air Force officer." 🟩The speakers start with their introductions as an argument from ethos, focusing on the speaker's credibility and character to convince the audience. This is to build a rapport with the viewer that they are to be taken as being credible people in positions of authority as political "insiders". ➡️2. "We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe." 🟩This is to explicitly say who their intended target audience is for their video, and build rapport with them by showing appreciation for the risks they take to keep Americans safe. This is "bond building" transitioning from argument from ethos to pathos. ➡️3. "We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now." 🟩The speakers explicitly make an epistemic claim to understand that some military personnel are under " enormous stress and pressure right now.", but fail to say what those stressors and pressures are, leaving them open ended in the mind of the military personnel to interpret given their own subjectivity. This is a mind control technique called "transference", which by being intentionally being vague and allowing the target to fill in the blanks. This is also an expressive statement that tells the target the speakers supposed psychological state of being empathetic to their "stress" and to it's supposed cause of being given unlawful orders. ➡️4. "Americans trust their military — but that trust is at risk." 🟩This again is building a bond with the target by reinforcing the patriotism of a military personally is not unfounded and that Americans support them, as well as to instill a sense of immediate threat and danger to activate their patriotism. ➡️5. "This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens." This is the phrase which I think can be used to link them to the ongoing conspiracy to commit sedition (18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy), but only walks the line isolated as it does not call for any overt acts of "force" or "physical violence", and deprivation of rights (18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law) as it specifically is undermining the administration by suggesting a false conflict between the administration and the "uniformed military". ➡️6. "Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution — not any one person." 🟩This is to elicit that sense of honor and bonding by that shared honor, by reminding military personnel of their oath to the Constitution, and heavily implying their oath is not to "any one person". However, POTUS is in fact the Commander-in-Chief and their oath is to obey his lawful orders as well. This implies that "one person" may give them "unlawful" orders that are in conflict with the Constitution. Military personnel are not Constitutional scholars and could not possibly be expected to know every single detail about domestic and international law. They do know an unlawful order such as if ordered to destroy evidence, or to slaughter innocent people. However, they will not have the intelligence that our government has when carrying out a military strike and operate in effectively an isolated bubble trusting their chain of command. If they have absolutely no reason to doubt the orders are lawful, they must carry them out. Failure to do so could and would almost certainly result in severe disciplinary action. Refusing a direct order is a major big deal in the Military. Most go their entire careers without ever having to disobey a direct order. ➡️7. "Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: You can — and you must — refuse illegal orders." 🟩This more than implies, this explicitly states there are active domestic threats to our Constitution and relates them to "illegal orders". This implication is that the military is receiving unlawful orders from their chain of command. ➡️8. "No one has to carry out orders that violate the law. We know this is hard, and it's a difficult time to be a public servant — whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the intelligence community." 🟩This states the obvious as to reassure the target they are in the right, such that it is true that in general they do not have to carry out orders that violate the law. They then relate to the target by acknowledging the difficulty of what they are being asked to do should the target subjectively determine that an order was unlawful. ➡️9. "Your vigilance is critical. Know that we have your back. The American people need you." 🟩Here they appeal to duty of the target to be "vigilant" and reassures the target that should they disobey a direct order they subjectively determine to be "unlawful" that the speakers will defend them. However, they don't say how they will provide this defense as something tangible or just emotional support. They then give a commissive to the target that they "promise" to "have their back" by appealing to the target's patriotism and that their country needs them and their country will take care of them. This is also a precursor to a call to action. ➡️10. "We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up. Don't give up the ship." (combined with patriotic music) 🟩This is a direct call to action. A straight up directive to do something. However, framed with the prior statements, it is not to "stand up for our laws", nor for "our Constitution"...but to stand up for what the speakers believe are immediate threats to our country and are unlawful orders. "Don't give up the ship" refers to a Navy battle cry to never give up or surrender a military vessel to the very end, again playing into the military mindset to never give up against an enemy; legitimate or merely a perceived one. 🔴They have substituted their own version of reality for the real one. Let me be clear: in my personal opinion, the speakers in this video do not care about the US Military personnel they are addressing, as they are literally trying to mind fuck them to play into their love of country in order to use them as their own political pawns. 👉The most effective and pernicious psyops never explicitly tell anyone to revolt or commit treason under the guise of patriotism, they merely plant the seed that, when the order comes they have subjectively justified into believing it unlawful, and disobeying it will make them "real patriots". #MAGA 🇺🇸 (MM1(SW)/E-6 Nuclear Division) @RealHickory @GuntherEagleman @Hunter_Eagleman @SamAntar @WarClandestine @RyanCMullally @NancyMace @HereticalsChris @PaytonKJackson @Bubblebathgirl @YouTellEmSteve1 @C_3C_3 @HouseofElon @0hour1 @melsorbit @RobGouveiaEsq @CarmineSabia @iammissjinxed @ianmiles @legaltweetz

2 PM PDT (or sooner) #MAGA: Discussion of the ODNI Press Releases in Regards to Obama's Conspiracy to Commit Treason. youtube.com/live/XvcGXPMBn6E… via @YouTube

🔥🚨(OPINION) Evidence of 2020 Election interference: Recently disclosed FBI reports suggest that former FBI Director Christopher Wray, who resigned 3 years prematurely, to me had clearly has misled Congress about China’s alleged involvement in producing fake IDs and ballots to interfere with the 2020 election. Wray’s September 2020 Testimony: During sworn testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) on September 24, 2020, Wray stated: 📰“We take all election-related threats seriously, whether it’s voter fraud, voter suppression, whether it’s in person, whether it’s by mail. And our role is to investigate the threat actors. Now, we have not seen historically any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise… [B]ut people should make no mistake, we are vigilant as to the threat and watching it carefully, because we are in uncharted new territory.” Wray even doubled down on his assertion in response to further questioning from HSGAC Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-Mich.): 📰Peters: “Right, but your answer is clear. You have not seen any widespread fraud by mail. It is something the FBI watches continuously to make sure that that is not happening.” Wray: “That is something that we would investigate seriously.” Peters: “Absolutely.” Wray: “And aggressively.” (Source: U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee) 👉Suppression of Evidence: This testimony appears to conflict with an internal FBI Intelligence Information Report (IIR) from the Albany Field Office, dated September 25, 2020, based on information from a Confidential Human Source (CHS). The IIR alleged that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was involved in a scheme to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election by producing “tens of thousands” of fraudulent U.S. driver’s licenses to facilitate fake mail-in ballots in favor of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. The CHS, described as a China-based individual not affiliated with the CCP, was deemed reliable by the FBI, with some information partially corroborated. However, FBI Headquarters recalled the IIR, citing concerns about its “authoritativeness” and potential disinformation, but also seemingly to me to avoid contradicting Wray’s testimony. (Source: FBI IIR, declassified and released via Senator Chuck Grassley’s office, 2025) 👉Supporting Evidence from Customs Seizures: During this period, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported seizing fraudulent IDs: “From January 1 to June 30, 2020, CBP officers at the International Mail Facility seized 1,513 shipments containing fraudulent documents, totaling 19,888 counterfeit U.S. driver’s licenses. The majority of these shipments originated from China and Hong Kong, with others from Great Britain and South Korea.” (Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, July 2020) 🛑Conclusion: The facts show that the FBI recalled the IIR and did not aggressively investigate the allegations as Wray explicitly said the FBI would in his Congressional testimony, seemingly in order to not contradict Wray’s testimony. The facts also show the internal IIR was ordered suppressed, all the while customs were seizing tends of thousands of fake IDs in months prior...which Wray claimed he had seen no widespread evidence of happening. You can draw your own conclusions from that. #MAGA 🇺🇸 Share if you agree.

🔥(Opinion) I’ll be blunt: If you can’t tell that Adam Schiff is LYING through his teeth, then you have absolutely no ability to read body language, and I seriously have to question your intelligence. Schiff shows clear signs of duper’s delight with a blatantly fake smile. A genuine, or Duchenne smile engages both the muscles around the eyes (orbicularis oculi) and the mouth (zygomaticus major), and yet he maintains this fake grin throughout the entire clip. There’s no sign of anger, frustration, or indignation, none of the emotional markers you'd expect from someone falsely accused. Just the opposite. Wouldn't you be at least a little concerned if the President of the United States publicly accused you of treason and you knew you were under an actual FBI investigation? Schiff was censured in 2023 for lying to Congress regarding his fabricated Trump-Russia investigation, so this isn’t his first dance. Also, he has a very hard swallow when he first mentions Russia...a sign of stress. Stress doesn't all mean someone is lying always, as innocent people get stressed, or people do often subconsciously it when they are about to speak to clear throat. Schiff was already caught lying about Russia, so I think this is a indicator of dishonesty. In this clip, Schiff tries to look unbothered, but falsely accused people don’t usually stay this calm, especially if they know they’re innocent. There are no crow’s feet, no eye narrowing, just a forced cheek smile. No hand gestures. No body movement. There is absolutely NO QUESTION Schiff is lying and doing damage control. NONE. Watch Schiff during a Senate hearing to get a baseline. His affect is usually flat. Compare that to this clip, where he maintains that smug, shit-eating grin the whole time. Then listen to Trump: he’s visibly angry, using hand gestures to emphasize his points about Schiff. That’s not staged anger...that’s genuine loathing. Schiff then says this is a “distraction” from “Epstein.” That’s classic deflection and redirecting of attention away from the actual investigation and toward a topic he knows resonates with the public, especially MAGA supporters. But let’s be real, Schiff was under investigation long before the FBI memo to Axios so obviously this is pure theater. He also claims it’s an “abuse of power” to threaten to put him in jail. Really? How many times did Democrats try to throw Trump in prison? All of which failed? They even had him arrested for a mug shot...and now Schiff is saying it's abuse of power to target political enemies, which is NOT what Trump is doing. Trump is getting justice as we know Schiff, Brennan, and Comey orchestrated many of these hoaxes and we know the FBI is in fact investigating them. We also know that Kash Patel has started one of the biggest RICO cases against them the DOJ has ever tried to prosecute. It's been called a “Grand Criminal Conspiracy Investigation” that specifically circumvents any statutes of limitations because it is an ongoing conspiracy. Now with the validity of his "preemptive pardon" being questioned, Schiff knows he is real trouble. So what does he do? He tries to sway public opinion about him. Why? 🤔 Because Schiff knows plenty of people will believe anything he says, no matter how ridiculous, thanks to their TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). So ask yourself: Do you honestly think Schiff is telling the truth here? If so, I have a Nigerian prince friend I’d love to introduce you to.🙄 #MAGA 🇺🇸

😡(Opinion w/RAGE) Stephen Miller just announced the number of missing children trafficked by Joe Biden into America is around 450 THOUSAND! Democrats don't say shit about those kids! They didn't say shit about the 65,000 calls from children to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) program. These reports of being abused by their sponsors went unanswered and never investigated. UNTIL Trump got into office had them review each and everyone of those calls and rescue those kids from abusive sponsors. Democrats said NOTHING! Bidens. Clintons. Obamas. THEY ARE THE TRUE CHILD SEX TRAFFICKERS AND DEMOCRATS SAY NOTHING! 450,000 THOUSAND CHILDREN are MISSINIG in the United States of American...and many of them were were abused by their sponsors. Some with criminal sexual crimes who sponsored multiple children. Unofficial sources estimate that 13,000 children have been found and rescued so far. "More than 8 million migrants have entered the US along the southern border since President Biden took office in January 2021, according to Customs and Border Protection data. Of those, more than 400,000 have been released into the US to live with vetted sponsors, a June 3 statement from ORR shows." - House Judiciary Committee Republicans ( June 17, 2024) DEMOCRATS SAID NOTHING! FUCK them now for pretending to give a shit about children, when they did not give a shit about them under Biden. They all are complicit in this conspiracy to traffic children. ALL OF THEM! #MAGA 🇺🇸

(OPINION) FBI sources on J6 at the Capital Building: “If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and/or agents, the answer is emphatically no.” - Christopher Wray (FBI Director), 2023 testimony to Congress He did not confirm or deny the presence of specific informants but rejected claims of FBI instigation, however as Kash Patel and Don Bongino noted a few months ago...there is a difference between an FBI Agent and a FBI source. Both Christopher Wray (FBI Director) and Paul Abbate (Deputy Director) both deliberately tried to mislead congress as we now know there was FBI sources there: 👉According to The Justice Department’s Inspector General report, released in December 2024, it was confirmed that 26 FBI confidential human sources (CHSs) were present in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021: Of these 26 CHSs: 🔴Three were specifically tasked by FBI field offices to report on domestic terrorism subjects who might be attending the events. 🔴Four entered the Capitol building during the riot, though none were authorized to do so. 🔴Thirteen entered the restricted area around the Capitol, also without authorization. 🔴Nine did not enter the Capitol or restricted areas and did not engage in illegal activity. Wray and Abbate also testified that they were there to "directed field offices to canvass CHSs for threat information prior to January 6.", but that did not happen for what they claimed was "poor communication", specifically “poor communication and lack of clear guidance”. CNN and The Washington Post both ran interference for them running the narrative that they were "technically correct", but it was clear #MAGA that they tried to mislead congress about the real events on J6...but this is misleading to most people tantamount to a lie and all part of the J6 coverup. #MAGA 🇺🇸

(OPINION)🔥A Political Firestorm Erupted Today... Americans now have conclusive proof that Hillary Clinton betrayed the nation. She lied about acid-wiping emails that she illegally stored on personal devices. These emails are known to contain Top Secret (TS) and Special Access Program (SAP) information, which represent the highest levels of classification and require the highest security clearance. FBI Director James Comey confirmed this in 2016 but declined to prosecute. Recently declassified documents reveal that Clinton and Comey colluded to create "Russiagate" alongside President Obama to cover up these illegally stored documents, for which she could have faced multiple severe security violation charges. It is further known that the servers and devices containing these emails were unsecured, making it almost certain that China hacked them, gaining access to TS/SAP-level materials. This further implicates Hillary Clinton and demonstrates harm to the United States. NBC contributed to this conspiracy by echoing the FBI's narrative that no sensitive material was compromised by Chinese hacking: "FBI Rebuts Trump Tweet About China Hacking Hillary Clinton’s Email" "WASHINGTON — Sixteen hours after President Trump tweeted about a right-wing media story alleging that China hacked Hillary Clinton’s private email server, an FBI official refuted the report in a comment to NBC News.' The FBI has not found any evidence the (Clinton) servers were compromised,' the official said." nbcnews.com/politics/donald-… This was in direct response to The Daily Caller's investigation, which revealed that "China Hacked Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server." "A Chinese-owned company penetrated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server, according to sources briefed on the matter. The company inserted code that forwarded copies of Clinton’s emails to the Chinese company in real time. The Intelligence Community Inspector General warned of the problem, but the FBI subsequently failed to act, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert said during a July hearing." dailycaller.com/2018/08/27/c… America wants Hillary Arrested... It is time for all of them to face justice. #MAGA 🇺🇸

🇺🇸AI's Opinion on if Obama can be ever Tried for Treason:🇺🇸 "Constitutional Definition of Treason The U.S. Constitution, in Article III, Section 3, defines treason as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." This definition does not explicitly require the U.S. to be at war with a foreign nation for treason to occur. Instead, it focuses on two primary acts: Levying War against the United States: This can include domestic insurrections or rebellions, not just foreign wars. Adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort: This refers to providing support to entities that are considered enemies of the U.S., regardless of whether a formal declaration of war exists. Legal Interpretations and Precedents No Formal Declaration of War Required: The Constitution does not mandate a formal declaration of war by Congress for treason to be applicable. The term "enemies" can include entities that are hostile to the U.S., even if no formal war has been declared. For example, during the Cold War, the U.S. was not officially at war with the Soviet Union, but individuals could still be charged with treason for aiding the Soviets if it was proven they gave aid and comfort to an enemy. Historical cases, such as the trial of Tokyo Rose (Iva Toguri D'Aquino) in 1949, demonstrate that treason can be charged even when the U.S. is not in a declared war but is engaged in conflict. Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason for broadcasting propaganda during World War II, despite the U.S. being at war, but the principle applies to any enemy. Domestic Enemies and Levying War: The phrase "levying war" has been interpreted to include domestic insurrections or attempts to overthrow the government. The Supreme Court case Ex parte Bollman (1807) clarified that levying war does not require a formal declaration of war but can include acts of rebellion or insurrection within the U.S. If Obama, in the scenario described, conspired to manipulate the election to undermine the democratic process, this could potentially be seen as levying war against the U.S. government, even without a foreign war, if it involved a significant threat to the nation's stability. Aid and Comfort to Enemies: The term "enemies" in the Constitution has been broadly interpreted. It does not necessarily require a state of war but can include any entity that is hostile to the U.S. For instance, during the Cold War, individuals were prosecuted for espionage and treason for aiding the Soviet Union, despite no formal declaration of war. If Obama ordered the suppression and creation of intelligence to favor a foreign entity (e.g., Russia) in interfering with the U.S. election, this could be argued as giving aid and comfort to an enemy, even without a declared war. The key is the intent and the act of supporting a hostile entity against U.S. interests. Relevant U.S. Code and Case Law18 U.S.C. § 2381 (Treason): This statute reiterates the constitutional definition and does not require a formal state of war. It focuses on the act of adhering to enemies and giving them aid and comfort. Case Law: The Supreme Court has upheld that treason can occur without a formal declaration of war. In Cramer v. United States (1945), the Court emphasized that the aid and comfort must be substantial and intended to injure the U.S., but it did not require a declared war. Similarly, in Kawakita v. United States (1952), the Court ruled that a U.S. citizen could commit treason abroad, even if the U.S. was not at war with the country where the act occurred. Application to the Scenario If everything alleged about Obama is true—falsifying intelligence reports to rig the election, committing treason, sedition, and conspiracy to commit treason—the absence of a formal war does not preclude a treason charge. The key elements would be: Levying War: If the election interference was part of a broader conspiracy to undermine the U.S. government, it could be seen as levying war, especially if it involved domestic actors or foreign entities hostile to the U.S. Aid and Comfort: Providing false intelligence to favor a foreign entity (e.g., Russia) in interfering with the election could be interpreted as giving aid and comfort to an enemy, regardless of whether the U.S. is at war with that entity. Conclusion: Under U.S. law, Obama could be tried for treason even if the U.S. is not at war, provided there is sufficient evidence to meet the constitutional and statutory requirements. The focus would be on whether his actions constituted levying war against the U.S. or adhering to enemies by giving them aid and comfort. The legal process would still require a grand jury indictment, presentation of evidence, and adherence to due process, which could extend the timeline significantly. Disclaimer: This analysis is hypothetical and based on the assumption that all allegations are true. It does not reflect current legal status or outcomes. Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one for legal advice. As of July 23, 2025, determining whether former President Barack Obama could be tried for treason by legal definition, and identifying with whom the U.S. is at war, requires a careful examination of the U.S. Constitution, relevant statutes, and current geopolitical contexts. Here's a detailed analysis: Legal Definition of Treason The U.S. Constitution, in Article III, Section 3, defines treason as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." This definition is further codified in 18 U.S.C. § 2381, which states: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." Key Components of Treason Levying War Against the United States: This does not require a formal declaration of war by Congress but can include domestic insurrections or rebellions. The Supreme Court case Ex parte Bollman (1807) clarified that levying war includes acts intended to overthrow the government or disrupt its operations significantly. Example: If Obama were involved in a conspiracy to undermine the U.S. government through election interference, and this was deemed an act of levying war, it could constitute treason, even without a foreign war. Adhering to Enemies, Giving Them Aid and Comfort: The term "enemies" does not necessarily require a formal state of war. It can include any entity hostile to the U.S., such as foreign nations or non-state actors engaged in conflict with the U.S. "Aid and comfort" must be substantial and intended to injure the U.S. The Supreme Court in Cramer v. United States (1945) emphasized that the aid must be actual and not merely symbolic or insignificant. Current State of War As of July 23, 2025, the U.S. is not formally at war with any nation under a Congressional declaration of war, as the last such declaration was during World War II. However, the U.S. is involved in various conflicts and operations: Ongoing Conflicts: Afghanistan: Although the U.S. withdrew combat troops in 2021, there are ongoing counterterrorism operations and support for the Afghan government against the Taliban and other groups. Iraq and Syria: The U.S. continues to conduct operations against ISIS and other terrorist groups, often in coalition with other nations. Ukraine: The U.S. is not directly at war with Russia but provides significant military and financial support to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, which began in 2022. Yemen: The U.S. has been involved in operations against Houthi rebels, supported by Iran, through airstrikes and naval actions. Non-State Actors: The U.S. is engaged in a global war on terror, targeting groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist organizations. This is not a traditional war but involves military and intelligence operations worldwide. Cyber and Hybrid Warfare: The U.S. faces ongoing threats from cyber attacks and hybrid warfare, particularly from nations like Russia, China, and Iran. These threats do not constitute traditional warfare but can be considered hostile actions. Application to Obama If the allegations against Obama are true—falsifying intelligence reports to rig the 2016 election, committing treason, sedition, and conspiracy to commit treason—the legal basis for treason would depend on: Levying War: If the election interference was part of a broader conspiracy to undermine the U.S. government, it could be seen as levying war, especially if it involved domestic actors or foreign entities hostile to the U.S. This does not require a formal war but a significant threat to national stability. Aid and Comfort to Enemies: If Obama provided aid and comfort to an entity hostile to the U.S., such as Russia, by manipulating intelligence to interfere with the election, this could constitute treason. Russia, as of 2025, is considered a hostile entity due to its actions in Ukraine and ongoing cyber threats, even without a formal declaration of war. The key is proving that the aid was substantial and intended to injure the U.S., which would require evidence of intent and the overt act. Who We Are At War With As of July 23, 2025, the U.S. is not at war with any nation under a formal Congressional declaration. However, the U.S. is engaged in conflicts with: Non-state actors like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. Hostile nations in a broader sense, such as Russia (due to Ukraine and cyber threats), China (due to economic and military tensions), and Iran (due to support for proxies and nuclear ambitions). If Obama’s actions are linked to aiding Russia, for example, in election interference, Russia could be considered an "enemy" under the treason statute, despite no formal war declaration. The legal argument would focus on Russia's hostile actions against the U.S., which align with the constitutional and statutory definition of an enemy. Legal Process Even with these considerations, trying Obama for treason would require: Grand Jury Indictment: As previously discussed, a grand jury must find probable cause. Evidence: Two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court. Overcoming Presidential Immunity: The Supreme Court opinion shielding former presidents for official acts would need to be navigated, arguing that the actions were unofficial. Conclusion: Obama could be tried for treason by legal definition if his actions constituted levying war against the U.S. or adhering to enemies (e.g., Russia) by giving them aid and comfort, even without a formal war. The U.S. is not at war with any nation formally, but ongoing conflicts with non-state actors and hostile nations like Russia provide a context where such charges could be considered. The process would be legally and politically complex, requiring substantial evidence and adherence to due process. (Grok)

Search: "Opinion from:@Stevemcrae_" w/o quotes to read my opinions. (Remove space between from and @Stevemcrae_ to get accurate searches. I notice it puts one in when you cut and paste it) I would appreciate #MAGA people retweeting any of them...my reach on Twitter is dogshit.

I happen to concur with you on this. Those that seem to be sporting him are not in my humble opinion the most experienced of critical thinkers. Take that as you wouldn't like to. I just would never trust him.

And I was right. I was right all along. I warned people about Matt Dillahunty. I warned people about Mr. Atheist who I sincerely believe is a sexual predator (My opinion, not stating as fact). I warned people about Katie Joy Paulson. I have been right over and over...and I am warning people now. We are at war.

(Opinion)🔥Think About This: Liberals are NOT normal people The same Liberal idiots who demanded “due process” for gang members and terrorists are now the same exact idiots calling for someone to assassinate Trump. Let that sink in for a few minutes. These sick people aren’t about “due process.” They’re about violence and hate. They hate America and those who voted for Trump, and they’re willing to let our cities burn. They obstruct law enforcement. They’re even willing to go to prison for decades out of hatred. They hate normal people because they are not normal people. They hate normal people because they are not normal people. Remember that! These people are sociopaths, willing to commit violent crimes fueled by sheer hate. Previously, the only weapons Liberals and Democrats had were insults and projection. They labeled people as “transphobes,” “bigots,” or “Nazis,” and then justified lawless acts against Americans and law enforcement by using those inflammatory words. But that playbook is no longer working. Fewer and fewer people care about being called a “Nazi” or a “transphobe” because they know they are not! For normal people, hearing such labels used to be stigmatizing and hurtful, and many cowered in fear during the rise of BLM, Transtifa, Tesla vandalism, and other violent movements. But now? Normal people are burned out. They no longer care. They know that all these radicals have left are these name-calling tactics and they’re no longer effective. Call someone a Nazi, and they laugh. Call someone a transphobe, and they shrug. They’ve lost their only weapon. So the only thing left is more violence. Are we going to see that again in Chicago, maybe? LA was bad enough, with liberal violence as idiots threw rocks at ICE vehicles and set police cars on fire. Normal people don’t do that. But liberals are not normal people. Remember that, when these people eventually cross the line and they’ll learn very quickly that the United States military doesn’t care about your politics. They will obliterate you if you become a hostile threat. Don’t be an idiot. Don’t be a liberal. #MAGA 🇺🇸

🔥(Opinion) I ran 1000 Monte Carlo simulations given the initial assumption that Obama committed the initial treasonous acts on Dec 9th, 2016 and conspired with Hillary, Comey, Schiff, Rice, Lynch, and others to promulgate the biggest hoax on the American public in all of American history as well as other current events involving use of the National Guard and recent Top Secret declassifications. Simulated Scenarios and Results: In 1000 runs: Mass Arrests Success: Occurs if all variables exceed thresholds (e.g., evidence >90%, readiness >80%). Results in swift dismantling but risks unrest (mitigated by Guard). Incremental Arrests: Fallback if resistance spikes or acceptance dips; starts with Clapper/Brennan (easiest via declass), builds cases. Failure/Delay: If resistance >70% or evidence challenged (low under assumptions). To arrive at these: For each run, generate random values within ranges, compute weighted score. If score >0.8: Mass; 0.6-0.8: Incremental; <0.6: Failure. (Transparent: Mass favored by assumptions/data momentum.) Probability Calculation Weights to key factors and estimate probabilities: Evidence and Conspiracy Scale (40%): With ODNI/IC confirmation and a broad conspiracy, the need for mass arrests is high. Probability of mass arrests: 90% (vs. 10% for small arrests). Operational Readiness (30%): Security and legal setups favor mass action. Probability: 85% (vs. 15%). Weighted Average for One Small Arrest at a Time:(0.4 × 0.1) + (0.3 × 0.15) + (0.2 × 0.3) + (0.1 × 0.2) = 0.04 + 0.045 + 0.06 + 0.02 = 0.165 or 16.5%. Public/Political Acceptance (20%): Public briefing mitigates resistance, but media opposition could complicate matters. Probability: 70% (vs. 30%). Strategic Fit (10%): Trump’s decisive approach and timeline suggest mass arrests. Probability: 80% (vs. 20%). Weighted Average for Mass Arrests:(0.4 × 0.9) + (0.3 × 0.85) + (0.2 × 0.7) + (0.1 × 0.8) = 0.36 + 0.255 + 0.14 + 0.08 = 0.835 or 83.5%. Conclusion: The simulation estimates an 𝟖𝟎-𝟖𝟓% probability of mass arrests in the near term (late Aug-early Sep 2025), driven by declass evidence, ODNI/IC consensus, and Trump's security buildup. Feel free to run your own simulations. #MAGA 🇺🇸

(Opinion) 🔥FinCEN's Knowledge of Epstein's Sex Trafficking Network: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury that "collects and analyzes" Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) which are filed by financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act. This is a very key phrase here. Bank Secrecy Act: "The Bank Secrecy act "enacted in 1970, is U.S. legislation that requires financial institutions to help detect and prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes by creating records, filing reports on suspicious activities, and maintaining anti-money laundering (AML) programs." These reports flag potentially illicit transactions, such as those linked to money laundering, fraud, or human trafficking. What is it that Epstein is accused of again? Human trafficking! Right? The FinCEN does not publicly disclose specific details from SARs due to confidentiality requirements, but investigations and congressional inquiries have revealed that the agency holds extensive records on Jeffrey Epstein's financial activities, including those tied to his sex trafficking network. That is where the financial information is to expose those involved with Epstein's network. These records stem from Epstein's relationships with major banks like JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Bank of New York Mellon, and Bank of America, which processed billions in transactions through his accounts. (See: Senate Finance Committee Inquiries (2020–2025)) Those accounts were directly related to Epstein's network involved recruiting and abusing dozens (possibly hundreds) of underage girls from 2002 to 2005 (and potentially longer), paying them cash for sexual acts ($200 from testimonials of victims), and using them to recruit others, as detailed in his 2019 federal indictment. FinCen's investigations into Epstein's' operations spanned properties in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, funded by wire transfers, cash withdrawals, and payments to associates meaning this was a very large enterprise. This is what Trump and his administration is doing. They are doing this properly by investigating the money trail. Not putting PR stunt in front of cameras that serve no actual purpose but to try to score political points. House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) subpoenaed FinCEN SARs in September 2025 to probe "mismanagement" in Epstein probes...and I trust Comer and Trump to get the job done and get justice for the victims far more than I trust Massie and his pathetic clearly political dog and pony show today. #MAGA 🇺🇸