from The Conservative Treehouse:
Occam’s Razor: When faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest is likely the correct one.
(1) An investigative silo within the federal apparatus falsely identified me as “1% Watchdog.” (2) When confronted with the truth of the matter, and after their own independent investigation, federal investigators acknowledged that some other entity fabricated their bona fides using my identity. (3) Admitted (by them) the most likely motive was to influence trust amid the communication group of “1% Watchdog.”
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
In my humble opinion, and applying Occam’s Razor, “1% Watchdog” was/is a federal agent.
What other motive would a person carry to fabricate their identity, create false bona fides, if not to influence a sense of trust in their target audience?
NOTICE the wording: […] “your administration of the “Stop the Steal J6” channel.”
This appears to outline “1% Watchdog” as the owner/administrator/controller of the communication platform.
These are not unfounded suppositions. Simply reverse engineer the process, apply the scientific method to your review, then apply Occam’s razor.
Counselors – On behalf of your client(s) file a motion with the judge requesting a court order compelling Zello to give up the registration records of the ‘Stop the Steal J6’ channel. This will identify the person behind “1% Watchdog”. If federal prosecutors fight the request for the court order, well: (a) there’s your answer; and (b) take the next step of using the preexisting congressional subpoena as evidence to support your compulsion.
For MEDIA – In an effort to improve personal time management, and devote necessary time to advancing our goals, please consider this a standard form letter response to any further inquiry:
Dear Mr./Mrs. XXXXXXXX, prudence and necessarily instilled manners dictate that all correspondence deserves the full weight of a polite response.
Allow me to thank you, with the humblest and earnest of appreciation, for all you do on behalf of a simple citizenry of which I am a proud and insignificant member.
Indeed, if our paths were ever to cross in person, I hold no disposition that you, as a person of consequence, would ever afford these calloused and well-worn hands the time of day. I am, like many, comfortably invisible.
That said, and with the utmost respect for your professional endeavors, I hope you will consider this correspondence carefully.
It is not our “goal” to raise our profile through the injustice that corruption represents. It is our goal to shine light upon that corruption….
When you see that justice is measured, not by due process, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to invoke your sixth amendment right to due process, you need to obtain permission from men who rebuke the constitution – when you see that justice is determined by those who leverage, not in law, but in politics – when you see that men get power over individual liberty by graft and by scheme, and your representatives don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption holding influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and nullified – you may well know that your freedom too is soon to perish.
You present opportunity for interview as if it is reflective of some courageous or magnanimous endeavor on your behalf. Alas, the disconnect, and innocent naivete’ of those only partially immersed in the battle to save the republic, shines through.
I’m almost certain that you hold the best of all intentions. However, in viewing a goal to be getting this type of story advanced, you miss the entire point.
My honest and respectfully intended question to you would be: What is it that makes media folks always want to “get an interview” when the information is there for the taking?
Perhaps, by training, by habit, or by unintended consequence you have developed your business model, and as a consequence yourself, to live for the process itself as an end result. Is it logical to believe that journalism is the interview; the conversation is the point; the smoke is the fire?
Read More @ TheConservativeTreehouse.com
