Convergence of Minds About What Trump is Doing

Those of you who have been reading any of my blog posts know that I have been following Thomas Wictor for years, and have been convinced he is correct in his characterization of who Trump is. Wictor has a definite theory as to what is going on in the election, namely that Trump is conducting a military operation to save the Republic.

 In this recent short video Wictor urges his listeners to read a recent article by former naval intelligence officer J.E. Dyer entitled "In Trump's campaign to save to the Republic, we haven't seen the key supporting effort yet." In typical Wictor manner, he labels this piece by Dyer "the most important article you will ever read." He says the opinion expressed by the author of the article corroborates his own theory about the election. The author of the article looks at Trump's campaign from a military strategy standpoint. She clearly sees a parallel to military doctrine.

Former Team Trump lawyer Ron Coleman, whom Wictor specifically endorses as someone who "knows what is going on," and who sometimes throws fan-love back at Wictor, called the video "a work of art" on Twitter.

The article Wictor mentions is itself now available as a video-thread by Patrick Cannell:

I read the article by Dyer several times yesterday. It is indeed a remarkable read. The author fills in a lot of gaps in Wictor's theory, from a military-governmental point of view, based on her own knowledge.

In military strategy, she says, there is always a main effort. This is the overall thing you want to achieve over time. You go forward towards the goal either fast or slow, with varying momentum. It is what you want to achieve in the end.

Besides the main effort, there are supporting efforts, which are designed to provide the means for the main effort to come to pass. There are typically multiple supporting efforts.

She mentions the invasion of Iraq as providing an example of a main effort. The main effort was to take Baghdad and to get the Iraqi government to cease any resistance, thereby controlling the country. A supporting effort might be a flanking maneuver that surrounds the enemy, making the main effort easier. Or it could be destroying infrastructure of the enemy that lets him wage war.

One of the most interesting things that Dyer said in the article was that she misunderstood Trump's strategy in this, specifically she misunderstood what the main effort is.

She mentions the hearings in front of the legislators presenting the evidence and the affidavits. There are the  the ones that began in Pennsylvania, and then went to Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia. 

She assumed these hearings were a supporting effort. Instead, she says, they are the main effort. They are the main effort because the principal objective of Trump's strategy is to make the public aware of the depth and breadth of fraud in the electoral system, and to restore the nation's confidence in the electoral system. This is exactly what Trump said he was doing, in his Wednesday address. She implies that the true power of the hearings was in getting the citizens to confront the legislators in an open hearin

This is the main effort because it addresses the foundational threat: a direct attack, via election fraud, on the “social contract” and the compact of government between man and the state.  ...Americans will not be governed this way.  They have the sovereign right to refuse it.

...But it is the main effort because it’s about the future.  It’s about the engagement of the people: about awakening Americans and our lawmakers at every level to what has been going on around us, and provoking us to recommit, by whatever means necessary, to government of the people, by the people, and for the people, that it may not perish from the earth. 

The main effort may achieve successes that help prevent a fraudulent near-term outcome, by forcing a delay in the Electoral College vote (scheduled for 14 December) and/or eliminating some states’ electors from it.

 The court cases, she said, are a supporting effort to achieve this principal objective of restoring America's confidence in his electoral system and in the Constitution. 

What about the key supporting effort? This is the supporting effort that is like the "ignition key" to achieving the main effort. In line with what Wictor says, she asserts that the key supporting effort is the use of national security tools by the military to counter the threat to the election.

This third effort, for which we may discern the potential without having yet seen specific evidence, is the one Hollywood would make a movie out of.  It’s about concrete particulars, clashing interests, and action (who knows, there might be a good car-chase in it somewhere).  I have no idea if it involves a server raid in Germany, or some of the other exotic allegations making the rounds out there.  Fortunately, this analysis doesn’t depend on such specifics.

The premise of the key supporting effort is that the U.S. government has been making use of tools we know it has, to gather intelligence on conditions that pose an obvious threat to U.S. national security. (emphasis mine)

Without commenting in detail, the author asserts that Sidney Powell's filing in Georgia as being the most important clue to where this key supporting effort is going and what to expect. She said it is the most important of the court cases.

She mentions the importance of E.O. 13848 of September 2018.  A key to the lawful use of the military by Trump in this circumstance was the establishment of ties from American voting systems and software to foreign ownership, specifically interests hostile to the United States.

And the effect of the E.O. was to articulate the national security justification for the means of surveillance to monitor and track what was being done with the implicated voting infrastructure.  In other words, whether the analysts were at Homeland Security (chartered with monitoring critical infrastructure), the FBI, Treasury, or even – for the foreign-power aspect of the problem – at CIA, they had presidential authority to pull trons and go to town.

Here the author sounds a lot like Wictor:

If we know anything about Trump, we may reasonably guess that he’s had someone he trusts at the NSC level watching over the effort.  The result could well be a devastating exposure of far more individuals in the U.S., as well as foreign operators, than anyone would imagine.  It is by no means beyond the realm of possibility that many Democrats and even some Republicans, including elected officials, are on the list.

She claims that this effort would not have required super-advanced secret spy tools. Regular spy tools would have worked fine, "the normal tools of government surveillance."

Here the author ponders the question I posed here in this blog: if this is true, how much will Trump expose? 

It’s an interesting question how such resulting information would be conveyed.  It might be unveiled directly to the public.  But if it implicates a lot of public officials or other high-profile individuals, they are almost certain to include associates of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, starting with a laundry list from the DNC.

Like many of us, she noticed that Trump completely excluded discussion of Dominion and Smartmatic software from his Wednesday address. She says this is because the address was meant as a "statesman's case for the main effort", which is electoral reform. 

She speculates without evidence that Trump is perhaps using the daily intelligence briefings to Biden's associates to roll those associates up (with overwhelming evidence of their guilt) before going to Biden directly.

And when the Trump detail sets out for that visit to Biden, my bet, if I were a betting sailor, would be on one man leading it: Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, U.S. Army (Ret).