Proud Boys saw wave of contributions from Chinese diaspora before Capitol attack

Lying to the public
The president’s duty to faithfully execute his office plays a critical role in the constitutional scheme. Going beyond requiring the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” Const., Art. II, Sec. 3, Cl. 5, the Clause 8 constitutional duty to “faithfully execute” the presidential office limits the president’s discretion in how to perform his official functions.
“Faithfully” was contemporaneously defined, in part, as: “Honestly, without fraud, trick, or ambiguity.” The oath or command of faithful execution to an office holder came to convey an affirmative duty to act … honestly … in the best interest of the public.” (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, to faithfully execute the office of the President includes a duty to act honestly. Since communicating to the public is one of the president’s official functions, the honesty duty likewise applies to virtually all such communications. Bush Jr. and Trump “repeatedly made false statements.
Trump had to have known that a pandemic would cause an economic recession or new Great Depression and therein it would reduce his odds of being reelected. He was an accessory to a pandemic (second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter). This crime was a new incident such that our law makers never thought they needed to make a law to punish people who spread unscientific lies or refuting the advice of peer reviewed medical science.
President Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq was part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
http://www.truth-out.org/rumsfeld-era-propaganda-program-whitewashed-
Lying the US into Iraq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4RZO8y-R9k&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3qwOWddjedvIKm3akPygWtF3Q4IjSf-Uy4DWjgKj5QV74yUai_3nzKUYc

CW3 Dick McManus - April 2, 2021: Daniel Hale blew the whistle on the US government's drone assassination program. He has pleaded guilty in federal court (April 2021) to violating the Espionage Act. Hale gave information to the Intercept about the US drone program that gave us an unprecedented look into the “kill chain,” right, the bureaucratic process by which people are basically chosen for summary execution by the president, showing they were culling data from the “terror watchlist.”

The study, carried out by the Pentagon’s military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force, illuminates and in some cases contradicts the administration’s public description of a campaign directed at high-level terrorists who pose an imminent threat to the United States. It admits frankly that capturing terrorists is a rare occurrence and hints at the use of so-called signature strikes against unknown individuals exhibiting suspicious behavior in Yemen and Somalia in 2011 and 2012.

His lawyer, Jesselyn Radack, issued a statement saying "the US government's policy of punishing people who provide journalists with information in the public interest is a profound threat to free speech, free press, and a healthy democracy."

Hale was an intelligence analyst for the US Air Force before moving on to the National Security Agency and then the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Hale's whistleblowing led to the revelation by The Intercept that "nearly half of the people on the US government's widely shared database of terrorist suspects are not connected to any known terrorist group.
Betsy Reed, editor-in-chief of The Intercept, said the documents detailed a secret, unaccountable process for targeting and killing people around the world through drone strikes. "They are of vital public importance, and activity related to their disclosure is protected by the First Amendment."

Daniel Hale could face up to 10 years in jail.

The government has not dismissed the remaining four charges against Hale. What that means is, if the government thinks the judge gives too lenient a sentence, they’re basically reserving the right to go and have a trial on the remaining charges. This is an unprecedented move.
As Drone Whistleblower Daniel Hale Pleads Guilty, Advocates Warn of 'Profound Threat' to Free Press | Common Dreams News

The Obama administration has been loath to declassify even the legal rationale for drone strikes — let alone detail the bureaucratic structure revealed in these documents. Both the CIA and JSOC conduct drone strikes in Yemen, and very little has been officially disclosed about either the military’s or the spy agency’s operations.

“The public has a right to know who’s making these decisions, who decides who is a legitimate target, and on what basis that decision is made,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The kill chain indicates that while Obama approved each target, he did not approve each individual strike, although news accounts have previously reported that the president personally “signs off” on strikes outside of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have maintained that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, permits the pursuit of members of al Qaeda and its affiliates wherever they may be located.

The Pentagon study refers throughout to operations that fall under AUMF. But it also underlines how the targeted killing campaigns differ from traditional battlefields, noting that the region is located “Outside a Defined Theater of Active Armed Conflict,” which limits “allowable U.S. activities.”

Obama administration officials have said that in addition to being a member of al Qaeda or an associated force, targets must also pose a significant threat to the United States. In May 2013, facing increasing pressure to fully admit the existence of the drone war and especially to address allegations of civilian harm, the White House released policy guidelines for lethal counterterrorism operations that seemed to further restrict them. In a speech, Obama announced that action would be taken only against people who posed a “continuing, imminent threat to the American people,” and who could not be captured. A strike would only occur with “near certainty” that no civilians would be killed or injured.

Despite the small number of people on the kill list, in 2011 and 2012 there were at least 54 U.S. drone strikes and other attacks reported in Yemen, killing a minimum of 293 people, including 55 civilians, according to figures compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. In Somalia, there were at least three attacks, resulting in the deaths of at minimum six people.

Some of those Yemen strikes were likely carried out by the CIA, which since mid-2011 has flown drones to Yemen from a base in Saudi Arabia and reportedly has its own kill list and rules for strikes.

The study refers to using drones to “conduct TADS related (social) network development,” (who has contact // associates with// or telephone or radio communication with another person) presumably a reference to surveilling behavior patterns and relationships in order to carry out signature strikes. It is unclear what authorities govern such strikes, which undermine the administration’s insistence that the U.S. kills mainly “high-value” targets.

According to the White House guidelines released in May 2013, the decision to take a strike should be based on thorough surveillance and only occur in the absence of civilians. A strike requires “near certainty that the terrorist target is present” and “near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed.”

The study describes the rules for a strike slightly differently, stating that there must be a “low CDE [collateral damage environment]” — meaning a low estimate of how many innocent people might be harmed. It also states there must be “near certainty” that the target is present, “based on two forms of intelligence,” with “no contradictory intelligence.” In contrast to the White House statement, the “near certainty” standard is not applied to civilians.
This spring, in a rare admission of a mistake in targeting, the White House announced that two hostages held by al Qaeda — an American and an Italian — had been killed in a CIA drone strike in Pakistan in January. In attempting to explain the tragedy, the White House spokesperson used the language of the standards that had failed to prevent it: The hostages had died despite “near certainty,” after “near continuous surveillance,” that they were not present.
The Kill Chain: The lethal bureaucracy behind Obama’s drone war (theintercept.com)

MY COMMENT: All this worry about terrorism, aka another 9/11, but wait the FBI has not said Al Qeada did 9/11. And better yet the NIST investigation and report about 9/11 was full of lies. Their investigation and report were gross negligent. The FBI’s investigation of the anthrax letter attacks was also gross negligent.