Sessions referred to the issuing of consent decrees as “One of the most dangerous, and rarely discussed, exercises of raw power.”

To address the many issues of fraud surrounding the 2020 election, the lawyers representing President Trump and the American people have had to cut through considerable amounts of legal red tape.  Of course, this is how those that committed the fraud intended it, as it makes the investigation and litigation process longer, more complicated and as a result, less likely to be successful.

Guest Article:

Dominion Voting Systems: Will We Finally Get Our Questions Answered?

Dominion Voting Systems has finally agreed to send a representative to testify next week before a committee of Michigan lawmakers.  This development came after Republican State Representative Matt Hall, who chairs the Michigan House Oversight Committee, sent two letters to Dominion CEO John Poulos on November 24 and December 4, asking him to testify before the committee.  According to the Epoch Times, in Hall’s second letter he threatened to subpoena witnesses if Poulos does not cooperate.

AbleChild is compelled to write this article, as we feel strongly about the censorship that is taking place throughout our Nation.  Our organization has fought long and hard for informed consent and has experienced censorship by big tech, pharma, and the media.

After holding election fraud hearings in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Michigan this past week, filled with witness testimony about alleged wrongdoing that the mainstream media failed to cover even a second of, Trump is taking further measures to end censorship by Big Tech and the media.  Trump announced on Twitter at 9:45 pm last night that if Congress does not do away with Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, he will veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a bill that is paramount to enact pay raises and other military spending.  Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act absolves tech giants, such as Facebook, Google and Twitter, from legal liability for their users’ content, even if they choose to moderate it.  Basically, it clarifies these media companies as platforms, not publishers (who would be legally liable for misleading or harmful content it publishes).  Over the past couple of years, and especially in recent months, there has been much apprehension over this law being a free pass for tech companies to censor speech they do not agree with.