On Friday, February 5th, Mike Lindell—Mr. My Pillow—released to America a video entitled Absolute Proof. Therein, he purports to provide irrefutable evidence that both domestic and foreign conspirators fraudulently derailed the 2020 election to unlawfully defeat President Trump and illegally deliver a victory to Joe Biden.
What is telling is that, to date, the evidence of that fraud presented by Mr. Lindell has only been denied, but not demonstrably refuted.
In the minds of thoughtful persons, the foregoing should eventually lead them to ask: where is the F.B.I in all of this? Particularly when the nation this institution is supposed to serve needs it more now than ever to confirm or deny such claims of election fraud that has understandably upset and divided so many.
In the impeachment trial this week, the Democrat managers have repeatedly accused the President of inciting an insurrection—a serious felony—in large part by inflaming his supporters with the “lie” (according to the Dems) that the election had been stolen by fraud. Which, of course, raises the question: Was the President lying about the election being stolen, or not?
Isn’t this a question the F.B.I. should have already investigated and answered in the months since November 3rd? For if they had, would it not resolve once and for all the veracity of President Trump's claims about the election that are now being used to impugn his reputation, possibly convict him of a crime for which he may be innocent, and foreseeably divide the country beyond repair?
If the F.B.I. had and their findings were damning to the president, surely the Democrats bringing this most recent impeachment would have used it in their case, but they haven’t. Could this suggest that the evidence gathered so far by the F.B.I. may actually corroborate the findings of Mr. Lindell? If so, would it not constitute exculpatory evidence that should be provided to the president by the F.B.I. to enable him to defend against the charges of his lying to his supporters to incite an insurrection?
Recommended
One would think in a country that claims to abide by the rule of law this is how the F.B.I. should handle the matter. But in recent years, we have come to realize that the F.B.I. seems to feel there exist exceptions to the rule of law to which they feel they are entitled.
Remember that this is the same F.B.I. that stood by and allowed President Trump to be impeached the first time in 2020 while they remained absolutely silent as to the possible existence of massive troves of exculpatory evidence presented by the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop—a laptop the F.B.I. just happened to have in their possession long before the commencement of the president’s first impeachment and to which his defense attorneys would have loved to have had access. That is if the F.B.I. had cared to mention its existence to them at any time either before or during that first impeachment.
Yes, that would be the same F.B.I. that also remained silent as they knowingly allowed Robert Mueller’s investigation—intended to bring down a sitting president—to continue for over two years based on a Russian hoax which they knew from the beginning was a fraudulent fabrication of their own creation. If for no other reason, then it was based entirely on a false dossier they also knew had been created out of thin air by the President’s political enemies—i.e. Hillary and Company.
Now, there was an exception to the rule of law few would have seen coming. But, then again, perhaps we should have.
For isn’t this the same F.B.I. that for now over four years has continued to turn a blind eye to Hillary’s crimes attending her willful destruction of over 30,000 emails?
And isn’t this the same F.B.I. that concealed from the public the lurid contents of Anthony Weiner’s laptop that—among other things—may have contained many, if not all, of those emails?
And isn’t this the same F.B.I. that has taken no material action whatsoever to prosecute any of the major players involved in the planning of an attempted coup to overthrow our president that was both conceived of and executed by those within the F.B.I?
Oh, and this is also the same F.B.I. that has yet to reveal the identity of who it was who killed Seth Rich. Is it because they don’t know? Or is it because they do know and are concealing that information to protect one of their own, notwithstanding a whistleblower’s information directly on point that is no doubt in their possession? If you doubt this could ever happen, ask L. Lin Wood who has personally interviewed that whistleblower and found him and the information he conveyed on this subject to be credible.
These are just some of the reasons why the F.B.I.’s continued silence regarding the election fraud data collected by a Minnesota businessman—who presumably would rather be making pillows—should be frightening to us all.
The chilling reality is that the F.B.I.’s silence about Lindell’s data suggests that only one of only two dire possibilities can be true. Either the F.B.I. has no evidence that would effectively refute that data, or the evidence that the F.B.I. does have actually corroborates Lindell’s data. And yet, either way, all we know for sure is they are remaining silent.
Why?
Under either scenario, the only conclusion that can be drawn from their silence is that in some way they are again wrongfully withholding exculpatory evidence from President Trump in the course of an impeachment trial. And, in turn, that suggests there continues to be some in the F.B.I. who remain committed to his ultimate destruction with utter indifference to—if not contempt for—the reality that any such conviction of President Trump based on a record made incomplete by virtue of their silence will only serve to negate the president’s constitutional rights to due process and free speech … and along with it, the votes of the approximately 80 million American citizens.
As such, the F.B.I.’s silence must be seen for what it is—a threat to both the integrity of our elections and our constitutional rights and therefore, also pose a threat to the continued viability of our constitutional republic.
The question it leaves us with?
Is there anyone left with the ability, the integrity, and the political influence that would be required to effectively remedy this systemic cancer that is revealing itself to be metastasizing within our government?
And that is what should be frightening us all, in that with the departure of President Trump, the probable answer to this question is … probably not.
That said, and based on the foregoing, one thought becomes clear in the midst of the F.B.I’s silence: Would President Trump's attorneys be committing legal malpractice if they do not allocate two hours of their allotted time at the impeachment trial to play in full Mike Lindell's video, “Absolute Proof?”
At least then every American citizen on both sides of the aisle would be force-fed—even by the mainstream media—the information that would allow us all to decide for ourselves whether the President was “lying” to his supporters when he declared that the election had been stolen. Or that he was in fact not lying, but only trying to tell us all the absolute truth, for the sake of our nation.
Clifford C. Nichols, an attorney, is the author of A Barrister’s Tales.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member