🚨🚨 THE ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK / THE DEMOCRACY FILES, PART 6: THE 3.5% RULES RECEIPTS 🚨 As requested by @monicaonairtalk - here are the receipts on the influence of Erica Chenoweth and 3.5% rule. 9 minutes of various participants referencing the 3.5% rule.

🚨🚨THE DEMOCRACY FILES / ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK, PART 5: Washington state's Secretary of State weighs in 🚨 The below clip shows Danielle Reiff of DRG pitching her vision to an audience including Washington state's Secretary of State, Steve Hobbs. She explains the red-line scenarios and ultimately a vision of creating a "cross-partisan" government in the wake of an illegitimate federal government. Her three "democratic emergency" scenarios should be familiar by now: · Election meltdown - which includes a widespread public loss of trust in election results · Insurrection Act deployed against protesters · An attempt to delay seating of legitimately elected officials post-election If the federal government becomes illegitimate in her view because of the above, then she proposes a cross-partisan system of transitional governance. She names a cross-partisan board of governors, as well President Obama and President Bush as potential transitional leaders. WA SoS Hobbs replies to Reiff that he has had the exact same conversation with German and Japanese officials regarding how to deal with AfD and right-wing nationalist parties. Now, to be fair, he does not want to commit because, in his words, "we're winning." But he doesn't disagree either. Note also that here and in other recordings, "election meltdown" does not mean some sort of flashy media crisis. It means, simply, a large segment of the population doesn't believe the election results are legitimate.

🚨🚨 THE ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK / THE DEMOCRACY FILES: A PRIMER 🚨 I will be using this thread to track all drops, so bookmark it. I spent most of yesterday backing everything (now 312 gigabytes) up in various sources and getting the materials out to others. I also produced an AI video (below) to explain the whole thing to others are not on 𝕏 - feel free to distribute. Here's the primer: USAID, the foreign aid agency, had a democracy office. Inside the agency, it was called DRG. Officially, DRG administered "democracy assistance." They'd go inside countries they thought were sliding into authoritarianism and help the opposition there. That assistance included election monitoring, judicary support, independent media, and civil society building. You may have heard the term "color revolution." The model comes from Serbia in 2000, where trained student activists brought down Milosevic with the help of Western governments, after sustained protests. With the help of USAID's democracy office, this model was implemented in many other countries to topple governments: Georgia's "Rose Revolution" in 2003, Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" in 2004, and many more. Then last year, DOGE shut down USAID. But the USAID democracy office didn't stop. They formed a group called the Democracy Renewal Group, the same initials as their office (USAID Democracy, Human Rights, Governance). Their goal: apply their own playbook to the United States itself. This goal became a plan, called Renew American Democracy (RAD). It invoked the "4 B's" framework. Block - use lawfare and protests to make life harder for the Trump administration. Bridge & Belong - control dialogue and win people over. The final and most important B is Build. Build means redesigning the American government itself, and the crisis is the opening. In their own words: "We can take that breakdown moment and leverage it for a big structural reform, you know, refounding moment." - Danielle Reiff, DRG lead. Calls show DRG working alongside DSA on ideas of creating a different government, one that does away with the Constitution itself. DRG does not run the Block operations. They hand it to UDA, the United Democracy Alliance. One organizer calls it a "huge galaxy": lawsuits, street protests, non-cooperation. They list No Kings, Indivisible, MoveOn, 50501, and many other mega-activist NGOs among their members. Another organizer calls UDA Erica Chenoweth's project. Chenoweth is the Harvard professor behind the three-and-half-percent rule of regime change: get that share of a country's populace onto the streets, and historically, the movement wins. The UDA is very "hush-hush." They have no website, no roster, no filings. Then come the red lines: things the Trump administration could do, such as calling the Insurrection Act on protesters, that would mean that the federal government, in their words, "crosses the threshold into illegitimacy." Nobody voted on those lines. There was no public debate. These red lines were developed within secretive working groups, and in a paper addressed to governors and staff. In the words of Reiff/DRG: "So that if there is a red line crossed in terms of a Constitutional crisis, like everyone's already pre-organized. And so Mike Smith actually said, he goes, oh, you guys have the day after tomorrow plan." Cross a line, and the paper's options include states refusing to lend their resources to federal officials, and governors convening what it calls a "Third Continential Congress." Running the UDA's Insurrection Act working group: Rear Admiral Mike Smith (RET) of National Security Leaders of America (NSL4A). NSL4A is also credited with operationalizing UDA, the blocking operations. NSL4A consists of about 1,600 ex-officers, spies, diplomats. They're turning red lines into indicators and running a situation room to monitor them throughout the midterms and beyond. The NSL4A's lawyers told them to stop recording meetings in case of subpoenas. But the rest of the network continued to record. DRG works in conjunction with Renew to Thrive (R2T), which ended up accidentally publishing 400+ calls and thousands of documents. These calls and documents were never meant for our eyes, but it's them, on tape. Thousands of NGOs and billions of dollars are involved in this endeavor. Most of them believe they're saving democracy. The problem is that people who spent their careers deciding when other countries' governments had lost their legitimacy wrote that test for ours, in private, and planned for what comes after. Who decides when your government is legitimate?

I just came across this in an Open Society Foundations document about how to fix public “mistrust” of liberal "democracy," and I honestly feel sick reading it. I've read many alarming quotes, but few are so "mask off" like this. "I believe the time has come for a responsible, courageous elite, those who care far more about addressing the genuine social problems than about election results. Only a political elite with vision, prudence and a focus on the general good—to whom the electorate… can cede part of their sovereignty in the elections—will be able to justify public trust and spearhead... our struggle to survive."" Read that again. The proposed solution to the public's distrust in democracy... is less democracy. An unelected "elite" to whom the public should cede sovereignty. Abolish democracy to save democracy. This kind of thinking is what we're up against.

🚨 THE DEMOCRACY FILES / ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK, PART 4: YES, MANY ARE AWARE OF THE GOALS 🚨 This one is a thread because there are multiple materials. On January 15, 2026, Renew American Democracy (RAD), the strategy built around the Democracy Renewal Group's (DRG) ex-USAID democracy officers, held planning exercises for "emergency scenarios" and how it'd affect their "strategic objectives." RAD's explicit goal is in catalyzing those so-called "emergency scenarios" to manifest "structural reform" - the rewriting of American governance which the previous drops have covered. RAD/DRG hold the unique role within the wider blocking / protest alliance of defining what the new government looks like, presumably because they are made of ex-USAID officers who have specialized in installing new governments. As @MikeBenzCyber last night said on his stream, these DRG members come from the CIA coup parts of USAID. It's been suggested that DRG is just a fringe group within the much larger blocking/protest ecosystem. This morning's interim video mentioning Mike Smith disproved that. And PART 4 disproves that further - the wider network is well aware of DRG and that its goal is to secure a new government. They will dress it in the language that it's Trump who will provoke it, and they're only preventing a true Constitutional crisis. In reality, there's a million ways to interpret what a "red line" is, and many ways to get Trump to cross it. Already, articles everywhere are telegraphing that Trump *will* cross it in the form of the Insurrection Act or martial law, softening us up for the coup ahead. The materials I'm showing you are from a RAD/DRG-ran planning exercise in January 2026. Groups represented by participants include: · National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A) · Freedom Trainers / Beautiful Trouble · Team Democracy · Federal Workers Alliance for Democracy · Civil Service Strong · Project 2029 · Braver Angels · Indivisible · Better Together America · Center for Collaborative Democracy · Democracy Accelerator · Paths to Understanding · Co-Intelligence Institute · Cohesion Strategy · Community-Vision Solutions One of the working groups concerned "National Deliberations" - which lays the groundwork for structural reforms post-crisis. So every single participant in this forum was well aware the end point is rewriting our governance. Even more interesting, Tanya Alfredson of @BraverAngels participated in this particular working group - which should give pause to anyone who believes Braver Angels simply wants better dialogue. As you watch the videos, watch out for the code language they use to hint towards the ultimate end goal. As always, patience as I pull together the thread. 👇