Glenn Beck’s warning, leaked recordings, and hard questions about whether a future constitutional crisis could be used to remake the United States.
From The Craig Bushon Show Media Team
October 25, 2026 | Investigative Opinion
Imagine waking up one morning to learn that a coalition of political organizations has declared the federal government of the United States illegitimate. No court has ruled and no election has replaced anyone. Instead, a network of activists and former government officials announces that Washington has crossed boundaries their own organizations drew up, and it begins urging sympathetic governors to take over responsibilities that normally belong to the federal government while promoting a new constitutional structure for the country.
That sounds like the plot of a political thriller, but recordings released over the past week show that people with backgrounds in government and international democracy programs have privately discussed pieces of exactly that scenario during 2026.
Conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck brought the story to a national audience on October 19, when he devoted an 11-minute video to disclosures by researcher Jennica Pounds, who posts online as Data Republican. Pounds announced on October 18 that she had obtained thousands of transcripts and hundreds of recordings, and she began releasing excerpts the next day under the title “The Democracy Files.” Readers should know that Pounds has been a special government employee of the Defense Department since July 2026, a role she confirmed publicly in August after it was reported by CBS and the Associated Press. That background does not make the recordings less authentic, but it belongs in the record.
The most alarming allegation, as Pounds summarized it and Beck presented it, is conditional and specific. If Democrats sweep the November elections, members of the Democratic Socialists of America would serve as foot soldiers in repeated clashes with the Trump administration, with the aim of pushing President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, probably sometime in 2027. That emergency would then be used to delegitimize the federal government and shift its legitimacy to Democratic governors.
That allegation has not been proven by the recordings released so far. The most careful review of them to date, published October 23 by Midpoint News, found no plan in the released material to cause unrest and no call for violence, and it identified several of Pounds’s specific claims that do not appear in the tapes at all.
Dismissing the whole controversy because its most dramatic claim remains unverified would still be a serious mistake. The released recordings capture former officials discussing when the federal government might be declared illegitimate, preparing contingency options for governors to act in Washington’s place, and describing a constitutional crisis as an opening for sweeping structural change outside the amendment process. Separately, one of the country’s most prominent socialist organizations has published, in its own words, a plan to replace several foundational institutions of our government.
With the November 3 midterm elections nine days away, these developments deserve careful examination. The real issue reaches well beyond Donald Trump, the Democratic Party, or any single election. It concerns who holds the authority to decide when our constitutional government is legitimate, and what happens when private political organizations conclude they should have a role in making that decision.
The Democratic Socialists of America Have Already Published Their Vision
Before turning to the recordings, Americans should understand something that requires no anonymous sources or leaked audio. The Democratic Socialists of America, commonly known as the DSA, has publicly stated its goal of fundamentally restructuring the American political system.
Its national program, Workers Deserve More!, was drafted between April and June 2026 by a committee of members and approved by the organization’s National Political Committee. In its own statement of perspective, the DSA describes its members as workers fighting to draft a new constitution and create a democratic socialist republic.
The specifics matter even more than the ambition. The program calls for abolishing the Electoral College, abolishing the United States Senate, and replacing the president and the Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress. It also calls for public ownership of the country’s largest corporations and essential industries, alongside sweeping changes to voting, labor, policing, and economic policy. None of these positions are characterizations by political opponents. They appear on the DSA’s official program website.
Consider what that would mean for the government the Founders established. Under our Constitution, the House of Representatives reflects population while the Senate gives each state equal representation. The presidency is an independent branch, and the federal judiciary has the authority to interpret the law and decide whether government actions violate the Constitution. The Founders built competing branches deliberately, because they understood that political leaders cannot always be trusted to restrain themselves and that concentrating power in one institution invites abuse.
Replacing an independent president and an independent judiciary with institutions subordinate to Congress would dismantle the separation of powers as Americans have known it, and abolishing the Senate would remove one of the primary protections the states have inside the federal government. Americans are free to support or oppose these ideas, and advocacy for radical constitutional change is protected by the First Amendment. But these proposals go well beyond ordinary policy disagreement, because the DSA is describing a different governmental structure altogether rather than a new direction for the existing one. That distinction becomes important when the program is read alongside the recordings.
What the Leaked Recordings Actually Show
Midpoint News examined 11 recordings contained in seven edited videos released by Pounds, made between June 2025 and mid-October 2026. The outlet reported that it checked each quotation against the videos’ captions frame by frame, and it was candid about the limits of the material. Every clip is an excerpt, some were cut or rearranged in ways that can change their meaning, no full-length recording was available, and the people named were not contacted for comment. How Pounds obtained the material has not been independently established. Her own account, that the calls were published by mistake by one of the groups involved, has not been confirmed.
The recordings involve people associated with the Democracy Renewal Group, Renew American Democracy, Renew to Thrive, and a coalition called the United Democracy Alliance. Several participants are former officials of the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, who spent their careers studying how governments lose legitimacy, how political movements organize, and how nations respond to constitutional crises. There is nothing improper about applying that experience to American political reform. The concern lies in what certain participants said.
The central figure is Danielle Reiff, a retired diplomat who spent 20 years at USAID and co-founded the Democracy Renewal Group. At a March 25, 2026, forum on a “democratic constitution,” Reiff said she foresaw a crisis of legitimacy around the November election and described a midterm meltdown as potentially “a real window of opportunity.” She added that organizers would need to get highly organized over the following seven months to take advantage of such a scenario. When the host asked whether her work with fellow organizer Paul Zeitz was aimed at a new constitutional convention, she answered, “Yeah, definitely.”
Reiff then laid out a sequence. It would begin with a major national convening, which she suggested might resemble a third continental Congress, and a declaration announcing a set of red lines. If those lines were crossed, organizers would move into what she called “an extra constitutional process,” which might lead directly to a constitutional convention or to a national dialogue first. She did not explain what the extra-constitutional process would involve. She also cautioned that jumping into a convention before the situation was ripe could be dangerous, and she said any reform needed broad support so it would not be dismissed as partisan.
On an August 13 call, Reiff went further, describing the possibility of an acute legitimacy crisis in which the federal government itself becomes illegitimate, and saying that such a breakdown could be leveraged for a structural reform she called a “refounding moment.”
One detail in her March remarks deserves particular attention. Reiff defined an election meltdown broadly enough to include a perfectly clean election whose results a quarter or half of the country simply refuses to trust. Under that definition, the trigger for a legitimacy crisis does not require fraud or misconduct, only distrust.
Most Americans think of a constitutional crisis as something to resolve before it does lasting damage. In these discussions, at least some participants also treated one as an opportunity to change the structure of government. While that falls short of showing any intention to cause a crisis, it does show participants planning how to use one politically if it arrived, and the published excerpts leave open the most important question of all, which is whether an extra-constitutional gathering would merely draft proposals for the lawful amendment process or would claim governing authority outside the institutions that currently hold it. Those are fundamentally different things, and that unresolved gap is the strongest reason the full recordings and supporting documents deserve public scrutiny.
The Red Lines and the Question of Who Decides
In ordinary language, a red line is a boundary that triggers a response once it is crossed. An organization might declare, for example, that interfering with certified election results, using the military unlawfully against voters, or refusing to seat legitimately elected members of Congress would be an unacceptable abuse of power. Identifying those concerns is entirely lawful, and Americans have every right to organize against unconstitutional government conduct.
The situation changes when a private coalition moves from naming potential abuses to deciding when it will declare the federal government illegitimate and what authority should follow. On the August 13 call, Zeitz said the United Democracy Alliance had developed a set of red lines that were being refined into indicators and metrics. He then described the consequence plainly: if the federal government were deemed illegitimate through the crossing of those lines, and everyone agreed, governors would become the leading governing authority. Zeitz also said the coalition was building a situation room to give the movement real-time information through the 2026 elections and into 2028.
The identity of the coalition setting those lines matters. In a June recording, Reiff said the United Democracy Alliance is not public and described it as “progressive coded for sure,” naming groups such as No Kings and 50501 as its closest comparison. Nothing in the released record describes any public process for writing, reviewing, or applying the red lines.
That raises constitutional problems that cannot be waved away. The criteria for illegitimacy would be written by a coalition its own organizers describe as one-sided and non-public, the judgment that the criteria had been met would be made by that same coalition, and no source in the record explains by what legal authority governors would assume federal responsibilities on the strength of that judgment. These questions go to the basic chain of constitutional authority in the United States.
Our system already contains the tools for confronting illegal government action. Courts can issue injunctions, Congress can conduct oversight and impeach, elections can remove officials, and constitutional amendments can change the structure of government itself. A political coalition’s assessment, however sincerely held, does not replace any of those mechanisms, and the danger arises when private organizations try to turn their own political verdict into a substitute for constitutional authority.
Why Governors Are Part of the Discussion
The recordings include references to an options memo that Renew American Democracy prepared for governors. On the August 13 call, John Mongan, identified by the video’s editor as a former career State Department official, described what governors would need to plan for if Washington were deemed illegitimate: which federal functions they would assume, how they would coordinate with each other, how they would reach out to foreign governments, and how they would wall off the officials they considered illegitimate while continuing to run the country, or at least parts of it. Mongan stressed that the concept was not secession and that no one was talking about leaving the United States.
That disclaimer matters, but it does not settle the constitutional problem. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution bars any state, without the consent of Congress, from entering into an agreement or compact with a foreign power. A governor conducting outreach to foreign governments in order to keep governing while refusing to recognize federal officials would run directly into that limit.
The organizers also described who had received the memo, and their own account cuts in more than one direction. According to Mongan, the governor of Massachusetts did not want to touch it, while the governors of California and Illinois were interested in getting involved if someone else took the lead. Zeitz said the memo had gone to Governors Safeguarding Democracy, which he described as reviewing and considering it, and that organizers were also trying to reach the governors of Wisconsin, Utah, and Washington. Utah’s governor, Spencer Cox, is a Republican.
Governors Safeguarding Democracy was launched on November 13, 2024, one week after the presidential election, as what its founders called a nonpartisan alliance of governors. Its co-chairs are Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Colorado Governor Jared Polis, both Democrats, who said at the launch that they had conducted outreach to Republican governors without naming any.
Every one of these claims about contact with governors comes from organizers describing their own outreach. The memo itself has not been released, and no governor has confirmed receiving it, let alone agreeing to act on it. It would be irresponsible to accuse any of these governors of participating in a plan to supplant the federal government.
The existence of a plan to shift federal responsibilities to governors during a legitimacy crisis still deserves serious examination. State governments hold substantial constitutional authority of their own. They administer elections, enforce state law, and can challenge unlawful federal action in court. A coalition of governors does not acquire presidential, congressional, or federal judicial power because a private organization has declared Washington illegitimate, and if it could, the constitutional order would belong to whichever political movement persuaded enough people to reject the existing government. The Constitution does not work that way.
Understanding the Alleged Doomsday Scenario
To understand why Beck is sounding the alarm, it helps to separate what the recordings document from the more serious allegation about how a crisis might begin. What follows is a hypothetical sequence built from the allegations, and it should be read as inference rather than documented fact.
The November 3 elections take place, and the parties emerge with sharply conflicting readings of the result. Tensions rise, demonstrations spread, and confrontations develop between protesters and federal authorities. If those confrontations become severe enough, President Trump weighs invoking the Insurrection Act, which would set off an intense legal and political fight. Activist organizations then argue that the deployment proves Washington has crossed their red lines, declare the federal government illegitimate, and urge governors, local officials, and allied groups to stop cooperating with federal directives, while advocates of constitutional reconstruction argue that the old system has failed and a new framework is needed. A confrontation over public order becomes a struggle over constitutional authority itself.
That chain reaction is what underlies the allegations, but a scenario that could happen is not proof that anyone has agreed to make it happen. The released recordings do not show any organization planning to manufacture violence, organize riots, or deliberately provoke an Insurrection Act invocation. Pounds’s claim that DSA members would serve as foot soldiers in such clashes does not appear in the recordings Midpoint reviewed, and a separate report that unreleased material contains that detail remains unverified. Several participants explicitly committed to nonviolence on tape.
There is also an inconvenient fact for the most dramatic version of the story. The only scenario in the released recordings in which unrest is deliberately created assigns that role to the administration. At an October 14 session, retired Rear Admiral Mike Smith of National Security Leaders for America speculated that the administration might use Immigration and Customs Enforcement to provoke civil unrest as a pretext for invoking the Act. He offered no evidence for that hypothesis, and it is as speculative as the claim it mirrors.
What the recordings support is a narrower and still serious concern about crisis planning and constitutional transformation. Whether unreleased material supports the broader allegation remains an open question, and Americans deserve an investigation driven by evidence rather than by the most frightening possible interpretation.
The Insurrection Act Is Not a Presidential Blank Check
The Insurrection Act does not give a president unlimited authority to govern the country by military force. The relevant statutes, found in Chapter 13 of Title 10 of the United States Code, allow the use of military forces under specific conditions. The central provision, 10 U.S.C. 252, applies when the president considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, assemblages, or rebellion make it impracticable to enforce federal law through the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. Invoking the Act does not suspend elections, abolish the courts, or dissolve the constitutional powers of Congress and the states, and any deployment remains subject to the law and the Constitution.
Americans should therefore be concerned about unconstitutional action regardless of which faction commits it. If a president used the military unlawfully to interfere with an election, Americans would be right to demand immediate legal accountability, and if private organizations tried to exploit a national emergency to move governing authority outside the Constitution, Americans should demand exactly the same. The constitutional standard cannot shift depending on who occupies the White House or which movement stands to benefit.
That same organization, National Security Leaders for America, has published an election toolkit for mayors, county executives, election officials, and law enforcement preparing for possible military intervention around the midterms. It addresses two scenarios, a deployment under the Insurrection Act that could suppress turnout and a deployment in response to a claimed foreign attack on voting systems that could disrupt the chain of custody of ballots, and it states that it does not predict either will occur. Its guidance is largely defensive. It tells officials to keep polls open, protect ballot records, and avoid any confrontation with troops, and it advises treating a deployment as lawful unless and until a court rules otherwise.
The connection to the recordings matters, though. On the August 13 call, Zeitz said the United Democracy Alliance’s red-lines work was being led under National Security Leaders for America, the same organization whose founder, Admiral Smith, presented the toolkit. The toolkit itself does not prove any plan to cause unrest, but it shows that contingency planning around federal intervention is happening inside the same network that discussed declaring the government illegitimate.
The Washington Post reported on October 20 that roughly 10 current and former national security officials, many with Defense Department experience, had spent months privately advising officials from 10 states, including governors, election administrators, and members of Congress from both parties, on preparing for possible federal interference in the election. The Post did not name the group, and no link between that effort and the network in these recordings has been confirmed. The White House responded that the administration is acting to protect elections by prosecuting election crimes and strengthening election security.
Americans should be able to distinguish legitimate preparation against possible government misconduct from any effort to exploit a crisis for unconstitutional ends, and the evidence released so far does not by itself tell us which side of that line each participant stands on.
The Constitutional Roadblock: Article V
The Constitution does not allow temporary majorities to rewrite the nation’s fundamental law whenever they grow frustrated with the existing system. Article V establishes the amendment process. Amendments may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called on the application of two-thirds of the state legislatures, and they take effect only when ratified by three-fourths of the states. Article V also provides that no state may be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate without its consent, which means the DSA’s goal of abolishing the Senate could not be achieved through an ordinary amendment over the objection of any single state.
These safeguards are demanding by design. The Founders expected the Constitution to change over time, but they also understood that fundamental change should require more than a narrow majority or a moment of national turmoil.
That is why the language in these recordings carries so much weight. A citizens’ assembly can lawfully recommend amendments, a movement can campaign for a new governing vision, and Americans can openly debate whether their institutions should change. Developing a proposal is different from possessing the legal authority to impose it, and the constitutional line is crossed when a movement tries to substitute a self-created assembly or provisional governing structure for the institutions the people established. When organizers speak of a refounding, a new convention, and a process outside the existing framework, that is the line Americans should be watching.
Is This One Coordinated Movement?
This may be the most important question in the entire story, and the honest answer is that the evidence does not yet settle it.
The DSA’s objectives are explicit. Separately, the recordings feature constitutional reform advocates discussing extraordinary circumstances and pathways toward a new constitutional arrangement. The two worlds did meet. At the March 25 forum, DSA member Luke Pickrell, who belongs to the organization’s Marxist Unity Group caucus, said the DSA’s ultimate goal is a democratic constitution with a single-chamber legislature and called for building an organization that is “explicitly anti-constitutional.” Reiff spoke at the same forum.
Pickrell’s participation shows that DSA ideas were present in at least one discussion with broader reform advocates. It does not establish that DSA leadership directed the other organizations, that the participants shared a single goal, or that anyone else endorsed his views. The video’s own editor noted that Pickrell is not a Renew American Democracy organizer, and Midpoint found no leader of that group endorsing socialism anywhere in the released recordings.
Overlapping interests are not proof of a coordinated conspiracy, and discussing radical constitutional reform is not a crime. What the recordings show is a convergence of conversations about constitutional change, political legitimacy, and crisis response among groups that know one another and sometimes share a room. The extent of actual organizational coordination remains unverified, and it should be an investigative priority rather than a conclusion reached in advance.
What the Organizers Say They Are Trying to Accomplish
There is another side to this story, and it deserves a fair hearing.
In an essay republished by The Fulcrum on October 20, Reiff argues for what she calls a transpartisan “third force” made up of conservatives, progressives, and independents who share the conviction that the country’s system of self-government needs repair. She writes that the deepest reforms require the supermajorities constitutional change demands, two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states, and that by design no single party can reach those numbers. She points to a Republican governor, Utah’s Spencer Cox, as a model of cross-party leadership. The same essay closes by announcing that her next piece will address the transitional mechanisms a democratic emergency would require, which suggests that the contingency thinking heard on the recordings is something she intends to discuss in public.
Others in the network have made similar commitments on the record. Julia Roig of the Horizons Project, presenting the National Security Leaders for America toolkit, said the effort is committed to nonviolence and to protecting the process rather than winning any particular election, and Mongan insisted the governors’ memo was not a concept for secession. Those involved in election contingency planning say they are preparing for possible unconstitutional federal action, including interference with voting, improper deployment of federal personnel, and disputes over certification, rather than trying to create an emergency. Those concerns can legitimately be addressed through lawful planning, litigation, oversight, and peaceful organizing.
What remains unexplained is how those public commitments fit with private discussions of an extra-constitutional process, non-public red lines, and governors assuming federal functions. Midpoint found that Reiff’s published essays do not mention red lines, an extra-constitutional process, or governors governing in Washington’s place. It is possible that some participants were contemplating extraordinary but peaceful reform efforts that would ultimately remain subject to lawful public approval. It is also reasonable to ask whether certain proposals went considerably further. As of this writing, we found no public response from Reiff, Zeitz, or Mongan to the recordings. Until the missing documents and complete recordings are released, Americans should demand explanations rather than assume either the best or the worst.
Why This Matters Beyond the 2026 Elections
It is tempting to view every development in Washington through the personalities involved. For supporters of President Trump, these recordings may confirm long-held fears that progressive organizations are working to undermine his administration. For his opponents, the same recordings may sound like prudent emergency planning against a president they believe could abuse his power. Both reactions are understandable, and neither should replace an independent look at the evidence.
The deeper issue is whether Americans still recognize a common constitutional authority that stands above their political disagreements. The Founders designed a system to prevent any individual, organization, or branch of government from exercising unchecked power, and that system depends on more than written rules. It depends on Americans accepting lawful outcomes even when those outcomes disappoint them.
If one faction can declare the federal government illegitimate by its own standards, nothing in principle stops a rival faction from doing the same. If governors can claim federal authority because activists have concluded that Washington failed, opposing governors could just as easily set up a competing version of national authority. And if a constitutional crisis becomes a way around the amendment process, the protections designed to prevent fundamental change without broad public consent stop meaning anything. Constitutional government cannot depend on political convenience, and the answer to government overreach has to be constitutional accountability rather than a new form of unchecked authority.
The Documents Americans Should Demand
The next stage of this story should focus on evidence that can be examined independently.
The public deserves access to the full recordings and the accompanying chat logs, not only excerpts selected and arranged by commentators or researchers. Editing can strip away context, and Midpoint documented at least one case in which a line from a recorded session was moved roughly half an hour from its original position, placing it next to a scenario it did not originally follow.
The red-line criteria should be published, so Americans can see what conduct would supposedly justify declaring the federal government illegitimate and who would make that call. The governors’ options memo should be released, so the public can judge whether it describes lawful continuity planning or contemplates assuming authority outside established constitutional procedures. Organizers should explain precisely what they mean by an extra-constitutional process, since a public forum that recommends amendments is entirely different from an alternative governing authority. And the organizations involved should disclose whether they have operational agreements, shared decision-making structures, or coordinated strategies involving federal or state officials.
These are reasonable requests for transparency rather than accusations of guilt. The people named in this article deserve the opportunity to produce the documents, clarify their remarks, and respond. If the most alarming claims are unsupported, the public should hear that plainly, and if further evidence shows that any organization intends to circumvent constitutional government, Americans deserve to know that as well.
America’s Future Cannot Be Decided Behind Closed Doors
The United States has come through 250 years of extraordinary turmoil because the constitutional system provides a way to settle disagreements without requiring each generation to build a new government. Our history includes civil war, violations of civil liberties, corruption, institutional failure, and bitterly disputed elections, and Americans have repeatedly demanded reform, sometimes winning important constitutional amendments and changes to federal law. The durability of the system rests on preserving the difference between changing government through lawful public authority and replacing that authority through force or self-appointed legitimacy.
The DSA’s published constitutional agenda belongs in the national debate because its proposals would fundamentally reshape the republic. The leaked recordings deserve investigation because they raise unresolved questions about how some reform advocates plan to respond to a federal legitimacy crisis and whether they contemplate arrangements outside the constitutional framework. Glenn Beck has called attention to allegations that deserve examination, but the complete evidence, and not the most frightening headline, must determine how far those allegations can responsibly be taken.
Americans should not wait for a national emergency before asking who is preparing contingency plans, what those plans contain, and what authority their authors believe they hold. Whether the next constitutional challenge comes from the White House, Congress, the states, or private political organizations, the same standard has to apply to every one of them, and no officeholder or movement is entitled to claim authority over the people’s system of government simply because the political moment seems to offer an opening.
The most important words in our founding document remain its first three: We the People. They identify the source of our government’s legitimate authority, and they give no political organization a shortcut around the framework established in the people’s name. If Americans want to change that framework, the debate must happen in public, the process must be lawful, and the rights of the people must stay protected throughout. If individuals or organizations are preparing to bypass those protections, the American people deserve to know exactly what is being proposed before the next crisis arrives, because the Constitution remains one of the principal safeguards of the freedom it is sometimes accused of standing in the way of.
The Craig Bushon Show
The Truth Is Not Hate Speech.
Sources and Further Reading
Primary documents and statements
- Democratic Socialists of America — Workers Deserve More! National Program (2026)
- National Security Leaders for America — Managing Potential Military Intervention in the Midterm Elections (toolkit)
- National Archives — Article V of the United States Constitution
- 10 U.S.C. 252 — Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority (Cornell Legal Information Institute)
- Office of Colorado Governor Jared Polis — Governors Launch Initiative to Protect American Democracy, November 13, 2024
- Danielle Reiff — “A Third Force,” The Fulcrum, October 20, 2026
- DataRepublican (Jennica Pounds) — announcement post on X, October 18, 2026
- Glenn Beck — video post on X, October 19, 2026
Reporting
- Midpoint News — “The Illegitimacy Playbook: Inside the Private Plans for America’s ‘Refounding Moment,'” published October 23, 2026, updated October 25, 2026
- The Washington Post — “U.S. officials privately advise states fearing Trump election meddling,” October 20, 2026 (syndicated copy via Anchorage Daily News)
- The National Desk via KATV — on Jennica Pounds’s Defense Department role, August 2026
Editorial Disclaimer
This article is an investigative opinion and commentary piece prepared by The Craig Bushon Show Media Team using publicly available documents, news reporting, organizational statements, and reported excerpts of recordings available as of October 25, 2026.
The allegations that political organizations intend to manufacture civil unrest, deliberately provoke an invocation of the Insurrection Act, or unlawfully transfer federal governing authority to state governors have not been independently established. The complete original recordings, the purported governors’ memorandum, and the full archive underlying the allegations have not been independently authenticated or reviewed by this publication. Quotations from the recordings in this article are drawn from excerpts as transcribed and published by Midpoint News, which reported that it did not contact the people named.
Participation in political meetings, advocacy of constitutional change, emergency planning, and peaceful protest do not by themselves constitute criminal wrongdoing. No individual or organization named in this article is accused of a proven criminal conspiracy.
The Craig Bushon Show supports freedom of speech, constitutional government, peaceful political participation, due process, and the protection of Americans’ civil liberties regardless of political affiliation. The analysis and opinions expressed here are intended to encourage public scrutiny, transparency, and informed debate. Additional verified evidence may warrant corrections or updates to this article.
