This Information is a half truth narrative presenting only one side. Why not compare and contrast with the other-side of the narrative? FACT: Vote counts showing the energy of the citizenry at large over the last 2 decades.
@John Webber, I appreciate you engaging with the material — and I fully agree that all narratives deserve scrutiny, especially in moments of national crisis.
But let’s clarify something essential:
This isn’t about election enthusiasm or vote totals.
It’s about what was attempted after the votes were counted.
📍 The books don’t dispute that millions voted for Trump — that’s clear.
What they document is how a faction, after losing the 2020 election, sought to override that outcome using legal manipulation, fake electors, and procedural sabotage — not civic energy.
This isn’t a partisan retelling. It’s a forensic one.
We name Republican officials who upheld the rule of law just as clearly as we expose those who tried to undermine it.
The danger isn’t in the disagreement.
It’s in pretending that all sides are engaging in good faith — when one side weaponized disbelief into an operational plan to subvert a certified election.
You’re right: there is always more to the story.
That’s why these books exist — to tell the part that was buried under spectacle, dismissed by institutions, and now at risk of being forgotten.
You're invited to read the books, critique them, challenge them.
But let’s not reduce a constitutional breakdown to a scoreboard of vote counts.
This isn’t about who won.
It’s about what we allowed to happen when one side refused to lose.
🛡️ Truth isn’t one-sided. But it isn’t symmetrical, either, when one side breaks the rules of the game.
Thanks again for contributing to the conversation. Let’s keep it critical — and grounded.
Thanks for validating the half truth you're sharing. It's okay to believe and promote your own narrative, that's the half truth (your-term). You still ignore the tens of millions of voters in 2020 that believe the election was stolen, what are their claims? Why do they claim them?
You ignored the incompetence of the Biden Administration. Look at the lawfare against Trump and look at what's transpired because of it, as more and more truth is exposed. There's a lot more to completing the story on what went done on Jan 6th. I agree it was a travesty, but politics is a blood sport we culturally moved it into a representative democracy. That American system is being threatened by both sides ...
You're seeing one, your half-truth. As long as the fight remains the people will choose their leaders, look at the Democrat polling, an eye-opening dialog among open-minded Americans, The public support for the other half or the story is also worthy of sharing.
When all sides have spoken and all have been heard the full-truth will feel better. Every one of us is stuck reviewing this chaotic event. It's best to know it and tell it in it's entirety. It unlikely to change any ones allegiances but it will allow a 5D perception in healing our nations wounds!
@John Webber, Thank you for following up with such depth and intention. You’re absolutely right about one thing: truth-seeking demands the full story, not just fragments that support our beliefs. That’s the spirit we share.
But let’s draw a crucial distinction, not between “right” and “left,” but between perception and process.
1. Belief vs. Evidence
Tens of millions believed the election was stolen. That’s a reality. But belief is not the same as proof.
Court after court, including Trump-appointed judges, reviewed over 60 lawsuits. None found evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to overturn results. Republican officials in battleground states certified results. The DOJ, DHS, and FBI under the Trump administration also affirmed the election's integrity.
So the question becomes:
Do we govern based on facts that can be verified?
Or beliefs that feel true to our side?
2. Lawfare or Accountability?
If Trump’s legal troubles were just political, we’d expect shaky charges. But many indictments involve concrete evidence: phone calls pressuring officials, fake electors, attempts to obstruct Congress, etc.
You call it “lawfare.” But from another lens, it’s a system trying to enforce its own boundaries. Not punishing speech, punishing action taken against certified electoral processes.
Accountability isn’t persecution when applied by independent courts after due process.
3. January 6 Wasn’t Just Chaos, It Was Coordinated
We can agree it was a tragedy. But the books go further: they examine how the chaos was not spontaneous, it was encouraged, organized, and leveraged.
The violence was one prong. The bureaucratic push to halt certification was the other.
This wasn’t politics as usual. This was contesting democracy itself. That’s not something we normalize under the banner of “both sides.”
4. “Half Truth” vs. Full Context
You say this view is a half-truth. Fair. But consider this:
We include the motivations, frustrations, and fears that led so many to doubt the outcome. We analyze media distortion, partisan ecosystems, and the failures of Democratic and Republican leadership alike.
But explaining behavior ≠ excusing sabotage.
Both parties can be flawed.
But only one side plotted to reverse a democratic outcome they didn’t like.
That’s not symmetrical.
5. Toward Healing, Not Just Arguing
You mention “5D perception”, and I love that phrase. To me, it means stepping back, detaching from tribalism, and examining the full pattern.
Yes, listen to every voice. But also recognize:
Not all claims are equal. Not all facts are created equal. And not all sides uphold the rules of the republic equally.
To heal, we must do more than just listen—we must discern.
In closing: This isn’t about clinging to a side. It’s about protecting the system that lets sides even exist.
We both want Americans to choose their leaders freely. But that freedom depends on truth, trust in process, and the humility to accept when our side loses, and live to persuade another day.
That’s democracy. That’s the whole truth worth defending.
Let’s keep questioning. Let’s keep thinking. But above all, let’s stay anchored in what’s verifiably real.
In closing: This isn’t about clinging to a side. It’s about protecting the system that lets sides even exist.
We both want Americans to choose their leaders freely. But that freedom depends on truth, trust in process, and the humility to accept when our side loses — and live to persuade another day.
That’s democracy. That’s the whole truth worth defending.
🛡️ Let’s keep questioning. Let’s keep thinking. But above all — let’s stay anchored in what’s verifiably real.
I recommend you reading the book in order to continue this dialogue with context:
FYI I’m not on either side, I’m on both ... it’s hard to comprehend from the 3D argumentative posture that both sides remain blind in. The blind leading the blind … brings no light of progress. Thanks for your kind reply. I wish you well. ~ Peace
This Information is a half truth narrative presenting only one side. Why not compare and contrast with the other-side of the narrative? FACT: Vote counts showing the energy of the citizenry at large over the last 2 decades.
2012 Barack Obama 65,899,660 Mitt Romney 60,932,152
2016 Hillary Clinton 65,844,969 Donald Trump 62,979,984
2020 Joe Biden 81,268,773 Donald Trump 74,216,728
2024 Kamala Harris 75,009,233 Donald Trump 77,303,569
The information regarding the Biden Administration certainly suggests there's a lot more to this story to be told.
@John Webber, I appreciate you engaging with the material — and I fully agree that all narratives deserve scrutiny, especially in moments of national crisis.
But let’s clarify something essential:
This isn’t about election enthusiasm or vote totals.
It’s about what was attempted after the votes were counted.
📍 The books don’t dispute that millions voted for Trump — that’s clear.
What they document is how a faction, after losing the 2020 election, sought to override that outcome using legal manipulation, fake electors, and procedural sabotage — not civic energy.
This isn’t a partisan retelling. It’s a forensic one.
We name Republican officials who upheld the rule of law just as clearly as we expose those who tried to undermine it.
The danger isn’t in the disagreement.
It’s in pretending that all sides are engaging in good faith — when one side weaponized disbelief into an operational plan to subvert a certified election.
You’re right: there is always more to the story.
That’s why these books exist — to tell the part that was buried under spectacle, dismissed by institutions, and now at risk of being forgotten.
You're invited to read the books, critique them, challenge them.
But let’s not reduce a constitutional breakdown to a scoreboard of vote counts.
This isn’t about who won.
It’s about what we allowed to happen when one side refused to lose.
🛡️ Truth isn’t one-sided. But it isn’t symmetrical, either, when one side breaks the rules of the game.
Thanks again for contributing to the conversation. Let’s keep it critical — and grounded.
Thanks for validating the half truth you're sharing. It's okay to believe and promote your own narrative, that's the half truth (your-term). You still ignore the tens of millions of voters in 2020 that believe the election was stolen, what are their claims? Why do they claim them?
You ignored the incompetence of the Biden Administration. Look at the lawfare against Trump and look at what's transpired because of it, as more and more truth is exposed. There's a lot more to completing the story on what went done on Jan 6th. I agree it was a travesty, but politics is a blood sport we culturally moved it into a representative democracy. That American system is being threatened by both sides ...
You're seeing one, your half-truth. As long as the fight remains the people will choose their leaders, look at the Democrat polling, an eye-opening dialog among open-minded Americans, The public support for the other half or the story is also worthy of sharing.
When all sides have spoken and all have been heard the full-truth will feel better. Every one of us is stuck reviewing this chaotic event. It's best to know it and tell it in it's entirety. It unlikely to change any ones allegiances but it will allow a 5D perception in healing our nations wounds!
@John Webber, Thank you for following up with such depth and intention. You’re absolutely right about one thing: truth-seeking demands the full story, not just fragments that support our beliefs. That’s the spirit we share.
But let’s draw a crucial distinction, not between “right” and “left,” but between perception and process.
1. Belief vs. Evidence
Tens of millions believed the election was stolen. That’s a reality. But belief is not the same as proof.
Court after court, including Trump-appointed judges, reviewed over 60 lawsuits. None found evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to overturn results. Republican officials in battleground states certified results. The DOJ, DHS, and FBI under the Trump administration also affirmed the election's integrity.
So the question becomes:
Do we govern based on facts that can be verified?
Or beliefs that feel true to our side?
2. Lawfare or Accountability?
If Trump’s legal troubles were just political, we’d expect shaky charges. But many indictments involve concrete evidence: phone calls pressuring officials, fake electors, attempts to obstruct Congress, etc.
You call it “lawfare.” But from another lens, it’s a system trying to enforce its own boundaries. Not punishing speech, punishing action taken against certified electoral processes.
Accountability isn’t persecution when applied by independent courts after due process.
3. January 6 Wasn’t Just Chaos, It Was Coordinated
We can agree it was a tragedy. But the books go further: they examine how the chaos was not spontaneous, it was encouraged, organized, and leveraged.
The violence was one prong. The bureaucratic push to halt certification was the other.
This wasn’t politics as usual. This was contesting democracy itself. That’s not something we normalize under the banner of “both sides.”
4. “Half Truth” vs. Full Context
You say this view is a half-truth. Fair. But consider this:
We include the motivations, frustrations, and fears that led so many to doubt the outcome. We analyze media distortion, partisan ecosystems, and the failures of Democratic and Republican leadership alike.
But explaining behavior ≠ excusing sabotage.
Both parties can be flawed.
But only one side plotted to reverse a democratic outcome they didn’t like.
That’s not symmetrical.
5. Toward Healing, Not Just Arguing
You mention “5D perception”, and I love that phrase. To me, it means stepping back, detaching from tribalism, and examining the full pattern.
Yes, listen to every voice. But also recognize:
Not all claims are equal. Not all facts are created equal. And not all sides uphold the rules of the republic equally.
To heal, we must do more than just listen—we must discern.
In closing: This isn’t about clinging to a side. It’s about protecting the system that lets sides even exist.
We both want Americans to choose their leaders freely. But that freedom depends on truth, trust in process, and the humility to accept when our side loses, and live to persuade another day.
That’s democracy. That’s the whole truth worth defending.
Let’s keep questioning. Let’s keep thinking. But above all, let’s stay anchored in what’s verifiably real.
In closing: This isn’t about clinging to a side. It’s about protecting the system that lets sides even exist.
We both want Americans to choose their leaders freely. But that freedom depends on truth, trust in process, and the humility to accept when our side loses — and live to persuade another day.
That’s democracy. That’s the whole truth worth defending.
🛡️ Let’s keep questioning. Let’s keep thinking. But above all — let’s stay anchored in what’s verifiably real.
I recommend you reading the book in order to continue this dialogue with context:
👉 https://a.co/d/iqJQAHH
With respect and clarity,
– HASE Fiero
FYI I’m not on either side, I’m on both ... it’s hard to comprehend from the 3D argumentative posture that both sides remain blind in. The blind leading the blind … brings no light of progress. Thanks for your kind reply. I wish you well. ~ Peace