Bob Woodward: General James Mattis Plotted Overthrow of U.S. Government…


I am gonna start this with a caveat. I ain’t saying that I believe it all, but I ain’t saying I don’t beleive any of it.

Authored by ‘sundance’ via,

According to a pre-release excerpt from the Washington Post Bob Woodward writes about a discussion between General James Mattis and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats about a plot to overthrow the elected government of the United States.

[…] “Mattis quietly went to Washington National Cathedral to pray about his concern for the nation’s fate under Trump’s command and, according to Woodward, told Coats, “There may come a time when we have to take collective action” since Trump is “dangerous. He’s unfit.” (read more)

What do you call a conversation between the Defense Secretary and the head of the U.S. intelligence apparatus where they are talking about taking “collective action” to remove an elected President?  That’s called sedition…. A seditious conspiracy.

As alarming as that sounds on its face, this actually aligns with our own previous research into key military leadership, the joint chiefs, and their corrupt intent to overthrow the elected government.  Readers will remember when we noted this very issue after Lt. Col  Alexander Vindman compromised his position yet was not removed by his command structure within the Pentagon.

NOVEMBER 2019 – […] For emphasis let me repeat a current fact that is being entirely overlooked.  Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.

The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC does not just lay simply at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; and upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political; the necessary, albeit difficult or perhaps challenging, obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman also resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.

The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not.   WHY?

There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.  In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances…

The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove.  Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise.  They do nothing to assist.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office.  Let me make this implication crystal clear:

The United States Military is collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

Do you see the issue now?

The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication/reality.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of, nor deconstruct the agenda toward, the removal of President Trump.

Mr. President, do I have your attention?

(Full Outline)

read the rest linked below


  1. I’d almost lay money that Mattis is the source of the “Trump called the WWI dead losers and suckers” nonsense story.

    That guy is a snake. Write that down.

  2. I can’t say as I’m surprised by any of this. I am, however, deeply disappointed by Mattis.

    I will, however, lay the blame on our officer selection, training, and culture. I’ve never met a flag-rank officer in person that I interacted with who was not a venal scumbag POS. You’re always looking over and saying “Oh, it’s just my guy that’s an asshole… So-and-so is OK, and I’d love to work for him.” Then, you find out from talking to their in-the-know types who’ve dealt with your idolized “Other GO”, you find out he’s just as prone to boinking the staff or whatever.

    I think the root problem is that there are way too many yes-men and sycophants hanging around the flag ranks, and they get way too many perks. Personally, I think we ought to treat officers like hired help, men with a particular narrow skill that we can’t do without, and who get treated accordingly. They should not be treated as though they were petty gods, above reproach and criticism, and I have to say that many of the most effective are horribly flawed human beings and utter assholes. The mistake we make is giving them all this power and the perks to go along with it, which feeds their already dangerously inflated egos, creating monsters.

    Put me in charge of running the military, and the officers above company grade would be managed on a totally different basis. Let them have to attract their subordinates, and build their own units. Battalion commander candidate who can’t attract enough senior NCO and company-grade officer talent to fill out his unit? Tough shit, bubba… You don’t get a command, and you get moved over to the retired list. Fuck the OER, let people vote with their feet whether or not someone is worth following to the latrine, let alone war.

    You want to know the truth about a field-grade or flag-rank officer? Watch what happens the minute word gets out he’s getting a specific unit, and see how many of the rank-and-file stick around. If you see a host of senior NCO retirements happen before he shows up? LOL… Handwriting is there on the wall, if you’re smart enough to read it. I’ve never seen that harbinger fail to tell the truth about an incoming commander. Likewise, if good people are moving heaven and earth to come work for him…? That’s telling.

    The most honest OER is the one written by your subordinates, and that’s the one the “system” pays no attention to whatsoever. Toxic leadership is invisible to the people running things, and they’re always surprised when it becomes undeniable.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here