Counterarguments to Ten Claims Made by Derek Johnson

Derek Johnson's document "The Why's in 2022 and 2023 looking back on 2017 to 2021," contains a series of assertions suggesting the existence of a covert military operation to maintain Donald Trump's presidency and challenging the legitimacy of civil authority. These claims lack credible evidence and contradict established legal and constitutional principles. This exhaustive counterargument addresses each significant claim in detail, providing factual information and logical analysis to debunk them thoroughly.

1. The Military Justice Act of 2016 and Supersession of Civil Courts

Johnson's Claim:

The Military Justice Act of 2016 established military courts as superior to civil courts, implying a shift in legal authority.

Counterargument:

The Military Justice Act of 2016 was intended to reform the UCMJ to enhance the fairness and efficiency of military trials. It did not establish military courts as superior to civil courts.

Purpose of the Act: The Military Justice Act of 2016 introduced significant reforms to the UCMJ, such as streamlining the court-martial process, improving protections for the accused, and updating procedures for handling sexual assault cases. These changes were aimed at modernizing the military justice system, not at superseding civil jurisdiction.

Details of Reforms: The Act updated legal procedures within the military, ensuring due process and fairness. It included provisions to better protect the rights of victims of sexual assault and to modernize the appeals process.

Constitutional Framework: The U.S. Constitution establishes a clear separation between civilian and military judicial systems. Civilian courts, including the Supreme Court, have the highest authority in legal matters involving civilians. The military justice system operates within the confines of military law, dealing primarily with service members' conduct and discipline.

Historical Context: The principle of civilian control over the military has been a cornerstone of American democracy. This principle ensures that military power is subordinate to elected civilian leadership, preventing the military from exercising undue influence over civilian affairs.

Legal Precedents: Legal precedents consistently uphold the primacy of civil courts over military courts in matters involving civilians. The Posse Comitatus Act, for example, restricts the use of the military for domestic law enforcement without explicit congressional authorization, reinforcing the separation of military and civilian legal domains​​.

2. Continuity of Government (COG) and Trump's Alleged Secret Control

Johnson's Claim:

Johnson suggests that a secret Continuity of Government (COG) plan keeps Donald Trump in control behind the scenes.

Counterargument:

COG plans are designed to ensure the government's functioning during emergencies, not to bypass constitutional processes or electoral outcomes.

Purpose of COG Plans: Continuity of Government plans are established to maintain government operations in the event of catastrophic events, such as natural disasters or attacks. These plans involve ensuring that government leadership can continue to function, safeguarding critical infrastructure, and protecting the continuity of legislative, executive, and judicial operations.

Historical Usage: COG plans have been in place since the Cold War to ensure that the government could continue to function in the event of a nuclear attack. They are not mechanisms for political maneuvering or bypassing democratic processes.

Peaceful Transfer of Power: The 2020 Presidential Election results were certified by Congress after thorough verification, and Joe Biden was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2021. This transfer of power followed all constitutional and legal protocols, with extensive documentation and transparency. The certification process involved multiple layers of scrutiny, including bipartisan oversight and judicial review.

Legal and Political Processes: The election process involves numerous safeguards, including state-level certification, the Electoral College, and Congressional certification. All these steps were conducted transparently and in accordance with the law​​.

Judicial Oversight: Numerous court cases, including those brought by allies of Donald Trump, were adjudicated in federal and state courts. The courts, including the Supreme Court, found no substantial evidence of widespread fraud that could have affected the election outcome. These judicial rulings reinforce the legitimacy of the election results.

Judicial Independence: The judiciary operates independently from the executive branch, ensuring that rulings are based on evidence and legal principles, not political pressure.

3. Role of Military Intelligence and JAG in Secret Operations

Johnson's Claim:

Military Intelligence and the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps are conducting a covert operation to uphold constitutional laws against internal threats.

Counterargument:

Military Intelligence and JAG Corps have specific, well-defined roles within the military structure, governed by legal and constitutional constraints.

Defined Roles and Responsibilities: Military Intelligence is tasked with gathering and analyzing information to support national defense and security. The JAG Corps provides legal services, including advising commanders, prosecuting offenses under the UCMJ, and ensuring the rights of service members are protected.

Operational Scope: Military Intelligence focuses on threats from foreign adversaries and operates under strict guidelines to prevent domestic surveillance abuses. JAG Corps members ensure legal compliance within the military justice system.

Oversight and Accountability: Both Military Intelligence and the JAG Corps operate under strict oversight from the Department of Defense, Congress, and other regulatory bodies. Their activities are subject to legal and ethical standards, ensuring compliance with laws and preventing unauthorized actions.

Legal and Ethical Standards: Oversight mechanisms include regular audits, Congressional oversight hearings, and internal reviews to ensure adherence to legal standards.

Lack of Evidence for Covert Operations: There is no credible evidence to suggest that these entities are engaged in a secret operation to support a former president. Their roles are transparent, and their actions are documented through official channels. Any such operation would require extensive coordination and leave behind a trail of evidence, which is absent in this case.

Transparency: Official actions by Military Intelligence and JAG Corps are documented and subject to scrutiny. Claims of secret operations lack substantiation and are inconsistent with documented procedures

4. Uniform Code and True Service

Johnson's Claim:

True service and intelligence are measured by adherence to his specific interpretation of military and constitutional law.

Counterargument:

Service members swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes upholding democratic principles, lawful orders, and civilian control of the military.

Oath of Service: The oath taken by military personnel emphasizes allegiance to the Constitution and the lawful orders of those appointed over them. This oath underscores the commitment to uphold democratic values and the rule of law, not to individual interpretations or unofficial narratives.

Constitutional Allegiance: Service members are trained to prioritize their allegiance to the Constitution, ensuring that their actions support constitutional governance and the rule of law.

Professionalism: The military values professionalism, integrity, and respect for diverse viewpoints. Critical thinking and adherence to ethical standards are integral to military service. True service involves loyalty to the Constitution and lawful authority, rather than to personal or politically motivated interpretations of the law.

Code of Conduct: The military code of conduct and professional standards emphasize ethical behavior, respect for authority, and adherence to legal and moral principles

5. Lack of Evidence for Current Operations

Johnson's Claim:

No one has provided laws or orders to debunk his interpretation of an ongoing military operation supporting Trump’s presidency.

Counterargument:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Johnson's narrative lacks credible, verifiable evidence.

Documented Transition: The transition from Trump to Biden is thoroughly documented through public records, legal rulings, and media coverage. The peaceful and lawful transfer of power is evident in the numerous public and official records, which contradict claims of a secret operation.

Public Documentation: The Presidential transition involved extensive documentation, including certification by state authorities, Congressional approval, and the inauguration ceremony.

Rule of Law: The U.S. operates under a robust legal system where allegations of misconduct or irregularities are thoroughly investigated. The absence of substantial evidence supporting Johnson's claims, despite extensive scrutiny and legal challenges, reinforces the legitimacy of the 2020 election and the subsequent transfer of power.

Legal Investigations: Numerous investigations and audits have been conducted by federal and state authorities, all of which have upheld the integrity of the election.

Public Accountability: Democratic processes are transparent and subject to public scrutiny. The documented procedures and public acknowledgment of Biden's presidency by domestic and international entities further debunk the notion of an ongoing secret operation supporting Trump. The absence of concrete evidence or credible sources supporting Johnson's claims underscores their speculative and unfounded nature

6. Claims of Widespread Election Fraud

Johnson's Claim:

The 2020 Presidential Election was marred by widespread fraud, justifying the need for a covert military operation.

Counterargument:

Multiple audits and investigations found no evidence of widespread fraud that could alter the election outcome.

Judicial Rulings: Courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, dismissed numerous lawsuits challenging the election results due to lack of evidence. These rulings were made by judges of various political backgrounds, emphasizing the non-partisan nature of the judiciary.

Court Dismissals: Over 60 lawsuits were filed contesting the election results, and nearly all were dismissed due to lack of evidence or legal merit.

Bipartisan Oversight: Election officials from both parties confirmed the integrity of the election. Statements from state officials, including Republicans, affirmed that the election was fair and secure.

Election Audits: Multiple states conducted recounts and audits, all of which confirmed the original results. High-profile audits, such as those in Arizona, failed to uncover evidence of widespread fraud.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA): CISA, which is responsible for safeguarding U.S. elections, stated that the 2020 election was "the most secure in American history." Their assessment was based on extensive monitoring and verification processes.

CISA Statement: CISA's public statement emphasized the lack of evidence for any significant irregularities or fraud.

Public and International Acceptance: The election results were recognized by domestic institutions and international observers. The peaceful transition of power, acknowledged by global leaders, further validates the election's legitimacy.

Global Recognition: International bodies and leaders congratulated Joe Biden on his victory, recognizing the democratic process.

7. Insurrection Act and Martial Law

Johnson's Claim:

The Insurrection Act was secretly invoked, leading to undeclared martial law.

Counterargument:

The invocation of the Insurrection Act and declaration of martial law are significant actions that would be publicly documented and widely known.

Public Records: There are no public records or credible reports indicating the invocation of the Insurrection Act or imposition of martial law. Such actions require clear and official documentation, which would be subject to public and media scrutiny.

Legal Process: Invoking the Insurrection Act involves a transparent legal process and typically requires public notification.

Legal and Political Oversight: Such actions would necessitate extensive legal justification and oversight, involving multiple branches of government. Congress, the judiciary, and the executive branch would all play roles in authorizing and overseeing the implementation of martial law.

Constitutional Safeguards: The Constitution provides checks and balances to prevent the abuse of executive power, ensuring that any invocation of the Insurrection Act is legally justified and publicly accountable.

Historical Precedents: Historically, the Insurrection Act has been invoked publicly in response to clear and immediate threats to public order, such as during the Civil Rights Movement or after Hurricane Katrina. There is no precedent for its secret invocation.

Transparency in Use: Previous uses of the Insurrection Act have been documented and subject to public debate and scrutiny.

8. False Flags and Manufactured Crises

Johnson's Claim:

Various crises and events are "false flags" orchestrated to manipulate public perception and justify covert operations.

Counterargument:

False flag operations are serious accusations that require substantial proof. Most crises have well-documented origins and causes.

Evidence-Based Analysis: Major events and crises are typically analyzed by independent investigators, journalists, and experts who provide transparent and evidence-based accounts. Claims of false flag operations are often debunked by these thorough investigations.

Investigative Reports: Independent investigations into events like mass shootings, terrorist attacks, and political unrest provide detailed and transparent findings, typically discrediting false flag theories.

Public Scrutiny: The democratic process includes robust mechanisms for public and media scrutiny, which help uncover the truth behind major events. Media organizations, watchdog groups, and independent researchers play critical roles in investigating and reporting on such events.

Media and Public Accountability: Credible media outlets and investigative journalists follow rigorous standards to ensure accurate reporting. Claims of false flags are subject to intense scrutiny and debunking.

Documented Causes: Most crises have well-documented causes, such as economic factors, social issues, or natural disasters. These documented causes are supported by data and expert analysis, which refute the need for conspiratorial explanations.

Scientific and Analytical Evidence: Crises such as pandemics, economic downturns, and social unrest are analyzed using scientific and statistical methods, providing clear and factual explanations for their causes.

9. Military's Role in Elections

Johnson's Claim:

The military played a direct role in overseeing or influencing the 2020 election.

Counterargument:

The military is apolitical and does not interfere in electoral processes, which are governed by civilian authorities.

Civilian Control: The U.S. military operates under civilian control and adheres to strict non-partisanship in domestic affairs. Military leaders emphasize the importance of remaining apolitical, particularly in matters of domestic politics and elections.

Doctrine of Civilian Control: The principle of civilian control over the military ensures that the military remains subordinate to elected civilian officials and does not engage in domestic political activities.

Election Security: Election security is handled by civilian agencies such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), not the military. CISA's role is to protect the integrity of the election infrastructure from cyber threats and other forms of interference.

Civilian Agencies' Role: Agencies like CISA and the FBI are responsible for ensuring the security and integrity of elections, working in conjunction with state and local election officials.

Statements from Military Leadership: Senior military officials, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have repeatedly affirmed the military's commitment to remaining non-partisan and not intervening in election processes. Public statements and directives from military leadership underscore this commitment to neutrality.

Public Reassurances: Statements from top military officials have consistently reassured the public of the military's apolitical stance and respect for democratic processes.

10. Secret Military Tribunals

Johnson's Claim:

There are secret military tribunals are being conducted to prosecute individuals involved in election fraud and other crimes.

Counterargument:

Military tribunals are governed by the UCMJ and are not used for prosecuting civilians outside specific wartime contexts.

Legal Jurisdiction: Military tribunals have jurisdiction over service members and enemy combatants, not civilians involved in domestic matters. The UCMJ outlines the scope and procedures of military tribunals, which are distinct from civilian judicial processes.

UCMJ Provisions: The UCMJ strictly governs the conduct and jurisdiction of military tribunals, ensuring they do not overstep their legal bounds.

Transparency and Due Process: The U.S. legal system ensures due process and transparency in judicial proceedings. Secret tribunals without oversight are unconstitutional and illegal. Civilian courts maintain jurisdiction over cases involving civilians, ensuring fair trials and legal accountability.

Constitutional Protections: The Constitution guarantees due process rights, which include the right to a public trial, representation by an attorney, and the ability to confront witnesses. Secret tribunals would violate these fundamental rights.

Historical Context: Military tribunals have been used in specific wartime contexts, such as during World War II for enemy combatants. These instances were exceptional and closely regulated. There is no precedent for their use in prosecuting domestic election fraud.

Exceptional Circumstances: The use of military tribunals in history has been limited to extreme situations, such as dealing with spies or enemy combatants during wartime, not for domestic political issues.

Conclusion

These assertions regarding various aspects of the U.S. military and political systems—such as the Military Justice Act of 2016, Continuity of Government plans, Military Intelligence and JAG roles, election fraud, the Insurrection Act, false flags, military involvement in elections, and secret tribunals—are not supported by credible evidence or established legal principles. The Military Justice Act of 2016 was intended to reform the UCMJ, improving fairness and efficiency within the military justice system, without superseding civil courts. Continuity of Government plans are designed to maintain government operations during emergencies and have no bearing on electoral outcomes or the peaceful transfer of power, which occurred lawfully and transparently from Trump to Biden.

Claims that Military Intelligence and the JAG Corps are conducting covert operations to support a former president are baseless. These entities operate under strict legal frameworks, with oversight from the Department of Defense and Congress, and their roles are well-defined and focused on national defense and legal compliance. Allegations of widespread election fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election have been thoroughly investigated and debunked by multiple audits, recounts, and court rulings, which confirmed the election's integrity. The military's involvement in overseeing or influencing elections is strictly prohibited, maintaining an apolitical stance and ensuring election security through civilian agencies like CISA.

The notion of secret military tribunals prosecuting civilians is legally untenable, as military tribunals are limited to service members and specific wartime contexts under the UCMJ. The U.S. legal system ensures transparency and due process, with civilian courts handling cases involving civilians. Historical precedents and legal safeguards prevent the abuse of executive power, ensuring significant actions such as invoking the Insurrection Act or declaring martial law are subject to public and congressional oversight. These speculative claims fail to withstand scrutiny when evaluated against the factual and legal realities of the U.S. political and military systems, which uphold democratic processes and the rule of law.