23 Oct, 2021


Please note: Complete Poll results and methodology information can be found online at law.marquette.edu/poll

MILWAUKEE – Even as hearings that could lead to President Donald Trump’s impeachment heat up, a new Marquette University Law School poll of Wisconsin registered voters finds consistent, if sometimes modest, shifts in public opinion away from support of impeachment and toward supporting Trump in next year’s presidential election

For example, Trump holds small leads over each of four top Democratic candidates for president in head-to-head matchups in the new survey, while three of the Democrats held small leads over Trump in the previous poll.

While the shifts in opinion on both impeachment and presidential preferences are not large, they are consistent across multiple questions in the poll. That includes increases in support for Trump’s work on foreign policy and the economy.

The poll was conducted Nov. 13-17, 2019. The sample included 801 registered voters in Wisconsin interviewed by cell phone or landline, with a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percentage points.

Opinions on impeachment overall

In the new poll, 40 percent of registered voters think that Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 53 percent do not think so and 6 percent say that they do not know.

In October, before public hearings began, 44 percent favored impeachment and removal from office, while 51 percent were opposed, and 4 percent said they didn’t know.

The November results also find that 52 percent say they believe Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Trump’s political rivals, while 29 percent believe Trump did not do this. Eighteen percent say they don’t know if Trump asked this or not.

Forty-one percent believe Trump withheld military aid to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate Trump’s political rivals, while 38 percent do not believe Trump did this and 21 percent say they don’t know.

Forty-two percent say that Trump did something seriously wrong in his dealings with Ukraine, 9 percent say he did something wrong but not seriously so, and 38 percent say Trump did nothing wrong. Eleven percent say they don’t know.

Views of impeachment by partisanship and attention to hearings

There are large partisan differences in views of impeachment, with Democrats much more supportive and Republicans much more opposed, and a plurality of independents opposed. Comparing the October and November polls, support for impeachment and removal declined slightly among Democrats, and opposition to removal rose slightly among Republicans. “Don’t know” responses rose among independents and Democrats and barely declined among Republicans.

Table 1: Impeach and remove Trump from office by party identification, November

  Impeach & remove Don’t think so Don’t know
Republican 4 94 2
Lean Republican 7 92 1
Independent 36 47 15
Lean Democrat 73 20 8
Democrat 81 11 7

Table 2: Impeach and remove Trump from office by party identification, October

  Impeach & remove Don’t think so Don’t know
Republican 6 92 2
Lean Republican 9 88 3
Independent 33 55 10
Lean Democrat 78 16 6
Democrat 88 8 3

Partisans are reacting differently to the testimony and other evidence, with Democrats much more likely than Republicans to say that Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate his political rivals. Opinion among independents tends to fall in between the results in the partisan groups.

Table 3: Did Trump ask for investigation of political rivals?

  Yes, did ask No, did not ask Don’t know
Republican 29 51 20
Lean Republican 29 53 17
Independent 41 24 33
Lean Democrat 81 8 10
Democrat 80 8 12

While about 3 in 10 Republicans thus think that Trump asked for an investigation (Table 3), only about 1 in 10 Republicans think Trump withheld military aid to pressure the Ukrainian president into an investigation (Table 4, below). Eight in 10 Democrats believe Trump asked for an investigation, and 3 in 4 think that he withheld aid to exert pressure for an investigation. Forty-one percent of independents think Trump asked for an investigation, while 30 percent think he withheld aid as pressure. Independents are the most likely group to say they don’t know if Trump did either of these things, with 33 percent saying they don’t know whether he asked for an investigation and 41 percent saying they don’t know whether he withheld aid.

Table 4: Did Trump withhold aid to pressure Ukraine for investigation of political rivals?

  Yes, held up aid No, did not hold up aid Don’t know
Republican 8 70 21
Lean Republican 11 70 19
Independent 30 26 41
Lean Democrat 75 10 15
Democrat 77 7 16

Thirty-two percent of all registered voters say that they are following the news and testimony in the impeachment hearings very closely, with another 33 percent saying they are following fairly closely. Twenty percent are not following too closely, and 14 percent are following not at all closely.

There are no statistically significant differences in attention to the hearings by partisanship, although independents are more likely to say they are not following closely at all.

Table 5: Attention to hearings by party identification

  Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely
Republican 33 36 18 12
Lean Republican 29 34 20 16
Independent 20 26 25 28
Lean Democrat 32 34 21 14
Democrat 39 30 19 11

Those who are following the hearings most closely are much more likely to have an opinion about the evidence than are those not paying close attention. Of those paying very close attention, 61 percent say that Trump asked for an investigation, 33 percent say he did not ask, and only 5 percent say they don’t know. By contrast among those not following the hearings at all closely, 34 percent say Trump asked, 23 percent say he did not ask, and 41 percent say they don’t know.

Table 6: Did Trump ask for investigation of political rivals? By attention to hearings

  Yes, did ask No, did not ask Don’t know
Very closely 61 33 5
Fairly closely 56 30 13
Not too closely 46 26 28
Not at all closely 34 23 41

A similar pattern holds with attention and opinion on whether Trump withheld aid to pressure Ukraine for an investigation. Both the percentage saying he did do this and the percentage saying he did not are higher among the most attentive, and both percentages are lower among the least attentive. Among the most attentive, only 4 percent say they don’t know, while over half of the least attentive say they don’t know.

Table 7: Did Trump withhold aid to pressure Ukraine for investigation of political rivals? By attention to hearings

  Yes, held up aid No, did not hold up aid Don’t know
Very closely 51 45 4
Fairly closely 46 40 13
Not too closely 32 35 34
Not at all closely 20 23 55

General election matchups

Wisconsin voters were asked whom they would support as of now in the presidential election, Trump or each of four leading candidates for the Democratic nomination. Trump has 3-point leads over former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, a 5-point margin over Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and an 8-point lead over Mayor Pete Buttigieg. In October, Biden, Sanders, and Warren had small leads and Buttigieg trailed by 2 percentage points.

A summary of the general election results in this November poll is shown in Table 8. For comparison, the October results are shown in Table 9 and the August results in Table 10. In August, Trump was tested against Sen. Kamala Harris rather than Buttigieg. 

Table 8: November General Election Matchups

Matchup Pct Matchup Pct Matchup Pct Matchup Pct
Biden 44 Sanders 45 Warren 43 Buttigieg 39
Trump 47 Trump 48 Trump 48 Trump 47
Neither 5 Neither 5 Neither 4 Neither 6
Don’t know 2 Don’t know 2 Don’t know 4 Don’t know 7

Table 9: October General Election Matchups

Matchup Pct Matchup Pct Matchup Pct Matchup Pct
Biden 50 Sanders 48 Warren 47 Buttigieg 43
Trump 44 Trump 46 Trump 46 Trump 45
Neither 3 Neither 4 Neither 4 Neither 5
Don’t know 3 Don’t know 2 Don’t know 2 Don’t know 7

Table 10: August General Election Matchups

Matchup Pct Matchup Pct Matchup Pct Matchup Pct
Biden 51 Sanders 48 Warren 45 Harris 44
Trump 42 Trump 44 Trump 45 Trump 44
Neither 4 Neither 5 Neither 5 Neither 6
Don’t know 2 Don’t know 2 Don’t know 5 Don’t know 6

In the new poll, two additional general election matchups tested Trump against Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Sen. Cory Booker. Each of these was asked of half the polling sample, and they have a margin of error of 5.7 and 5.8 percent, respectively. While the half-samples were selected randomly, the half with Booker versus Trump has significantly more younger voters than the half with Klobuchar. Sanders also does better in the Booker half-sample, although no other candidates do significantly better in either half-sample.

Table 11: General Election Matches

Match Pct Match Pct
Klobuchar 36 Booker 45
Trump 50 Trump 44
Neither 7 Neither 4
Don’t know 5 Don’t know 5

Vote by party identification, November vs. October

None of the shifts in vote preference between October and November reaches statistical significance. The shifts in the balance of the vote are largely due to slightly greater partisan loyalty among Republicans and slightly lower loyalty among Democrats. The party balance between October and November samples was unchanged, with 45 percent identifying themselves as Republican or leaning Republican and 44 percent identifying themselves as Democrat or leaning Democrat in each month.

Table 12: Biden vs. Trump by Party, November vs. October

Party ID November October
Biden Trump Neither DK Biden Trump Neither DK
Republican 3 93 2 1 7 90 1 2
Lean Republican 11 86 2 1 13 80 4 4
Independent 33 39 22 3 42 33 16 7
Lean Democrat 81 7 5 5 86 7 4 3
Democrat 88 6 3 3 97 2 1 0

Table 13: Sanders vs Trump by Party, November vs. October

Party ID November October
Sanders Trump Neither DK Sanders Trump Neither DK
Republican 4 94 1 1 5 92 2 1
Lean Republican 7 89 3 0 7 84 9 0
Independent 35 42 16 6 41 38 11 8
Lean Democrat 83 6 9 2 88 5 2 4
Democrat 90 5 2 1 94 3 2 0

Table 14: Warren vs. Trump by Party, November vs. October

Party ID November October
Warren Trump Neither DK Warren Trump Neither DK
Republican 2 94 1 1 6 90 3 1
Lean Republican 6 87 4 3 10 82 8 0
Independent 34 43 14 10 33 40 17 9
Lean Democrat 81 8 6 5 88 5 2 5
Democrat 88 5 3 2 95 3 1 0

Table 15: Buttigieg vs. Trump, November vs. October

Party ID November October
Buttigieg Trump Neither DK Buttigieg Trump Neither DK
Republican 2 91 2 4 6 89 3 3
Lean Republican 10 82 3 5 8 79 9 5
Independent 25 35 16 22 26 34 21 17
Lean Democrat 79 10 7 4 81 6 4 9
Democrat 78 7 5 6 87 5 3 6

Democratic presidential primary candidates

Democratic presidential primary preference items were asked of those who said that they will vote in the Democratic primary in April. That sample size is 340, with a margin of error of +/-6.4 percentage points.

Among those who say they will vote in the Democratic primary, Biden receives the most support. Biden is the first choice of 30 percent, followed by Sanders at 17 percent, Warren at 15 percent, and Pete Buttigieg at 13 percent. Booker and Klobuchar receive 3 percent each. Harris and Yang are the top choices of 2 percent each, while all other candidates receive 1 percent or less.

The complete results for the Democratic primary are shown in Table 16.

Almost two-thirds of Democratic primary voters, 62 percent, say they might change their minds about their primary choice, while 37 percent say their mind is made up.

Among the Democratic primary sample, favorability of candidates is shown in Table 17.

Table 16: First and second choice in Democratic primary (among Democratic primary voters)
Response First Choice Second Choice
Joe Biden 30 15
Bernie Sanders 17 18
Elizabeth Warren 15 19
Pete Buttigieg 13 10
Cory Booker 3 3
Amy Klobuchar 3 8
Kamala Harris 2 4
Andrew Yang 2 2
Tom Steyer 1 1
Marianne Williamson 1 0
Steve Bullock 1 0
Michael Bennet 0 0
Julián Castro 0 0
John Delaney 0 1
Someone else (VOL) 1 1
Would not vote (VOL) 1 0
Don’t know 10 10
Refused 1 1

Table 17: Favorability ratings of six candidates among Democratic primary sample

  Favorable Unfavorable Haven’t heard enough Don’t know
Joe Biden 67 20 6 6
Bernie Sanders 67 24 7 2
Elizabeth Warren 56 19 21 4
Pete Buttigieg 45 11 37 7
Cory Booker 36 14 39 11
Amy Klobuchar 27 16 45 12

Trump job approval

Forty-seven percent of registered voters approve of the job Trump is doing as president, with 51 percent disapproving. That is little changed from October, when 46 percent approved and 51 percent disapproved.

Fifty-five percent of those polled approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, while 43 percent disapprove. In October, 51 percent approved and 45 percent disapproved.

Forty-four percent of those polled approve of Trump’s handling of foreign policy, while 52 percent disapprove. In October, 37 percent approved and 59 percent disapproved.

Thirty-seven percent say that Trump’s foreign policies have helped America’s standing in the world, while 53 percent say his policies have hurt the standing of the country.

Twenty percent say that the decision to remove most U.S. troops from Syria strengthens the United States, while 38 percent say this weakens the country and 34 percent say it doesn’t make much difference. An additional 8 percent say they don’t know.

Economic outlook and issues

Wisconsin registered voters hold a positive view of the recent performance of the economy, with 42 percent saying the economy has improved over the past year, 18 percent saying it has worsened, and 37 percent saying it has stayed the same. In October, 41 percent said the economy had improved, 20 percent said it had worsened, and 36 percent said it has stayed the same.

Looking ahead to the next year, 35 percent say the economy will improve, while 24 percent think it will get worse and 37 percent say it will remain the same. That reverses the more negative outlook in October, when 25 percent said the economy would improve, 30 percent said it would worsen, and 39 percent said it would remain the same.

Chronic wasting disease

Deer hunters in Wisconsin are more aware than are non-hunters of chronic wasting disease, which affects deer through much of the state. 

Table 18: Awareness of CWD by hunter or non-hunter

  A lot Some Not much Nothing at all
Deer hunter 59 30 7 3
Not deer hunter 25 36 20 16

A majority of hunters approve of the job the Department of Natural Resources is doing handling CWD. A plurality of non-hunters also approve, but non-hunters are more than twice as likely as hunters to say they don’t know how DNR is doing in addressing CWD.

Table 19: Approve DNR handling of CWD by hunter or non-hunter

  Approve Disapprove Don’t know
Deer hunter 56 29 15
Not deer hunter 45 16 38

Hunters and non-hunters alike see CWD as a threat to the future of deer hunting in Wisconsin.

Table 20: See CWD as threat to future of deer hunting by hunter or non-hunter

  Yes No Don’t know
Deer hunter 65 31 4
Not deer hunter 62 18 19

Opinion of the governor and legislature

Governor Tony Evers’ job approval stands at 47 percent, with disapproval at 42. Ten percent say they don’t have an opinion. In October, 52 percent approved, 34 percent disapproved, and 13 percent lacked an opinion.

Approval of the job the Wisconsin legislature is doing is 48 percent and disapproval is 39 percent, with 13 percent saying they don’t know. When last asked in August, 52 percent approved, 38 percent disapproved, and 8 percent lacked an opinion.

On Nov. 5, the state Senate voted to reject Evers’ nominee for secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. Twenty-two percent say rejecting the nominee was the right thing for the Senate to do, 25 percent say it was the wrong thing to do, and 47 percent said they haven’t heard anything about this. An additional 6 percent say they don’t have an opinion.

Favorability rating of elected officials

Table 21 presents the favorability ratings of elected officials in Wisconsin and the percentage of respondents who haven’t heard enough or say they don’t know.

Table 21: Favorability ratings of elected officials

  Favorable Unfavorable Haven’t heard enough Don’t know
Donald Trump 46 50 2 1
Tony Evers 43 41 12 3
Ron Johnson 39 29 24 7
Tammy Baldwin 39 43 12 5

About the Marquette Law School Poll

The Marquette Law School Poll is the most extensive statewide polling project in Wisconsin history. This poll interviewed 801 registered Wisconsin voters by landline or cell phone, Nov. 13-17, 2019. The margin of error is +/-4.1 percentage points for the full sample.

The Democratic presidential candidate preference items were asked of Democrats, independents who lean Democratic, and independents who do not lean to either party. That sample size is 340 with a margin of error of +/-6.4 percentage points.

Two presidential matchup questions were asked of half-samples. Klobuchar vs. Trump was asked of 400 respondents, with a margin of error of +/- 5.7 percentage points. Booker vs. Trump was asked of 401 respondents, with a margin of error of +/- 5.8 percentage points.

The partisan makeup of the sample, including those who lean to a party, is 45 percent Republican, 44 percent Democratic, and 10 percent independent. The partisan makeup of the sample, excluding those who lean to a party, is 28 percent Republican, 28 percent Democratic, and 42 percent independent.

Since January 2017, the long-term partisan balance, including those who lean to a party, in the Marquette poll has been 45 percent Republican and 45 percent Democratic, with 9 percent independent. Partisanship, excluding those who lean, has been 30 percent Republican and 29 percent Democratic, with 40 percent independent.

The entire questionnaire, methodology statement, full results and breakdowns by demographic groups are available at law.marquette.edu/poll/results-and-data.

About Kevin Conway

Kevin Conway

Kevin is the associate director for university communication in the Office of Marketing and Communication. Contact Kevin at (414) 288-4745 or kevin.m.conway@marquette.edu.



Please follow and like us:


  1. You will get the exact same information about the origins of Zuckerberg aka Greenberg from the radio program with Douglas Gabriel and Leader Technologies CEO Michael McKibben. Zuck is a total impostor and he’s taking on water FAST. The truth about him has been well distributed for about a year. Zuck’s day is coming….

      1. Same here, Toni….
        Will we ever really know? Best I try to do is keep a positive attitude. I refuse to believe I have been on this earth for 74 years to have it all end in disappointment.

  2. Off topic, but I am placing this here because it’s a blockbuster:

    From Jim Stone:

    CIA whistleblower reveals Mark Zukerberg as a controlled fraud
    A dossier has been released by an individual who was both a CIA agent and Mark Zukerberg’s lover during his freshmen year at college. This individual has been back ground checked along with the story, and it all rings true. This individual, who stayed with the project until recently, has stated Zukerberg was used to front Facebook because he was a simpleton not able to understand how he was being used as the front man for a totally CIA backed and run intelligence gathering program. It was this individual and a group of government officials who fabricated, produced and directed Mark throughout the entire fraudulent creation of the Facebook propaganda story at Harvard. These claims are explosive and allege that the entire fraudulent social media network called Facebook was always controlled by the government through the people who were at Harvard directing Mark.

    I have edited this to “cut to the chase” and even after doing so it is a very lengthy read. If you really want all the details about Mark’s character the entire dossier is at the link. What I have here with the fluff edited out will be a much more interesting read than the original. I understand why the writer went to such detail (which I edited) because it’s personal experience but for the average reader it will be an obstacle to the core message.

    A more detailed introduction as well as the total unedited dossier is is at Aim4truth.org which received the dossier and confirmed it’s legitimacy.


    To Every Facebook User,

    Mark Zuckerberg, and all of us who were there from the beginning, are lying to you and using your personal life as a government-controlled experiment in brain-washing and mind-control – basically a weaponized system of the military (CIA especially) that got out of control. At this point, Mark Zuckerberg has lost control of a company that he never really owned or operated. Truly, anyone who has ever worked with Mark knows that his mind is a blank and that he is nothing more than a parrot for the government handlers who created him. Mark is incapable of running a McDonald’s, let alone one of the most powerful companies in the world. Not even his name is real and his identity has always been covered up. Mark was chosen as child for a CIA training program because his relatives were some of the people creating the program.

    I am not making excuses for Mark, but his choices have not been his own. Yes, he has become an evil sociopath who once believed in his heart-of-heart that if he decided he wanted to be president, all he had to do is say he wanted the job and “Facebook” would deliver the election to him. This is the level of brain-washing Mark is at – he is not in contact with reality. You might think that a madman who could think he could become president – because he “said so” – would be discovered and accused as a fraud. Well, that has happened repeatedly with the other three teams that were working at Harvard, under Harvard president Larry Summers, to create what DARPA and In-Q-Tel wanted the most – a cyber-weapon that could control the minds of anyone that could be lured into it. Facebook was always a military weapon – just like Eric Schmidt’s Google which was incubated in the same fashion that Facebook was. Mark was a patsy, but a ruthless, heartless, cold-blooded non-human patsy. He became this way through the brain-washing he received in his High School years by a DARPA program called TIA that needed a “boy-genius” to be the front man. This scam would make Mark into a global model of the young, cool, irreverent computer geniuses that “rule the world” and lead everyone to a cyber-god of artificial intelligence. Mark was just an unwitting puppet at first – I felt sorry for him.

    I remember when I first became room-mates with Mark in our sophomore year at Harvard. We were in Kirkland House, on JFK Street and had to endure Dustin and Andrew. Mark hated them because they prevented us from sleeping together, even though we were in the same room. It was frustrating and kept our relationship secret. Little did I know that the thing that drew me to Mark, a certain openness for listening to anyone, also made him extremely promiscuous with both sexes.

    Mark had no morals, conscience, or shame. He also chased women on Craig’s List and would sometimes just disappear to rendezvous with them. He was like a blank slate that simply echoes whatever was happening in his environment. I loved and hated this aspect of his personality but later found out that he, and his brother and cousin, were all the same way due to the brain-washing programs they were subjected to during high school. If certain people spoke to Mark in person or on the phone, he would drop everything and do whatever they told him to do. Certain people had more power and effect over him. I eventually found out, from Mark breaking down and crying, that the brain-washing was permanent and was all part of the “position” these people had promised to create for Mark. He didn’t even know what this “position” was or entailed.

    But one thing Mark was sure of, he was only “placed” at Harvard “for a while” until his “position” became available to him. Mark was certain that this promise of a position included a great deal of money and power-aphrodisiacs to an incurable narcissist

    I must admit that I came under the power of Mark’s surety that he didn’t need Harvard, a degree, or good grades. Mark eventually dropped out of Harvard at the end of our sophomore year and did become filthy rich and more powerful than he could have imagined. I also admit that I rode on Mark’s success to become quite wealthy myself. All four of the members of the club Mark eventually named – “The Fellowship” – became wealthy by no means of our own – we simply knew Mark’s secrets.

    Mark Greenberg (Zuckerberg) did not write one single line of programming source code for Facebook. Those are lies and propaganda generated by his government, military handlers. Everyone knows that the Winkelvoss twins (Aaron and Cameron) won a $65 million dollar lawsuit settlement against Mark because they knew that their little HarvardConnection (HC) piece was just adjunct code attached to the original stolen source code – which was given to Mark by Professor James Chandler and IBM. That $65 million bit of dirty knowledge was pretty profitable for a couple of cute Harvard Crew rower jocks with no interest in me.

    Mark simply had others adjust the code into what was a government-sponsored military weaponization of a cyber-warfare project directed by the President of Harvard, Larry Summers. Even Summer’s himself had his own budding student and staff directory being developed by the Harvard computer staff called “Facebook.” Mark didn’t even create the name!

    I believe now, since Mark was well-aware of the evil intentions of the government, that he has committed crimes of many types with the clear, pre-meditated intention of harming every user of Facebook. That is why Mark let Facebook be used to manipulate elections, he has no moral core. I personally saw the “template” that Hillary ordered that uses Facebook to manipulate voters to win elections for her. Given the amount of election interference by Big-Tech in 2016, I became a reluctant believer in miracles.

    I have seen the truth concerning the supposed “Russian Interference” and can tell you that it was all made up and, in fact, was the exact opposite of what the media reported. I have seen so many illegal actions of Facebook that I am indeed complicit with the crimes. That is one of the reasons I must remain anonymous. But I assure you, if I testified, Mark and I would be locked up along with the other members of the Fellowship as well as many, many other Facebook employees.

    Though I will not tell you who the members of Mark Zuckerberg’s “Fellowship” group were, I can point out that all of the original members of Facebook knew from the beginning that it was a military project for cyber warfare mind-control. Everything done from the beginning was an experiment to see just how far a social media platform could go to “conquer the enemy” through behavioral manipulation with electronic warfare. The idea that Mark wanted to connect all college students in America was a novel idea that was far from the true intention of mind-control of every user in the world.

    Free platforms like Google, Gmail, Facebook, and the rest were confidence tricks to get users to experiment on. My old buddy, Sean Parker, an early member of Facebook has “confessed all” to the media and specifically told the truth that Facebook was meant as a cyber-drug to create and control addicts – digital addicts. As Sean said, we knew from the beginning it was harming every user and that is why we never let our friends or our children use these systems – it harms them tremendously and was the original intent of the media. Mark and I were told by representatives of DARPA that that was the intent of Facebook from its inception.

    The U. S. Patriot Act allows the military to consider every American a possible terrorist or enemy warfighter until proven otherwise. Every person on the Internet, which was also created by DARPA, is considered a cyber-terrorist and the military sees it as their job to create systems to surveil, target, disarm, and aggressively remote control the user. I hated the idea from the first time I heard of it. Personally, I have never used Facebook and don’t let anyone I love use it.

    Many of the original Facebook players and the Fellowship have been paid off in huge bribes to keep us quiet. CIA secrecy agreements grow on every plant at Facebook, but the Facebook insiders are turning against Mark anyway for many good reasons. The board of directors wants him fired. Mark’s British controllers sent Baron Richard Allen to rein Mark in, but he failed miserably. Even Sir Nick Clegg, x-deputy prime minister of Britain was sent to shut Mark up, but to no avail. Even the second-in-charge of Britain couldn’t stop Mark and his non-stop stupidity. Mark opens his mouth, it cost the company billions. Mark testifies, and everyone finds out that he doesn’t know a single thing about “his” company.

    I can honestly say that, at this point, there are no “insiders” who have any faith in Mark to run the company, or to even speak in public. We believe that even after Larry Summers, the father of Facebook, who planted Sheryl Sandberg at Facebook to shut Mark up and stop revealing that Facebook is the tool of the Democrat agenda for globalism, cannot fix the company. This is one of the points I am most angry about. Mark has become, over the years, no friend of America. In fact, he hates America and rants on about how proud he is to avoid U. S. taxes and to cheat the American people – whom he considers to be animals.
    Mark believes he is a higher being – above human beings. He now believes it was all his work that made Facebook. He is completely deluded by his own propaganda, which is nothing but lies. It is because Mark is now a danger to himself and the world that I must tell the true story of how Facebook and social media have become the enemies of Americans and the world.

    Mark was shocked when he received an acceptance letter from Harvard, before he had applied. No test scores, interviews, or pre-requisites were required. His government “programming” had made his acceptance a given. Harvard wanted Mark, and Mark did what he was told. So, when the president of Harvard, Larry Summers, called Mark into his office early in his freshman year, Mark was not so surprised. He knew he would have to pay the piper. Summers asked Mark to start a group to work on the social media project – a supposed competition among teachers and students to win a government contract.

    The ostensible goal was to create a social directory and Harvard where people could share in small groups. The real intent was to create a social network to manipulate the world. Mark liked the idea but was too lazy to do anything about it. He stuck his nose into the others’ camps to see what they were doing, but he himself just talked about it with good programmers and made them promises-thus, numerous lawsuits ensued from those promises.

    Larry Summers continued to call Mark into his office for updates, so Mark just lied. Occasionally, others would be in the office with Larry Summers, but one person stood out and showed up at many more meetings in the future. This man was obviously the person in charge of this project. His name was a former Harvard Law Professor James Chandler. He boasted that he was one of the top idea people for DARPA and that he had actually developed lower level programming languages for the Army. He pretended to be interested in me, but I could tell that was a political act. Guys like me can just sense these things.

    Over time, it came out that Summers and Chandler had much bigger plans for the social media project and had some outside sources of help to complete the project. Mark found it odd that Summers, Chandler, and eventually Sheryl Sandberg did not put much pressure on Mark to produce but were interested in everything Mark was learning from spying on the other groups for almost two years.

    One day, Mark was called to Summers office in Massachusetts Hall to meet a most unusual man. His name was Andrew Marshall and he was the head of the Naval Intelligence Net Assessment Office. Mark was terrified of Marshall from the beginning. Marshall had Mark sign a government secrecy agreement, and other security agreements before he told Mark the ultimate military nature of what the Harvard Facebook project entailed. Mark, and Harvard, were simply being used as incubation think tanks as a cover for a military project that needed a corporate face. Professor Chandler said he had discovered the source code that would accomplish the seemingly impossible task of making a social directory “scalable” to billions of people.

    We have not spoken up before now, but I personally cannot hold my silence any longer. I must speak out openly about the criminal surveillance Mark does through Facebook because it gets worse every day. Mark’s handlers tell him to allow more surveillance even though security breaches, selling customer data, allowing for spying by CIA, NSA, DIA, GCHQ, MI6, Five Eyes, lying to Congress, meddling in elections, allowing everyone access to Facebook data, censoring conservatives, being a platform for the Democrat party, and many other charges have been brought against Facebook in other countries and America. Mark will not listen to me or anyone else about stopping the insanity. I believe he is unstable and not fit to run Facebook.

    When I saw the $1.5 billion from George Soros and the Atlantic Council bring in the AI system (some built by the Cambridge Digital Forensic Research Laboratory) used in Europe to stop free speech, I had had enough. It was then that I knew Mark was truly being used by evil forces and that even he couldn’t stop it. He seemed to have a death wish to destroy Facebook and reveal some of its evil intent. This was ruining the company I was trying to help run. There were no other avenues that I could take the company down that would deter Mark from the total destruction of Facebook. Mark had been told to win the country for Hillary, or kill the company trying. He was making astounding mistakes that showed the truth of the evil foundations of Facebook.
    Our secrets were gushing out like blood from a slaughtered pig. I kept talking to Mark, trying to change his mind, but he became more insane and impossible to talk to. Mark gave up control of the company to a crowd stumbling over themselves to take personal credit for Facebook’s “turnaround”, including Highlands Group, DHS, DoD, Naval Intelligence, SERCO, Crown Agents, IBM Eclipse Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Google, Alphabet, Schmidt, Sandberg, Thiel, Hoffman, Breyer, Louie, Ketterson, Goldman Sachs, Blankfein, Dimon, Microsoft, Gates, Allen, Thompson, Balmer, Ozzi, Nadella, Milner, Obama, Pritzker, Hillary, Kutcher, Bono, Soros, Lamont, the Queen’s men Richard Allan and Nick Clegg, and the rest of the gang who are eager to clean up Mark’s messes. I could see that Facebook was on its last leg but I couldn’t understand why Mark would kill the company.

    Then, one day I realized what Mark was doing with the obvious crash-landing of Facebook. He was being told that he would get a “deal” with the government charges against the company and would not have to pay billions in fines. The deal would be like the government’s deal with Standard Oil when they were charged with anti-trust, monopoly issues. They were made to break up into seven different companies – all of which became as big or bigger than Standard Oil itself. Splitting up the monopoly made the owners seven times richer. That is what Mark is doing. He wants Facebook to be broken up instead of answer to the crimes it has willingly committed. Corporations can simply go bankrupt, dissolve, crash and burn, or do what Google did when it created a new company called Alphabet who is now called the Mother of Google and is worth even more. How a child becomes the parent is a new one for me. Eric Schmidt showed Mark exactly what to do and please remember that Eric Schmidt was also Mark’s mentor and the first person to invest hundreds of millions in Facebook before it went public. Eric Schmidt made billions off of his insider trader knowledge from the Highlands Forum investment in Facebook. Britain’s offshore banks feed them all with endless money laundering and “deal flow” as long as the Queen gets her cut. All us insiders know this global money game is totally rigged to perpetuate this evil power. I don’t want to go to my grave knowing that I didn’t do something to atone for my sins in perpetuating these lies.

    I believe that Mark is doing everything in his power to get President Donald Trump deposed, just as he did everything he could to try to help get Hillary elected. If Trump continues, the globalist lose. Mark is a true globalist; he is not an American anymore. Mark essentially does not have a plan for Facebook, he simply does what he is told and always has. Mark has made no decisions on his own – not one. This current decision to destroy Facebook from the inside out is nothing more than Mark’s handlers using Mark in their last hours of power. Trump will win 2020 and Facebook will die. The only question left is whether Trump will charge Mark Fakerberg with the crimes he committed.

    I, for one, want Mark in jail along with his handlers. I have personally been threatened and intimidated by these Big-Tech monsters since I met Mark Zuckerberg (Greenberg) – a person who truly does not even know his own name or who he is and yet is one of the richest people on earth. Mark did not earn nor deserve a single penny he has been given. Mark is a card-board cut-out who has lost his way and is completely delusional at this point.

    As a Facebook insider I demand Mark be fired and all assets taken from him due to his non-stop lying to stockholders and Facebook users. The Board of Directors, underwriters and institutional investors all know about the secret government contracts that have been propping up the company since the beginning, but most average shareholders do not. It is a government-owned and operated military psy-ops weapon that has gotten out of control and been used for treasonous purposes and for seditious actions against the American people.

    After she got sick of the lies, Mark’s former speech writer Katherine Losse described in her 2004 book The Boy Kings that Facebook has stolen personal data and sold it, created a “dark” profile on every user and sold it to everyone who would pay the price, created secret files of compromising photos, allowed all government agencies to access all user data, breached every user agreement, lied continuously to all users, built in back-doors and zero-day programs for the military, and many other unethical, immoral and illegal activities. Did Mark Zuckerberg (Greenberg) willing and with intent allow these criminal activities to go on unchecked on Facebook? -You bet he did. And he is still doing it and getting worse every day. Like other Facebook insiders, I want no part of this squelching of free speech or illegal surveillance activities or the purposeful experimentation on users to develop new and better means to electronically control, manipulate, and imprison people.

    I have stood against Mark’s immoral and evil actions since our freshman year at Harvard. Nothing has changed, except that Mark has gotten worse and his handlers have become so demanding that they are condemning Facebook to the trash heap and creating the circumstances for Mark to become even richer and more insane. His next projects include a system much like what Eric Schmidt has created for China, a social credit system that controls the freedom of every American.

    When Facebook is broken up, the new companies will have the Eric Schmidt “Dragonfly” social credit system built in. Mark wants to be like Eric and control the world from a digital Ivory Tower and oversee the depopulation of the earth. These maniacs believe they are “above the human race” and are actually higher beings sent to the earth to control the masses. From my experience, these attitudes are extremely prevalent with Silicon Valley tech giants – and they make me sick.

    The time has come to simply end the fake social media experiments and call them governmental black-ops projects. I personally know most of these cyber tech-lords and I can testify that they do not possess the tech skills they claim founded their companies. They are simply tech thieves, like Mark Zuckerberg, who need to pay back those they stole from and be put in jail for their crimes. I personally am willing to testify without immunity and suffer whatever consequences I deserve for knowing these things and never bringing them forth until now. I know that the corruption is so great in Washington D. C. that I would not stand a chance of bringing forth this information without being squelched, killed, or silenced like I have seen done to others.

    I suggest that the new Attorney General simply read this letter, investigate and then ask Mark Greensberg to program a single line of coherent code. When he cannot, lock him up.

    As it turns out, President Clinton signed a treaty with Ukraine that allows an American president to ask Ukraine’s assistance in any investigation for any reason. There’s no way they have any grounds for impeachment of Trump. The treaty makes any request for the cooperation of Ukraine by Trump 100 percent legit, even stuff they have tried to prosecute him for. See this on the Congress web site
    This is being buried to enable the sham impeachment of Trump, which was totally failing even without this particular item being known about. It is very important to spread the word with this, because CNN sure as heck is not going to tell anyone that the impeachment inquiry cannot be anything at all but over.

    Like I said in the next item, they won’t stop trying to impeach no matter what, even after running over tire rippers and driving the flats down to


Leave a Reply

Get Exclusive Updates from James Fetzer in Your Email


Good Day!

Would you like to get my latest blog posts and other news and updates?

It's FREE! Simply enter your best email below and you will get notified as soon as they are published.

* We never share your information or spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.


It's FREE! Simply enter your best email below and you will get notified as soon as they are published.

Good Day!

Would you like to get my latest blog posts and other news and updates?

* We never share your information or spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.