19 thoughts on “News/Politics 11-22-21

  1. Garbage from garbage.


    But the media hack already knew that.


  2. “The Dangerous Experiment on Teen Girls

    The preponderance of the evidence suggests that social media is causing real damage to adolescents.”


    “Social media gets blamed for many of America’s ills, including the polarization of our politics and the erosion of truth itself. But proving that harms have occurred to all of society is hard. Far easier to show is the damage to a specific class of people: adolescent girls, whose rates of depression, anxiety, and self-injury surged in the early 2010s, as social-media platforms proliferated and expanded. Much more than for boys, adolescence typically heightens girls’ self-consciousness about their changing body and amplifies insecurities about where they fit in their social network. Social media—particularly Instagram, which displaces other forms of interaction among teens, puts the size of their friend group on public display, and subjects their physical appearance to the hard metrics of likes and comment counts—takes the worst parts of middle school and glossy women’s magazines and intensifies them.

    One major question, though, is how much proof parents, regulators, and legislators need before intervening to protect vulnerable young people. If Americans do nothing until researchers can show beyond a reasonable doubt that Instagram and its owner, Facebook (which now calls itself Meta), are hurting teen girls, these platforms might never be held accountable and the harm could continue indefinitely. The preponderance of the evidence now available is disturbing enough to warrant action.

    Facebook has dominated the social-media world for nearly a decade and a half. Its flagship product supplanted earlier platforms and quickly became ubiquitous in schools and American life more broadly. When it bought its emerging rival Instagram in 2012, Facebook didn’t take a healthy platform and turn it toxic. Mark Zuckerberg’s company actually made few major changes in its first years of owning the photo-sharing app, whose users have always skewed younger and more female. The toxicity comes from the very nature of a platform that girls use to post photographs of themselves and await the public judgments of others.

    The available evidence suggests that Facebook’s products have probably harmed millions of girls. If public officials want to make that case, it could go like this:

    1. Harm to teens is occurring on a massive scale.

    For several years, Jean Twenge, the author of iGen, and I have been collecting the academic research on the relationship between teen mental health and social media. Something terrible has happened to Gen Z, the generation born after 1996. Rates of teen depression and anxiety have gone up and down over time, but it is rare to find an “elbow” in these data sets––a substantial and sustained change occurring within just two or three years. Yet when we look at what happened to American teens in the early 2010s, we see many such turning points, usually sharper for girls. The data for adolescent depression are noteworthy:”

    “Some have argued that these increases reflect nothing more than Gen Z’s increased willingness to disclose their mental-health problems. But researchers have found corresponding increases in measurable behaviors such as suicide (for both sexes), and emergency-department admissions for self-harm (for girls only). From 2010 to 2014, rates of hospital admission for self-harm did not increase at all for women in their early 20s, or for boys or young men, but they doubled for girls ages 10 to 14.

    Similar increases occurred at the same time for girls in Canada for mood disorders and for self-harm. Girls in the U.K. also experienced very large increases in anxiety, depression, and self-harm (with much smaller increases for boys).

    2. The timing points to social media.

    National surveys of American high-school students show that only about 63 percent reported using a “social networking site” on a daily basis back in 2010. But as smartphone ownership increased, access became easier and visits became more frequent. By 2014, 80 percent of high-school students said they used a social-media platform on a daily basis, and 24 percent said that they were online “almost constantly.” Of course, teens had long been texting each other, but from 2010 to 2014, high-school students moved much more of their lives onto social-media platforms. Notably, girls became much heavier users of the new visually oriented platforms, primarily Instagram (which by 2013 had more than 100 million users), followed by Snapchat, Pinterest, and Tumblr.

    Boys are glued to their screens as well, but they aren’t using social media as much; they spend far more time playing video games. When a boy steps away from the console, he does not spend the next few hours worrying about what other players are saying about him. Instagram, in contrast, can loom in a girl’s mind even when the app is not open, driving hours of obsessive thought, worry, and shame.

    3. The victims point to Instagram.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. VDH gets it.

    “The New Blue Confederacy ”


    “Why are progressive regions of the country—especially in the old major liberal cities (e.g., Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle)—institutionalizing de facto racial quotas through “proportional representation” based on “disparate impact”? Why are they promoting ethnic and racial chauvinism, such as allowing college students to select the race of their own roommates, calibrating graduation ceremonies by skin color and tribe, segregating campus “safe spaces” by race, and banning literature that does not meet commissariat diktats?

    Why are they turning into one-party political fiefdoms separating the rich and poor, increasingly resembling feudal societies as members of the middle class flee or disappear? What does it mean that they are becoming more and more intolerant in their cancel culture, and quasi-religious intolerance of dissent, on issues from climate change and abortion-on-demand to critical race theory and wokeness?

    Isn’t it strange that there are entire states and regions wholly reliant on the money and power of “one-crop” Big Tech monopolies? And why, in the 21st century no less, are Democratic-controlled counties, cities, and entire states nullifying federal law?

    In archetypical “states’ rights” fashion, blue-state “sanctuary cities” are as defiant of the federal government as the Old South was when it claimed immunity from federal jurisdiction—all the way from the nullification crisis of 1830-1833 to George Wallace in 1963 blocking the door at the University of Alabama.

    Ask yourself: in the decades following the conclusion of the Civil War in April 1865, how might the reunited American public have answered the following hypothetical questions:

    One-hundred-fifty-six years from now, in the year 2021, where in the United States will Americans most likely discriminate on the basis of race?

    Where will citizens squabble over the racial percentages of ancestral bloodlines, and schools admit or reject students in part on the DNA of an applicant?

    Where will free speech and expression become most endangered?

    Where will states’ rights boosters deny federal officers the right to enforce federal law?

    Where will the major cities be the most unsafe and the middle classes the most embattled? And from which regions of the country will people flee, and to which will they migrate?

    Of course, in the century-and-a-half since the end of the Civil War, we have become in a certain sense a homogenizing country. Gender studies programs at, say, the University of Texas are not that much different from those at Yale. The same types of homeless are found in downtown Atlanta as well as in San Francisco.

    But there is a growing red state/blue state divide—encompassing an economic, cultural, social, and political totality. The public seems to sense that the blue-state model is the more hysterically neo-Confederate, and the red state the calmer and more Union-like. The former appears more unsustainable and intolerant, the latter is increasingly more livable and welcoming.

    The people themselves are voting with their U-Hauls. After the Civil War and during the early 20th century, Americans left the South in droves to the wide-open new West and industrialized North. Now again they are packing up—but this time to get away from the bastions of old Union liberality. People are fleeing the bright lights and supposed cultural dynamism of old New York and Chicago and “enlightened” newer cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco.

    What once crippled the antebellum and postbellum Old South were obsessions with race that infected every aspect of life. Like the Soviet commissariat, such one-drop fixations ultimately stagnated social life and eroded economic efficacy.

    After the war and following the formal abolition of slavery, the former Confederate states returned to many of their prewar racial pathologies, albeit with even more general poverty. Before the war, Southern life had increasingly bifurcated into a medieval society of rich plantationists who stocked the government and professions, and an impoverished white laboring poor class alongside African American slaves. There were few of the middle class, to speak of, at least in any sense comparable to the yeomanry in the North, who brought their values and autonomy ever more westward.

    The antebellum worship of the King Cotton monopoly discouraged innovation. It made the plantation class perhaps the richest tiny minority in history, but otherwise impoverished most others around them. The South was a ranked society. Most knew their ossified place in the social hierarchy. Even their speech, comportment, and expression reflected that reality.

    Universities and colleges in the North, in contrast, for a while at least evolved into places of intellectual inquiry, classical education, and enlightened science. Immigrants and Americans alike freely moved eastward, northward, and westward, but not so much to the land of postbellum Jim Crow, which represented economic stagnation and calcified racial obsessions.

    Fairly or not, America’s 19th- and early 20th-century reputation for greater freedom of thought and equal opportunity were mostly identified with large bustling cities like Boston, Chicago, Detroit, New York, and their western clones such as Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle.

    But ask yourself—which cities today are most likely associated with lawless district attorneys who, as bosses tribal, ignore statutes and who indict or exempt criminals on personal and ideological whims? Where are crime rates most spiraling? Where is the greatest racial unrest? And where are the most homeless?

    In contrast, where are taxes generally lower, but infrastructure as good as elsewhere or better? Why else would the middle classes, liberal and conservative alike, be migrating to Texas, Florida, or Tennessee and not to California, Illinois, and New York? A century ago, Americans associated the former with racial fixations, anti-enlightenment censorship, nullification, greater religious intolerance, and economic stagnation—and the latter with opportunity, live-and-let-live personal freedom, and efforts to render race incidental rather than essential to who we are.”


  4. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before…..

    “Waukesha Attack Suspect ID’d; Was Released on Cash Bail Two Days Ago”


    “As we reported earlier, there was a horrible attack Sunday night in Waukesha, Wisconsin, in which a man driving a red SUV mowed down more than 20 people who were participating in the town’s Christmas parade. There were multiple fatalities but officials announced at a press conference that they won’t be releasing more specifics about even the number of deaths until the families have been notified.

    Multiple reports, relying on scanner traffic on Broadcastify, claimed that a Waukesha police officer reported that the driver of the SUV was a black male. “There’s a car going westbound approaching the parade course. A red Escape. Black male. I couldn’t stop him. He’s going westbound blowing his horn.”

    And, as I reported earlier, a man whose family was at the parade called into a local television station and reported that the driver was a black man with dreadlocks. That video has now been deleted.

    However, according to NY Post reporter Karol Markiewicz, the person in custody is a black man with dreadlocks, Darrell E. Brooks.”

    “This report hasn’t been confirmed by the police yet. If you search the name provided by Markowicz, though, the person is a convicted felon with a long criminal record who was released on $1,000 cash bail for his latest charges on November 19, just two days ago.

    But the name Darrell Brooks can be heard during a discussion about the vehicle with an officer at ~24:00 on this audio, saying that Brooks’ identification was found in the vehicle. You can also hear the mention of “black male” and “dreadlocks” on this audio.”

    “This is a Google maps view of the home of Darrell Brooks, according to the address provided in his record.”


    Oh look, Google’s street view even shows his vehicle, the one he ran thru the crowd with.


  5. “The Unvaxxed Lefties Hiding in Plain Sight”


    “he first time David lied about being vaccinated against COVID-19 was during his shift at an ice-cream shop in L.A. A few months ago, a co-worker asked if he’d gotten the shot, and the 24-year-old paused for a split second before saying “Yes.” The fib felt unnatural coming out of his mouth, but he was more worried about people assuming he was a Facebook-meme-believing, Trump-loving Republican, when he felt nothing could be further from the truth. David, who requested a pseudonym, is a “pretty radical leftist” who wrote in Bernie Sanders on the ballot last November and says he believes in “science and medicine.” But he’s also skeptical about a vaccine he feels Big Pharma rushed to the market. Why be a guinea pig? He’s not “anti-vaxx,” just anti-COVID vaxx, though his fellow lefties seem unable to separate his “genuine concerns about taking an experimental vaccine with widespread side effects from the more crazy conspiracy fears about nanobots and the rapture.” So the recent UCLA grad keeps these thoughts to himself, or posts them anonymously on Reddit and lies to friends and family. David decided that having “people make assumptions about your character or your intelligence” felt worse than just pretending to “be what they want you to be.”

    During the pandemic, the prototypical anti-vaxxer emerged as a maskless conservative who prays to the altar of individual liberty and fears microchips being injected into their veins. And while the largest piece of the unvaccinated pie is certainly red, there’s a little slice of lefties just like David, whose skepticism of the jab is rivaled only by their rejection of right-wing stereotypes. These vaxx-less intelligentsia sit to the left of Democrats, somewhere on the spectrum near holistic mommies who swear by herbal remedies and New York’s downtown kids who infamously partied through the pandemic, scolds be damned. They are part of the 10 percent of Americans who’ve adopted a “wait and see” attitude toward the vaccine, more likely to hold progressive beliefs and approach the shot with raised eyebrows than middle fingers.

    I started noticing them a few months ago on social media, where a handful of former classmates from my liberal-arts college were bad-mouthing Pfizer and Moderna. While some were posting from the rabbit hole, others mused about the need for critical thinking, open dialogue, and a close reading of scientific studies. These talking points seemed more ripped from our philosophy seminars than any Republican playbook, and were cushioned with caveats (“This is just for me, over here in my body in my demographic and specific living situation, for the time being”). Besides, they weren’t being reckless! They mask up and get tested, and some are fairly isolated. Similar arguments were recently made by unvaxxed Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers: “I’m not some sort of anti-vaxx flat-earther. I’m somebody who’s a critical thinker,” he told a radio host. “I just wanted to make the best choice for my body.” (Though we don’t know Rodgers’s politics, he has a history of supporting progressive causes, like racial equality and legal aid.) This shade of the anti-vaxx movement is just asking fellow leftists to keep an open mind, same as they would while discussing Plato on a grassy campus lawn. But often, their philosophical, anti-Establishment critiques are a way to justify personal fears — fears many have worked hard to hide.

    Vaxx-hesitant progressives say they are under attack. Over and over again, they told me about feeling like outcasts in their lefty circles (for this reason, almost all asked for pseudonyms). “The term anti-vaxxer has become associated with crazy people,” says Amy, a 40-year-old Democrat with “socialist ideals.” “I feel like an outlaw.” Another woman said: “You’re either vaccinated or you’re an irrational, uneducated, dangerous conspiracy theorist who deserves to be silenced, shunned, and punished for daring to have a difference of opinion.” The options, she insisted, boil down to “shut up or deceive.”

    Since she’s started to lie about being vaccinated, Sam feels like she’s living a double life. “It’s a really painful, awkward position I put myself in,” she said. “You have to keep track of who you’ve said what to. It’s the kind of thing that keeps you up at night.” But what choice did she have? The former Bernie supporter, who is “for peace and justice,” says there’s no room to admit she’s skeptical of the vaccine “without losing her freedoms” and even some of her relationships. David’s roommates, a pair of siblings, wanted nothing to do with him after their mother died of COVID-19; some close friends he’s been honest with have “really changed their opinion of me” or teasingly called him a Trump supporter. So he’s started lying. On a recent trip to New York, where bars and restaurants require proof, he brought his friend’s vaxx card and ID. Does he feel bad about it? “I don’t feel bad breaking rules that I don’t think are sensible,” he says.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Our revolving door justice system is failing.


    “On Sunday in Waukesha, Wisconsin, a driver sped his vehicle into a holiday parade. He injured at least 23 people and left multiple people dead, according to city officials.

    Karol Markiewicz of the New York Post reports that the police are holding a suspect. She says he is Darrell E. Brooks, a black male in his late 30s.

    Nick Arama at Red State provides the following information about the suspect:

    If you search the name provided by Markowicz, the person is a convicted felon with a long criminal record who was released on $1,000 cash bail for his latest charges on November 19, just two days ago.

    Another source, the website Heavy, adds this information about the suspect:

    Darrell Brooks Jr. raps under the name MathBoi Fly. A red SUV can be seen in one music video [it was a red SUV that plowed into the crowd on Sunday.]

    Brooks has an extremely long criminal history including open cases.

    Darrell E. Brooks Jr. of 19th Street has open charges filed November 5, 2021, in Milwaukee courts for resisting an officer (misdemeanor), felony bail jumping, second degree recklessly endangering safety (felony) with domestic abuse assessments, disorderly conduct and battery (both misdemeanors, also with domestic abuse assessments.)

    He posted $1,000 cash bail on November 19, 2021.

    That’s despite the fact he has another open felony case in Milwaukee County, from 2020.

    That case is for second-degree recklessly endangering safety – felony with use of a dangerous weapon (two counts) and possessing firearm convicted of a felony (felony charge.) The case was filed in July 2020, but it remains pending.

    He has these prior convictions:

    Bail jumping (misdemeanor) and marijuana possession (misdemeanor).
    Marijuana possession second plus offense (felony). 2011.
    Obstruct an officer (misdemeanor). 2005 and 2003.
    Marijuana possession (felony). 2002.
    Substantial battery (felony). 1999.

    He has a lengthy arrest history.”


    Here it is….

    Click to access DOJ-WORCS.pdf


  7. So the obvious question is…..

    What are they hiding…..?

    “FDA Requesting 55 years to Process FOIA Request For COVID Vaccine Data

    Plaintiffs assert that FDA should be able to get them the information by March 3, 2022. Meanwhile, talk of changing definition of “fully vaccinated” begins.”


    “In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Food & Drug Administration is asking a federal court to grant the agency until 2076, 55 years, to process and release all the data on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

    The agency seeks to release 500 pages per month until the enormous volume of information has been completely processed.

    Justice Department lawyers representing the FDA note in court papers that the plaintiffs are seeking a huge amount of vaccine-related material – about 329,000 pages.

    The plaintiffs, a group of more than 30 professors and scientists from universities including Yale, Harvard, UCLA and Brown, filed suit in September in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking expedited access to the records. They say that releasing the information could help reassure vaccine skeptics that the shot is indeed “safe and effective and, thus, increase confidence in the Pfizer vaccine.”

    But the FDA can’t simply turn the documents over wholesale. The records must be reviewed to redact “confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech and personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical trials,” wrote DOJ lawyers in a joint status report filed Monday.

    The FDA proposes releasing 500 pages per month on a rolling basis, noting that the branch that would handle the review has only 10 employees and is currently processing about 400 other FOIA requests.

    The plaintiffs in this case assert that the FDA should be able to get them the information by March 3, 2022, in just over four months.

    ‘This 108-day period is the same amount of time it took the FDA to review the responsive documents for the far more intricate task of licensing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine,’ wrote Aaron Siri of Siri & Glimstad in New York and John Howie of Howie Law in Dallas in court papers.

    ‘The entire purpose of the FOIA is to assure government transparency,’

    ‘It is difficult to imagine a greater need for transparency than immediate disclosure of the documents relied upon by the FDA to license a product that is now being mandated to over 100 million Americans under penalty of losing their careers, their income, their military service status, and far worse.’

    I would argue that the expedited review is reasonable and essential, in light of the fact that public health agencies are considering changing the definition of “fully vaccinated” to three shots.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. “The Corrupt Media Did Not Fall For The Russia Collusion Hoax. They Were Part Of It

    The corrupt media’s attempt to frame their failings as mere confirmation bias holds no truer than the Russia-collusion hoax they peddled for five years.”


    “Soon after Special Counsel John Durham indicted Igor Danchenko, the “Primary Sub-Source” of the Steele dossier, on five counts of lying to the FBI, the press paused to feign a moment of public introspection. The corrupt media’s attempt to frame their failings as mere confirmation bias, however, holds no truer than the Russia-collusion hoax they peddled for five years.

    The proof of this reality is seen in the prostitute sex tapes: the non-existent “golden showers” one and the verifiable, but ignored, Hunter Biden videos.

    The first step of what appeared, at least momentarily, to be the kick-off of a mea culpa parade came earlier this month when the Washington Post amended large segments of two articles covering the Russia-collusion storyline, one from March 2017 and the second from February 2019.

    Both articles had named Sergei Millian, a Belarusian-American businessman, as the individual identified as “Source D” in the Steele dossier. While Millian had long denied speaking with Danchenko or having any role in the dossier, it was only after Durham charged the Russian-born Danchenko and former Brookings Institute employee with lying about receiving a telephone call from Millian that the Post and other media outlets removed the claims.

    Then, last week, The New York Times ran a “guest essay” by professor of journalism and former Columbia Journalism School dean Bill Grueskin, headlined, “How Did So Much of the Media Get the Steele Dossier So Wrong?”

    To Grueskin the problem was multi-pronged. Grueskin’s prologue to why “so many were taken in so easily” was simple: The dossier seemed to confirm what they already suspected—a corruption of Donald Trump that spanned “from dodgy real estate negotiations to a sordid hotel-room tryst, all tied together by the president-elect’s obeisance to President Vladimir Putin of Russia.”

    From there, Grueskin listed the problems, which amazingly all belonged to Trump. Trump “had long curried Mr. Putin’s favor” and “he and his family were eager to do business in Russia.” Then there was Trump’s choice of Paul Manafort as his campaign chair that “reinforced the idea that he was in the thrall of Russia.”

    Adding to the perfect storm that explained the press failures, Grueskin posited that “journalists also had to deal with the fact that many of the denials came from confirmed liars.” Further complicating the matter, Grueskin wrote, was that “some reporters simply didn’t like or trust Mr. Trump, and didn’t want to appear to be on his side.”

    Here, Grueskin quoted from former Times reporter Barry Meier’s book “Spooked”: “Plenty of reporters were skeptical of the dossier, but they hesitated to dismiss it, because they didn’t want to look like they were carrying water for Trump or his cronies.”

    Bunk. The corrupt media did not fall for the Russia collusion hoax. They were part of it.

    How else to explain the scathing email Jake Tapper sent BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith after the latter published the dossier? “I think your move makes the story less serious and credible[.] I think you damaged its impact,” the CNN anchor wrote.

    On that point at least, Tapper was correct. The actual dossier—as opposed to select excerpts or word-smithed summaries pushed by the anti-Trump press—“was a laughably fake document.” When the public saw the “source,” they didn’t buy it, and, really, neither did the press.

    For all corporate media’s ex post facto efforts to rationalize why they “fell” for the dossier, only one holds true: They didn’t like Trump, personally or politically.

    Now, Joe Biden, they like. So when weeks before the November 2020 election, when The New York Post published multiple stories revealing damaging information recovered from an abandoned laptop bearing a Biden Foundation sticker, social media silenced the story and corporate media spun it as Russia disinformation.

    The same folks who supposedly bought anonymous claims that Trump had paid prostitutes to pee on a bed the Obamas had once slept in found the actual videos of Hunter Biden with prostitutes unbelievable. Likewise, we are to believe Trump’s supposed shady business deals made the dossier plausible to the press, while unworthy of the media’s trust were genuine emails discussing a 10 percent cut reserved for the “Big Guy” as part of a Biden family deal being plotted with a Chinese energy giant.

    And we are to suppose that the press that pushed the Russia collusion hoax did so hesitantly and out of a desire not “to carry water” for Trump and his cronies, all while they carried Biden over the finish line, where he now sits as the commander-in-chief across the virtual table from China’s Xi Jinping.”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. More trash from the trash peddlers….

    “Emails Show Researchers Who Alleged Trump Links To Russian Alfa Bank Were Anti-Trump

    Emails obtained via an open records request provide a picture of the politics behind the players who formulated and fed the Alfa Bank theory via Michael Sussmann to the FBI.”


    ““Do the %$%@@#%$ alfa bank secret comms story, it is hugely important,” Fusion GPS’s Peter Fritsch pushed a media contact in the final weeks before the November 2016 general election, according to emails obtained by an open records request. “Call David Dagon at Georgia tech,” Fritsch would then insist when the Reuters News investigative reporter countered that the problem with the story was an inability to authenticate the data.”

    While Dagon may have been an expert in the data crunching, emails recently obtained by The Federalist from Georgia Tech reveal Dagon was something more—he was an anti-Trump, Russia-collusion conspiracy theorist.

    Dagon’s name first became connected with the Alfa Bank story when Special Counsel John Durham indicted Michael Sussmann two months ago, charging the Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer with lying to FBI General Counsel James Baker.

    What the Indictment Says about the Alfa Bank Story
    According to the indictment, when Sussmann met with Baker on September 19, 2016, and provided the top FBI lawyer with “white papers” and data files purporting to establish a secret communications channel between the Trump organization and the now famous Russia-connected Alfa Bank, Sussmann falsely claimed he was not there on behalf of a client. In truth, though, Sussmann was working both for the Clinton campaign and an unnamed “U.S. technology industry executive,” the indictment charged.

    The 27-page speaking indictment then detailed the origins of the Alfa Bank story. In July 2016, a computer researcher, using the moniker “Tea Leaves” and referred to in the Sussmann indictment as “Originator-1,” “had assembled purported DNS data reflecting apparent DNS lookups between Russian Bank-1 and an email domain, ‘mail1.trump-email.com.” “Tea Leaves,” a business associate of Tech-Executive 1, shared her information with Tech-Executive 1 and others, with Tech-Executive 1 alerting Sussmann to the data.

    According to the indictment, Tech Executive-1 later “exploited his access to non-public data at multiple Internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump,” and enlisted “the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”

    The indictment further alleged that in early August 2016, “Tech Executive-1 directed and caused employees of two companies in which he had an ownership interest,” “to search and analyze their holdings of public and non-public internet data for derogatory information on Trump.” He also “tasked originator-1 and two computer researchers (‘Researcher-1’ and ‘Research-2’) who worked at a U.S.-based university (‘University-1’) to search broadly through Internet data for any information about Trump’s potential ties to Russia.” Among the data searched, the indictment alleged, was data Tech-Executive 1 had provided to Originator-1, Researcher-1, and Researcher-2.

    Tech Executive 1 had provided the researchers access to that data to allow them to establish “proof of concept” for work they were seeking to perform under a government contract, which was eventually awarded in November 2016. Some of the data the university accessed from Tech-Executive 1’s internet company during this “proof of concept” stage included data the company had access to because it was a “sub-contractor in a sensitive relationship between the U.S. government and another company.”

    While the data was provided to allow the researchers to protect U.S. networks from cyberattacks, according to the indictment, Originator-1, Researcher-1, and Researcher 2 also exploited the “data to assist Tech Executive-1 in his efforts to conduct research concerning Trump’s potential ties to Russia,” including the allegations about the secret communication channel between Trump’s organizations and Alfa Bank.”


  10. The “official” story from the feds continues to unravel….

    “Terror in the Capitol Tunnel

    The D.C. Medical Examiner’s Office concluded Rosanne Boyland died of a drug overdose but that autopsy result is highly suspicious.”


    “In 2018, after a local news crew filmed Ryan Nichols rescuing dogs abandoned by their owners after Hurricane Florence, the former Marine appeared on the “Ellen DeGeneres Show.” Not only did DeGeneres commend Nichols’ longtime work as a search-and-rescue volunteer, she donated $25,000 to the Humane Society in his name and gave Ryan and his wife, Bonnie, a $10,000 check to pay for the honeymoon they had missed the year before so Ryan could assist rescue efforts in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.

    But instead of heading to Hawaii, the Nicholses used the generous donation to buy a rescue boat. With his Marine buddy and best friend, Alex Harkrider, at his side, the pair has participated in “dozens of hurricane rescues and disaster relief efforts,” according to Joseph McBride, Nichols’ attorney.

    Three years after his appearance on the DeGeneres show, Nichols was featured on another program, but this time, Nichols spoke from the fetid confines of a political prison in the nation’s capital. And instead of telling a heroic story of saving dogs drowning in rising flood waters, Nichols told Newsmax host Greg Kelly a harrowing tale of what he saw at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

    “We showed up in good faith . . . to protest the election results but never would have imagined we would encounter the horrors that we did on the west terrace and in the tunnel that day,” Nichols explained to Kelly in a phone interview on November 9. “When I saw women being beaten and in distress, my rescue instinct kicked in and I knew I had no choice but to help rescue them.”

    Nichols’ account is detailed in an appalling new court filing that confirms what American Greatness has reported for months: on January 6, D.C. Metro and Capitol police assaulted nonviolent protesters with explosive devices, rubber bullets, tear gas, and in some cases, their own fists and batons. A tunnel on the lower west side of the Capitol building became a dangerous—and, likely for at least one protester, deadly—battle scene as police viciously attacked American citizens on the “hallowed” grounds of the U.S. Congress.

    Nichols, of Texas, has been behind bars since his January 18 arrest; he sits in the D.C. jail specifically used to house January 6 detainees, charged along with Harkrider with multiple offenses including assault of a police officer, civil disorder, and unlawful possession of pepper spray.

    So, what on Earth turned two decorated veterans with a history of helping people in crisis into “insurrectionists” who attacked police officers? It was what they saw when they approached the tunnel around 3 p.m. on January 6. “They hear people screaming in pain and crying for help—women and old men are bloodied and injured,” McBride wrote in a motion seeking Nichols’ release. “Training and instincts kick in and they head to the tunnel, wondering if an accident had happened and if other people were even more seriously injured.”

    McBride viewed three hours of surveillance video captured by Capitol security camera—the extensive system captured at least 14,000 hours of footage that the Justice Department and Capitol police are desperate to keep away from public view—and described for the first time what happened inside the tunnel where a combination of D.C. and Capitol police, ostensibly, were stationed to prevent protesters from entering the building:

    “[Just] after 4:00 pm, Ryan is sprayed multiple times by an officer standing on a ledge in the tunnel,” McBride wrote in a November 1 filing. “He is also separated from a woman who stood next to Ryan at different times at the Western Terrace. She was middle aged and nice. Ryan promised to keep an eye on her. The woman was wearing a red shirt and a MAGA hat. Shortly thereafter, officers begin terrorizing people in and around the tunnel. People are screaming and getting crushed. There is a pile of human beings stacked on top of each other at the tunnel entrance. People are trapped and there is nowhere to go.”

    McBride focused on the conduct of one officer in particular, with badge number L359 and wearing a white shirt. The unidentified officer begins “to beat a man for no apparent reason . . . [and] beats the man so badly that the man crawls over to the woman with the MAGA hat.”

    At this point, according to the security video, the officer turns his sights on the woman. “Then for reasons that no fair minded or decent human being will ever understand—[the officer wearing the] White-shirt turns his attention to the woman and begins to pulverize her,” McBride explained. “The weapon this officer appears to be using is a collapsible stick, designed to break windows in emergency situations. This stick is neither designed nor to be used against another human being.”

    For the next several minutes, between 4 p.m. and around 4:15 p.m., the officer in the white shirt relentlessly beats the woman; McBride furnished a literal blow-by-blow account in the court document. (The time stamp is based on a three-hour video clip, not time of day.)

    2:07:01: White-shirt hits the woman in the head with his baton five times in seven seconds;
    2:07:22: The woman is sprayed directly in the eyes by officer on ledge;
    2:07:24: White-shirt uses his baton to hit another person with a mask on;
    2:07:30: The woman and others are still being maced and hit by White-shirt and ledge officer;
    2:07:38: Blood is visibly coming out of the woman’s head and can be seen on the white hoody;
    2:07:55: White-shirt and other officers are randomly assaulting people for no apparent reason;
    2:08:17: White-shirt makes his way to front of crowd again and targets woman who is attempting to escape;
    2:08:30: White-shirt spears and pokes the woman with his baton about the head, neck, and face so as to inflict maximum pain;
    2:08:46: White-shirt beats the woman with his baton striking her eight times in six seconds;
    2:09:13: White-shirt punches the woman in the face, with his left-hand, landing five punches in five seconds, with all of his might;
    2:09:35: Another officer joins in and starts beating the woman in the head with his baton, landing twelve strikes in seven seconds;
    2:10:47: If you pause the video here, you will see the welts on the woman’s face along with a disturbing look of helplessness;
    2:10:54: Officers push the woman around the tunnel;
    2:10:55: The woman briefly collapses;
    2:11:13: White-shirt follows the woman to the front of the tunnel and beats her with his baton as she’s falling;
    2:11:24: The woman is taken to the back of tunnel and is never seen again.

    These assaults occurred about 10 minutes before the lifeless body of Rosanne Boyland was seen lying on the ground, just outside the tunnel. Most of the violent brawls between police and protesters take place near this tunnel in response to what McBride calls “overwhelming police brutality and misconduct.”

    Body-worn camera footage released by the courts and seen here show Boyland on her side not moving as her friend, Justin Winchell, begged for help. “She’s gonna die!” Winchell tries to scream while holding on to Boyland. He turns to the crowd. “I need somebody, anybody,” he pleads. “She’s dead! She’s dead!”

    McBride then confirms another report by American Greatness: “Roseanne (sic) Boyland’s body is dragged into the tunnel at 4:30 p.m., and is never seen again.” In September, I reported that, according to his congressional testimony, Officer Aquilino Gonell appears to be the person who handled Boyland’s body after she died, dragging her inside the building where he is then met by Officer Harry Dunn.

    Dunn told the January 6 select committee in July that he carried an “unconscious woman,” presumably Boyland, into House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office.

    The D.C. Medical Examiner’s Office concluded Boyland died of a drug overdose but that autopsy result is highly suspicious considering the video footage and first-hand accounts of others about what happened to her that afternoon.”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Nothing to see…..

    Move along…..


    And it’s exactly why folks on the right, won’t…..


  12. But how could they know you ask….?

    Running people over is his MO.



  13. Yes, how could they possibly know he might re-offend…..



  14. Just to be clear: Parents speaking up at school board meetings againt CRT and sexualizing our children are domestic terrorists who should be investigated by the Terrorism Unit of the FBI; however, if you intentionally plow through a parade of kids with an SUV, you’re not a terrorist?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.