16 thoughts on “News/Politics 2-15-22

  1. This morning, a comparison…….

    First to Canada, and their “leaders” crackdown…..

    So much for allowing peaceful protests huh?








  2. Now that’s how actual peaceful protesters that leftists disagree with are treated.

    And this is how shameless leftists treat actual criminals at the same time.










    It’s almost like leftist leaders and their followers support criminals destroying things while despising average citizens who peacefully protest. Beeping horns is not on par with burning, looting, and vandalizing.

    Leftist suck at this democracy thing. Sooner or later their true nature shines thru, and it’s incompatible with real democracy.


  3. Further proof….

    “Biden’s Department Of Homeland Security Announces It Will Investigate Thought Crimes”

    But not leftist thought crimes, of course.


    “he Biden administration has been steadily ratcheting up its abuse of power to attack political enemies and criminalize dissent. The egregious overcharging and heinous treatment of January 6 detainees in the DC gulag is one painful example. But it’s making even more dangerous moves toward creating thought police. And they are bold enough to announce it publicly.

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin on Feb. 7, 2022 that outlined their thought crime agenda. It states, “The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM).”

    “False or misleading narratives” could very well be used to describe the entire programming schedule of CNN and MSNBC. They even have a TLA (three-letter acronym) for the problem, so you know we’re deep into a bad government solution.

    The desire to control what people watch, hear, read and eventually think is deeply embedded in the left’s playbook. They have been at this for generations, but recently have succeeded to the point they are comfortable just saying it outright. They have convinced 40 percent of millennials that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment. The trick now is linking speech they want to shut down to terrorism.

    They did that very effectively after the January 6, 2021 riot. They took a political protest that spiraled out of control and labeled it an insurrection or a coup. Then they began to spread that beyond the small number who committed any violence to the vastly larger who peacefully protested. Now they are roping in anyone who supported investigating the election results in any way.

    Then they added weak charges of seditious conspiracy for some of the rioters. This ignored the fact that their own indictments showed the conspiracy they found was not to overthrow the government or even the election. It was to have a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) across the river from DC in case Antifa attacked or the unlikely event President Trump himself invoked the Insurrection Act and asked for assistance.

    The hysterically named Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol is working feverishly to spin all of this into a web. They are unlikely to succeed because all available evidence so far appears to show no actual conspiracy to conduct an attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    But the situation has huge usefulness to the Biden administration. It gave them a way to smear large numbers of their political opponents as seditionists, coup plotters, insurrectionists and the big prize, terrorists. That is precisely what they’re aiming at with this new threat document.

    “The primary terrorism-related threat to the United States continues to stem from lone offenders or small cells of individuals who are motivated by a range of foreign and/or domestic grievances often cultivated through the consumption of certain online content,” the document states.

    They make their goal of speech control perfectly clear by specifying “the consumption of certain online content.” What is stunning is their unashamed belief that policing this falls withing their purview. It seems to call for an agency focused on ensuring that only online content the government feels is legitimate is allowed—a Ministry of Truth, if you will.

    The agency gets even more specific: “There is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021.”

    Aha, there it is. Those right-wing extremists are at it again. And pay close attention to the phrasing “inspired violent extremist attacks.” That is a direct path to “incited violent extremist attacks” and to material support for terrorism. That is how they will criminalize speech they dislike.

    Currently, this only applies to foreign terror organizations. But at this pace it won’t be long until they extend that to domestic groups.

    That fits right in with their earlier National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism from June 2021, which is directed at designating political opponents of the left into that category. They explicitly tie their social engineering agenda to this new threat: “This approach must apply to our efforts to counter domestic terrorism by addressing underlying racism and bigotry.”

    Anyone who is not fully on board with the left’s agenda on those topics is part of the problem, and that means you are supporting the domestic terrorists. The Biden administration also foreshadowed the thought policing by announcing they were deputizing the tech tyrants in this noble cause. Jen Psaki admitted from the podium that the administration tells Facebook what posts to censor.

    They have now bragged they are using state power paired with private efforts to push a political agenda. This level of coordination calls into question the legality of having the social media sites act to censor things the government cannot. That is forbidden, but it remains now for a case to be made that Facebook, Twitter, and the rest are acting as agents of the government.”


  4. Sure, now that the midterms are approaching and they desperately need you to forget about their Draconian measures that did nothing to fight Covid. You know, like masks and their useless vaccine mandates.

    “DC mayor: We’re canceling mandated vaccination checks tomorrow”


    “The disconnect between the White House and other Democrats executives just landed on Joe Biden’s doorstep — literally. Washington DC mayor Muriel Bowser announced earlier today that they will stop requiring indoor venues to verify vaccination before allowing entry. And while Biden insists that mask-mandate rollbacks are “premature,” Bowser pledged that the district’s mandates will be “rolled back” in two weeks:


    Beginning February 15, 2022, indoor venues will no longer be required to verify that patrons are vaccinated.

    Businesses may choose to keep vaccination requirements in place. pic.twitter.com/iUzgEHfhsa

    — Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) February 14, 2022


    Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) announced Monday that the city will end its requirement for people entering businesses to show proof of vaccination starting this week and will lift its mask mandate for businesses starting on March 1.

    Bowser cited a sharp decline in cases in the omicron wave as justification for the loosening of restrictions.

    Depressingly, the mask-mandate “rollback” will not include schools, where children are neither at substantial risk for acute infection or vectors for transmission:

    Masks will still be required in schools, an area of strong controversy, and some situations like public transit, Bowser said, while the broader mandate will be lifted next month.

    Bowser told reporters the city had seen a “precipitous drop” in case levels, justifying the loosening.

    “Strong controversy” is one way of putting it. “Completely unfounded by science and data” is another. The only purpose of imposing a mask mandate on children is to protect adults, when adults — especially teachers — have had access to vaccines for a year now. Teachers and other school staff could still choose to wear masks on their own, even if children don’t. Schoolrooms should be the first places that mask mandates get reversed, not the last, because they never should have been imposed in classrooms at all.”


  5. Meanwhile, something that actually works gets mainstreamed, but only now that Trump is gone.

    “States Finding Ways to Support Ivermectin Treatment for COVID-19

    Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Hampshire lawmakers show there is now a preference cascade toward early treatment options for covid.”


    “Legal Insurrection readers will recall that I covered Senator Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) “Second Opinion” panel, including doctors, bioscientists, and other experts who have valid concerns about aspects of the federal government’s COVID-19 pandemic policy.

    One of the issues brought up was the manipulation of Big Media to suppress information related to repurposed drugs that could be used as effective early treatment options for covid. For example, Dr. Pierre Kory is the former Chief of the Critical Care Service and Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin and an expert in the use of ivermectin. He detailed studies across the globe, including the success of its use in a Brazilian city and Uttar Pradesh, India (news of which has been hidden or dismissed by the press).

    Now it appears some states are making it easier for doctors to utilize the drug, which had been widely and safely used in humans to treat parasites before being smeared as a mere “horse dewormer.” Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor says his office does not plan to discipline doctors for prescribing certain medications, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, to treat covid.

    While approved ivermectin to treat animals and people for some parasites, lice and skin issues, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved it for COVID-19. O’Connor said in a news release that his office finds no legal basis for a state medical licensure board to discipline a licensed physician for prescribing a drug for the off-label purpose of treating a patient with COVID-19.

    The Oklahoma attorney general said he stands behind doctors who believe ivermectin is in their patients’ best interest.

    “I stand behind doctors who believe it is in their patients’ best interests to receive ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine,” O’Connor said in a statement. “Our health care professionals should have every tool available to combat COVID-19. Public safety demands this. Physicians who prescribe medications and follow the law should not fear disciplinary action for prescribing such drugs.”

    Pro-ivermectin measures recently passed through the Kansas state senate.

    …Senate health committee member, state Sen. Mark Steffen successfully pushed a proposal that would require pharmacists to fill prescriptions of the anti-worm medication ivermectin, the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine and other drugs for off-label uses as COVID-19 treatments.

    Steffen is among the Republican-controlled Legislature’s biggest vaccine skeptics and a critic of how the federal government and Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly have handled the coronavirus pandemic.

    And New Hampshire representatives are trying to make ivermectin easier to obtain in the state.

    House Bill 1022 would allow pharmacists to dispense the drug by means of standing orders, the report said.
    Newsweek said the plan is to let pharmacists dispense the treatment under the “delegated prescriptive authority of the physician” and more.

    The report noted, “The pharmacist would also be required to provide any patients who receive ivermectin with a ‘standardized information sheet written in plain language’ that provides health care referral information and notes the importance of follow-up care.”

    And the lawmakers are proposing that, “Nothing on the information sheet shall discourage the recipient from using ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.””


  6. Drunk and stupid is no way to go thru life, unless you are a Democrat politician, then it’s a requirement.

    Nancy’s made a career of it, since she lives in the idiot zone know as San Francisco.



  7. Trying to buy the silencing of her opinion?

    No thanks. 🙂



    “In the summer of 2020, I finally got the call. “You know when you speak, you speak on behalf of the company,” our head of corporate communications told me, urging me to pipe down. I responded: “My title is not in my Twitter bio. I’m speaking as a public school mom of four kids.”

    But the calls kept coming. From legal. From HR. From a board member. And finally, from my boss, the CEO of the company. I explained why I felt so strongly about the issue, citing data on the safety of schools and the harms caused by virtual learning. While they didn’t try to muzzle me outright, I was told repeatedly to “think about what I was saying.”

    Meantime, colleagues posted nonstop about the need to oust Trump in the November election. I also shared my support for Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic primary and my great sadness about the racially instigated murders of Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd. No one at the company objected to any of that.

    Then, in October 2020, when it was clear public schools were not going to open that fall, I proposed to the company leadership that we weigh in on the topic of school closures in our city, San Francisco. We often take a stand on political issues that impact our employees; we’ve spoken out on gay rights, voting rights, gun safety, and more.

    The response this time was different. “We don’t weigh in on hyper-local issues like this,” I was told. “There’s also a lot of potential negatives if we speak up strongly, starting with the numerous execs who have kids in private schools in the city.”

    I refused to stop talking. I kept calling out hypocritical and unproven policies, I met with the mayor’s office, and eventually uprooted my entire life in California—I’d lived there for over 30 years—and moved my family to Denver so that my kindergartner could finally experience real school. We were able to secure a spot for him in a dual-language immersion Spanish-English public school like the one he was supposed to be attending in San Francisco.

    National media picked up on our story, and I was asked to go on Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox News. That appearance was the last straw. The comments from Levi’s employees picked up—about me being anti-science; about me being anti-fat (I’d retweeted a study showing a correlation between obesity and poor health outcomes); about me being anti-trans (I’d tweeted that we shouldn’t ditch Mother’s Day for Birthing People’s Day because it left out adoptive and step moms); and about me being racist, because San Francisco’s public school system was filled with black and brown kids, and, apparently, I didn’t care if they died. They also castigated me for my husband’s Covid views—as if I, as his wife, were responsible for the things he said on social media.

    All this drama took place at our regular town halls—a companywide meeting I had looked forward to but now dreaded.

    Meantime, the Head of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the company asked that I do an “apology tour.” I was told that the main complaint against me was that “I was not a friend of the Black community at Levi’s.” I was told to say that “I am an imperfect ally.” (I refused.)

    The fact that I had been asked, back in 2017, to be the executive sponsor of the Black Employee Resource Group by two black employees did not matter. The fact that I’ve fought for kids for years didn’t matter. That I was just citing facts didn’t matter. The head of HR told me personally that even though I was right about the schools, that it was classist and racist that public schools stayed shut while private schools were open, and that I was probably right about everything else, I still shouldn’t say so. I kept thinking: Why shouldn’t I?

    In the fall of 2021, during a dinner with the CEO, I was told that I was on track to become the next CEO of Levi’s—the stock price had doubled under my leadership, and revenue had returned to pre-pandemic levels. The only thing standing in my way, he said, was me. All I had to do was stop talking about the school thing.”

    But the attacks would not stop.

    Anonymous trolls on Twitter, some with nearly half a million followers, said people should boycott Levi’s until I’d been fired. So did some of my old gymnastics fans. They called the company ethics hotline and sent emails.

    Every day, a dossier of my tweets and all of my online interactions were sent to the CEO by the head of corporate communications. At one meeting of the executive leadership team, the CEO made an off-hand remark that I was “acting like Donald Trump.” I felt embarrassed, and turned my camera off to collect myself.

    In the last month, the CEO told me that it was “untenable” for me to stay. I was offered a $1 million severance package, but I knew I’d have to sign a nondisclosure agreement about why I’d been pushed out.

    The money would be very nice. But I just can’t do it. Sorry, Levi’s.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. If crooked Elias had a lawyer, he’d be telling him to shut up about now. 🙂






    “The Russia collusion hoax is the dirtiest trick in the history of American politics, but if the latest filing by John Durham is correct, the Steele dossier wasn’t the half of it:

    Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to “infiltrate” servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an “inference” and “narrative” to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham says.

    Durham filed a motion on Feb. 11 focused on potential conflicts of interest related to the representation of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman, who has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent. …
    Durham’s filing states that in July 2016, the tech executive worked with Sussman, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm 1 on behalf of the Clinton campaign, numerous cyber researchers and employees at multiple internet companies to “assemble the purported data and white papers.”

    “In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the filing states. “Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”

    “Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” Durham states. “In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton campaign.”

    Durham also writes that during Sussman’s trial, the government will establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (DNS) internet traffic pertaining to “(i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP).”

    Durham states that the internet company that Tech Executive-1 worked for “had come to access and maintain dedicated servers” for the Executive Office of the President as “part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP.”

    “Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump,” Durham states.

    The filing also reveals that Sussman provided “an updated set of allegations” including the Russian bank data, and additional allegations relating to Trump “to a second agency of the U.S. government” in 2017.

    Durham says the allegations “relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic” that Tech Executive-1 and others “had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump’s New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider.”

    The most shocking part of these allegations, as I understand them, is that the Democratic Party used a tech contractor working for the White House to gather (or fabricate) data intended to put then-President Trump in a bad light. If this understanding is correct–apart from the claim that the same thing occurred during the presidential campaign–it is a truly shocking scandal that implies serious criminal charges.

    So far I haven’t seen Durham’s filing, but only the linked Fox news account of it.

    UPDATE: Durham’s motion is embedded below.”


  10. Lying authoritarian scum.





  11. 🤡 Alert!





  12. Hypocrites.


    Plus they can’t vote, so what are they gonna do about it?


  13. Lies?

    Of course.

    But who cares… right Democrats?



    Or C, both….

    C. Definitely C.


  14. Follow the science!

    At your own peril….

    “How the CDC Abandoned Science

    Mass youth hospitalizations, COVID-induced diabetes, and other myths from the brave new world of science as political propaganda”


    “The main federal agency guiding America’s pandemic policy is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which sets widely adopted policies on masking, vaccination, distancing, and other mitigation efforts to slow the spread of COVID and ensure the virus is less morbid when it leads to infection. The CDC is, in part, a scientific agency—they use facts and principles of science to guide policy—but they are also fundamentally a political agency: The director is appointed by the president of the United States, and the CDC’s guidance often balances public health and welfare with other priorities of the executive branch.

    Throughout this pandemic, the CDC has been a poor steward of that balance, pushing a series of scientific results that are severely deficient. This research is plagued with classic errors and biases, and does not support the press-released conclusions that often follow. In all cases, the papers are uniquely timed to further political goals and objectives; as such, these papers appear more as propaganda than as science. The CDC’s use of this technique has severely damaged their reputation and helped lead to a growing divide in trust in science by political party. Science now risks entering a death spiral in which it will increasingly fragment into subsidiary verticals of political parties. As a society, we cannot afford to allow this to occur. Impartial, honest appraisal is needed now more than ever, but it is unclear how we can achieve it.

    In November 2020, a CDC study sought to prove that mask mandates slowed the spread of the coronavirus. The study found that counties in Kansas which implemented mask mandates saw COVID case rates start to fall (light blue below), while counties that did not saw rates continue to climb (dark blue):”


    “The data scientist Youyang Gu immediately noted that locales with more rapid rise would be more likely to implement a mandate, and thus one would expect cases to fall more in such locations independent of masking, as people’s behavior naturally changes when risk escalates. Gu zoomed out on the same data and considered a longer horizon, and the results were enlightening: It appeared as if all counties did the same whether they masked or not:”


    “The CDC had merely shown a tiny favorable section, depicted in the red circle above, but the subsequent pandemic waves dwarf their results. In short, the CDC’s study was not capable of proving anything and was highly misleading, but it served the policy goal of encouraging cloth mask mandates.

    When it comes to promoting mask mandates in school, in October 2021 the CDC famously offered a comparison of masked and unmasked schools in Arizona’s Pima and Maricopa counties in their own journal, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The analysis claimed that schools with no mask requirement were 3.5 times more likely to experience a COVID outbreak when compared with schools that mandated masking. But the analysis did not adjust for rates of vaccination among either teachers or students. The paper also looked at two counties in Arizona with different political preferences, and thus did not separate mask mandates from other patterns of behavior that fall within partisan lines. Democratic voters, for example, are much more likely to embrace mask mandates and are more likely to otherwise curtail their behavior as they report greater overall concern about COVID. Elementary schoolchildren generally do better with COVID than high school kids, but the CDC’s analysis lumped all ages together, and might have been biased by the fact that mask mandates were more common at ages when outbreak detection occurs less often.

    These were only a few of the CDC paper’s problems. When the reporter David Zweig investigated it for The Atlantic, he found that the exposure times varied: The mask mandate schools were open for fewer hours per day, with less time for outbreaks to occur. Zweig also found that the number of schools included did not add up. He hypothesized that some schools conducting remote learning might have been wrongly included, but when he asked the paper’s authors to provide him a list of the schools, they didn’t. In short, the more one examined this study, the more it fell apart.

    Masking is not the only matter in which the CDC’s stated policy goal has coincided with very poor-quality science that was, coincidentally, published in their own journal. Consider the case of vaccination for kids between the ages of 5 and 11. COVID vaccination in this age group has stalled, which runs counter to the CDC’s goal of maximum vaccination. Interestingly, vaccinating kids between 5 and 11 is disputed globally; Sweden recently elected not to vaccinate healthy kids in this age group, and some public health experts believe that it would be preferable for kids to gain immunity from natural exposure instead. Stalling U.S. uptake therefore reflects a legitimate and open scientific debate, regardless of whether the CDC’s policy goal would like to consider it closed.

    Enter the CDC’s new study. Widely covered in news outlets, the January 2022 study claims that kids below the age of 18 who get diagnosed with COVID are 2.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. “These findings underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups,” the authors write, “including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents.” But a closer examination of the study again reveals problems.

    First, it does not adjust for body mass index. Higher BMI is a risk factor for COVID, prompting hospitalization and diabetes, and yet the CDC analysis does not adjust for weight at all. Second, the absolute risks the study finds are incredibly low. Even if the authors’ finding is true, it demonstrates an increase in diabetes of up to 6 in 10,000 COVID survivors. Third, the CDC’s analysis uses billing record diagnoses as a surrogate for COVID cases, but many kids had and recovered from COVID without seeking medical care. Without a true denominator that conveys the actual number of COVID cases, the entire analysis might be artifact. As the former dean of Harvard Medical School Jeffrey Flier told The New York Times, “The CDC erred in taking a preliminary and potentially erroneous association and tweeting it to specifically create alarm in parents.” Some might view it as a mistake, but after observing these matters for almost two years, I believe it was the entire point of the study: Alarm might boost flagging vaccine uptake in kids. (Already, a better study out of the United Kingdom finds no causal link between COVID and diabetes in kids.)”

    “Some might view it as a mistake, but I believe it was the entire point of the study: Alarm might boost flagging vaccine uptake in kids.”


  15. Perjury is still a crime, right?

    “Latest Durham revelations put Biden’s national security adviser in uneasy light

    Jake Sullivan testified in 2017 it was “absurd” to suggest the Clinton campaign spread “fake Russian information.” Court evidence says otherwise.”


    “Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation isn’t just imposing accountability for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 political trick to dirty up Donald Trump with the FBI; it’s also encroaching on the credibility of President Biden’s current chief foreign policy adviser and point man for the current Russia-Ukraine crisis.

    National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan was a senior adviser to Clinton’s 2016 campaign and, by his own admission, spread the word to reporters back then that Democrats believed Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin to hijack the election and had a secret computer channel to the Kremlin. Neither proved true.

    But long before that Russia collusion narrative crumbled like a stale Starbucks muffin, Sullivan gave sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee disputing that anything the Clinton campaign spread around Washington was misinformation.

    “Are you aware of any collusion, coordination, or conspiracy by yourself or by any other members of the campaign that you were working with to procure fake Russian information to harm Donald Trump?” Sullivan was asked in December 2017.

    Sullivan responded without ambiguity. “I mean, you will forgive me if I want to say more than just an emphatic ‘No’ to that answer, because I find that totally absurd,” he answered.”

    Click to access SullivanDepoHouseIntelDec2017.pdf

    “But Durham’s court filings in two cases last fall — one against Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann and the other against the primary source for the discredited Christopher Steele dossier — call into question that assertion. Both defendants are charged with lying to the FBI.

    Sullivan is not accused of wrongdoing. But court filings in those cases state that Sullivan — identified in the Sussmann indictment only as a Clinton “foreign policy advisor” — engaged in email traffic with other Clinton campaign officials and lawyers about a story leaked to the news media suggesting Trump had a secret communications system with Russia via a computer server at the Moscow-based Alfa Bank.

    “On or about September 15, 2016 Campaign Lawyer-1 exchanged emails with the Clinton campaign’s campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy advisor concerning the Russian Bank-1 allegations that Sussmann had recently shared with Reporter 1,” the Sussmann indictment stated.

    “Campaign Lawyer-1 billed his time for this correspondence to the Clinton campaign with the billing entry ’email correspondence with [name of foreign policy advisor], [name of campaign manager], [name of communications director] re: Russian Bank -1 article.'””

    Click to access SussmannIndict.pdf

    “That revelation places Sullivan squarely in the loop of conversations designed to spread a story that the FBI, former Russia Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and Durham’s team all have deemed false.

    A month after those email conversations — with the Trump-Clinton presidential race coming down to the wire — the story containing the Alfa Bank allegations surfaced in the mainstream news media in late October 2016.

    And it was Sullivan who jumped into action, issuing a statement adding legitimacy to the article’s claim. “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow,” Sullivan said in the statement. “Computer scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”

    His statement also gave his boss, Hillary Clinton, the opportunity to retweet it.

    “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank,” Clinton crowed in an effort to get the media to cover the allegations.”


  16. I can tell you that people are more and more reluctant to even go into Minneapolis anymore. Even taking a child to a sports event has become iffy for some. The violence does spill out around to the suburbs, but Minneapolis just seems too dangerous. It is so sad for those who cannot move and those losing value on property or businesses. Criminal and evil, IMO.


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.