In April, 2020 – when quarantines were t be a few months ("flatten the curve") – I interviewed 2 mental health experts (Andrew Solomon & @johannhari101) who warned: sustained closures would severely exacerbate already spiraling mental health pathologies:https://t.co/YA3gZVXPvH
Anyone with kids could see the severe harms of sustained school closures, but otherwise, the lockdown harms were mostly class-based. Wealthy people with resources left the city, hired private tutors, etc. All others were locked in small apartments/houses.
The moment when the credibility of public health experts collapsed was when they spent 4 months decreeing everyone stay home, shaming all who didn't "grandma killers," then suddenly switched, urging all to go to densely packed street protests they liked:https://t.co/D47sl455Dt
First Memorial Day for the families of the 13 soldiers we lost at Kabul airport. To them and to each of those like them who are on the front lines of our nation’s grieving I express my condolences for your loss and my gratitude for your sacrifice. I share your anger at Biden!
Randy- I’ve worked w/ combat wounded Veterans for 11 years now. This year, as a special project for a Houston donor, I’m talking with these 13 incredible families about providing them direct support. It is making this Memorial Day so much more real for me. They were all so young pic.twitter.com/LwQLlDVTeb
Ds must eschew avuncular bipartisanship and abandon the fantasy they can reason with the unreasonable or shame the shameless. “Lowering the temperature” or seeking unity with those intent on dividing Americans is counterproductive.https://t.co/hrm5osulHc
— Jennifer 'I stand with Ukraine' Rubin 🇺🇦🇺🇦 (@JRubinBlogger) May 30, 2022
——–
"Party of Tolerance". "Unity".
We've heard it all before, @jrubinblogger. You keep using words to divide people, and pout when we call you out on it.
The greatest gift we could give to those who lost their lives fighting totalitarian regimes that had strict gun control is to enact strict gun control. https://t.co/cz9jw5UU77
It's always the guys you just know would have empathized with the messed up loser who killed those kids that get super edgy and lippy when these a**holes snap. https://t.co/2zbaPHJ4Y8
— Ducking the Gulag Train (@gpbakken) May 30, 2022
——-
Biden’s full quote on .22 vs 9mm ammo:
"The .22 caliber bullet will lodge in the lungs and we can get it out. A 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body. The idea of a high caliber weapon, there is no rationale for it in terms of self-protection, hunting."
— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) May 30, 2022
——-
It’s one thing to message on the damage AR rounds can do, it’s another to try and go after 9 mm handguns, the most popular home defense weapon in America. https://t.co/WpkhBxm9oW
Is it too much to ask that the man in charge of the country, who is trying to dismantle people's constitutional rights, at least have the slightest clue what he's talking about? https://t.co/rF1GnoJJMR
I’d find the pro gun control arguments more persuasive if they didn’t so constantly and confidently prove they have literally zero idea what they’re talking about. https://t.co/2eI2BTtg2o
The two tiered justice system fails America, yet once again works as designed for the politically connected. The judge is a fraud, the jury a joke. This outcome was predetermined.
“A jury found Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for Hillary’s campaign, not guilty of lying to the FBI in September 2016 during the Trump-Russia probe:
The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
After a two week trial, and more than a day of deliberations, the jury found that Special Counsel John Durham’s team had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Sussmann’s statement was a lie, and that he was, in fact, working on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and technology executive Rodney Joffe when he brought two thumb drives and a white paper alleging a Trump-Russia connection.
The jury is questionable. One jury member has a kid on the same soccer team as Sussmann’s kid:
The jury included one federal government employee who told the judge they donated to Democrats in 2016 and another government employee who told the judge they “strongly” dislike former President Trump. Both of those jurors told the judge they could be impartial throughout the trial.
The jury also included a teacher, an illustrator, a mechanic and more. One juror had a child who was on the same high school sports team as Sussmann’s child.”
——-
Allowing a continuation of two standards of justice, one where friends of the regime can do anything and get off scot-free and one where opponents of the regime will have their lives destroyed for things that friends of the regime can do, is an existential threat to the country.
The trial exposed our corrupt elites, our biased and corrupt DC courts, and their media lapdogs.
Note how NYT, leading co-conspirators in the Russia collusion hoax, describes the work of the DNC attorney it colluded with on the COMPLETELY MADE UP information op regarding Russia. SHAMELESS. Absolutely shameless. pic.twitter.com/LU4DkcT0Bw
Corporate media downplayed Sussman trial while its testimony confirmed their own corruption, and that of Clinton and FBI. Now that he's (as expected) been acquitted, tweets aplenty! they were and are active co-conspirators in one of greatest political scandals in our history.
Love that @ProfMJCleveland called it this morning — and how she provides the depth you don't get many other places. Worth reading: "Even If The Jury Doesn’t Convict Michael Sussmann, The Special Counsel Has Won" https://t.co/IoXmVcTR4y
“Assume for the sake of argument that Special Counsel John Durham was doggedly devoted to pursuing every last individual implicated in crimes regarding the origins of Russiagate/Spygate, and subsequent investigatory and prosecutorial efforts.
Assume that no matter the rank of the perpetrators, the professional and personal costs he and his team might incur, and the fact he serves at the pleasure of the Biden Justice Department, Durham would do whatever it takes to bring to justice all those who broke the law.
Still, he would face a greater than uphill battle. For he would be taking on an entire system arrayed against him, just like it was arrayed against former President Donald Trump.
The trial of Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann demonstrates well the extent to which Durham is playing an away game against The Swamp—the Deep State, the political establishment and their manifold allies—that will make even those less sensitive targets being pursued on more narrow and straightforward grounds difficult to bring to justice.
The special counsel is prosecuting Sussmann for allegedly lying to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker that he was representing no one when, in September 2016, he brought Baker dubious Trump-Russia dirt from a secret communications channel run between Trump Organization and Russian Alfa-Bank servers. Sussmann also allegedly lied again when, in February 2017, he brought the story to the CIA.
In truth, Sussmann had obtained the information while serving two clients: Clinton’s campaign and Rodney Joffe, a technology executive and one-time FBI informant who was conducting opposition research on Donald Trump in coordination with Sussmann and the Clinton campaign.
The Clinton campaign and its partners—namely Sussmann, and opposition research firm Fusion GPS—fed the Alfa Bank dirt to the media as well, with Hillary’s blessing, as we recently learned in testimony Durham’s team elicited from 2016 campaign manager Robby Mook. Clinton and her then-chief foreign policy advisor and now-U.S. national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, both publicly promoted the Trump-Alfa-Bank theory days before the election, citing reporting from Slate based on the campaign’s dubious research.
Given the revelations Durham brought to light in the run-up to the Sussmann trial, the case might have seemed like a slam dunk. But Durham has two obstacles: The judge, and the jury.
The President Barack Obama-appointed Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is presiding over the case, has described himself, and the accused, Michael Sussmann, as “professional acquaintances.” The two overlapped in President Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice.
Judge Cooper’s wife Amy Jeffress, who he married in 1999 with now-Attorney General Merrick Garland officiating, served in the Obama Justice Department. Subsequently, Jeffress left for private practice, where she has represented, among others, the disgraced, Trump-loathing former FBI attorney Lisa Page since at least 2018.
Page was the paramour of similarly disgraced former FBI Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok, and a close colleague of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe—both of whom were fired for misconduct. Their related words and acts evinced a bias towards Hillary Clinton, or at minimum against Donald Trump.
That bias mattered because the trio played a pivotal role in both the Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia probes, including in the efforts to pursue both Gen. Mike Flynn—wrecking his reputation and finances—and former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page—foisting a fraud on the FISA court while undermining basic civil liberties. Carter Page has since sued all three for their efforts. Lisa Page left Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team weeks before Strzok was removed from it, following the public revelation of the pair’s infamous anti-Trump texts.
Some, such as Kash Patel, the former chief investigator for then-Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) on the House Intelligence Committee, who helped unravel much that is known about Russiagate/Spygate, have speculated that Special Counsel Durham is targeting Page and Strzok.
As my RealClearInvestigations colleague Paul Sperry has reported, Jeffress contributed $2,700 to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. She and her husband Judge Cooper—prior to his appointment to the court—had routinely cut checks to Democratic candidates and the DNC.
To what extent does this background bear on Sussmann’s case?
Law professor Jonathan Turley notes that Judge Cooper has made life unusually difficult for Special Counsel Durham in pursuing Sussmann, especially in comparison with the comparably hostile environments colleagues like Judges Emmett Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson created for defendants Gen. Flynn and Trump ally Roger Stone, respectively.”
———–
Read on, the jury is even more questionable. The corruption at play here is astounding, and they don’t even try to hide it.
“Last weekend, the Biden administration patted itself on the back for helping to relieve its self-created baby formula shortage crisis, celebrating on social media the first Operation Fly Formula flight that transported 78,000 pounds of the much-needed product from Europe to Indianapolis, Indiana.
“Our team is working around the clock to get safe formula to everyone who needs it,” President Joe Biden’s handlers tweeted for him Sunday morning. (According to the ProPublica’s Politwoops tracker, Biden’s self-congratulations came after the official POTUS account accidentally tweeted in a now-deleted post that the U.S. is receiving more than 70,000 tons of infant formula. For those not privy to the conversion formula, it was an egregious discrepancy: 1 U.S. ton = 2,000 lbs—so, Biden’s gaffe touted 140 million pounds).
If (the communications department for) the highest office in the U.S. can’t grasp basic units, then Biden’s administration plugging into the distribution chain of a multinational corporation like Nestlé, the world’s largest food and beverage company, appears to be an ambitious feat the septuagenarian is ill-equipped to manage.
Where did these shipments of formula come from and where are they going? How soon with the product be available at local stores? Will the Biden administration’s efforts be enough to resolve the crisis? These are questions that concerned mothers caring for starving infants in Biden’s America deserve the answers to. Here are some fast facts on what we do know as the White House appears to be figuring it out along the way, too:
First Shipment
Last Sunday’s shipment was the first of several formula-filled flights approved by Biden that are America-bound. 132 pallets of Nestlé Health Science Alfamino Infant and Alfamino Junior formula—originating from Zurich, Switzerland, before it was trucked to Germany—left Ramstein Air Base for the U.S a week ago. Biden had authorized the Defense Department to use its federal contracts with commercial air cargo lines to expedite the process and bypass regular air freighting routes. The C-17 cargo plane, loaded with hypoallergenic formula for young children whose immune systems can’t tolerate cow’s milk protein, reached Indianapolis International Airport, where the military aircraft was greeted on May 22 by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. FedEx Express team members were on hand to offload and transport the first shipment to its transitional destination in Indianapolis, which was chosen as the arrival site because a Nestlé distribution facility is located there.
Vilsack wrote on Twitter that the emergency formula serves “a critical medical purpose” and will help infants with “specific dietary needs requiring specialized formula.” On the ground in the Hoosier State, the official told reporters present that the first allotment will “take care of 9,000 babies and 18,000 toddlers for a week.”
At the landing site, a Nestlé spokesperson said then that some cases were ready for distribution in the next couple of days while others will be “released into the supply chain” after standard quality testing is completed.
The formula, typically requiring a letter of medical necessity, was slated to be distributed to areas around the country where there’s the “most acute” need, a Biden administration official told CNN. While countless parents clamber to feed their babies with special medical needs, none of the elusive nutrition carried by the first shipment was authorized to hit America’s empty store shelves, the source revealed. The sought-after product contained in the first airlift was scheduled to go to hospitals, doctors, home health care facilities, and pharmacies in regions “where the needs are most acute,” the Biden admin official said.
Biden’s newly-promoted press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who had laughed when asked mid-May about which official or staffer is in charge of managing the situation, said to the media last Sunday aboard Air Force One that the White House is working with the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to ensure the formula “goes to those who need it the most.” It’s left many to question who exactly is first in line according to the Biden administration’s standards if the depleted product is not readily available to caregivers who want to see its circulation streamlined. Infants who have grown intolerant to over-the-counter products rely on such prescription-only formula to meet their dietary needs, but pharmacists have been unable to fill prescriptions for the specialized formula on backorder. As of now, it will be a frantic scramble among medical professionals to serve their infant patients as the feds continue to gatekeep the flown-in stockpile.
Townhall asked the Food and Drug Administration for the names of the health care entities or the particular areas on the president’s priority list and how the Biden administration determined its criteria for selecting the recipients as America’s most vulnerable population bears the brunt of the bureaucratic bottleneck. The FDA’s media affairs office quickly told Townhall to contact HHS “as they are coordinating this operation and distribution.” Repeated emails and phone calls directing the same questions to HHS yielded no responses.
“Democracies cannot survive without public trust. Citizens must be confident that their elected officials represent their interests, at least in broad terms, and are not corrupt, self-dealing con men. They must believe the courts dispense justice fairly and equally, that there’s not one set of rules for insiders and another for everyone else. They understand that complex societies require bureaucracies and that bureaucracies are inherently non-democratic, but they want the bureaucracies’ rules and procedures to be subject to laws, passed by elected officials, overseen by them, and applied evenly. For transparency, they depend on newspapers and television and, in recent years, on websites and social media.
These essential elements of stable democracy are encompassed by two words: “trust” and “fairness.” For democracies to thrive, citizens must trust the four core elements of their government: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and the bureaucracies which pass and implement most of the day-to-day rules. A crucial element of that trust is the belief that each individual gets a fair shake. That means he won’t be arrested or fined because of the color of his skin or his religion. If he has to go to court, it means he’ll get a fair trial, with an even-handed judge and a jury of his peers. He won’t be pilloried by a biased judge who doesn’t like his politics. His case will be decided by a jury that weighs the evidence without prejudice. The public also has a right to see that trials are handled fairly, without bias.
Every one of those basic tenets was violated in Michael Sussmann’s trial for lying to the FBI. We know now that a Washington, DC jury has found him not guilty, though it is still unclear whether they believed he didn’t lie, or the government didn’t prove it, or it didn’t matter to a politically biased FBI, which was determined to investigate anything connected to Donald Trump. We also know something more: the whole case is drenched in the sulfurous smell of the Washington Swamp.”
——-
“We know Sussmann had a client because he billed the Clinton campaign for the two thumb drives he turned over to the FBI at that meeting. It is clear (but not absolutely certain) that he billed the Clinton campaign for the meeting with Baker. The sliver of doubt is that Sussmann did not specifically list the FBI meeting in billing the campaign for his work that day. He listed only a “confidential” project, which is how he repeatedly billed his work for the Alfa-Bank-Trump fable. We also have his testimony, under oath, to a congressional committee that he was representing a client in that meeting. In short, the evidence he lied is overwhelming.
The evidence that Sussmann’s lie affected their investigation is strong but debatable. Any uncertainty here is crucial since the prosecution not only has to prove Sussmann lied but that his lie affected the Bureau’s work or had the potential to do so. That’s a low standard, but Sussmann’s team says the government didn’t meet it.
The defense makes a devastating point for anybody worried about corrupt law enforcement. They note that the FBI’s cyber experts quickly recognized that the white papers and thumb drives Sussmann gave Baker were garbage. They might fool someone without any cyber expertise but not a real expert. When the FBI learned that Sussmann’s materials were worthless, the Bureau should have immediately ended its investigation based solely on that material. They didn’t. Baker testified that his bosses on the Seventh Floor (FBI director James Comey and his number two, Andrew McCabe) were fired up by Sussmann’s materials and authorized a full-scale investigation of the Trump-Alfa Bank connection. When the Bureau asked the Chicago field office to look into the internet data Sussmann had given them, FBI leaders specifically prohibited the field agents from speaking to anyone who generated the data for Sussmann. The FBI’s approach was fatally biased, corrupt, and partisan — the now-familiar hallmarks of Saint James Comey’s tenure at the Bureau.
Bias like that at the nation’s top law-enforcement agency is noxious for democracy — and it may well have played a crucial role in this trial. Sussmann’s defense tried to persuade the jury that, even if Sussmann lied, it didn’t influence the FBI investigation. Why? Because the Bureau was already so vehemently opposed to Trump that it didn’t need influencing to launch his investigation. The defense’s best case was that the FBI would have launched the investigation anyway and simply used the Sussmann’s threadbare materials as an excuse.
The FBI was undoubtedly biased (and perhaps incompetent) here, but it should have been possible to persuade a fair-minded jury that Sussmann’s lie didn’t have some influence. But was this a fair-minded jury? There is sickening evidence that the presiding federal judge, Christopher Cooper, seated a jury he knew would strongly favor Sussmann, not because they liked Sussmann but because he represented Hillary Clinton and opposed Donald Trump. How did Judge Cooper tilt the scales of justice? By improperly seating three jurors who donated to the very candidate Sussmann was trying to help. Those jurors said they could be fair, but there is no way they should have been seated. Special Counsel John Durham’s team argued they should be excluded for “cause.” Durham was right; Cooper was wrong, and the only way to explain his decision is his own political bias.
This whole case was about a lie that was meant to help Hillary Clinton and hurt Donald Trump. That means there was a partisan political element at the very heart of the case. That would pose an uphill battle for Durham in any case since the trial was held in Washington, DC, where Trump received almost no votes. He is reviled there. Knowing that, the judge should have leaned over backwards to make sure the jury wasn’t overtly partisan. He did the opposite, and that’s unconscionable. He not only seated three donors to Clinton, he seated another who donated to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AOC may not have been a friend of Hillary’s but she was even more staunchly opposed to Trump. All four of those potential jurors should have been excluded.
The stench surrounding the judge, the defendant, the biased jury, and the FBI ought to outrage the public, no matter who they supported for president. In fact, the public has been kept in the dark throughout the trial because the media refuses to report on it. (Expect them to now shout the “not guilty” verdict from the rooftops because it supports their viewpoint.) When James Baker gave his devastating testimony, all three television networks devoted zero minutes to the trial. The New York Times said nothing. They did the same thing the next day, when Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager dropped the bombshell in court that Hillary herself authorized the campaign to spread the Alfa-Bank-Trump story to the media. Again, crickets.”
Meanwhile, the mass shootings continued, but the media doesn’t care to report on these….
Democrat rule top to bottom built this.
“51 people shot over Memorial Day weekend in Chicago, the most violent in five years
About half of those shot were on the West Side, most of them in a single police district where there were two mass shootings. At least 23 people were shot on the South Side and four downtown.”
“Chicago experienced its most violent Memorial Day weekend in five years — 9 killed, 42 wounded — despite stepped up police patrols and a focus on neighborhood programs that city officials hoped would provide peaceful alternatives.
About half of those shot were on the West Side, most of them in a single police district, the 11th, where there were two mass shootings on Sunday. On the South Side, at least 23 people were shot. And downtown, where there has been a spike in shootings all year, four people were hit by gunfire.
The weekend was the most violent since 2017, when seven people were killed and 45 people were wounded, according to Chicago police data. The year before, 69 people had been shot over the long holiday weekend.
This past weekend’s toll is sharply higher than last year, when three people were killed and 34 others were wounded.”
Wandering Views 
Truth.
———
——–
LikeLike
——–
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clown alert.
Feel the unity….
——–
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see clowns…..
Where?
Everywhere…..
——-
It’s what they do.
——-
———
LikeLiked by 1 person
And another….
——-
———
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mom….
Crazy GrandPa’s making @#$% up again….
——-
——-
——-
——
——-
——
Apparently, yes, it is too much to ask.
———
LikeLiked by 1 person
The two tiered justice system fails America, yet once again works as designed for the politically connected. The judge is a fraud, the jury a joke. This outcome was predetermined.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/05/hillary-campaign-lawyer-acquitted-of-lying-to-the-fbi-during-trump-russia-probe/
“A jury found Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for Hillary’s campaign, not guilty of lying to the FBI in September 2016 during the Trump-Russia probe:
The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
After a two week trial, and more than a day of deliberations, the jury found that Special Counsel John Durham’s team had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Sussmann’s statement was a lie, and that he was, in fact, working on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and technology executive Rodney Joffe when he brought two thumb drives and a white paper alleging a Trump-Russia connection.
The jury is questionable. One jury member has a kid on the same soccer team as Sussmann’s kid:
The jury included one federal government employee who told the judge they donated to Democrats in 2016 and another government employee who told the judge they “strongly” dislike former President Trump. Both of those jurors told the judge they could be impartial throughout the trial.
The jury also included a teacher, an illustrator, a mechanic and more. One juror had a child who was on the same high school sports team as Sussmann’s child.”
——-
LikeLiked by 1 person
The trial exposed our corrupt elites, our biased and corrupt DC courts, and their media lapdogs.
———
LikeLiked by 1 person
———
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Deep State Allies Play Judge, Jury and Perhaps Executioner Against Durham”
https://www.newsweek.com/deep-state-allies-play-judge-jury-perhaps-executioner-against-durham-opinion-1710197
“Assume for the sake of argument that Special Counsel John Durham was doggedly devoted to pursuing every last individual implicated in crimes regarding the origins of Russiagate/Spygate, and subsequent investigatory and prosecutorial efforts.
Assume that no matter the rank of the perpetrators, the professional and personal costs he and his team might incur, and the fact he serves at the pleasure of the Biden Justice Department, Durham would do whatever it takes to bring to justice all those who broke the law.
Still, he would face a greater than uphill battle. For he would be taking on an entire system arrayed against him, just like it was arrayed against former President Donald Trump.
The trial of Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann demonstrates well the extent to which Durham is playing an away game against The Swamp—the Deep State, the political establishment and their manifold allies—that will make even those less sensitive targets being pursued on more narrow and straightforward grounds difficult to bring to justice.
The special counsel is prosecuting Sussmann for allegedly lying to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker that he was representing no one when, in September 2016, he brought Baker dubious Trump-Russia dirt from a secret communications channel run between Trump Organization and Russian Alfa-Bank servers. Sussmann also allegedly lied again when, in February 2017, he brought the story to the CIA.
In truth, Sussmann had obtained the information while serving two clients: Clinton’s campaign and Rodney Joffe, a technology executive and one-time FBI informant who was conducting opposition research on Donald Trump in coordination with Sussmann and the Clinton campaign.
The Clinton campaign and its partners—namely Sussmann, and opposition research firm Fusion GPS—fed the Alfa Bank dirt to the media as well, with Hillary’s blessing, as we recently learned in testimony Durham’s team elicited from 2016 campaign manager Robby Mook. Clinton and her then-chief foreign policy advisor and now-U.S. national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, both publicly promoted the Trump-Alfa-Bank theory days before the election, citing reporting from Slate based on the campaign’s dubious research.
Given the revelations Durham brought to light in the run-up to the Sussmann trial, the case might have seemed like a slam dunk. But Durham has two obstacles: The judge, and the jury.
The President Barack Obama-appointed Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is presiding over the case, has described himself, and the accused, Michael Sussmann, as “professional acquaintances.” The two overlapped in President Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice.
Judge Cooper’s wife Amy Jeffress, who he married in 1999 with now-Attorney General Merrick Garland officiating, served in the Obama Justice Department. Subsequently, Jeffress left for private practice, where she has represented, among others, the disgraced, Trump-loathing former FBI attorney Lisa Page since at least 2018.
Page was the paramour of similarly disgraced former FBI Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok, and a close colleague of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe—both of whom were fired for misconduct. Their related words and acts evinced a bias towards Hillary Clinton, or at minimum against Donald Trump.
That bias mattered because the trio played a pivotal role in both the Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia probes, including in the efforts to pursue both Gen. Mike Flynn—wrecking his reputation and finances—and former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page—foisting a fraud on the FISA court while undermining basic civil liberties. Carter Page has since sued all three for their efforts. Lisa Page left Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team weeks before Strzok was removed from it, following the public revelation of the pair’s infamous anti-Trump texts.
Some, such as Kash Patel, the former chief investigator for then-Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) on the House Intelligence Committee, who helped unravel much that is known about Russiagate/Spygate, have speculated that Special Counsel Durham is targeting Page and Strzok.
As my RealClearInvestigations colleague Paul Sperry has reported, Jeffress contributed $2,700 to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. She and her husband Judge Cooper—prior to his appointment to the court—had routinely cut checks to Democratic candidates and the DNC.
To what extent does this background bear on Sussmann’s case?
Law professor Jonathan Turley notes that Judge Cooper has made life unusually difficult for Special Counsel Durham in pursuing Sussmann, especially in comparison with the comparably hostile environments colleagues like Judges Emmett Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson created for defendants Gen. Flynn and Trump ally Roger Stone, respectively.”
———–
Read on, the jury is even more questionable. The corruption at play here is astounding, and they don’t even try to hide it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once again, they lied.
——–
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2022/05/31/where-are-the-shipments-of-baby-formula-going-n2607717
“Last weekend, the Biden administration patted itself on the back for helping to relieve its self-created baby formula shortage crisis, celebrating on social media the first Operation Fly Formula flight that transported 78,000 pounds of the much-needed product from Europe to Indianapolis, Indiana.
“Our team is working around the clock to get safe formula to everyone who needs it,” President Joe Biden’s handlers tweeted for him Sunday morning. (According to the ProPublica’s Politwoops tracker, Biden’s self-congratulations came after the official POTUS account accidentally tweeted in a now-deleted post that the U.S. is receiving more than 70,000 tons of infant formula. For those not privy to the conversion formula, it was an egregious discrepancy: 1 U.S. ton = 2,000 lbs—so, Biden’s gaffe touted 140 million pounds).
If (the communications department for) the highest office in the U.S. can’t grasp basic units, then Biden’s administration plugging into the distribution chain of a multinational corporation like Nestlé, the world’s largest food and beverage company, appears to be an ambitious feat the septuagenarian is ill-equipped to manage.
Where did these shipments of formula come from and where are they going? How soon with the product be available at local stores? Will the Biden administration’s efforts be enough to resolve the crisis? These are questions that concerned mothers caring for starving infants in Biden’s America deserve the answers to. Here are some fast facts on what we do know as the White House appears to be figuring it out along the way, too:
First Shipment
Last Sunday’s shipment was the first of several formula-filled flights approved by Biden that are America-bound. 132 pallets of Nestlé Health Science Alfamino Infant and Alfamino Junior formula—originating from Zurich, Switzerland, before it was trucked to Germany—left Ramstein Air Base for the U.S a week ago. Biden had authorized the Defense Department to use its federal contracts with commercial air cargo lines to expedite the process and bypass regular air freighting routes. The C-17 cargo plane, loaded with hypoallergenic formula for young children whose immune systems can’t tolerate cow’s milk protein, reached Indianapolis International Airport, where the military aircraft was greeted on May 22 by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. FedEx Express team members were on hand to offload and transport the first shipment to its transitional destination in Indianapolis, which was chosen as the arrival site because a Nestlé distribution facility is located there.
Vilsack wrote on Twitter that the emergency formula serves “a critical medical purpose” and will help infants with “specific dietary needs requiring specialized formula.” On the ground in the Hoosier State, the official told reporters present that the first allotment will “take care of 9,000 babies and 18,000 toddlers for a week.”
At the landing site, a Nestlé spokesperson said then that some cases were ready for distribution in the next couple of days while others will be “released into the supply chain” after standard quality testing is completed.
The formula, typically requiring a letter of medical necessity, was slated to be distributed to areas around the country where there’s the “most acute” need, a Biden administration official told CNN. While countless parents clamber to feed their babies with special medical needs, none of the elusive nutrition carried by the first shipment was authorized to hit America’s empty store shelves, the source revealed. The sought-after product contained in the first airlift was scheduled to go to hospitals, doctors, home health care facilities, and pharmacies in regions “where the needs are most acute,” the Biden admin official said.
Biden’s newly-promoted press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who had laughed when asked mid-May about which official or staffer is in charge of managing the situation, said to the media last Sunday aboard Air Force One that the White House is working with the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to ensure the formula “goes to those who need it the most.” It’s left many to question who exactly is first in line according to the Biden administration’s standards if the depleted product is not readily available to caregivers who want to see its circulation streamlined. Infants who have grown intolerant to over-the-counter products rely on such prescription-only formula to meet their dietary needs, but pharmacists have been unable to fill prescriptions for the specialized formula on backorder. As of now, it will be a frantic scramble among medical professionals to serve their infant patients as the feds continue to gatekeep the flown-in stockpile.
Townhall asked the Food and Drug Administration for the names of the health care entities or the particular areas on the president’s priority list and how the Biden administration determined its criteria for selecting the recipients as America’s most vulnerable population bears the brunt of the bureaucratic bottleneck. The FDA’s media affairs office quickly told Townhall to contact HHS “as they are coordinating this operation and distribution.” Repeated emails and phone calls directing the same questions to HHS yielded no responses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is what ‘justice’ looks like in the USA today…
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-responds-after-former-clinton-lawyer-is-acquitted_4502955.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The stench from the Sussmann verdict
There was a partisan political element at the very heart of the case”
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/stench-from-the-sussmann-verdict/
“Democracies cannot survive without public trust. Citizens must be confident that their elected officials represent their interests, at least in broad terms, and are not corrupt, self-dealing con men. They must believe the courts dispense justice fairly and equally, that there’s not one set of rules for insiders and another for everyone else. They understand that complex societies require bureaucracies and that bureaucracies are inherently non-democratic, but they want the bureaucracies’ rules and procedures to be subject to laws, passed by elected officials, overseen by them, and applied evenly. For transparency, they depend on newspapers and television and, in recent years, on websites and social media.
These essential elements of stable democracy are encompassed by two words: “trust” and “fairness.” For democracies to thrive, citizens must trust the four core elements of their government: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and the bureaucracies which pass and implement most of the day-to-day rules. A crucial element of that trust is the belief that each individual gets a fair shake. That means he won’t be arrested or fined because of the color of his skin or his religion. If he has to go to court, it means he’ll get a fair trial, with an even-handed judge and a jury of his peers. He won’t be pilloried by a biased judge who doesn’t like his politics. His case will be decided by a jury that weighs the evidence without prejudice. The public also has a right to see that trials are handled fairly, without bias.
Every one of those basic tenets was violated in Michael Sussmann’s trial for lying to the FBI. We know now that a Washington, DC jury has found him not guilty, though it is still unclear whether they believed he didn’t lie, or the government didn’t prove it, or it didn’t matter to a politically biased FBI, which was determined to investigate anything connected to Donald Trump. We also know something more: the whole case is drenched in the sulfurous smell of the Washington Swamp.”
——-
“We know Sussmann had a client because he billed the Clinton campaign for the two thumb drives he turned over to the FBI at that meeting. It is clear (but not absolutely certain) that he billed the Clinton campaign for the meeting with Baker. The sliver of doubt is that Sussmann did not specifically list the FBI meeting in billing the campaign for his work that day. He listed only a “confidential” project, which is how he repeatedly billed his work for the Alfa-Bank-Trump fable. We also have his testimony, under oath, to a congressional committee that he was representing a client in that meeting. In short, the evidence he lied is overwhelming.
The evidence that Sussmann’s lie affected their investigation is strong but debatable. Any uncertainty here is crucial since the prosecution not only has to prove Sussmann lied but that his lie affected the Bureau’s work or had the potential to do so. That’s a low standard, but Sussmann’s team says the government didn’t meet it.
The defense makes a devastating point for anybody worried about corrupt law enforcement. They note that the FBI’s cyber experts quickly recognized that the white papers and thumb drives Sussmann gave Baker were garbage. They might fool someone without any cyber expertise but not a real expert. When the FBI learned that Sussmann’s materials were worthless, the Bureau should have immediately ended its investigation based solely on that material. They didn’t. Baker testified that his bosses on the Seventh Floor (FBI director James Comey and his number two, Andrew McCabe) were fired up by Sussmann’s materials and authorized a full-scale investigation of the Trump-Alfa Bank connection. When the Bureau asked the Chicago field office to look into the internet data Sussmann had given them, FBI leaders specifically prohibited the field agents from speaking to anyone who generated the data for Sussmann. The FBI’s approach was fatally biased, corrupt, and partisan — the now-familiar hallmarks of Saint James Comey’s tenure at the Bureau.
Bias like that at the nation’s top law-enforcement agency is noxious for democracy — and it may well have played a crucial role in this trial. Sussmann’s defense tried to persuade the jury that, even if Sussmann lied, it didn’t influence the FBI investigation. Why? Because the Bureau was already so vehemently opposed to Trump that it didn’t need influencing to launch his investigation. The defense’s best case was that the FBI would have launched the investigation anyway and simply used the Sussmann’s threadbare materials as an excuse.
The FBI was undoubtedly biased (and perhaps incompetent) here, but it should have been possible to persuade a fair-minded jury that Sussmann’s lie didn’t have some influence. But was this a fair-minded jury? There is sickening evidence that the presiding federal judge, Christopher Cooper, seated a jury he knew would strongly favor Sussmann, not because they liked Sussmann but because he represented Hillary Clinton and opposed Donald Trump. How did Judge Cooper tilt the scales of justice? By improperly seating three jurors who donated to the very candidate Sussmann was trying to help. Those jurors said they could be fair, but there is no way they should have been seated. Special Counsel John Durham’s team argued they should be excluded for “cause.” Durham was right; Cooper was wrong, and the only way to explain his decision is his own political bias.
This whole case was about a lie that was meant to help Hillary Clinton and hurt Donald Trump. That means there was a partisan political element at the very heart of the case. That would pose an uphill battle for Durham in any case since the trial was held in Washington, DC, where Trump received almost no votes. He is reviled there. Knowing that, the judge should have leaned over backwards to make sure the jury wasn’t overtly partisan. He did the opposite, and that’s unconscionable. He not only seated three donors to Clinton, he seated another who donated to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AOC may not have been a friend of Hillary’s but she was even more staunchly opposed to Trump. All four of those potential jurors should have been excluded.
The stench surrounding the judge, the defendant, the biased jury, and the FBI ought to outrage the public, no matter who they supported for president. In fact, the public has been kept in the dark throughout the trial because the media refuses to report on it. (Expect them to now shout the “not guilty” verdict from the rooftops because it supports their viewpoint.) When James Baker gave his devastating testimony, all three television networks devoted zero minutes to the trial. The New York Times said nothing. They did the same thing the next day, when Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager dropped the bombshell in court that Hillary herself authorized the campaign to spread the Alfa-Bank-Trump story to the media. Again, crickets.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Meanwhile, the mass shootings continued, but the media doesn’t care to report on these….
Democrat rule top to bottom built this.
“51 people shot over Memorial Day weekend in Chicago, the most violent in five years
About half of those shot were on the West Side, most of them in a single police district where there were two mass shootings. At least 23 people were shot on the South Side and four downtown.”
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/5/29/23146412/chicago-shootings-memorial-day-weekend
“Chicago experienced its most violent Memorial Day weekend in five years — 9 killed, 42 wounded — despite stepped up police patrols and a focus on neighborhood programs that city officials hoped would provide peaceful alternatives.
About half of those shot were on the West Side, most of them in a single police district, the 11th, where there were two mass shootings on Sunday. On the South Side, at least 23 people were shot. And downtown, where there has been a spike in shootings all year, four people were hit by gunfire.
The weekend was the most violent since 2017, when seven people were killed and 45 people were wounded, according to Chicago police data. The year before, 69 people had been shot over the long holiday weekend.
This past weekend’s toll is sharply higher than last year, when three people were killed and 34 others were wounded.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like I said, they don’t even try to hide how corrupt they are.
———
LikeLiked by 1 person
Never stood a chance….
——–
LikeLiked by 1 person