“More than one week after an 18-year-old gunman stormed Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, state officials are still struggling to set the record straight on what really happened that led to the deaths of 19 kids and two adults.
For a week now, the public, the press, and politicians have been on a wild goose chase to find out why it took more than an hour for good guys with guns to take down a school shooter in a small school in the small South Texas town last Tuesday.
Unfortunately, Texas safety officials have traded the truth for multiple false, misleading, and vague statements that have significantly undermined the public’s trust in law enforcement’s ability to protect children like the fourth-graders who lost their lives in the attack.
Not only have they severely undercut the trust of Americans, they’ve infuriated the mourning Uvalde community.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he felt “misled” and “livid” after hearing that a poor police response significantly contributed to the delay in action against the shooter. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick also lamented that “No one mentioned the fact that there was this 45-minute to an hour hold by the chief of the police of the school district while there were still shots being fired.”
Here are eight lies Texas officials told about the Uvalde shooting that should get them immediately fired.
1. A School Resource Officer ‘Engaged’ the Suspect
Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director Steve McCraw originally said a school resource officer “engaged” the suspect before he entered the school.
At one point, McCraw switched tracks and said the officer “was not on campus” at the time of the shooting.
Elsewhere, officials were reported saying the school officer simply “confronted” the shooter instead of actively engaging him.
Texas DPS was forced to walk back both accounts a couple of days later when word got out that the school resource officer completely failed to notice the shooter when he drove past the suspect who was “hunkered down” behind a vehicle.
“[The shooter] walked in unobstructed initially,” Texas DPS Regional Director Victor Escalon eventually admitted. “So from the grandmother’s house, to the [ditch], to the school, into the school, he was not confronted by anybody.”
2. The Shooter Was Outside the School for 12 Minutes Before Entering
Escalon said last week that the shooter lingered outside of Robb for 12 minutes after crashing his car into a nearby ditch. Days later, McCraw said the gun-wielding teen was inside the school within five minutes of wrecking.
3. The Door the Shooter Entered Through Was Left Propped Open by a Teacher
Original reports from the shooting scene at Robb Elementary suggested that a teacher left a back door at the school propped open with a rock which is how the shooter entered the building.
McCraw volunteered the information during his Friday press conference and claimed that DPS obtained video evidence to support this theory.
“We know from video evidence, at 11:27 the exterior door suspected for what the — where we knew the shooter entered, Ramos — was propped open by a teacher,” he said.
Recent statements from Texas state police, however, suggest that the teacher accused of neglecting the back door went back to close it after seeing Ramos. The door, however, did not automatically lock properly. The unnamed teacher’s lawyer also denies that his client left the back door open.
In a complete contradiction of DPS’s original claim, some outlets are even reporting that “security footage obtained from the area has backed up the claim that the teacher closed the door at this time.”
4. The Gunman Was Wearing Body Armor
DPS spokesman Sgt. Erick Estrada claimed shortly after the shooting that the suspect carried “a rifle and [had] body armor on.”
Another DPS spokesman, Lt. Christopher Olivarez, later claimed that the gunman was wearing a vest designed to carry extra ammo but did not have any plates on him.
5. Officers Quickly Engaged The Shooter
McCraw originally said that the first law enforcement officers who arrived at the school “did engage” the shooter “immediately.”
“The bottom line is law enforcement was there,” McCraw said the day after the shooting. “They did engage immediately. They did contain [the gunman] in the classroom.”
Uvalde Police Chief Daniel Rodriguez also claimed that his officers “responded within minutes.”
It wasn’t until three days after the tragedy that McCraw admitted local law enforcement shied away from helping students and staff after taking fire from the suspect. McCraw claimed that officers misclassified the suspect as a barricaded shooter and that “there were no kids at risk.” Officers reportedly stood outside of the school and then outside of the classroom for nearly an hour while waiting for a Border Patrol tactical team to show up at the scene where students were repeatedly calling 911 for help.
By the time BORTAC arrived and used a janitor key to enter the afflicted fourth-grade classroom, the shooter had been on school property for more than an hour.”
“Last September the ACLU posted a quote from the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg talking about gender equality. Only the ACLU had decided Ginsburg’s actual quote wasn’t quite woke enough for modern tastes so they replaced the pronouns and removed the word “woman.”
Yesterday the London Times reported that the BBC went one step further than the ACLU. According to the report, the news outlet replaced the pronouns in a victim’s quote in order to avoid having her statement misgender her alleged rapist.
The BBC changed the testimony of a rape victim after a debate over the pronouns of her transgender attacker, The Times has learnt.
The woman referred to her alleged rapist as “him” but insiders said that her words were changed to avoid “misgendering” the abuser in an article on the corporation’s website.
The BBC article replaced every reference to “he” or “him” with “they” or “them”. A source said the quote was the subject of heated debate prior to publication. Some journalists argued that the quote should remain intact, while others said it should reflect the trans woman’s preferred she/her pronouns.
The BBC story in question was published last October and as it happens I wrote about it at the time and included the excerpt in which all the pronouns were changed:
Another reported a trans woman physically forcing her to have sex after they went on a date.
“[They] threatened to out me as a terf and risk my job if I refused to sleep with [them],” she wrote. “I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so [they were] a ‘woman’ even if every fibre of my being was screaming throughout so I agreed to go home with [them]. [They] used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing [their] penis and raped me.”
The reason for the altered quote didn’t even occur to me at the time, but in retrospect it’s obvious that they aren’t just replacing the attacker’s name. So what the (alleged) victim actually said was “He used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing his penis and raped me.” But that sort of blunt talk wasn’t acceptable to the BBC.
Angela Wild, co-founder of lesbian campaign group Get The L Out, told the Times the BBC was wrong to amend the quotes.
She said: ‘It’s really unethical and disrespectful to the victim. It’s a form of gaslighting for a woman who has already been through sexual violence.’”
“Trust in traditional media has declined to an all-time low, and many news professionals are determined to do something about it.
Why it matters: Faith in society’s central institutions, especially in government and the media, is the glue that holds society together. That glue was visibly dissolving a decade ago, and has now, for many millions of Americans, disappeared entirely.
By the numbers: For the first time ever, fewer than half of all Americans have trust in traditional media, according to data from Edelman’s annual trust barometer shared exclusively with Axios. Trust in social media has hit an all-time low of 27%.
56% of Americans agree with the statement that “Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”
58% think that “most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.”
When Edelman re-polled Americans after the election, the figures had deteriorated even further, with 57% of Democrats trusting the media and only 18% of Republicans.”
“A top Republican senator is demanding that the leaders of the Department of Justice and FBI investigate whether a top bureau official in the nation’s capital violated DOJ guidelines through partisan posts on social media.
Timothy Thibault, FBI assistant special agent in charge and leader at the Washington field office handling public corruption matters and other criminal investigations, “likely violated several federal regulations and Department guidelines designed to prevent political bias from infecting FBI matters, including the Attorney General Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations and FBI social media policies,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said Tuesday.
Grassley sent letters to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray that set a preliminary deadline of June 14 for them to share documents related to Thibault, including investigations he has supervised since 2015. Grassley also called on DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to investigate, pointing to a number of DOJ rules and regulations, including FBI guidelines on social media use.
Thibault’s purported LinkedIn account states that he is currently an assistant special agent in charge at the Washington field office in the nation’s capital, a position it says he has held since August 2020. The account says he has been in the FBI for more than 25 years, was an assistant section chief for international terrorism operations from December 2018 to August 2020 (including being the acting section chief from May 2019 to March 2020), and was a supervisory special agent before that.
“Based on a review of open-source content, ASAC Thibault has demonstrated a pattern of active public partisanship, such as using his official title for public partisan posts relating to his superiors and matters under the FBI’s purview, that is likely a violation of his ethical obligations as an FBI employee,” Grassley said. “Accordingly, his actions present a grave risk of political infection and bias in his official decision-making process, creating serious questions with respect to oversight of investigative matters under his purview.”
Grassley added, “ASAC Thibault’s social media postings, comments, and ‘likes’ … demonstrate a pattern of improper commentary related to, for example, ongoing FBI investigations including those under his purview.”
An FBI spokesperson provided a comment to the Washington Examiner after this report was published.
“Without commenting on any specific personnel matters, all FBI employees are held to the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct. Any allegations of misconduct are taken seriously and referred to the Inspection Division,” the FBI representative said.”
“esterday, after less than one full day of deliberations, a D.C. jury stacked with pro-Hillary Clinton jurors acquitted former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann, proving the FBI is not “ours” but the swamp’s.
Just more than two weeks ago, prosecutor Brittain Shaw began opening statements in United States v. Sussmann, by stating the obvious: “Some people have very strong feelings about politics and about Russia, and many people have strong feelings about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.”
“But we are not here because these allegations involve either of them,” Shaw continued. “Nor are we here because the defendant’s client was the Clinton campaign.” Rather, “we are here because the FBI is our institution that should not be used as a political tool for anyone; not Republicans, not Democrats, not anyone.”
But after hearing overwhelming evidence that Sussmann lied when he told the then-FBI General Counsel James Baker he was providing data and whitepapers about a supposed secret communications channel between Trump and the Russian-based Alfa Bank on his own behalf, when in fact Sussmann was representing both the Clinton campaign and tech executive Rodney Joffe, the 12 D.C. residents found Sussmann not guilty.
It was not the verdict, however, that confirmed that the FBI belongs to career bureaucrats, high-powered D.C. elites who revolve in and out of the government as political appointees, and the families and friends of all the above. Rather, it was the speed with which the acquittal came, coupled with the in-court testimony and other evidence exposed by the special counsel throughout the prosecution that proved the FBI isn’t America’s anymore.
After hearing from some 20 witnesses, all but a few testifying for the prosecution, the jury spent a couple of hours on Friday deliberating before the long Memorial Day weekend. Tuesday morning, the 12 jurors returned to the D.C. federal courthouse to continue deliberations. But after requesting to see a copy of Sussmann’s taxi receipt and one of the whitepapers Sussmann peddled to Baker, they delivered their verdict of “not guilty.”
In total, then, the jury did not even deliberate for a full day, which means not one of the 12 jurors pushed the other 11 to wade through the detailed evidence presented by the special counsel’s office. Who could blame them, though, if the government’s own witnesses registered more offense at Congress for investigating the Russia collusion hoax than they did at Sussmann for misleading the FBI.
Consider Baker, to whom Sussmann was charged with lying. The former FBI general counsel testified he was “100 percent confident” Sussmann said during their September 19, 2016 meeting that he was not representing a client. Baker also told the jury he likely wouldn’t have taken the meeting if he knew Sussmann represented the Clinton campaign.
Yet Baker blamed himself for throwing Sussmann “into a maelstrom” and expressed outrage at how the congressmen investigating the investigation into Trump and his campaign behaved when they questioned Baker about his meeting with Sussmann. Baker displayed not even a sliver of the same distress over his friend lying to him.
On the contrary, when asked why he had just discovered the text message Sussmann sent him the night before their meeting, in which Sussmann wrote, “I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company. [W]ant to help the Bureau,” Baker told prosecutors: “I’m not out to get Michael. This is not my investigation. This is your investigation. If you ask me a question, I answer it. You asked me to look for something, I go look for it.”
While Baker may no longer work for the FBI, he did at the time Sussmann fed him the Alfa Bank folly. As an American, he should have been appalled that the former Clinton campaign attorney would play the law enforcement and intelligence communities for political purposes. Also, had Baker pulled his cell phone records earlier, the text could have served as a separate false statement charge—one proven in black-and-white—but the delay in Baker finding the text allowed the statute of limitations to expire.
Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division for the FBI in 2016, likewise displayed a grudging demeanor when testifying on behalf of the special counsel. When asked whether it was “important” for Sussmann “to fully disclose his ties to the Clinton campaign,” rather than provide a straightforward answer, Priestap sparred with the prosecutor, first saying it “would have been part of several factors.” Then, when pushed, Priestap said, “I’m struggling on your use of the word ‘important.’ It’s a motivation that is relevant, but not the only factor.”
Prosecutors, however, had ample other evidence that established the materiality of Sussmann’s misrepresentation to Baker. But the jurors didn’t care because the jury, in the truest sense, was a jury of Sussmann’s peers. Just as his actual colleagues, Baker and Priestap, shrugged off the Section 1001 false statement offense, so did the jury, who could easily envision their neighbors and friends sitting in his stead.
But the proof that the FBI is no longer “ours” came even before the jury verdict—months earlier, when Special Counsel John Durham revealed in a discovery update that the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General withheld evidence from Durham’s team.
The DOJ’s OIG is charged with conducting independent investigations related to DOJ employees and programs, including alleged misconduct by FBI agents. In preparing for the Sussmann trial, the special counsel’s office met with the OIG in October 2021 “to discuss discoverable materials that may be in the OIG’s possession.”
Even though the OIG possessed two of Baker’s FBI cellphones, prosecutors were not told of the phones’ existence by the OIG. Rather, the special counsel only learned of the two cellphones on January 6, 2022, when another FBI employee mentioned them.
The same discovery update that revealed the OIG had failed to mention Baker’s cell phones also noted that the OIG had falsely told Durham’s team that “a written forensic report” was the only information it possessed concerning a meeting between Sussmann and the OIG.
That meeting had occurred in early 2017, when Sussmann, on behalf of an unnamed client now known to be Joffe, went to the IG with a report that his client “had observed that a specific OIG employee’s computer was ‘seen publicly’ in ‘Internet traffic’ and was connecting to a Virtual Private Network in a foreign country.” The OIG provided the special counsel with the forensic report, but in doing so, also represented to prosecutors that it had ‘no other file[] or other documentation’ relating to this cyber matter.”
However, after Sussmann’s defense team informed Durham that Sussmann had personally met with the IG, the special counsel’s office circled back and, amazingly, the OIG discovered additional documentation related to Sussmann’s meeting with the IG. That the OIG—the entity charged with investigating FBI misconduct—withheld not one, but two pieces of evidence from the special counsel’s office until cornered should crush any remaining faith our country holds in the FBI.”
See for yourself what the Biden admin wants their teacher friends doing.
CONTENT WARNING!!!!!
A gay nightclub in Minnesota held a drag show for children earlier this month. One of the performers said in an interview “I want to give the kids an opportunity to see what drag queen/king life is like on a day to day basis.” https://t.co/dGfdsD7OHSpic.twitter.com/zLcYBgTt1O
A bar in Dallas, Texas is advertising a drag show for children including the oppurtunity for some kids to perform with the drag queens on stage. This is the drag queen host. pic.twitter.com/L14WloK5ie
.@aclib is advertising drag queen story hour specifically for preschoolers. The library is funded primarily by local property taxes. pic.twitter.com/SbpsWzMDq8
In Jasper Indiana, a pride event with a drag queen performance is being advertised for all ages and they are encouraging kids to bring cash to tip the drag queens. pic.twitter.com/jKBUCM8Rqx
In Weston Vermont, a public library had a drag queen story hour for all ages with stories focused on gender and activism. They write “drag queen story hour captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood” pic.twitter.com/QRYrqrGE26
Elementary, middle, and high schools across NYC have teamed up with this drag organization to bring drag queens to schools to read to kids. pic.twitter.com/h0iaDXkOUP
Various drag events for kids are being advertised everywhere: Mahwah, NJ – drag queen story time Apex, NC – DQSH & drag show Manchester, VT – drag queen bingo Denver, CO – drag queen talent show pic.twitter.com/nniSAhopyy
A children's theater in Seattle is offering a masterclass for teens called "The Art of Drag" which will teach kids to create a drag persona. pic.twitter.com/IoVTuiWKOo
An Illinois middle school treated students to a drag show during school in early May. One of the performers is an employee of the district. https://t.co/JL8phXqNP6
This particular pervert and his father are another great example of that.
CONTENT WARNING!!!!!!
If you go to the link, be warned…
There are photos…
“Hunter’s search history reveals his obsession with porn and sex fantasies including ’18yrs old,’ ‘lonely widow’ and ‘MILF crack cocaine porn,’ he uploaded his OWN amateur videos and texted Pornhub link to phone listed in his contacts as ‘Dad'”
“WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
Hunter Biden’s internet search history from March 2019 reveals his obsession with porn and penchant for filming himself having sex with prostitutes
The president’s son, who dated his late brother’s wife Hallie, repeatedly searched Pornhub for titles involving ‘lonely widows’ as well as videos with 18- and 19-year-old girls
Of the 281 websites found in his search history over six days, 98 were pornographic, DailyMail.com can reveal
Hunter, 52, who had a paid Pornhub Premium account under ‘RHEast’, also uploaded his own amateur videos but was careful not to show his face
He was also a regular user of sex cam sites, particularly Glasscams.com, where he made screen recordings of himself interacting live with the women on the site
Text messages also show Hunter apparently sent a link to a Pornhub page to a phone number he had saved in his contacts book as ‘Dad’ on October 22, 2018
Among his search history is a visit to an article about his sister Ashley Biden’s partying and arrest history, as well as repeated Google searches of himself”
———
And once again, the media lapdogs in America say there’s nothing to report about that whole laptop thing…. There’s no story they say, because they lie.
God have mercy on our country. “The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.” Psalm 12:8 The church must be light and salt and speak the truth in love. How to do so is the big question.
This is why it should be required to have in-person voting with photo ID.
Then, the ballots should never leave the polling place until they’re counted after the polls close. No ballots mysteriously appearing from nowhere, among other ‘irregularities’.
The ruling elites know that they can no longer win unless they commit ballot fraud.
“With the 2022 midterm elections around the corner, scrutiny of the 2020 election continues to raise questions about election integrity, including a newly identified anomaly in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Arizona Law requires that, to be considered valid, ballots must be received by the county no later than 7 p.m. on Election Day.
But newly uncovered records documenting the Maricopa County 2020 general election show that while more than 20,000 ballots were transported from the U.S. Postal Service after Election Day, Maricopa County only rejected 934 late ballots in its “Early Voting Rejections Summary” document.
This means more than 19,000 late, invalid ballots should have been rejected. That is significant because it is enough to potentially sway the results of Arizona’s presidential election, which rested with a final tally of Joe Biden winning the state with 10,457 more votes than Donald Trump.”
Kathaleena – We both commented on the mention of “intersex” at the end of yesterday’s thread. Upon re-reading my comment, I see that I may have been unclear about what I meant, and then I was not sure if your comment was in reference to mine or just on the topic in general. To clarify, I agree with your comment, and did not intend to imply otherwise.
Wandering Views 
———-
https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/01/here-are-eight-lies-texas-officials-told-about-uvalde-that-should-get-them-fired/
“More than one week after an 18-year-old gunman stormed Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, state officials are still struggling to set the record straight on what really happened that led to the deaths of 19 kids and two adults.
For a week now, the public, the press, and politicians have been on a wild goose chase to find out why it took more than an hour for good guys with guns to take down a school shooter in a small school in the small South Texas town last Tuesday.
Unfortunately, Texas safety officials have traded the truth for multiple false, misleading, and vague statements that have significantly undermined the public’s trust in law enforcement’s ability to protect children like the fourth-graders who lost their lives in the attack.
Not only have they severely undercut the trust of Americans, they’ve infuriated the mourning Uvalde community.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he felt “misled” and “livid” after hearing that a poor police response significantly contributed to the delay in action against the shooter. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick also lamented that “No one mentioned the fact that there was this 45-minute to an hour hold by the chief of the police of the school district while there were still shots being fired.”
Here are eight lies Texas officials told about the Uvalde shooting that should get them immediately fired.
1. A School Resource Officer ‘Engaged’ the Suspect
Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director Steve McCraw originally said a school resource officer “engaged” the suspect before he entered the school.
At one point, McCraw switched tracks and said the officer “was not on campus” at the time of the shooting.
Elsewhere, officials were reported saying the school officer simply “confronted” the shooter instead of actively engaging him.
Texas DPS was forced to walk back both accounts a couple of days later when word got out that the school resource officer completely failed to notice the shooter when he drove past the suspect who was “hunkered down” behind a vehicle.
“[The shooter] walked in unobstructed initially,” Texas DPS Regional Director Victor Escalon eventually admitted. “So from the grandmother’s house, to the [ditch], to the school, into the school, he was not confronted by anybody.”
2. The Shooter Was Outside the School for 12 Minutes Before Entering
Escalon said last week that the shooter lingered outside of Robb for 12 minutes after crashing his car into a nearby ditch. Days later, McCraw said the gun-wielding teen was inside the school within five minutes of wrecking.
3. The Door the Shooter Entered Through Was Left Propped Open by a Teacher
Original reports from the shooting scene at Robb Elementary suggested that a teacher left a back door at the school propped open with a rock which is how the shooter entered the building.
McCraw volunteered the information during his Friday press conference and claimed that DPS obtained video evidence to support this theory.
“We know from video evidence, at 11:27 the exterior door suspected for what the — where we knew the shooter entered, Ramos — was propped open by a teacher,” he said.
Recent statements from Texas state police, however, suggest that the teacher accused of neglecting the back door went back to close it after seeing Ramos. The door, however, did not automatically lock properly. The unnamed teacher’s lawyer also denies that his client left the back door open.
In a complete contradiction of DPS’s original claim, some outlets are even reporting that “security footage obtained from the area has backed up the claim that the teacher closed the door at this time.”
4. The Gunman Was Wearing Body Armor
DPS spokesman Sgt. Erick Estrada claimed shortly after the shooting that the suspect carried “a rifle and [had] body armor on.”
Another DPS spokesman, Lt. Christopher Olivarez, later claimed that the gunman was wearing a vest designed to carry extra ammo but did not have any plates on him.
5. Officers Quickly Engaged The Shooter
McCraw originally said that the first law enforcement officers who arrived at the school “did engage” the shooter “immediately.”
“The bottom line is law enforcement was there,” McCraw said the day after the shooting. “They did engage immediately. They did contain [the gunman] in the classroom.”
Uvalde Police Chief Daniel Rodriguez also claimed that his officers “responded within minutes.”
It wasn’t until three days after the tragedy that McCraw admitted local law enforcement shied away from helping students and staff after taking fire from the suspect. McCraw claimed that officers misclassified the suspect as a barricaded shooter and that “there were no kids at risk.” Officers reportedly stood outside of the school and then outside of the classroom for nearly an hour while waiting for a Border Patrol tactical team to show up at the scene where students were repeatedly calling 911 for help.
By the time BORTAC arrived and used a janitor key to enter the afflicted fourth-grade classroom, the shooter had been on school property for more than an hour.”
LikeLike
Of course they did, can’t have the criminal be victimized by being misgendered.
“BBC altered victims quote so she didn’t misgender her alleged rapist”
CONTENT WARNING!!!!!
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/06/01/bbc-altered-victims-quote-so-she-didnt-misgender-her-alleged-rapist-n473351
“Last September the ACLU posted a quote from the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg talking about gender equality. Only the ACLU had decided Ginsburg’s actual quote wasn’t quite woke enough for modern tastes so they replaced the pronouns and removed the word “woman.”
Yesterday the London Times reported that the BBC went one step further than the ACLU. According to the report, the news outlet replaced the pronouns in a victim’s quote in order to avoid having her statement misgender her alleged rapist.
The BBC changed the testimony of a rape victim after a debate over the pronouns of her transgender attacker, The Times has learnt.
The woman referred to her alleged rapist as “him” but insiders said that her words were changed to avoid “misgendering” the abuser in an article on the corporation’s website.
The BBC article replaced every reference to “he” or “him” with “they” or “them”. A source said the quote was the subject of heated debate prior to publication. Some journalists argued that the quote should remain intact, while others said it should reflect the trans woman’s preferred she/her pronouns.
The BBC story in question was published last October and as it happens I wrote about it at the time and included the excerpt in which all the pronouns were changed:
Another reported a trans woman physically forcing her to have sex after they went on a date.
“[They] threatened to out me as a terf and risk my job if I refused to sleep with [them],” she wrote. “I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so [they were] a ‘woman’ even if every fibre of my being was screaming throughout so I agreed to go home with [them]. [They] used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing [their] penis and raped me.”
The reason for the altered quote didn’t even occur to me at the time, but in retrospect it’s obvious that they aren’t just replacing the attacker’s name. So what the (alleged) victim actually said was “He used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing his penis and raped me.” But that sort of blunt talk wasn’t acceptable to the BBC.
Angela Wild, co-founder of lesbian campaign group Get The L Out, told the Times the BBC was wrong to amend the quotes.
She said: ‘It’s really unethical and disrespectful to the victim. It’s a form of gaslighting for a woman who has already been through sexual violence.’”
LikeLike
Gee, I wonder why….. 🙄
Said no one….
Maybe don’t give Pulitzers to outlets that push fake news, like the Russia hoax. That’s just rewarding the idiocy.
“Media trust hits new low”
https://www.axios.com/2021/01/21/media-trust-crisis
“Trust in traditional media has declined to an all-time low, and many news professionals are determined to do something about it.
Why it matters: Faith in society’s central institutions, especially in government and the media, is the glue that holds society together. That glue was visibly dissolving a decade ago, and has now, for many millions of Americans, disappeared entirely.
By the numbers: For the first time ever, fewer than half of all Americans have trust in traditional media, according to data from Edelman’s annual trust barometer shared exclusively with Axios. Trust in social media has hit an all-time low of 27%.
56% of Americans agree with the statement that “Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”
58% think that “most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.”
When Edelman re-polled Americans after the election, the figures had deteriorated even further, with 57% of Democrats trusting the media and only 18% of Republicans.”
——
The media built this. Own it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What!
A partisan in the FBI leadership you say……
Yeah, again.
“Grassley raises alarm over ‘partisan’ social media posts linked to FBI official”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/grassley-raises-alarm-over-partisan-social-media-posts-linked-to-fbi-official
“A top Republican senator is demanding that the leaders of the Department of Justice and FBI investigate whether a top bureau official in the nation’s capital violated DOJ guidelines through partisan posts on social media.
Timothy Thibault, FBI assistant special agent in charge and leader at the Washington field office handling public corruption matters and other criminal investigations, “likely violated several federal regulations and Department guidelines designed to prevent political bias from infecting FBI matters, including the Attorney General Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations and FBI social media policies,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said Tuesday.
Grassley sent letters to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray that set a preliminary deadline of June 14 for them to share documents related to Thibault, including investigations he has supervised since 2015. Grassley also called on DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to investigate, pointing to a number of DOJ rules and regulations, including FBI guidelines on social media use.
Thibault’s purported LinkedIn account states that he is currently an assistant special agent in charge at the Washington field office in the nation’s capital, a position it says he has held since August 2020. The account says he has been in the FBI for more than 25 years, was an assistant section chief for international terrorism operations from December 2018 to August 2020 (including being the acting section chief from May 2019 to March 2020), and was a supervisory special agent before that.
“Based on a review of open-source content, ASAC Thibault has demonstrated a pattern of active public partisanship, such as using his official title for public partisan posts relating to his superiors and matters under the FBI’s purview, that is likely a violation of his ethical obligations as an FBI employee,” Grassley said. “Accordingly, his actions present a grave risk of political infection and bias in his official decision-making process, creating serious questions with respect to oversight of investigative matters under his purview.”
Grassley added, “ASAC Thibault’s social media postings, comments, and ‘likes’ … demonstrate a pattern of improper commentary related to, for example, ongoing FBI investigations including those under his purview.”
An FBI spokesperson provided a comment to the Washington Examiner after this report was published.
“Without commenting on any specific personnel matters, all FBI employees are held to the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct. Any allegations of misconduct are taken seriously and referred to the Inspection Division,” the FBI representative said.”
———-
Bwahahaha!!!!! 😂🤣😂🤣
Sure clown…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure…..
“The Special Counsel Proved The FBI Belongs To The Swamp”
https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/01/the-special-counsel-proved-the-fbi-belongs-to-the-swamp/
“esterday, after less than one full day of deliberations, a D.C. jury stacked with pro-Hillary Clinton jurors acquitted former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann, proving the FBI is not “ours” but the swamp’s.
Just more than two weeks ago, prosecutor Brittain Shaw began opening statements in United States v. Sussmann, by stating the obvious: “Some people have very strong feelings about politics and about Russia, and many people have strong feelings about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.”
“But we are not here because these allegations involve either of them,” Shaw continued. “Nor are we here because the defendant’s client was the Clinton campaign.” Rather, “we are here because the FBI is our institution that should not be used as a political tool for anyone; not Republicans, not Democrats, not anyone.”
But after hearing overwhelming evidence that Sussmann lied when he told the then-FBI General Counsel James Baker he was providing data and whitepapers about a supposed secret communications channel between Trump and the Russian-based Alfa Bank on his own behalf, when in fact Sussmann was representing both the Clinton campaign and tech executive Rodney Joffe, the 12 D.C. residents found Sussmann not guilty.
It was not the verdict, however, that confirmed that the FBI belongs to career bureaucrats, high-powered D.C. elites who revolve in and out of the government as political appointees, and the families and friends of all the above. Rather, it was the speed with which the acquittal came, coupled with the in-court testimony and other evidence exposed by the special counsel throughout the prosecution that proved the FBI isn’t America’s anymore.
After hearing from some 20 witnesses, all but a few testifying for the prosecution, the jury spent a couple of hours on Friday deliberating before the long Memorial Day weekend. Tuesday morning, the 12 jurors returned to the D.C. federal courthouse to continue deliberations. But after requesting to see a copy of Sussmann’s taxi receipt and one of the whitepapers Sussmann peddled to Baker, they delivered their verdict of “not guilty.”
In total, then, the jury did not even deliberate for a full day, which means not one of the 12 jurors pushed the other 11 to wade through the detailed evidence presented by the special counsel’s office. Who could blame them, though, if the government’s own witnesses registered more offense at Congress for investigating the Russia collusion hoax than they did at Sussmann for misleading the FBI.
Consider Baker, to whom Sussmann was charged with lying. The former FBI general counsel testified he was “100 percent confident” Sussmann said during their September 19, 2016 meeting that he was not representing a client. Baker also told the jury he likely wouldn’t have taken the meeting if he knew Sussmann represented the Clinton campaign.
Yet Baker blamed himself for throwing Sussmann “into a maelstrom” and expressed outrage at how the congressmen investigating the investigation into Trump and his campaign behaved when they questioned Baker about his meeting with Sussmann. Baker displayed not even a sliver of the same distress over his friend lying to him.
On the contrary, when asked why he had just discovered the text message Sussmann sent him the night before their meeting, in which Sussmann wrote, “I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company. [W]ant to help the Bureau,” Baker told prosecutors: “I’m not out to get Michael. This is not my investigation. This is your investigation. If you ask me a question, I answer it. You asked me to look for something, I go look for it.”
While Baker may no longer work for the FBI, he did at the time Sussmann fed him the Alfa Bank folly. As an American, he should have been appalled that the former Clinton campaign attorney would play the law enforcement and intelligence communities for political purposes. Also, had Baker pulled his cell phone records earlier, the text could have served as a separate false statement charge—one proven in black-and-white—but the delay in Baker finding the text allowed the statute of limitations to expire.
Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division for the FBI in 2016, likewise displayed a grudging demeanor when testifying on behalf of the special counsel. When asked whether it was “important” for Sussmann “to fully disclose his ties to the Clinton campaign,” rather than provide a straightforward answer, Priestap sparred with the prosecutor, first saying it “would have been part of several factors.” Then, when pushed, Priestap said, “I’m struggling on your use of the word ‘important.’ It’s a motivation that is relevant, but not the only factor.”
Prosecutors, however, had ample other evidence that established the materiality of Sussmann’s misrepresentation to Baker. But the jurors didn’t care because the jury, in the truest sense, was a jury of Sussmann’s peers. Just as his actual colleagues, Baker and Priestap, shrugged off the Section 1001 false statement offense, so did the jury, who could easily envision their neighbors and friends sitting in his stead.
But the proof that the FBI is no longer “ours” came even before the jury verdict—months earlier, when Special Counsel John Durham revealed in a discovery update that the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General withheld evidence from Durham’s team.
The DOJ’s OIG is charged with conducting independent investigations related to DOJ employees and programs, including alleged misconduct by FBI agents. In preparing for the Sussmann trial, the special counsel’s office met with the OIG in October 2021 “to discuss discoverable materials that may be in the OIG’s possession.”
Even though the OIG possessed two of Baker’s FBI cellphones, prosecutors were not told of the phones’ existence by the OIG. Rather, the special counsel only learned of the two cellphones on January 6, 2022, when another FBI employee mentioned them.
The same discovery update that revealed the OIG had failed to mention Baker’s cell phones also noted that the OIG had falsely told Durham’s team that “a written forensic report” was the only information it possessed concerning a meeting between Sussmann and the OIG.
That meeting had occurred in early 2017, when Sussmann, on behalf of an unnamed client now known to be Joffe, went to the IG with a report that his client “had observed that a specific OIG employee’s computer was ‘seen publicly’ in ‘Internet traffic’ and was connecting to a Virtual Private Network in a foreign country.” The OIG provided the special counsel with the forensic report, but in doing so, also represented to prosecutors that it had ‘no other file[] or other documentation’ relating to this cyber matter.”
However, after Sussmann’s defense team informed Durham that Sussmann had personally met with the IG, the special counsel’s office circled back and, amazingly, the OIG discovered additional documentation related to Sussmann’s meeting with the IG. That the OIG—the entity charged with investigating FBI misconduct—withheld not one, but two pieces of evidence from the special counsel’s office until cornered should crush any remaining faith our country holds in the FBI.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
These people are gross, and they’re grooming kids.
LikeLike
Don’t believe me?
See for yourself what the Biden admin wants their teacher friends doing.
CONTENT WARNING!!!!!
——–
——–
——–
——–
——–
———
——–
——–
———–
———
——–
——–
——-
———
The left, including the DNC, Biden, public education, and the media have been taken over by degenerates, perverts, and pedophiles.
LikeLike
Like I said, the degenerates are in charge now.
This particular pervert and his father are another great example of that.
CONTENT WARNING!!!!!!
If you go to the link, be warned…
There are photos…
“Hunter’s search history reveals his obsession with porn and sex fantasies including ’18yrs old,’ ‘lonely widow’ and ‘MILF crack cocaine porn,’ he uploaded his OWN amateur videos and texted Pornhub link to phone listed in his contacts as ‘Dad'”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10846603/Hunter-Bidens-search-history-reveals-obsession-porn.html
“WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
Hunter Biden’s internet search history from March 2019 reveals his obsession with porn and penchant for filming himself having sex with prostitutes
The president’s son, who dated his late brother’s wife Hallie, repeatedly searched Pornhub for titles involving ‘lonely widows’ as well as videos with 18- and 19-year-old girls
Of the 281 websites found in his search history over six days, 98 were pornographic, DailyMail.com can reveal
Hunter, 52, who had a paid Pornhub Premium account under ‘RHEast’, also uploaded his own amateur videos but was careful not to show his face
He was also a regular user of sex cam sites, particularly Glasscams.com, where he made screen recordings of himself interacting live with the women on the site
Text messages also show Hunter apparently sent a link to a Pornhub page to a phone number he had saved in his contacts book as ‘Dad’ on October 22, 2018
Among his search history is a visit to an article about his sister Ashley Biden’s partying and arrest history, as well as repeated Google searches of himself”
———
And once again, the media lapdogs in America say there’s nothing to report about that whole laptop thing…. There’s no story they say, because they lie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
God have mercy on our country. “The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.” Psalm 12:8 The church must be light and salt and speak the truth in love. How to do so is the big question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is why it should be required to have in-person voting with photo ID.
Then, the ballots should never leave the polling place until they’re counted after the polls close. No ballots mysteriously appearing from nowhere, among other ‘irregularities’.
The ruling elites know that they can no longer win unless they commit ballot fraud.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/arizona-2020-election-results-may-have-been-different-if-20000-invalid-ballots-had-not-been-counted-report_4502315.html
“With the 2022 midterm elections around the corner, scrutiny of the 2020 election continues to raise questions about election integrity, including a newly identified anomaly in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Arizona Law requires that, to be considered valid, ballots must be received by the county no later than 7 p.m. on Election Day.
But newly uncovered records documenting the Maricopa County 2020 general election show that while more than 20,000 ballots were transported from the U.S. Postal Service after Election Day, Maricopa County only rejected 934 late ballots in its “Early Voting Rejections Summary” document.
This means more than 19,000 late, invalid ballots should have been rejected. That is significant because it is enough to potentially sway the results of Arizona’s presidential election, which rested with a final tally of Joe Biden winning the state with 10,457 more votes than Donald Trump.”
LikeLike
Kathaleena – We both commented on the mention of “intersex” at the end of yesterday’s thread. Upon re-reading my comment, I see that I may have been unclear about what I meant, and then I was not sure if your comment was in reference to mine or just on the topic in general. To clarify, I agree with your comment, and did not intend to imply otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person