Before we start, for anyone who would argue that Fetterman is fine, I would encourage you to watch this @FreeBeacon video and think long and hard about that idea. https://t.co/nRknmq68Od
You’ll notice that @washingtonpost focuses on only one senator’s duration of absence, and gives only one a triumphant quote for their return. pic.twitter.com/PGLpxIQ1Zh
@CNN is confronting Democrats to give Sen. Feinstein the boot while helping Sen. Fetterman write his autobiography about his experience. pic.twitter.com/cd7vtxPasX
.@SenFeinstein has outlived her usefulness so they push her out. But @JohnFetterman is still useful to them, not just despite his mental incapacity, but BECAUSE of it. He can be an obedient, compliant (D) vote for many years to come without fear of him ever thinking for himself. https://t.co/lQJtUzXysi
Can’t have people exposing their sugar daddy, so it must be anti-Semitism they allege, while not disclosing that he’s their revenue source.
Seems legit…..
The report list tweets about George Soros as one of its ten "Themes of Antisemitism."
"For Soros in particular, a recurring theme was the idea that he has encouraged crime in the US by either sponsoring soft-on-crime Democrats or directly sponsoring criminals."… pic.twitter.com/BWVpoeh4UF
So according to the media, criticizing Jews who literally have nothing to do with Judaism and routinely support radical anti-Israel activity, like Soros and Sanders, is anti-Semitic. Sending millions of taxpayer dollars to genocidal anti-Semites like the PA is totally fine.
It's astonishing that a handful of billionaires and governments can fund an organization that produces dubious reports, labeling opposing viewpoints as racism, hate speech, misinformation, or disinformation, and then cite those reports to advocate for more censorship.… pic.twitter.com/8EF7UclFP2
Nothing to see here, just yet another corrupt Democrat….
“Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins, Appointed Despite Unhinged Rant, To Resign After Ethics Probe
“Rollins was a controversial pick to be Massachusetts’ top federal law enforcer and twice needed Vice President Kamala Harris to break a tie for her nomination to move forward in the Senate amid fierce opposition”
“Rachael Rollins is reportedly going to submit her letter of resignation by this Friday following an ethics probe that has gone on for months.
As we reported in 2021, Rollins was supported by all the usual left-wing suspects in Massachusetts and even threatened reporters who tried to question her.”
“The Associated Press report is very sympathetic to her:
Massachusetts US Attorney Rachael Rollins to resign after Justice Department watchdog probe
Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins will resign following a monthslong investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general into her appearance at a political fundraiser and other potential ethics issues, her attorney said Tuesday.
The Justice Department’s watchdog has yet to release its report detailing the findings of its investigation, but an attorney for Rollins told The Associated Press that she will be submitting a letter of resignation to President Joe Biden by close of business Friday.
The resignation of a U.S. attorney amid ethics concerns is an exceedingly rare phenomenon and is especially notable for a Justice Department that under Attorney General Merrick Garland has sought to restore a sense of normalcy and good governance following the turbulent four years of the Trump administration.
A sense of normalcy? Really?”
—-
“More from CBS News:
The Associated Press was the first to report in November that the inspector general’s office had opened an investigation into Rollins over her appearance last year at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser featuring first lady Jill Biden.
People familiar with the investigation told the AP at the time that the probe had expanded into other areas, including Rollins’ use of her personal cellphone to conduct Justice Department business and a trip she took to California that was paid for by an outside group.
Massachusetts senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren issued a joint statement about Rollins’ resignation.
“Rachael Rollins has for years dedicated herself to the people of Massachusetts and equal justice under the law. We will respect her decision,” the statement said.
Senator Tom Cotton commented on Twitter:”
I warned Democratic senators that Rachael Rollins wasn’t only a pro-criminal ideologue, but also had a history of poor judgment and ethical lapses.https://t.co/WEz6JBJYyk
“Two different whistleblowers from two separate law enforcement agencies in two separate high-profile criminal cases are raising a disturbing new question for Congress: Is the Biden administration seeking to squash those who report wrongdoing or challenge its official narratives?
Just 24 hours apart, the plights of a decorated FBI intelligence analyst and a decorated supervisory IRS agent burst onto the national scene with detailed accounts alleging they have endured retaliation and reprisal for blowing the whistle.
The publicly unnamed IRS agent – once a star on the Swiss bank tax evasion cases that stunned the world – was unceremoniously dumped along with his entire team from the Hunter Biden tax probe just a few weeks after alleging there was Justice Department political interference in the high-profile matter, his lawyers reported to Congress.
The removal stunned lawmakers who just a week ago won assurance from the IRS chief there would be no reprisals. It also stripped the Hunter Biden prosecution team of a bench with deep knowledge gained by years of investigation into the president’s son.
FBI intelligence analyst Marcus Allen – a combat-tested Marine who just a few years ago was named the Charlotte, N.C. field office employee of the year – has had his security clearance and paychecks revoked after reporting he had found open-source intelligence calling into question the accuracy of Director Chris Wray’s testimony about the Jan. 6 probe, according to his complaint filed with the DOJ inspector general.
The FBI declined comment on Tuesday when asked about Allen’s complaint.
Both cases have lawmakers scratching their heads, concerned that if the whistleblowers allegations are corroborated that Congress has been deprived of opportunities to fix problems impacting American taxpayers.
“It’s unacceptable,” Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., a key member of the House Intelligence committee, told the “John Solomon Reports” podcast on Tuesday. “We need people inside the agencies to tell us, in many cases, the secrets of those agencies, if we’re going to pass legislation that is going to correct some of the wrongs of the past.
“It’s hard to govern when you don’t know the truth because people inside the agencies aren’t telling you the truth. I’m on the side of the whistleblowers. I mean, they’re doing their patriotic duty to make sure that we have what we need to govern.”
Tristan Leavitt, a former congressional investigator and current president of the Empower Oversight whistleblower center, represents both whistleblowers.
He told the “Just the News, No Noise” television show Tuesday night that the evidence of reprisal is disturbing and potentially enlightening to the unchecked power many federal agencies believe they wield.
“When you go out of your way to issue reports attacking whistleblowers, when you take personnel actions against them, those are going to deter others in our government from sharing things we need to know,” he said.
Leavitt also noted that in the case of the IRS agent the government has now lost significant institutional knowledge from the Hunter Biden case, just as prosecutors reportedly decide to charge President Joe Biden’s son.
In the case of Allen, Leavitt said, the suspension of his client’s security clearance has deprived a once-celebrated intelligence analyst with a spotless record of a paycheck for about a year.”
“Despite having no money, California’s legislature wants to give illegal immigrants unemployment benefits.
S.B. 227 explains:
(e) California’s economy also suffers by excluding undocumented workers from this program. By partially replacing unemployed workers’ earnings, unemployment insurance (UI) benefits help alleviate the inherent reduction in consumption and economic activity that results when there is a drastic increase in unemployment. Economists maintain that UI benefits produce at least $1.61 of economic stimulus for every $1 of benefits paid. Indeed, one economist found that during the Great Recession, every $1 of UI benefits produced about $2 dollars of economic impact. Similarly, UI benefits help employers and the labor market by supporting workers to find the best matched positions.
(f) While the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extreme consequences of undocumented workers’ exclusion from unemployment insurance, this problem has existed for decades and it will only become more urgent. Wildfires, severe weather events, economic fluctuations, seasonal changes in workforce needs—all of these factors will continue to cause unemployment. And for most low-income individuals, unemployment without a safety net is a crisis no matter when it occurs.
(g) To rectify the unjust exclusion of immigrant workers from an essential social safety net program and build a safer and more resilient economy, this bill would require the Employment Development Department to establish an Excluded Workers Program to provide weekly monetary assistance to unemployed workers who are ineligible for state or federal unemployment insurance benefits due to their immigration status.
S.B. 227 would give individuals “eligible for the program” $300 per week of unemployment in 2025.
The Democrats claim the money the illegal immigrants supposedly contribute to the state’s economy.”
Today I signed legislation to combat human trafficking and support victims of these terrible crimes.
Victims will now be able to: Recover damages from adult entertainment establishments; Receive restitution from the sale of their trafficker’s seized property; and Participate in… pic.twitter.com/JOt16Nt4CZ
“On Wednesday morning, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s office released a chilling 328-page report about the origins of COVID-19. While a press release from March highlights how the report is “[b]ased on vast troves of previously undisclosed documents and fresh analysis of previously known but inadequately scrutinized information,” much of what is included serves to bolster what many already feared about the virus, and about China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The release back in March noted that the report is based on almost 18 months worth of investigations, and that it “uncovered and will reveal evidence that was either previously unknown or otherwise ignored by the U.S. government.” The senator referred to it as “a groundbreaking look at what was happening in China during the years and months leading up to the known outbreak of the pandemic.”
It took even longer to put together the final product.
“After years of censorship, there is growing evidence that some type of lab accident is responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic. This report, which took two years to compile, edit, and refine, is a groundbreaking look at what was happening in China during the years and months leading up to the known outbreak of the pandemic,” Rubio said in a statement about the report’s release. “I am grateful to the staff, fellows, and outside experts who worked to connect the dots. Their work helps fill in some critical blanks and has already contributed to other reports, hearings, and investigations. The implications are impossible to ignore: Beijing hid the truth. This report reinforces the need to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable.”
An executive summary and a short documentary were also released.
The documentary features a narrator walking viewers through documentation and footage to do with lab technicians in China working on gain-of-function. The senator himself is also featured, as he delves into such information. At one point, he provides perhaps the best explanation of gain-of-function research you’ll hear, as well as a warning about its dangers.
“What that basically means is that you take a naturally occurring virus that you would find in nature, and you reverse it, you engineer it, you mess with it, and you make it contagious in humans, so there might be a virus in an animal and it may not be infectious in humans,” Rubio explains about gain-of-function. He also warns “but you change it in the laboratory. You make it infectious in humans. And the reason why you do that is because you try to predict how a virus that today’s only found in animals could evolve into one that would be dangerous in humans. You try to predict it, you try to invent it yourself. And once you’ve invented it, then you try to find a cure for it. And the problem is, once you invent it someone might get infected with it.”
The virus became known in late 2019, closer to 2020. The “CDC Museum COVID-19 Timeline” from the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) begins on January 1, 2020.
The World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared it to be a pandemic in March 2020, and the United States following suit shortly after when it comes to declaring a public health emergency. Both ended just recently. As the report’s findings detail, however, it was really in the middle of 2019 where events worth paying attention to took place, leading up to “a serious biosafety incident” that occurred later that year.
Early warning signs appeared when the head of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) inspected the state-run Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in April of 2019 and warned of a need for upgrades. The WIV went on to pursue costly projects, but it ended up not being enough, because in July 2019 the CCP secretary of the WIV still spoke of “current shortcomings and foundational problems in the construction, operation, and maintenance” of the lab complex, with the director of the WIV calling on staff to “prioritize solving the urgent problems we are currently facing.”
What happened next took place in a timeline sooner and with more chilling urgency that the CCP sought to cover up than the rest of the world knew about at the time.
For it was on September 12, 2019 when the WIV shut down its online database in the middle of the night. On September 18, the WIV advised the airport of a drill for the outbreak of a “novel coronavius.” Mere days later, on September 21, a resident known as Su died from what may have been COVID-19. Several more cases were documented in November 2019, but were kept hidden. Eventually, a Chinese official traveled from Beijing to the WIV to deliver “important oral and written instructions.”
The CCP was not prepared or well-equipped. In October 2019, the Chinese legislature reviewed a draft biosecurity law and noted that “currently the biosecurity situation in our country is grim” and listed “laboratories that leak biological agents” as one of several threats about the “the complex and grave situation currently facing safety work.”
CCP officials at the WIV published a report that gave arguably the most chilling but also accurate descriptions of the virus, and from those that would know. “Once you have opened the stores test tubes, it is just as if having opened Pandora’s Box. These viruses come without a shadow and leave without a trace,” the report said.
What else happened in 2019? Chinese scientists were working on a vaccine, with their own research methodology indicating they began working on it no later than November 2019, almost two months before the virus’ existence was even disclosed by Beijing.
From December 2019-October 2021, WIV researchers also filed patents for inventions meant to address the lab’s differential air pressure system, biocontainment equipment, and waste handling process. “Any one of these problems could have allowed a pathogen to escape the lab complex. WIV researchers confirmed this by explaining that their inventions were designed to prevent precisely such a scenario,” the executive summary mentions.
“As the disease spread, it was only a matter of time before the news of the outbreak came out. The moment came on December 30, when rebellious Chinese doctors blew the whistle on their own government,” the documentary’s narrator also explains. “Shortly after the CCP finally admitted to the truth, but only part of the truth. Two years later, China still refuses to review what really happened.””
At a press conference on the Trudeau government’s bail reforms, Conservative leader @PierrePoilievre argues with a reporter about the consequences of releasing repeat violent offenders onto the streets. pic.twitter.com/MMfDiFEl7I
“In what seems like a very bad development for Los Angeles County, which already has more than its fair share of crime to deal with, CBS News is reporting that the county’s Sheriff’s Department is infested with gang members. The secretive groups operate under the covers, getting gang tattoos and engaging in damaging behavior. The multiple gangs of deputies have colorful names such as the Banditos and Executioners. Now the office of the County Inspector General has sent out letters to most of the field offices seeking information to help them root out all of the members.
The Los Angeles County Office of Inspector General is expected to start questioning deputies who may have information on the possible gangs operating within the sheriff’s department.
“The Office of Inspector General is investigating law enforcement gang participation and police misconduct at the Sheriff’s Department pursuant to Penal Code section 13670(b),” Inspector General Max Huntsman wrote.
In the letter, which was dated May 12, the IG said that the sheriff’s department possessed evidence that the two gangs were “exclusive, secretive” and the department could not provide them with a list detailing the membership of each group. This shortcoming prompted the office to conduct “witness interviews” to determine how many deputies are in the Banditos and Executioners.
This story was a bit confusing at first (at least to me) because it initially sounded as if there were members of the street gangs who had somehow been admitted to the police academy, or perhaps formerly law-abiding deputies who had gone out and joined MS-13 or the Latin Kings. But reading the full story, you learn that these are apparently legitimate Sheriff’s Deputies who have gotten together to form their own new gangs.
But is it really illegal for deputies to get together, pick a name for their “club” and get matching tattoos if they are still doing their jobs? Probably not, but it was questionable job performance that put the IG on their trail to begin with. The gang members are reportedly accused of excessive force on a regular basis, both out on the streets and inside the jails. Claims and lawsuits from victims of excessive force add up to tens of millions of dollars that the city has to pay out annually.
The gangs are also aggressive inside the Sheriff’s Department. In a separate report, CBS Los Angeles learned that there are some patrol stations that are effectively run by the gangs rather than the sergeants, lieutenants, and captains who are ostensibly in charge.
A just-released report by the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission found that deputy gangs or cliques are active in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and many of the county’s patrol stations are “run” by these deputy gangs.
While not addressing the report directly, Sheriff Robert Luna said Friday he was elected to “bring new leadership and accountability” to the department and has created an office for “constitutional policing,” led by former U.S. Attorney Eileen Decker.
This report also reveals that there are more deputies gangs than just the two listed above. Others include the Regulators, the Spartans, the Gladiators, the Cowboys and the Reapers. (Simply charming, isn’t it?)”
“In the aftermath of Special Counsel John Durham proving Congressman Adam Schiff lied to the American people for years about so-called “Russian collusion,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is demanding accountability and hinting the California Democrat could be on his way out. ”
If you're concerned about threats to our democracy, you are right to be angry over the coordinated campaign to lie to the American public for years about Russia collusion—peddled at the highest levels of government, from Adam Schiff to the DOJ—to try to influence an election.… https://t.co/2NjLdR7LCq
.@SpeakerMcCarthy calls out Adam Schiff after the Durham Report: “Remember when he told the American people he had proof? … openly lied to us?
"It raises a lot of questions about his character, his standing inside of Congress, or whether he should even be in Congress.” pic.twitter.com/8T5HtnBPav
“Late Tuesday evening, Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna submitted a resolution expelling Schiff from the House of Representatives.”
Knowingly using your position on House Intel to push a lie that ripped apart our country, cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and authorized spying on a US President and then proceeding to double down on the lie within days of the Durham report coming out makes you unfit for… pic.twitter.com/A8rTBPY77Z
— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) May 17, 2023
“Most media coverage of the Durham report is preposterous, and becomes more so if you read the highly detailed 306-page document. In its initial coverage, for example, The New York Times went out of its way to emphasize that the report relates to failings inside the Federal Bureau of Investigation that had already been exposed and thus contains little that is “new.”
Most coverage failed to relay details and facts from the report, preferring to instead spin the spin. The Washington Post reported that Durham had disappointed “conservative conspiracy theorists,” who had “anticipated [that the report] would expose a ‘deep state’ scheme to undermine then-candidate Donald Trump.” The Associated Press likewise stated that the report fell short of “Trump supporters’ expectations that Durham would reveal a ‘deep state’ plot.”
An obvious retort is to ask: What is a deep-state conspiracy or plot? Would you know it if you saw it? Isn’t the phraseology “deep-state conspiracy” a semantic dodge that simultaneously attempts to smear anyone who would believe that giant intelligence agencies might take an interest in politics, while also keeping the key issues impossibly vague?
Labels aside, Special Counsel John Durham’s “Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns” shows, among other things, that the FBI repeatedly broke its own rules while applying one standard in dealing with the Clinton campaign but an entirely different one in dealing with Team Trump. In at least three investigations of the Clinton campaign, the FBI went easy on the Democratic nominee. But with Trump the bureau was aggressive, to put it mildly.
The investigations related to the Clinton campaign were handled at the level of FBI field offices, as is the norm. But the markedly hostile investigation against Trump “was managed from FBI Headquarters.” When dealing with Clinton, the bureau followed the rules with care, moved slowly, and considered all angles. When dealing with Trump, the FBI assumed the worst, rushed into action, cut corners, and bent rules to speed its probe.
A glaring example of this double standard began
in late 2014, before Clinton formally declared her presidential candidacy, [when] the FBI learned from a well-placed [confidential human source] that a foreign government [identified in the Durham report as Foreign Government-2] was planning to send an individual … to contribute to Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, as a way to gain influence with Clinton should she win the presidency.
The FBI field office involved quickly “attempted to obtain expedited approval for” Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act-authorized interception of electronic communications between the representative of Foreign Government-2 and the Clinton campaign. A certified copy of this application was sent to “FBI Headquarters for final approval.” Strangely, the FISA application remained “‘in limbo’ for approximately four months,” according to an agent from the field office involved. Another FBI agent is quoted as saying the FISA application lingered because everyone was “super more careful” [sic] and “scared with the big name.” The FBI was allegedly “‘tippy-toeing’ around [Clinton] because there was a chance she would be the next president.”
Part of the concern, per Durham, was that the FBI didn’t want to eavesdrop on the Clinton campaign for fear of catching the candidate on tape, possibly talking to the wrong kind of people. Ultimately, the FISA warrant to monitor the foreign would-be contributor to the campaign was granted, but on the condition that Hillary Clinton receive a so-called defensive briefing.
The FBI gives defensive briefings when agents “obtain information indicating a foreign adversary is trying or will try to influence a specific US person and when there is no indication that that specific US person could be working with the adversary.” For the Intelligence Community, the downside of a defensive briefing is that it likely undermines any further counterintelligence investigation into the foreign influence operation.
The FBI’s handling of potential foreign influence upon the Clinton campaign contrasts markedly with how the bureau treated similar allegations about the Trump campaign.
On July 28, 2016, the FBI received information from the Australian government that one of its senior diplomats, Alexander Downer, had conversed with an unpaid foreign-policy adviser to the Trump campaign named George Papadopoulos at a bar a few months earlier; and that Papadopoulos described how “the Trump campaign was involved in a conspiracy or collaborative relationship with officials of the Russian government.” However, Durham tells us, later investigation revealed that neither the Australian diplomat nor Papadopoulos came away from the conversation with that conclusion.
A seemingly distorted report of the Papadopoulos conversation was handed to Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, and a man with “pronounced” and well-documented “hostile feelings toward Trump.”
In now-public text messages dating from before and after opening the investigation of the Trump campaign, Strzok and another FBI agent, Lisa Page, with whom he was having an extramarital affair, referred to both Trump and Bernie Sanders as “idiot[s].” In texts going back to 2015, Strzok and his girlfriend Page bantered about Trump being “loathsome,” “awful,” a “douche,” an “utter idiot,” a “disaster.”
The FBI made no effort to corroborate the allegations relayed from the Australians. Nor did the FBI, and the Intelligence Community in general, have other verified information linking Trump to the Russian government. Neither did the bureau offer the Trump campaign a defensive briefing. Instead, Strzok, at the direction of his boss, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, launched a full-scale investigation into the Trump campaign called Crossfire Hurricane.
Two weeks later when Page texted her worries that Trump might really become president, Strzok reassured her: “No. No, he’s not. We’ll stop it.”
Crossfire Hurricane’s first targets were Trump campaign associates: Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone. As the probe grew, its agents applied for and received four FISA warrants. Two of these would later be found to have been improperly obtained, and an FBI attorney named Kevin Clinesmith would be found guilty of altering an email that was later used in one of the FISA warrant applications.
Around the same time that Strzok launched Crossfire Hurricane, the Clinton campaign contracted the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS to produce the infamous Steele dossier. This was part of what the FBI referred to as the Clinton Plan, an effort to smear Trump as being a Russian agent. Strzok and the other agents in Crossfire Hurricane didn’t learn of the Steele dossier until September, but then quickly folded its unproven allegations into their campaign against Trump.
Ultimately Crossfire Hurricane found no evidence of Russian collusion. Strzok, Page, and McCabe were all, for various reasons, fired from the FBI.
Of course, none of this matters. We have entered an age of hallucinatory politics in which conclusions precede evidence. No amount of documentation showing an FBI campaign against Trump will break the spell of Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
“Monday’s special counsel report detailed extensive evidence of Department of Justice and FBI misconduct concerning the launch and handling of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and equally overwhelming proof of partisan motives and double standards. While the facts are critical of both the bureau and the DOJ, more scandalous is John Durham’s conclusion that the inexcusable targeting of a political opponent cannot be prevented absent a curing of the corrupted hearts and minds of law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Durham’s 306-page report opened with an executive summary capsulizing the results of the special counsel’s four-year investigation into the intelligence activities and investigations arising out of the 2016 presidential campaigns. While calling the findings “sobering,” and previewing the widespread misconduct on which the body of the report elaborated, Durham’s introductory comments emphasized he “does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies.”
It is here that Durham made his damning indictment of the DOJ and the FBI when he stressed that “the answer is not the creation of new rules but a renewed fidelity to the old.” Ultimately, he continued, justice “comes down to the integrity of the people who take an oath to follow the guidelines.” And “the promulgation of additional rules and regulations to be learned in yet more training sessions would likely prove to be a fruitless exercise if the FBI’s guiding principles of ‘Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity’ are not engrained in the hearts and minds of those sworn to meet the FBI’ s mission of ‘Protect[ing] the American People and Uphold[ing] the Constitution of the United States.’”
For the many details that followed — every misstep retraced and every inexplicable and unreasonable action condemned — that conclusion dwarfed them all. From the hurried opening of a full investigation of a presidential campaign based on unanalyzed and uncorroborated information to the fraudulent use of FISA warrants to the disregard of exculpatory evidence, Crossfire Hurricane represented a perfect storm of failures.
But what should terrify the country is not the catalog of malfeasance the special counsel recited — for mistakes and even gross failures can be corrected — but that Durham warned of corrupted hearts and minds, unfaithful to the people and their Constitution. “
“Special Counsel John Durham’s “Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns” trickled out yesterday afternoon, hitting journalist inboxes just after 3:00 p.m. A quick read revealed the following key takeaways:
1. There was no valid predicate for the investigation, and the FBI knew it.
From the report:
It is the Office’s assessment that the FBI discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia. Similarly, the FBI Inspection Division Report says that the investigators “repeatedly ignore[d] or explain[ed] away evidence contrary to the theory the Trump campaign… had conspired with Russia… It appeared… there was a pattern of assuming nefarious intent.” An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to question not only the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, but also to reflect on whether the FBI was being manipulated for political or other purposes. Unfortunately, it did not.
The entirety of the evidence the FBI used to launch its investigation of the Trump campaign is contained in what came to be known as “Paragraph Five,” because it ended up in that spot in a FISA warrant application on Trump volunteer Carter Page. The information in Paragraph Five came from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, and was derived from an interaction he had at a London wine bar with young Trump foreign policy volunteer George Papadopoulos, ostensibly concerning Russia.
Australian diplomats told Durham that the impetus for passing the Paragraph Five info to the U.S. government in late July 2016 was the release of hacked DNC emails by Wikileaks. The entire case came down to an abstract of a diplomatic cable, quoted here in full:
Mr. Papadopoulos was, unsurprisingly, confident that Mr. Trump could win the election. He commented that the Clintons had “a lot of baggage” and suggested the Trump team had plenty of material to use in its campaign. He also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton and President Obama. It was unclear whether he or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly of sic through other means. It was also unclear how Mr. Trump’s team reacted to the offer.
On the strength of that tiny bit of information, the FBI opened full investigations into four Trump presidential campaign aides, seeking to determine whether they were “witting or and/or coordinating activities with the government of Russia.”
—
2. “There’s nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground.”
As soon as the FBI received Paragraph Five, Counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok and a supervisory agent rushed to London, where they met with an FBI legal attaché (UKALAT) and interviewed diplomats at the Australian High Commission. In a taxi on the way to the interviews, Strzok reportedly said, “There’s nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground,” as the attaché later told the FBI’s inspection division.
One of the Australian diplomats told the FBI team that “the Paragraph Five information was written in an intentionally vague way because of what Papadopoulos did and did not say,” and, because of their uncertainty about what to make of it. The report says Downer told the FBI that Papadopoulos “simply stated, ‘The Russians have information…’ He made no mention of Clinton emails, dirt or any specific approach by the Russian government to the Trump campaign team with an offer or suggestion of providing assistance.”
British intelligence officials, the FBI attaché said, “could not believe the Papadopoulos bar conversation was all there was.”
“It’s thin”; “There’s nothing to this.”
A message exchange on August 11, 2016 between the attaché and the supervisory agent shows the Americans were as skeptical as the British.
UKALAT-1: Dude, are we telling them [British Intelligence Service-I] everything we know, or is there more to this?
Supervisory Special Agent-1: That’s all we have.
Supervisory Special Agent-I: not holding anything back
UKALAT-1: Damn that’s thin
Supervisory Special Agent-I: I know
Supervisory Special Agent-I: it sucks”
—
“5. Sensational stories published in the New York Times in February and March 2017 claiming Trump associates were in contact with Russian intelligence agents were false.
Declassified FBI documents from the period surrounding publication of two influential New York Times articles include Strzok’s annotated refutations of the Times stories, which cited as sources “four unnamed current and former U.S. intelligence officials.” Strzok wrote that there was no information “indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials.”
Durham’s report disputed the Times accounts that saying US law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted communications of Trump associates and campaign officials showing repeated contacts with “senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election”; that the intercepted communications had been captured by the NSA; and that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had been heard on intercepted calls. The Times has repeatedly said it stands by those stories, including as recently as February of this year when former Times reporter Jeff Gerth wrote about Strzok’s rebuttal of that reporting in the Columbia Journalism Review.”
——–
They don’t care if it was lies, as long as they accomplished their mission to get the Bad Orange Man.
“John Durham’s detailed report on the Russia hoax should destroy the (positive) reputation of the FBI. It is devastating. One has to go beyond the four corners of the report to assess the impact it should have on the (positive) reputation of the establishment press, though its positive reputation has been crumbling for decades.
The press was of course an integral part of the Russia hoax all along the way. You’ve got your New York Times. You’ve got your Washington Post. They’ve got their Pulitzer Prize for peddling the Russia hoax to gullible readers.
I’ve got the New Yorker and Jane Mayer. They make a cameo appearance at page 93 of Durham’s report. On July 26, 2016, Glenn Simpson wrote Jane Mayer an email with the subject heading “Carter Page.” He understood she Mayer was interested in Page. Mayer responded two days later to advise Simpson that her editor, among others, “was interested in setting up an off the record meeting to discuss and learn more about your research.”
In March 2018 the New Yorker published Mayer’s fawning profile of Christopher Steele. I mocked it in a five-part series I called “Jane Mayer’s Dossiad” in tribute to Alexander’s Pope’s Dunciad. This is what I wrote about Mayer’s profile of Steele in part 3.”
—
“It is the burden of Jane Mayer’s 15,000-word New Yorker profile of Christopher Steele to keep hope alive in the veracity of his dossier. To do so, Mayer whips up the ardor of a smitten teenager in the flush of first love. One can almost feel Mayer’s hormones raging. Given the comic book portrait of Steele as the mighty would-be savior of the republic, the thing should have been titled “Man of Steele.”
Despite the interminable length of her profile, Mayer gives short shrift to the dossier itself. It is seen as though a glass darkly. If readers want to have any chance of understanding the story here, they have to review it with their own eyes. I am embedding the documents below once again so that readers can do so.
From the time I first read the dossier documents as posted by BuzzFeed in January 2017, assuming that the documents are what they purport to be, they struck me as Russian disinformation. They were filled up with the best dope that the friends of Vladimir Putin could supply to their man in London for their own purposes.
Consider that the dossier was bought and paid for by the Clinton presidential campaign through the campaign’s general counsel at the Perkins Coie law firm, which contracted Fusion GPS, which contracted former British MI-6 officer Christopher Steele at Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd. Why the cutouts? One might get the impression that the dossier was not to be traced to the Clinton campaign.”
—
“The word “disinformation” appears once in Mayer’s profile. Here is the full paragraph in which it appears (emphasis added):”
“The election was over, but Steele kept trying to alert American authorities. Later that November, he authorized a trusted mentor—Sir Andrew Wood, a former British Ambassador to Moscow—to inform Senator John McCain of the existence of his dossier. Wood, an unpaid informal adviser to Orbis, and Steele agreed that McCain, the hawkish chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, should know what was going on. Wood told me, “It was simply a matter of duty.” Steele had gone to him before the election for counsel. They’d discussed the possibility that Steele’s sources in Russia were wrong, or spreading disinformation, but concluded that none of them had a motive to lie; moreover, they had taken considerable risks to themselves to get the truth out. “I sensed he was distinctly alarmed,” Wood told me. “I don’t doubt his good faith at all. It’s absurd for anyone to suggest he was engaged in political tricks.
This is simply idiotic. It is not serious. It is a joke….”
There’s a difference between Fienstein and Fetterman. One is obviously on a slow physical and mental decline that happens with age and the other is at middle age able to recover from a stroke and depression. Interesting to note, Chuck Grassely, the senator allied with Comer, is only three months younger than Fienstein.
Being Jewish does not necessarily mean you are pro-Israel and a Jew no matter their observance or nataionality can be a victim of anti-Semitism, as millions of non-observant, assimilated European Jews unforuntately exemplify. Many Jews are not pro Israel especially under Bibi but this does not negate their Judiasm nor there ability to experience anti-Semitism. Obviously Soros has a target on his back due to his financial donations and politics but his Jewishness is part of that target. And yes twitter has seen an increase in hate speech.
Rachel Rollins was investigated, and will probably resign, for attending a fundraiser and accepting trips from a supporter. And Clarence Thomas? Tom Cotton’s tweet is ignoring the obvious.
California has a point both on an economic and justice basis. An increase in employment has a compound effect on the economy by slowing down spending. Thus, unemployment insurance and benefits stabilizes the consumer economy and helps shorten recessionary periods. In addition, many migrants do pay into the system. Unemployment benefits are usual paid out of premiums and by going back into the economy (the poor tend to spend all their benefits), a multipler effect results in greater economic benefits. In sum, whether California is broke should not be a factor in paying out benefits (Tax cuts to the rich on the other hand are a loss of income with hardly any multiplier effect, since the rich tend to hide money or spend it elsewhere)
Human trafficking is not something Biden invented in the last three years. Its been around even longer than Trump and Clinton’s visit to Epstein’s island. Its always been around. In reference to DeSantis, is this not the current policy – allow victims of crime to sue in civil court? We have a criminal victims fund in Ontario paid for by criminal fines and property.
The Canadian reporter was clumsily trying to ask whether changing bail laws and tough on crime will change an offender in the future. He had a point – recidivism rates are much lower in Nordic where prisoners are treated in a humane manner and the system actively tries to ready a prisoner for eventual release.
Pollievre’s statements didn’t make sense – one cannot be arrested, bailed out, arrested and bailed out all in one day. Our systems may be quick but not that quick. And he deliberately conflated non violent and violent criminals.
The LA police have long been run by gangs. This has been documented for decades and any attempt by the city and county to change this has been met with fierce resistance. The typical LA cop doesn’t acutally live in the county and of course votes Republican. You can’t blame the Democrats for a long standing problem in law enforcement. Just like the FBI – its always been corrupt and breaking rules.
Reminds me — nothing in the Durham report is new. The FBI breaks rules? known for decades. The FBI screwed up in the 2016 election? both sides will agree here. The investigation started not for the Steele dossier but because of an Australian diplomat tip? Old news. The Steele dossier may or may not be true? pretty much — its a collection of gossip. Durham is responsible for one minor arrests. Meanwhile, the investigation into the Russian “hoax” by Mueller has a much longer list many of them Trump associates https://www.salon.com/2022/11/21/desantis-goes-easy-on-hotel-trafficking-violations_partner/
AJ — the last article you posted I stopped reading at this point; “To do so, Mayer whips up the ardor of a smitten teenager in the flush of first love. One can almost feel Mayer’s hormones raging” — Seriously? this sexist drivel is quality journalism??
“the other is at middle age able to recover from a stroke and depression”
Did you watch the video?
He’s not recovering from the stroke anymore. This is as good as it’s gonna get.
I’m now a victim of taxation without representation, because he’s incapable of rational, coherent thought or reasoning.
Democrats are pathetic for allowing this farce to continue. But their plan is to keep him there until August. By PA law, if he’s there past August the Gov, also a Dem, can pick his replacement. If he leaves before then, they have to do a special election and Dems know they’d lose in the current political climate in PA.
Watch and see, I’m right. Come August, he’ll “reluctantly resign…
Retaliation for reporting the misdeeds of the corruptocrats in the Biden admin.
FBI Special Agent Garret O'Boyle was transferred across the country only to be suspended on his first day.
The FBI’s actions forced his family to beg and borrow warm coats for their children because the family’s belongings were locked in an FBI-controlled storage facility. pic.twitter.com/T7BseKr0cf
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) May 18, 2023
FBI Whistleblower Garret O'Boyle, whose family had to beg for clothes after exposing corruption at the FBI: "The FBI will crush you. This government will crush you and your family if you try to expose the truth about things they are doing that are wrong." pic.twitter.com/NfJCbLVOrK
But the @fbi treats agents like him, who revere the Constitution, the same way that Scientology treats defectors from their religion, by declaring them Suppressive Persons and then lying about them to destroy their lives. https://t.co/V8VgvBNkYE
— Nick Searcy, INSURRECTIONAL FILM & TELEVISION STAR (@yesnicksearcy) May 18, 2023
The FBI is broken beyond repair. If they are willing to do this to one of their own, what will they be willing to do against their own fellow citizens?
Damage control for Dems is the propagandist’s job #1.
Translation: I was caught doing PR for the Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania … and plagiarism because I posted a quote without attribution to his office
…Bump not only quotes Hillary Clinton on how the allegations against her campaign is possible "Russian disinformation," Bump actually makes one last pitch that there might have been Russian collusion after all.
If a school shooter specifically detoured to attack a Muslim religious symbol I don't think there'd be much dispute about whether it was a religious hate motivated crime. https://t.co/aTXT1bMeT5
In the current PA political climate, the Dems would win a senate race by 5 points. In fact, Senator Casey is 12 points ahead in the polls. Fetterman is fine – people with speech defects are not intellectually deficient. As for his decorum, the hoodie and baggy shorts are part of his schtick, and it works for him. It’s not my thing — I wear black every day, that’s my schtick. Whatever works.
So voting against the police is pro-criminal but voting against the FBI is not?
The “weaponization” committee is an amusing title considering Barr’s behaviour.
Wandering Views 
Follow the science!
Unless it disagrees with your agenda….
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of these things is not like the other….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can’t have people exposing their sugar daddy, so it must be anti-Semitism they allege, while not disclosing that he’s their revenue source.
Seems legit…..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nothing to see here, just yet another corrupt Democrat….
“Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins, Appointed Despite Unhinged Rant, To Resign After Ethics Probe
“Rollins was a controversial pick to be Massachusetts’ top federal law enforcer and twice needed Vice President Kamala Harris to break a tie for her nomination to move forward in the Senate amid fierce opposition”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/05/massachusetts-u-s-attorney-rachael-rollins-appointed-despite-unhinged-rant-to-resign-after-ethics-probe/
“Rachael Rollins is reportedly going to submit her letter of resignation by this Friday following an ethics probe that has gone on for months.
As we reported in 2021, Rollins was supported by all the usual left-wing suspects in Massachusetts and even threatened reporters who tried to question her.”
“The Associated Press report is very sympathetic to her:
Massachusetts US Attorney Rachael Rollins to resign after Justice Department watchdog probe
Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins will resign following a monthslong investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general into her appearance at a political fundraiser and other potential ethics issues, her attorney said Tuesday.
The Justice Department’s watchdog has yet to release its report detailing the findings of its investigation, but an attorney for Rollins told The Associated Press that she will be submitting a letter of resignation to President Joe Biden by close of business Friday.
The resignation of a U.S. attorney amid ethics concerns is an exceedingly rare phenomenon and is especially notable for a Justice Department that under Attorney General Merrick Garland has sought to restore a sense of normalcy and good governance following the turbulent four years of the Trump administration.
A sense of normalcy? Really?”
—-
“More from CBS News:
The Associated Press was the first to report in November that the inspector general’s office had opened an investigation into Rollins over her appearance last year at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser featuring first lady Jill Biden.
People familiar with the investigation told the AP at the time that the probe had expanded into other areas, including Rollins’ use of her personal cellphone to conduct Justice Department business and a trip she took to California that was paid for by an outside group.
Massachusetts senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren issued a joint statement about Rollins’ resignation.
“Rachael Rollins has for years dedicated herself to the people of Massachusetts and equal justice under the law. We will respect her decision,” the statement said.
Senator Tom Cotton commented on Twitter:”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course. Retaliating against the whistleblowers….
https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/tale-two-whistleblowers-highlights-reprisal-risk-congress-probes
“Two different whistleblowers from two separate law enforcement agencies in two separate high-profile criminal cases are raising a disturbing new question for Congress: Is the Biden administration seeking to squash those who report wrongdoing or challenge its official narratives?
Just 24 hours apart, the plights of a decorated FBI intelligence analyst and a decorated supervisory IRS agent burst onto the national scene with detailed accounts alleging they have endured retaliation and reprisal for blowing the whistle.
The publicly unnamed IRS agent – once a star on the Swiss bank tax evasion cases that stunned the world – was unceremoniously dumped along with his entire team from the Hunter Biden tax probe just a few weeks after alleging there was Justice Department political interference in the high-profile matter, his lawyers reported to Congress.
The removal stunned lawmakers who just a week ago won assurance from the IRS chief there would be no reprisals. It also stripped the Hunter Biden prosecution team of a bench with deep knowledge gained by years of investigation into the president’s son.
FBI intelligence analyst Marcus Allen – a combat-tested Marine who just a few years ago was named the Charlotte, N.C. field office employee of the year – has had his security clearance and paychecks revoked after reporting he had found open-source intelligence calling into question the accuracy of Director Chris Wray’s testimony about the Jan. 6 probe, according to his complaint filed with the DOJ inspector general.
The FBI declined comment on Tuesday when asked about Allen’s complaint.
Both cases have lawmakers scratching their heads, concerned that if the whistleblowers allegations are corroborated that Congress has been deprived of opportunities to fix problems impacting American taxpayers.
“It’s unacceptable,” Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., a key member of the House Intelligence committee, told the “John Solomon Reports” podcast on Tuesday. “We need people inside the agencies to tell us, in many cases, the secrets of those agencies, if we’re going to pass legislation that is going to correct some of the wrongs of the past.
“It’s hard to govern when you don’t know the truth because people inside the agencies aren’t telling you the truth. I’m on the side of the whistleblowers. I mean, they’re doing their patriotic duty to make sure that we have what we need to govern.”
Tristan Leavitt, a former congressional investigator and current president of the Empower Oversight whistleblower center, represents both whistleblowers.
He told the “Just the News, No Noise” television show Tuesday night that the evidence of reprisal is disturbing and potentially enlightening to the unchecked power many federal agencies believe they wield.
“When you go out of your way to issue reports attacking whistleblowers, when you take personnel actions against them, those are going to deter others in our government from sharing things we need to know,” he said.
Leavitt also noted that in the case of the IRS agent the government has now lost significant institutional knowledge from the Hunter Biden case, just as prosecutors reportedly decide to charge President Joe Biden’s son.
In the case of Allen, Leavitt said, the suspension of his client’s security clearance has deprived a once-celebrated intelligence analyst with a spotless record of a paycheck for about a year.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sure idiots, because the illegal invaders need another incentive.
“California Wants to Give Illegal Immigrants Unemployment Benefits
S.B. 227 would give individuals “eligible for the program” $300 per week of unemployment in 2025.”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/05/california-wants-to-give-illegal-immigrants-unemployment-benefits/
“Despite having no money, California’s legislature wants to give illegal immigrants unemployment benefits.
S.B. 227 explains:
(e) California’s economy also suffers by excluding undocumented workers from this program. By partially replacing unemployed workers’ earnings, unemployment insurance (UI) benefits help alleviate the inherent reduction in consumption and economic activity that results when there is a drastic increase in unemployment. Economists maintain that UI benefits produce at least $1.61 of economic stimulus for every $1 of benefits paid. Indeed, one economist found that during the Great Recession, every $1 of UI benefits produced about $2 dollars of economic impact. Similarly, UI benefits help employers and the labor market by supporting workers to find the best matched positions.
(f) While the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extreme consequences of undocumented workers’ exclusion from unemployment insurance, this problem has existed for decades and it will only become more urgent. Wildfires, severe weather events, economic fluctuations, seasonal changes in workforce needs—all of these factors will continue to cause unemployment. And for most low-income individuals, unemployment without a safety net is a crisis no matter when it occurs.
(g) To rectify the unjust exclusion of immigrant workers from an essential social safety net program and build a safer and more resilient economy, this bill would require the Employment Development Department to establish an Excluded Workers Program to provide weekly monetary assistance to unemployed workers who are ineligible for state or federal unemployment insurance benefits due to their immigration status.
S.B. 227 would give individuals “eligible for the program” $300 per week of unemployment in 2025.
The Democrats claim the money the illegal immigrants supposedly contribute to the state’s economy.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Biden and Democrats built the need for this.
More…
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/05/florida-crackdown-on-human-trafficking-tied-to-illegal-immigration/
LikeLiked by 1 person
“New COVID Origin Report Includes Some of the Most Chilling Revelations We’ve Heard to Date”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2023/05/17/covid-origins-report-n2623351
“On Wednesday morning, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s office released a chilling 328-page report about the origins of COVID-19. While a press release from March highlights how the report is “[b]ased on vast troves of previously undisclosed documents and fresh analysis of previously known but inadequately scrutinized information,” much of what is included serves to bolster what many already feared about the virus, and about China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The release back in March noted that the report is based on almost 18 months worth of investigations, and that it “uncovered and will reveal evidence that was either previously unknown or otherwise ignored by the U.S. government.” The senator referred to it as “a groundbreaking look at what was happening in China during the years and months leading up to the known outbreak of the pandemic.”
It took even longer to put together the final product.
“After years of censorship, there is growing evidence that some type of lab accident is responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic. This report, which took two years to compile, edit, and refine, is a groundbreaking look at what was happening in China during the years and months leading up to the known outbreak of the pandemic,” Rubio said in a statement about the report’s release. “I am grateful to the staff, fellows, and outside experts who worked to connect the dots. Their work helps fill in some critical blanks and has already contributed to other reports, hearings, and investigations. The implications are impossible to ignore: Beijing hid the truth. This report reinforces the need to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable.”
An executive summary and a short documentary were also released.
The documentary features a narrator walking viewers through documentation and footage to do with lab technicians in China working on gain-of-function. The senator himself is also featured, as he delves into such information. At one point, he provides perhaps the best explanation of gain-of-function research you’ll hear, as well as a warning about its dangers.
“What that basically means is that you take a naturally occurring virus that you would find in nature, and you reverse it, you engineer it, you mess with it, and you make it contagious in humans, so there might be a virus in an animal and it may not be infectious in humans,” Rubio explains about gain-of-function. He also warns “but you change it in the laboratory. You make it infectious in humans. And the reason why you do that is because you try to predict how a virus that today’s only found in animals could evolve into one that would be dangerous in humans. You try to predict it, you try to invent it yourself. And once you’ve invented it, then you try to find a cure for it. And the problem is, once you invent it someone might get infected with it.”
The virus became known in late 2019, closer to 2020. The “CDC Museum COVID-19 Timeline” from the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) begins on January 1, 2020.
The World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared it to be a pandemic in March 2020, and the United States following suit shortly after when it comes to declaring a public health emergency. Both ended just recently. As the report’s findings detail, however, it was really in the middle of 2019 where events worth paying attention to took place, leading up to “a serious biosafety incident” that occurred later that year.
Early warning signs appeared when the head of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) inspected the state-run Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in April of 2019 and warned of a need for upgrades. The WIV went on to pursue costly projects, but it ended up not being enough, because in July 2019 the CCP secretary of the WIV still spoke of “current shortcomings and foundational problems in the construction, operation, and maintenance” of the lab complex, with the director of the WIV calling on staff to “prioritize solving the urgent problems we are currently facing.”
What happened next took place in a timeline sooner and with more chilling urgency that the CCP sought to cover up than the rest of the world knew about at the time.
For it was on September 12, 2019 when the WIV shut down its online database in the middle of the night. On September 18, the WIV advised the airport of a drill for the outbreak of a “novel coronavius.” Mere days later, on September 21, a resident known as Su died from what may have been COVID-19. Several more cases were documented in November 2019, but were kept hidden. Eventually, a Chinese official traveled from Beijing to the WIV to deliver “important oral and written instructions.”
The CCP was not prepared or well-equipped. In October 2019, the Chinese legislature reviewed a draft biosecurity law and noted that “currently the biosecurity situation in our country is grim” and listed “laboratories that leak biological agents” as one of several threats about the “the complex and grave situation currently facing safety work.”
CCP officials at the WIV published a report that gave arguably the most chilling but also accurate descriptions of the virus, and from those that would know. “Once you have opened the stores test tubes, it is just as if having opened Pandora’s Box. These viruses come without a shadow and leave without a trace,” the report said.
What else happened in 2019? Chinese scientists were working on a vaccine, with their own research methodology indicating they began working on it no later than November 2019, almost two months before the virus’ existence was even disclosed by Beijing.
From December 2019-October 2021, WIV researchers also filed patents for inventions meant to address the lab’s differential air pressure system, biocontainment equipment, and waste handling process. “Any one of these problems could have allowed a pathogen to escape the lab complex. WIV researchers confirmed this by explaining that their inventions were designed to prevent precisely such a scenario,” the executive summary mentions.
“As the disease spread, it was only a matter of time before the news of the outbreak came out. The moment came on December 30, when rebellious Chinese doctors blew the whistle on their own government,” the documentary’s narrator also explains. “Shortly after the CCP finally admitted to the truth, but only part of the truth. Two years later, China still refuses to review what really happened.””
—-
The report is here….
Click to access CD3BC3317D197A25E9FF01EBFB869357.rubio-covid-origins-report-final.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reporter? No.
Activist? Yes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Enjoy!
And keep pulling hat D lever!
“LA County Sheriff’s Department overrun by gangs”
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/05/17/la-county-sheriffs-department-overrun-by-gangs-n551524
“In what seems like a very bad development for Los Angeles County, which already has more than its fair share of crime to deal with, CBS News is reporting that the county’s Sheriff’s Department is infested with gang members. The secretive groups operate under the covers, getting gang tattoos and engaging in damaging behavior. The multiple gangs of deputies have colorful names such as the Banditos and Executioners. Now the office of the County Inspector General has sent out letters to most of the field offices seeking information to help them root out all of the members.
The Los Angeles County Office of Inspector General is expected to start questioning deputies who may have information on the possible gangs operating within the sheriff’s department.
“The Office of Inspector General is investigating law enforcement gang participation and police misconduct at the Sheriff’s Department pursuant to Penal Code section 13670(b),” Inspector General Max Huntsman wrote.
In the letter, which was dated May 12, the IG said that the sheriff’s department possessed evidence that the two gangs were “exclusive, secretive” and the department could not provide them with a list detailing the membership of each group. This shortcoming prompted the office to conduct “witness interviews” to determine how many deputies are in the Banditos and Executioners.
This story was a bit confusing at first (at least to me) because it initially sounded as if there were members of the street gangs who had somehow been admitted to the police academy, or perhaps formerly law-abiding deputies who had gone out and joined MS-13 or the Latin Kings. But reading the full story, you learn that these are apparently legitimate Sheriff’s Deputies who have gotten together to form their own new gangs.
But is it really illegal for deputies to get together, pick a name for their “club” and get matching tattoos if they are still doing their jobs? Probably not, but it was questionable job performance that put the IG on their trail to begin with. The gang members are reportedly accused of excessive force on a regular basis, both out on the streets and inside the jails. Claims and lawsuits from victims of excessive force add up to tens of millions of dollars that the city has to pay out annually.
The gangs are also aggressive inside the Sheriff’s Department. In a separate report, CBS Los Angeles learned that there are some patrol stations that are effectively run by the gangs rather than the sergeants, lieutenants, and captains who are ostensibly in charge.
A just-released report by the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission found that deputy gangs or cliques are active in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and many of the county’s patrol stations are “run” by these deputy gangs.
While not addressing the report directly, Sheriff Robert Luna said Friday he was elected to “bring new leadership and accountability” to the department and has created an office for “constitutional policing,” led by former U.S. Attorney Eileen Decker.
This report also reveals that there are more deputies gangs than just the two listed above. Others include the Regulators, the Spartans, the Gladiators, the Cowboys and the Reapers. (Simply charming, isn’t it?)”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s hope so!
“Is Adam Schiff About to Be Expelled From Congress?”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2023/05/18/is-adam-schiff-about-to-be-expelled-from-congress-n2623403
“In the aftermath of Special Counsel John Durham proving Congressman Adam Schiff lied to the American people for years about so-called “Russian collusion,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is demanding accountability and hinting the California Democrat could be on his way out. ”
“Late Tuesday evening, Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna submitted a resolution expelling Schiff from the House of Representatives.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
But it won’t, because they don’t care if it was all lies, it worked.
“Durham’s Report Should Outrage the Left”
https://compactmag.com/article/durham-s-report-should-outrage-the-left
“Most media coverage of the Durham report is preposterous, and becomes more so if you read the highly detailed 306-page document. In its initial coverage, for example, The New York Times went out of its way to emphasize that the report relates to failings inside the Federal Bureau of Investigation that had already been exposed and thus contains little that is “new.”
Most coverage failed to relay details and facts from the report, preferring to instead spin the spin. The Washington Post reported that Durham had disappointed “conservative conspiracy theorists,” who had “anticipated [that the report] would expose a ‘deep state’ scheme to undermine then-candidate Donald Trump.” The Associated Press likewise stated that the report fell short of “Trump supporters’ expectations that Durham would reveal a ‘deep state’ plot.”
An obvious retort is to ask: What is a deep-state conspiracy or plot? Would you know it if you saw it? Isn’t the phraseology “deep-state conspiracy” a semantic dodge that simultaneously attempts to smear anyone who would believe that giant intelligence agencies might take an interest in politics, while also keeping the key issues impossibly vague?
Labels aside, Special Counsel John Durham’s “Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns” shows, among other things, that the FBI repeatedly broke its own rules while applying one standard in dealing with the Clinton campaign but an entirely different one in dealing with Team Trump. In at least three investigations of the Clinton campaign, the FBI went easy on the Democratic nominee. But with Trump the bureau was aggressive, to put it mildly.
The investigations related to the Clinton campaign were handled at the level of FBI field offices, as is the norm. But the markedly hostile investigation against Trump “was managed from FBI Headquarters.” When dealing with Clinton, the bureau followed the rules with care, moved slowly, and considered all angles. When dealing with Trump, the FBI assumed the worst, rushed into action, cut corners, and bent rules to speed its probe.
A glaring example of this double standard began
in late 2014, before Clinton formally declared her presidential candidacy, [when] the FBI learned from a well-placed [confidential human source] that a foreign government [identified in the Durham report as Foreign Government-2] was planning to send an individual … to contribute to Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, as a way to gain influence with Clinton should she win the presidency.
The FBI field office involved quickly “attempted to obtain expedited approval for” Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act-authorized interception of electronic communications between the representative of Foreign Government-2 and the Clinton campaign. A certified copy of this application was sent to “FBI Headquarters for final approval.” Strangely, the FISA application remained “‘in limbo’ for approximately four months,” according to an agent from the field office involved. Another FBI agent is quoted as saying the FISA application lingered because everyone was “super more careful” [sic] and “scared with the big name.” The FBI was allegedly “‘tippy-toeing’ around [Clinton] because there was a chance she would be the next president.”
Part of the concern, per Durham, was that the FBI didn’t want to eavesdrop on the Clinton campaign for fear of catching the candidate on tape, possibly talking to the wrong kind of people. Ultimately, the FISA warrant to monitor the foreign would-be contributor to the campaign was granted, but on the condition that Hillary Clinton receive a so-called defensive briefing.
The FBI gives defensive briefings when agents “obtain information indicating a foreign adversary is trying or will try to influence a specific US person and when there is no indication that that specific US person could be working with the adversary.” For the Intelligence Community, the downside of a defensive briefing is that it likely undermines any further counterintelligence investigation into the foreign influence operation.
The FBI’s handling of potential foreign influence upon the Clinton campaign contrasts markedly with how the bureau treated similar allegations about the Trump campaign.
On July 28, 2016, the FBI received information from the Australian government that one of its senior diplomats, Alexander Downer, had conversed with an unpaid foreign-policy adviser to the Trump campaign named George Papadopoulos at a bar a few months earlier; and that Papadopoulos described how “the Trump campaign was involved in a conspiracy or collaborative relationship with officials of the Russian government.” However, Durham tells us, later investigation revealed that neither the Australian diplomat nor Papadopoulos came away from the conversation with that conclusion.
A seemingly distorted report of the Papadopoulos conversation was handed to Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, and a man with “pronounced” and well-documented “hostile feelings toward Trump.”
In now-public text messages dating from before and after opening the investigation of the Trump campaign, Strzok and another FBI agent, Lisa Page, with whom he was having an extramarital affair, referred to both Trump and Bernie Sanders as “idiot[s].” In texts going back to 2015, Strzok and his girlfriend Page bantered about Trump being “loathsome,” “awful,” a “douche,” an “utter idiot,” a “disaster.”
The FBI made no effort to corroborate the allegations relayed from the Australians. Nor did the FBI, and the Intelligence Community in general, have other verified information linking Trump to the Russian government. Neither did the bureau offer the Trump campaign a defensive briefing. Instead, Strzok, at the direction of his boss, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, launched a full-scale investigation into the Trump campaign called Crossfire Hurricane.
Two weeks later when Page texted her worries that Trump might really become president, Strzok reassured her: “No. No, he’s not. We’ll stop it.”
Crossfire Hurricane’s first targets were Trump campaign associates: Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone. As the probe grew, its agents applied for and received four FISA warrants. Two of these would later be found to have been improperly obtained, and an FBI attorney named Kevin Clinesmith would be found guilty of altering an email that was later used in one of the FISA warrant applications.
Around the same time that Strzok launched Crossfire Hurricane, the Clinton campaign contracted the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS to produce the infamous Steele dossier. This was part of what the FBI referred to as the Clinton Plan, an effort to smear Trump as being a Russian agent. Strzok and the other agents in Crossfire Hurricane didn’t learn of the Steele dossier until September, but then quickly folded its unproven allegations into their campaign against Trump.
Ultimately Crossfire Hurricane found no evidence of Russian collusion. Strzok, Page, and McCabe were all, for various reasons, fired from the FBI.
Of course, none of this matters. We have entered an age of hallucinatory politics in which conclusions precede evidence. No amount of documentation showing an FBI campaign against Trump will break the spell of Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Special Counsel John Durham declared the DOJ and FBI’s hearts and minds corrupted.”
https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/17/dont-miss-the-most-damning-durham-finding/
“Monday’s special counsel report detailed extensive evidence of Department of Justice and FBI misconduct concerning the launch and handling of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and equally overwhelming proof of partisan motives and double standards. While the facts are critical of both the bureau and the DOJ, more scandalous is John Durham’s conclusion that the inexcusable targeting of a political opponent cannot be prevented absent a curing of the corrupted hearts and minds of law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Durham’s 306-page report opened with an executive summary capsulizing the results of the special counsel’s four-year investigation into the intelligence activities and investigations arising out of the 2016 presidential campaigns. While calling the findings “sobering,” and previewing the widespread misconduct on which the body of the report elaborated, Durham’s introductory comments emphasized he “does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies.”
It is here that Durham made his damning indictment of the DOJ and the FBI when he stressed that “the answer is not the creation of new rules but a renewed fidelity to the old.” Ultimately, he continued, justice “comes down to the integrity of the people who take an oath to follow the guidelines.” And “the promulgation of additional rules and regulations to be learned in yet more training sessions would likely prove to be a fruitless exercise if the FBI’s guiding principles of ‘Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity’ are not engrained in the hearts and minds of those sworn to meet the FBI’ s mission of ‘Protect[ing] the American People and Uphold[ing] the Constitution of the United States.’”
For the many details that followed — every misstep retraced and every inexplicable and unreasonable action condemned — that conclusion dwarfed them all. From the hurried opening of a full investigation of a presidential campaign based on unanalyzed and uncorroborated information to the fraudulent use of FISA warrants to the disregard of exculpatory evidence, Crossfire Hurricane represented a perfect storm of failures.
But what should terrify the country is not the catalog of malfeasance the special counsel recited — for mistakes and even gross failures can be corrected — but that Durham warned of corrupted hearts and minds, unfaithful to the people and their Constitution. “
LikeLiked by 3 people
Fake news from the NYT, and they won a Pulitzer for it.
“Eight Takeaways From the Durham Report”
https://www.racket.news/p/damn-thats-thin-i-know-it-sucks-the
“Special Counsel John Durham’s “Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns” trickled out yesterday afternoon, hitting journalist inboxes just after 3:00 p.m. A quick read revealed the following key takeaways:
1. There was no valid predicate for the investigation, and the FBI knew it.
From the report:
It is the Office’s assessment that the FBI discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia. Similarly, the FBI Inspection Division Report says that the investigators “repeatedly ignore[d] or explain[ed] away evidence contrary to the theory the Trump campaign… had conspired with Russia… It appeared… there was a pattern of assuming nefarious intent.” An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to question not only the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, but also to reflect on whether the FBI was being manipulated for political or other purposes. Unfortunately, it did not.
The entirety of the evidence the FBI used to launch its investigation of the Trump campaign is contained in what came to be known as “Paragraph Five,” because it ended up in that spot in a FISA warrant application on Trump volunteer Carter Page. The information in Paragraph Five came from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, and was derived from an interaction he had at a London wine bar with young Trump foreign policy volunteer George Papadopoulos, ostensibly concerning Russia.
Australian diplomats told Durham that the impetus for passing the Paragraph Five info to the U.S. government in late July 2016 was the release of hacked DNC emails by Wikileaks. The entire case came down to an abstract of a diplomatic cable, quoted here in full:
Mr. Papadopoulos was, unsurprisingly, confident that Mr. Trump could win the election. He commented that the Clintons had “a lot of baggage” and suggested the Trump team had plenty of material to use in its campaign. He also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton and President Obama. It was unclear whether he or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly of sic through other means. It was also unclear how Mr. Trump’s team reacted to the offer.
On the strength of that tiny bit of information, the FBI opened full investigations into four Trump presidential campaign aides, seeking to determine whether they were “witting or and/or coordinating activities with the government of Russia.”
—
2. “There’s nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground.”
As soon as the FBI received Paragraph Five, Counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok and a supervisory agent rushed to London, where they met with an FBI legal attaché (UKALAT) and interviewed diplomats at the Australian High Commission. In a taxi on the way to the interviews, Strzok reportedly said, “There’s nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground,” as the attaché later told the FBI’s inspection division.
One of the Australian diplomats told the FBI team that “the Paragraph Five information was written in an intentionally vague way because of what Papadopoulos did and did not say,” and, because of their uncertainty about what to make of it. The report says Downer told the FBI that Papadopoulos “simply stated, ‘The Russians have information…’ He made no mention of Clinton emails, dirt or any specific approach by the Russian government to the Trump campaign team with an offer or suggestion of providing assistance.”
British intelligence officials, the FBI attaché said, “could not believe the Papadopoulos bar conversation was all there was.”
“It’s thin”; “There’s nothing to this.”
A message exchange on August 11, 2016 between the attaché and the supervisory agent shows the Americans were as skeptical as the British.
UKALAT-1: Dude, are we telling them [British Intelligence Service-I] everything we know, or is there more to this?
Supervisory Special Agent-1: That’s all we have.
Supervisory Special Agent-I: not holding anything back
UKALAT-1: Damn that’s thin
Supervisory Special Agent-I: I know
Supervisory Special Agent-I: it sucks”
—
“5. Sensational stories published in the New York Times in February and March 2017 claiming Trump associates were in contact with Russian intelligence agents were false.
Declassified FBI documents from the period surrounding publication of two influential New York Times articles include Strzok’s annotated refutations of the Times stories, which cited as sources “four unnamed current and former U.S. intelligence officials.” Strzok wrote that there was no information “indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials.”
Durham’s report disputed the Times accounts that saying US law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted communications of Trump associates and campaign officials showing repeated contacts with “senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election”; that the intercepted communications had been captured by the NSA; and that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had been heard on intercepted calls. The Times has repeatedly said it stands by those stories, including as recently as February of this year when former Times reporter Jeff Gerth wrote about Strzok’s rebuttal of that reporting in the Columbia Journalism Review.”
——–
They don’t care if it was lies, as long as they accomplished their mission to get the Bad Orange Man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“THE CASE OF JANE MAYER”
Or alternate title: Why the Media Sucks
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/05/the-case-of-jane-mayer.php
“John Durham’s detailed report on the Russia hoax should destroy the (positive) reputation of the FBI. It is devastating. One has to go beyond the four corners of the report to assess the impact it should have on the (positive) reputation of the establishment press, though its positive reputation has been crumbling for decades.
The press was of course an integral part of the Russia hoax all along the way. You’ve got your New York Times. You’ve got your Washington Post. They’ve got their Pulitzer Prize for peddling the Russia hoax to gullible readers.
I’ve got the New Yorker and Jane Mayer. They make a cameo appearance at page 93 of Durham’s report. On July 26, 2016, Glenn Simpson wrote Jane Mayer an email with the subject heading “Carter Page.” He understood she Mayer was interested in Page. Mayer responded two days later to advise Simpson that her editor, among others, “was interested in setting up an off the record meeting to discuss and learn more about your research.”
In March 2018 the New Yorker published Mayer’s fawning profile of Christopher Steele. I mocked it in a five-part series I called “Jane Mayer’s Dossiad” in tribute to Alexander’s Pope’s Dunciad. This is what I wrote about Mayer’s profile of Steele in part 3.”
—
“It is the burden of Jane Mayer’s 15,000-word New Yorker profile of Christopher Steele to keep hope alive in the veracity of his dossier. To do so, Mayer whips up the ardor of a smitten teenager in the flush of first love. One can almost feel Mayer’s hormones raging. Given the comic book portrait of Steele as the mighty would-be savior of the republic, the thing should have been titled “Man of Steele.”
Despite the interminable length of her profile, Mayer gives short shrift to the dossier itself. It is seen as though a glass darkly. If readers want to have any chance of understanding the story here, they have to review it with their own eyes. I am embedding the documents below once again so that readers can do so.
From the time I first read the dossier documents as posted by BuzzFeed in January 2017, assuming that the documents are what they purport to be, they struck me as Russian disinformation. They were filled up with the best dope that the friends of Vladimir Putin could supply to their man in London for their own purposes.
Consider that the dossier was bought and paid for by the Clinton presidential campaign through the campaign’s general counsel at the Perkins Coie law firm, which contracted Fusion GPS, which contracted former British MI-6 officer Christopher Steele at Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd. Why the cutouts? One might get the impression that the dossier was not to be traced to the Clinton campaign.”
—
“The word “disinformation” appears once in Mayer’s profile. Here is the full paragraph in which it appears (emphasis added):”
“The election was over, but Steele kept trying to alert American authorities. Later that November, he authorized a trusted mentor—Sir Andrew Wood, a former British Ambassador to Moscow—to inform Senator John McCain of the existence of his dossier. Wood, an unpaid informal adviser to Orbis, and Steele agreed that McCain, the hawkish chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, should know what was going on. Wood told me, “It was simply a matter of duty.” Steele had gone to him before the election for counsel. They’d discussed the possibility that Steele’s sources in Russia were wrong, or spreading disinformation, but concluded that none of them had a motive to lie; moreover, they had taken considerable risks to themselves to get the truth out. “I sensed he was distinctly alarmed,” Wood told me. “I don’t doubt his good faith at all. It’s absurd for anyone to suggest he was engaged in political tricks.
This is simply idiotic. It is not serious. It is a joke….”
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s a difference between Fienstein and Fetterman. One is obviously on a slow physical and mental decline that happens with age and the other is at middle age able to recover from a stroke and depression. Interesting to note, Chuck Grassely, the senator allied with Comer, is only three months younger than Fienstein.
Being Jewish does not necessarily mean you are pro-Israel and a Jew no matter their observance or nataionality can be a victim of anti-Semitism, as millions of non-observant, assimilated European Jews unforuntately exemplify. Many Jews are not pro Israel especially under Bibi but this does not negate their Judiasm nor there ability to experience anti-Semitism. Obviously Soros has a target on his back due to his financial donations and politics but his Jewishness is part of that target. And yes twitter has seen an increase in hate speech.
Rachel Rollins was investigated, and will probably resign, for attending a fundraiser and accepting trips from a supporter. And Clarence Thomas? Tom Cotton’s tweet is ignoring the obvious.
LikeLike
Whistleblowers…..reminds me where are they again?
California has a point both on an economic and justice basis. An increase in employment has a compound effect on the economy by slowing down spending. Thus, unemployment insurance and benefits stabilizes the consumer economy and helps shorten recessionary periods. In addition, many migrants do pay into the system. Unemployment benefits are usual paid out of premiums and by going back into the economy (the poor tend to spend all their benefits), a multipler effect results in greater economic benefits. In sum, whether California is broke should not be a factor in paying out benefits (Tax cuts to the rich on the other hand are a loss of income with hardly any multiplier effect, since the rich tend to hide money or spend it elsewhere)
Human trafficking is not something Biden invented in the last three years. Its been around even longer than Trump and Clinton’s visit to Epstein’s island. Its always been around. In reference to DeSantis, is this not the current policy – allow victims of crime to sue in civil court? We have a criminal victims fund in Ontario paid for by criminal fines and property.
Apparently, hotel and lodging sites in Florida are supposed to pay fines into such a fund to compensate victims of trafficking. However, Florida failed to fine hotels over 14 000 trafficking violations.
https://www.salon.com/2022/11/21/desantis-goes-easy-on-hotel-trafficking-violations_partner/
LikeLike
The Canadian reporter was clumsily trying to ask whether changing bail laws and tough on crime will change an offender in the future. He had a point – recidivism rates are much lower in Nordic where prisoners are treated in a humane manner and the system actively tries to ready a prisoner for eventual release.
Pollievre’s statements didn’t make sense – one cannot be arrested, bailed out, arrested and bailed out all in one day. Our systems may be quick but not that quick. And he deliberately conflated non violent and violent criminals.
The LA police have long been run by gangs. This has been documented for decades and any attempt by the city and county to change this has been met with fierce resistance. The typical LA cop doesn’t acutally live in the county and of course votes Republican. You can’t blame the Democrats for a long standing problem in law enforcement. Just like the FBI – its always been corrupt and breaking rules.
Reminds me — nothing in the Durham report is new. The FBI breaks rules? known for decades. The FBI screwed up in the 2016 election? both sides will agree here. The investigation started not for the Steele dossier but because of an Australian diplomat tip? Old news. The Steele dossier may or may not be true? pretty much — its a collection of gossip. Durham is responsible for one minor arrests. Meanwhile, the investigation into the Russian “hoax” by Mueller has a much longer list many of them Trump associates
https://www.salon.com/2022/11/21/desantis-goes-easy-on-hotel-trafficking-violations_partner/
LikeLike
Opps that was the wrong link
https://time.com/5556331/mueller-investigation-indictments-guilty-pleas/
AJ — the last article you posted I stopped reading at this point; “To do so, Mayer whips up the ardor of a smitten teenager in the flush of first love. One can almost feel Mayer’s hormones raging” — Seriously? this sexist drivel is quality journalism??
LikeLike
“the other is at middle age able to recover from a stroke and depression”
Did you watch the video?
He’s not recovering from the stroke anymore. This is as good as it’s gonna get.
I’m now a victim of taxation without representation, because he’s incapable of rational, coherent thought or reasoning.
Democrats are pathetic for allowing this farce to continue. But their plan is to keep him there until August. By PA law, if he’s there past August the Gov, also a Dem, can pick his replacement. If he leaves before then, they have to do a special election and Dems know they’d lose in the current political climate in PA.
Watch and see, I’m right. Come August, he’ll “reluctantly resign…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes it is pathetic that the reporter acts that way.
It’s not that someone pointed it out however.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course they did….
They’re pro-criminal.
“Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush Vote Against Bill Honoring Fallen Police Officers…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
They’re also pro-freeloader.
“Hakeem Jeffries: Work Requirements For Able-Bodied Welfare Recipients “Extreme And Irresponsible”…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could they at least dress this guy, since he also seems incapable of that as well?
Him, Biden, Feinstein…. It’s pathetic what Dems get away with passing off as competent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Love having this guy be the one calling something ” a sad charade”
Indeed John, you are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Retaliation for reporting the misdeeds of the corruptocrats in the Biden admin.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
Incompetent.
Damage control for Dems is the propagandist’s job #1.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doubling down on the lies.
Again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And now you know why the frauds at the FBI and Dems are withholding the manifesto.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smearing with lies, what the Dems do best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the current PA political climate, the Dems would win a senate race by 5 points. In fact, Senator Casey is 12 points ahead in the polls. Fetterman is fine – people with speech defects are not intellectually deficient. As for his decorum, the hoodie and baggy shorts are part of his schtick, and it works for him. It’s not my thing — I wear black every day, that’s my schtick. Whatever works.
So voting against the police is pro-criminal but voting against the FBI is not?
The “weaponization” committee is an amusing title considering Barr’s behaviour.
LikeLike