The two California Democrats join the long list of politicians who enable spying on ordinary citizens, then angrily object when they themselves are targeted.
Why would any thinking person vote for a man like Adam Schiff? Although the vast majority of those posing as today's journalists are careful to never point out Mr. Schiff's many failed predictions/promises and false and/or contradictory statements, any one who simply listens to Schiff for even a brief period of time should realize how absurd and unreliable he is. I wouldn't even want Adam Schiff as a neighbor or a co-worker. How can his constituents choose him to make important decisions effecting all of our lives? I don't get it.
I have a friend who lives in his district. She’s an intellectual, artist, ardent Democrat. She thinks Schiff is wonderful and hangs off his every word. Trump hate disappeared her critical thinking. This is your typical California bourgeois liberal.
I’ll take it one step further, being an ex Californian. Your friend probably voted for Newsome, Gascon and Garcetti, Harris etc etc. I have friends who did that. The lack of self reflection is astounding. The desire to “feel virtuous” hence feel so good about voting for these types of politicians and the political clap trap coming out of their mouths overwhelms those portions of the brain that deal in rational thought and problem solving. I’m not trying to be funny here.
As a not-yet-ex-Californian, sounds about right. And the problem is that this state is squeezing the middle class out with increasing speed. What will be left are the super wealthy, the smug virtue signaling upper middle class, and the dirt poor. All of which explains why California can boast a multitude of billionaires yet has the highest poverty rate in the US (17.2%, Supplemental Poverty Measure* [2017-2019 average]). I'm a native Californian and 64 years old. I NEVER thought I'd see the day California, once the most vibrant and trend setting in the nation, would turn into such a feudal state. I won't be here much longer.
* Supplemental Poverty Measure takes into account differences in cost of living between states (i.e. housing costs appreciably higher/lower than the national average) as well as taxes and the value of government assistance programs. All data are from the United States Census Bureau. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate
Couldn’t agree with you more. I think the woke idiot democrats are literally making California the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme. When you keep replacing the paying customers who are leaving with illegals who don’t pay, there will come a tipping point. The number of California license plates in north western Montana this year is incredible.
It just makes me sick. The natural beauty and weather are second to none. But it's all being spoiled. I was born and have lived my entire life in San Diego county. I cant tell you just how bad it feels to have my home go from someplace I love to such a disgusting mess. Like I said, I won't be here much longer.
I've lived in New England for my whole life and feel a similar way.
It's such a nice place to live and the majority of people are great, so it's really just baffling that our political situation is always such a clusterfuck.
Amen. As an ex-Californian myself another reason I left was the increase in crime. In a two year period they tried to burglarize my house 3 times, being successful the third time. After they relieved me of all my belongings I had enough. I had read in the San Jose Merc about a year or so before all this that the police were no longer pursuing these property crimes and burglaries skyrocketed. Shortly after on my street you would see these ADT signs in the lawns of every house on my block. Things have got worse since I left as I understand it. Such a shame.
So have you taken the pledge to just walk away from the D party and never vote for any D, no matter how "reasonable," ever again? If not, you are still a part of the problem.
I recall thinking during the "Schiff Show" that it was obvious the man is insanely sure of his own lies and that people could also see how deranged he is. I was very wrong. He still has many fans and voters that find him a stellar truth teller. I've come to learn that denial is not ignorance, but a choice.
Most of it is programming. I have never once, having heard the typical "facist, racist, homophobe and islamophobe", had the said "zombie" give me a single instance of fact. It is the words of their religious leaders spewing from their pulpits.
Add it all up, Silicon Valley + In-Q-Tel is the corporate D end run around the Constitution. These Corporate flunkies have reduced the Constitution to an EULA that no one reads.
This is so damn funny. Remember how Schiff shocked Devin Nunes by revealing that he (Schiff) had obtained all of Nunes' phone records to see if he had communicated with the White House? And Swalwell is the funniest of all. He went on record about a conversation he supposedly had with Trump where the President said, Are the Russians bad? Swalwell said, Yeah, and don't eat glue. At the very same time, Swalwell was in bed with a Chinese spy. What a stupid fuck. I really hate these people.
If we knew the IQ of every member of Congress I have a sneaking suspicion that Stallwell would be in a tight fight for the bottom of the list. Unfortunately, I think Schiff would be near the other end but is also one of the most evil. A terrible combination.
I think it's a mistake to consider Schiff stupid. He may be a shameless, duplicitous fraud, but he's not stupid.
If you want stupid, look a bit further south to Waters. The woman is barely literate. Or AOC, who is slightly more "educated" but every bit as ignorant of history and reality. When you ask, "How the hell did they ever get elected to Congress?" consider that they represent two of the lowest educated districts in the nation. They speak the language of their constituents -- as does Schiff, a failed wannabe Hollywood script writer.
I've often said of dogs and the various combinations of smart/stupid and good/bad, the only kind of dog you really have to worry about is the smart, bad one.
Our current crop of 'leaders' may be the worst in history. And I don't just mean today's. Let's go back about 4-5 administrations covering both parties (probably more, but I'm moving quickly here). This is not what the founding documents laid out. This is not what we were formed on- quite the opposite. I cannot stress enough that it's time for a house cleaning. In our schools, our media, and our political classes. If people want to be led by the nose and taken care of by their government, there are countries all over the world that have been trying it out for years. Perhaps you can find one that fits your needs. All others who long for individual liberty, a government that sticks to it's stated areas of oversight, and leaders chosen from across the spectrum of our citizenry (not just lawyers who went to Yale or Harvard) who are willing to serve for specific terms- to be limited- should stick around and fight. The level of corrupt incompetence when you get to a Swalwell and Schiff is embarrassing (not to mention Biden/Harris...yikes). We have better than this walking around every city in America. What are we doing letting these clowns run our country? Would you allow any of them to run your business? Not a chance. Not one of them. But your country?
"When the word leader, or leadership, returns to current use, it connotes a relapse into barbarism. For a civilized people, it is the most ominous word in any language."--Isabel Paterson
Reagan was a rare example of a top politician whose kids openly disagreed with him. Wish it happened more often, but that's not how it works. The media's feudal-style practice of extending the president's exalted status to his whole family (First Lady, First Daughter, First Son) reflects how a president's family is usually content to bask in the glory of his office.
The problem with your statements is that any housecleaning along the lines you describe cannot, by definition, be bloodless, because it cannot be accomplished within the constraints of civil society defined by the current government. It'll keep being the same whorehouse it has always been during my lifetime.
Yes, of course. I meant that I did not actually use the word "bloodless". I understand it's a far field to clean our house. I actually think that a 'Trump'-like figure can do it. And before anyone goes breathless on me- by that I mean someone who is unattached to either party, and unaffected in any way by media opinion. That's a start. That person would have a large following. But then there's the entrenched state. The DOJ and it's components. The State Dept.. All Intel sectors. The IRS. There are a lot of unelected bureaucrats and individuals with their own agenda, accountable to no one, running the show. And there's Obama and his crew- still at work, many back in power. I have no idea who they think they work for, who they answer to, or what they think the final outcome is to be. But...that's where the rubber meets the road.
I think that is what we had with the last administration with Trump, someone who had not held political office, was an outsider etc. For all of Trump's faults, and there were many, he was considered an outsider by the political elites and that is what many people voted for. The end result of this outsider was a cabal of political elites, news media, and state actors who ganged up on him and those who voted for him. The level of outrageous lies spread by politicians, the media as well as those in the DOJ, CIA, FBI et al (choose your acronym) is truly despicable and continues unabated while the sheep continue to cheer for the "team". Large following or not, the hill will be too steep to climb, and that is what is depressing. And you are right, it is the ones we do not know, do not see and do not vote for who are pulling the strings.
Here here!! How do you eliminate the military industrial complex(Ike warned us in ‘59), the deep state, globalists, entrenched apparatchiks? you saw what they did to trump.
"That this DOJ investigation of Schiff and Swalwell was baseless or abusive may turn out to be correct: time will tell."
How is it not only conceivable but almost certain that Schiff leaked classified information to the media -- repeatedly -- for the sole purpose of undermining Donald Trump and his administration? That the wholly inept and Democrat-infested DoJ never actually looked hard enough to uncover anything is the more likely story here.
If the DOJ investigation did not also include staffers then it missed the very obvious real culprits. That would not be surprising if done intentionally.
Two NSC staffers were overheard at the very first NSC briefing of the Trump administration discussing between themselves how they had to "get rid of" him.
One, Eric Ciaramella, would go on to be the Ukraine call whistleblower. The other, Sean Misko, left the NSC and went to work as a staffer in Adam Schiff's office.
You can actually see Misko in the Impeachment 1.0 hearings. I expect he was also seated behind Schiff during the secret hearings in the SCIF. He's definitely the guy whose communication records I'd want to see.
Interestingly, before taking a job in government, Ciaramella worked as a researcher for the Brookings Institution, where he became very close with one Fiona Hill. She went on to work alongside Ciaramella in the NSC, and become a star witness against Trump in Impeachment 1.0.
Even MORE interestingly, the two were fairly close with British ex-spy Christopher Steele, acting as go-betweens between him and the US government.
And perhaps even MORE, more interestingly, Hill and Ciaramella were very chummy back in the day (2007-2010) with then-fellow Brookings researcher... Igor Danchenko, who was the primary sub-source of the information in the Steele Dossier.
And even more interesting still, Danchenko had been the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 on suspicion of him being a Russian spy. The file was closed because Danchenko moved back to Russia in late 2010.
And even MORE interestingly than ALL of the above, Danchenko was never named in the Mueller report. All those fancy Russian indictments over alleged Russian meddling in the election, and yet Mueller declined to name the suspected Russian operative who sourced a ton of salacious and damaging gossip about Trump for Hillary and the DNC during the presidential race.
I guess that just wasn't the kind of Russian meddling he was looking for...
You missed mentioning the Atlantic Council, Ukraine, and Hunter Biden. And from the Atlantic Council we connect to Google and CrowdStrike, the OCCRP and Open Society/George Soros. And lest we fail to acknowledge that the Atlantic Society has its "Digital Forensic Research Lab" where they "help" Facebook restrict content that is "offensive" or "misinformation." And don't forget that Mark Zuckerberg created the "Center for Tech and Civic Life" with $300million of his own money to send Democrat operatives to "help administer" local elections in heavy-Democrat districts in swing states.
I just found the connections between these five people (Misko, Ciaramella, Hill, Steele and Danchenko) to be particularly interesting, because they've been very publicly key players in trying to take down candidate, then president Trump.
I mean, look at it this way. In January of 2017, the FBI discovered who the Dossier's primary sub-source was.
Investigation 101: "okay, let's look through our files and see if we already have anything on this guy."
Does anyone really think no one at the FBI did that?
Mueller kept Danchenko's name out of his report, because all the report was for was to rubber stamp (inasmuch as possible) Crossfire Hurricane.
The CIA email that was doctored to support the final FISA warrant re-up against Carter Page was received by the FBI in AUGUST of 2016, before they applied for the first warrant. If IG Horowitz hadn't made that detail public, does anyone really believe Mueller's report would have included it? Or would they have "missed it"? I mean, it was just one word, after all. And a tiny word at that.
I'm so disgusted by this, it's not even funny. That there are still otherwise sensible people out there who believe Putin wanted Trump to win is astounding to me.
I know, right?! The polls fooled even Putin in 2016. He, OF COURSE, would rather have had Clinton as POTUS, but he didn't want her to be able to claim a "mandate," so he tried to help DJT, who was supposed to be a buffoon.
Fair point. However these people weren’t leaking real classified info. They were leaking fake and political convenient ones. They would leak something while behind closed doors the exact opposite was true. This was confirmed last year after the russiagate testimonies was finally declassified.
Also no answer on how cnn got the leak about Roger stone swat raid at 3am?
Information classification is a joke in most cases. When dealing with time/place/force structure of incipient military operations, it has a place. The diplomatic bag existed before classification came into vogue, and that seems to be a requirement of statecraft.
Most of the rest is just garbage. Of course, if we keep having endless wars, we keep having endless (over)classification of information. Most people can't even identify the classifying authority for documents, and many are considered classified because of their presence on a classified network, which is wrong on many levels.
The number of people holding clearances is about 1% of the population. I submit that is too many to keep any kind of secret for long. Thank goodness for need to know.
It's why I liked Ric Grenell. His MO leaned toward, "declassify all the things!"
I suspect what was going on with this investigation wasn't trying to determine the source of classified information, but to identify the anonymous sources that were "leaking" false or misleading information to the media.
That first bombshell Russia-gate article in the NY Times that won its authors a Pulitzer? Peter Strzok's margin notes are compelling.
"This paragraph is misleading on its face." Referring to the NYT's description of the FBI's alleged detailed assessment of certain bank records, "we've requested those documents, but have not received them yet." At one point, he says one of the claims is so out in left field, "we do not know, nor can we figure out, where this is coming from." He couldn't even find a way to chalk it up it to the authors misinterpreting or misconstruing accurate information. He was basically just like, "wut?"
Keep in mind, this is Peter "Trump is Evil Incarnate" Strzok, basically saying, "this entire article is filled with misinformation." Allegedly, the anonymous sources for the article were "familiar with" the FBI's investigation into Trump-Russia collusion, yet the lead investigator on that case was baffled by the claims made.
Now picture Schiff and Swalwell doing the media rounds, claiming they had seen evidence of the article's bogus claims in the secret Intel hearings. Of course they'd be the prime suspects.
If Schiff and Swalwell (or their staffers) were the sources, they were not leaking classified information. They were feeding the media misinformation which they could then claim to have seen supporting evidence of in hearings and other documents they never thought would be declassified and released to the public.
One thing I appreciate about Glenn's Substack space is that the comments are generally better quality. There are frequent disagreements that are sometimes strongly worded. But the people here still engage with each other. I was over at The Hill and The Washington Post and it is pretty pointless to leave comments there.
You should have seen the Politico comment section back in the day. Not only was there constant name calling, but it was also filled with the biggest morons on the planet with a complete lack of reading comprehension skills.
Oh I saw it. I don't know what those people think they are accomplishing really. Literally just hurling insults at each other. They must all be 12 years old or something. Which leads me to wonder how this substack (and most substacks) comment sections avoid this form of childish comments. I guess plopping down $5 a month requires some maturity and shows up as such in the comments.
Yes, this space is above-average for a comments section. Not that you can't find some childishness, tribalism and lack of comprehension. But you can get some fact-based discussion here, at least on a good day.
So true. Having subscribed to Glenn's substack has dramatically increased my education about what's actually going on. SO glad that I found him on here!
I despair of ever getting anything done on this score (reining in intelligence agencies). The general public just doesn't get the issues and you never seem to find enough non-whoring or non-compromised politicians to form a majority.
The general attitude seems to be that it's okay for the government to spy on people as long as they promise to keep them safe (from whatever dangers that same government claims exist), and it's okay for corporations to spy on people as long as they provide cool technology in return.
In 1903, if you told the average frustrated Russian peasant that, in the next fifteen years, Russia would fight and lose two wars (one to Japan!) and undergo two or three revolutions, depending on whose counting, after which there would no longer be a tsar in St. Petersburg, or in Russia at all, the peasant would have thought you possessed by an unclean spirit. If you told the average frustrated London banker the same thing, he would have thought you altogether mad.
Or, for that matter, in 1968, Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik wrote "Will The Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?" He thought that ethnic tension and economic and political stagnation would tear the USSR apart. Pretty much everyone everywhere thought he was nuts, especially the professional anti-communist right. Even as late as 1984, responsible, respectable intellectual opinion held that we didn't have to like the Soviet Union, but it was here to say and we would have to learn to live with it.
Of course, Amalrik was wrong - he was off by a few years.
I didn't suggest it was impossible, but just seemed unlikely given what we have seen to date. I'm not going to put myself in the position of some Kremlinologist from my youth assuming that current events are fixed in stone - too much has changed during my lifespan for that to be true. Though I didn't think the Soviets were likely to collapse when they did, either. Did you?
Schitt and Swalwell were leaking classified information. They did so on occasions too numerous to count during the Russia Hoax. Both continuously lied and fed the media a steady diet of fantasy and fiction and conspiracy. Greenwald doesn't care. Apparently we should allow public officials to violate the law anytime they want.
How do you support your claim that "Greenwald doesn't care" about the possibility that Schiff and Swalwell leaked classified information? He wrote "An investigation is certainly warranted to determine the propriety of these subpoenas.", which shows that he admits the possibility that the subpoenas were warranted.
Glenn's main point is that Schiff, Swalwell, and others are being hypocritical in complaining about being the targets of a government investigation.
A fitting and appropriate admonishment mon ami, six days hence the idea of the opposition practicing heart abuse must have sent me past the edge of patience.......however hypothetically speaking(;-}) if one considers the aforesaid elapse of time, a still remaining "lonely heart", and the fact that any poster can only award one heart per comment (which they alone can only cancel), it may be likely considered that the "lonely heart" is the result of the actions of a lonely narcissist.
Yes, I agree with your analysis. Now, if I may bend your ear a bit more concerning lonely hearts:
My wife and I lost our (real) lonely hearts some 20 years ago, and yet we are still so quaint as to share a desktop computer. She has a work laptop, but not I. In beautiful marital compromise, I have agreed to turn off notifications of Substack responses/earned-hearts, lest my "popularity" here fill up OUR in-box. No problem, I return to the forum often enough, but still, I know not who is sending forum-love my way. To speed up my "scanning," I use a low bar-of-agreement in bestowing my own hearts (sometimes I like posts just for avoiding the gratuitous insulting!), so I can avoid unnecessary rereading.
To wit: Many lonely hearts were bestowed by me, or another weird poster, but I pledge that none of my many lonely-heart posts were hearted by me (even though I tend to like my posts, AND I love myself).
Why CAN a poster self heart? Seems like it should be easy to dis-allow it.
Certainly no response (even a lonely heart, since I can only wonder its source) is necessary, M. Ethan, to these meanderings.
In fact, Greenwald says above in a reply that "spying on members of Congress can present unique dangers and abuses and that's why an investigation is needed". Greenwald is perfectly ok with Members releasing classified information and lying to the press. Greenwald seems to think Members are above the law. What a surprise.
Equating "an investigation is needed" with "it's perfectly okay" is not a reasonable argument. If you want to criticize Glenn, at least do it based on what he wrote, not on your unwarranted inferences about what he believes.
Lol. Greenwald wants to investigate the DOJ which was attempting to identify the sources of leaked classified information. We now know that Schitt and Swalwell peddled fraudulent information for a year and a half. And they knew they were lying. They did it in a naked pursuit of power. Greenwald doesn't care about them. If he did he would call for an investigation into those two members. But he doesn't. Leaking classified Intel is of no concern. He had ample opportunity to say so.
The statement from Glenn that I already quoted implies that he's open to two possibilities: the subpoenas were proper, or they were improper. The former case implies openness to the possibility that Schiff and Swalwell engaged in illegal acts. You're simply refusing to acknowledge that what Glenn wrote does not imply what you concluded about his beliefs.
You also claim that Glenn "doesn't care about" Schiff and Swalwell. He clearly cares about their hypocrisy, given that he took the time to write an article about it. But I suppose you mean to say that he's indifferent to the fact that they may have illegally leaked classified information, or that he is more generally indifferent to any such leaks. Your argument seems to be that he didn't explicitly say that there are cases when he thinks leaks are improper. But his article is about the hypocrisy of Schiff and Swallwell; it's not a discussion of the ethics of leaks. Moreover, it's difficult and often unfair to infer what someone believes from what they *didn't* say.
Furthermore, your claim about Glenn's beliefs is inconsistent with his past declarations. For example, in a 2014 interview, Glenn said "So clearly, I believe — and actually Edward Snowden was vehement about the fact — that not all of this information should be published, that some of this is kept secret legitimately, that the NSA has the right and the duty even to spy on al-Qaida and other groups that are genuinely threatening to the United States." He also spoke of "weighing the value of the disclosure for the public interests versus the potential harm it may have to innocent people."
Is English your first language. It is VERY clear that Glenn believes that an investigation of the DOJ as to the legality of the subpoena's is warranted. Leaking is a crime that probably needs to be investigated --- legally and under current constraints. But he does not agree with the very broad powers for spying on Americans that both these morons voted for was a predictable result of their actions. What is good for American citizens should apply to these two " very important' political figures. There are always problems with one Party weaponizing the investigative process for political reasons and that presents unique problems not encountered in normal investigations.
Sort of a "Bonus-22" (along the lines of a "Catch-22") for politicians with intelligence clearances, eh? Whatever info they are privvy to, they use to their selfish politcal agendas, and later just claim they had to "lie" to protect precious State secrets.
Can it really be called “Trump’s DOJ/FBI when the leadership of those agencies spent all their time attempting to illegally remove him from office? Moreover, Trump obviously did not give the order to or even know about the spying on Schiff and Swallowell. If he had the leadership of the FBI would have immediately leaked that to the NYSlimes and used it to impeach him. In fact, Trump couldn’t order the DOJ/FBI to do much of anything while in office because those agencies would have used it against him by calling it “obstruction of justice”.
Our political system is such a corrupt joke now days I don’t even care about the details anymore. No high level Democrat EVER gets prosecuted while unpaid low level campaign advisors for Trump have SWAT break down their door in the middle of the night and haul them off to solitary for months on end. They can all burn in hell as far as I am concerned.
The Jane Harman incident is worth revisiting in the wake of years of feigned outrage about US elected officials purportedly acting as agents of foreign powers. Harman didn't merely argue for the dismissal of espionage charges against the AIPAC agents out of her reverence for Israel. The conversation she was recorded having was with an Israeli intelligence agent who promised that Israeli intelligence would use its "influence" to have her appointed as the chair of the House Intelligence Committee! A powerful, sitting US Congresswoman promising to use her power to intervene on behalf of a foreign power in a national security criminal prosecution for personal political gain.
Please report more extensively on COVID-related censorship. Last night (June 11) youtube blocked Dr. Hoorman's interview on Tucker Carlson half way through. https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1403361914219024385 Countless similar stories of social media blocking experts for scientific dissent. Nobel Prize winning virologist Luc montagnier, Geert Vanden Bossche, Byram Bridle to name a few, but the list is rapidly growing. Not to mention the fact that the NYtimes hasn't run a story on Fauci's emails or the CDC recent alarming reports on myocarditis. I thought I'd see more of these stories from you for censorship reasons. Jimmy Dore, Bret Weinstein and many other have talked about this. There needs to be more debate, but tech platforms are zealously squashing dissent.
Although I'm not a big watcher, Weinstein's DarkHorse Podcast just dropped a new Ivermectin interview w/Pierre Kory. He has pioneered therapies for COVID that are the standard. Seems Mexico had unbiased expert clinician health team that gave out Ivermectin w/posative diagnosis and nearly ended hospitalizations. Of course American Corporatocracy not only is censoring, but would seemingly WANT hospitals or vaccines to be the only 2 options. The Cares act gave a 30,000 dollar (apprx.) pr patient incentive to NOT treat within the 1st week of diagnosis. Here's another great interview with Dr. Peter McCullough: https://odysee.com/@TruthPills:5/full-mccullough-interview:6
Why would any thinking person vote for a man like Adam Schiff? Although the vast majority of those posing as today's journalists are careful to never point out Mr. Schiff's many failed predictions/promises and false and/or contradictory statements, any one who simply listens to Schiff for even a brief period of time should realize how absurd and unreliable he is. I wouldn't even want Adam Schiff as a neighbor or a co-worker. How can his constituents choose him to make important decisions effecting all of our lives? I don't get it.
I have a friend who lives in his district. She’s an intellectual, artist, ardent Democrat. She thinks Schiff is wonderful and hangs off his every word. Trump hate disappeared her critical thinking. This is your typical California bourgeois liberal.
I’ll take it one step further, being an ex Californian. Your friend probably voted for Newsome, Gascon and Garcetti, Harris etc etc. I have friends who did that. The lack of self reflection is astounding. The desire to “feel virtuous” hence feel so good about voting for these types of politicians and the political clap trap coming out of their mouths overwhelms those portions of the brain that deal in rational thought and problem solving. I’m not trying to be funny here.
As a not-yet-ex-Californian, sounds about right. And the problem is that this state is squeezing the middle class out with increasing speed. What will be left are the super wealthy, the smug virtue signaling upper middle class, and the dirt poor. All of which explains why California can boast a multitude of billionaires yet has the highest poverty rate in the US (17.2%, Supplemental Poverty Measure* [2017-2019 average]). I'm a native Californian and 64 years old. I NEVER thought I'd see the day California, once the most vibrant and trend setting in the nation, would turn into such a feudal state. I won't be here much longer.
* Supplemental Poverty Measure takes into account differences in cost of living between states (i.e. housing costs appreciably higher/lower than the national average) as well as taxes and the value of government assistance programs. All data are from the United States Census Bureau. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate
Couldn’t agree with you more. I think the woke idiot democrats are literally making California the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme. When you keep replacing the paying customers who are leaving with illegals who don’t pay, there will come a tipping point. The number of California license plates in north western Montana this year is incredible.
It just makes me sick. The natural beauty and weather are second to none. But it's all being spoiled. I was born and have lived my entire life in San Diego county. I cant tell you just how bad it feels to have my home go from someplace I love to such a disgusting mess. Like I said, I won't be here much longer.
I've lived in New England for my whole life and feel a similar way.
It's such a nice place to live and the majority of people are great, so it's really just baffling that our political situation is always such a clusterfuck.
Amen. As an ex-Californian myself another reason I left was the increase in crime. In a two year period they tried to burglarize my house 3 times, being successful the third time. After they relieved me of all my belongings I had enough. I had read in the San Jose Merc about a year or so before all this that the police were no longer pursuing these property crimes and burglaries skyrocketed. Shortly after on my street you would see these ADT signs in the lawns of every house on my block. Things have got worse since I left as I understand it. Such a shame.
So have you taken the pledge to just walk away from the D party and never vote for any D, no matter how "reasonable," ever again? If not, you are still a part of the problem.
I am not part of the problem. I am not a D.
I wish I was a recovering Californian….
I wish I could recover the California of my youth.
I recall thinking during the "Schiff Show" that it was obvious the man is insanely sure of his own lies and that people could also see how deranged he is. I was very wrong. He still has many fans and voters that find him a stellar truth teller. I've come to learn that denial is not ignorance, but a choice.
Yes, it's called Trump Derangement Syndrome. Adam Schiffty Schiff is a deplorable human being.
Point out that Schiff looks like a ring-tailed lemur and she may change her mind on the basis of aesthetics alone.
Haha hadn’t thought of that. As far as I could ascertain her main objection to Trump was aesthetic.
Most of it is programming. I have never once, having heard the typical "facist, racist, homophobe and islamophobe", had the said "zombie" give me a single instance of fact. It is the words of their religious leaders spewing from their pulpits.
“Pencil neck” schiff was perfect.
lmao.
Hey! Ring tail lemurs are way too adorable human-like to compare to Schiff.
So sad.
One word; California.
To narrow it down even further; Hollywood.
The four horses asses of the apocalypse.
Adam Schiff - Hollywood
Motormouth Maxine - South Central L.A.
Fancy Nancy - San Francisco
AOC - The Bronx
Fear not, 2 of the former asses now occupy the Executive!
I laugh so I do not cry at this truth.
Add it all up, Silicon Valley + In-Q-Tel is the corporate D end run around the Constitution. These Corporate flunkies have reduced the Constitution to an EULA that no one reads.
Agree.
He’s a repellent weasel. Swallwell a treasonous turd.
Perhaps they are pieces of Schiff also. (Apologies)
Lots of competition but I can’t argue with you!!
Agreed. Those two are creatures of the cess pool DC.
How can you name just 2 (two)?! (top ten to include one Anthony Fauci)
This is so damn funny. Remember how Schiff shocked Devin Nunes by revealing that he (Schiff) had obtained all of Nunes' phone records to see if he had communicated with the White House? And Swalwell is the funniest of all. He went on record about a conversation he supposedly had with Trump where the President said, Are the Russians bad? Swalwell said, Yeah, and don't eat glue. At the very same time, Swalwell was in bed with a Chinese spy. What a stupid fuck. I really hate these people.
If we knew the IQ of every member of Congress I have a sneaking suspicion that Stallwell would be in a tight fight for the bottom of the list. Unfortunately, I think Schiff would be near the other end but is also one of the most evil. A terrible combination.
I think it's a mistake to consider Schiff stupid. He may be a shameless, duplicitous fraud, but he's not stupid.
If you want stupid, look a bit further south to Waters. The woman is barely literate. Or AOC, who is slightly more "educated" but every bit as ignorant of history and reality. When you ask, "How the hell did they ever get elected to Congress?" consider that they represent two of the lowest educated districts in the nation. They speak the language of their constituents -- as does Schiff, a failed wannabe Hollywood script writer.
Judge Gohmert takes the cake. Leader McCarthy is a contender.
IQ is RACIST!
mmmm hmmm, yup.
I've often said of dogs and the various combinations of smart/stupid and good/bad, the only kind of dog you really have to worry about is the smart, bad one.
I speak from experience.
Apologies, I misread that you had considered Schiff and not Swallowswell stupid.
I figured. No problem.
Our current crop of 'leaders' may be the worst in history. And I don't just mean today's. Let's go back about 4-5 administrations covering both parties (probably more, but I'm moving quickly here). This is not what the founding documents laid out. This is not what we were formed on- quite the opposite. I cannot stress enough that it's time for a house cleaning. In our schools, our media, and our political classes. If people want to be led by the nose and taken care of by their government, there are countries all over the world that have been trying it out for years. Perhaps you can find one that fits your needs. All others who long for individual liberty, a government that sticks to it's stated areas of oversight, and leaders chosen from across the spectrum of our citizenry (not just lawyers who went to Yale or Harvard) who are willing to serve for specific terms- to be limited- should stick around and fight. The level of corrupt incompetence when you get to a Swalwell and Schiff is embarrassing (not to mention Biden/Harris...yikes). We have better than this walking around every city in America. What are we doing letting these clowns run our country? Would you allow any of them to run your business? Not a chance. Not one of them. But your country?
"When the word leader, or leadership, returns to current use, it connotes a relapse into barbarism. For a civilized people, it is the most ominous word in any language."--Isabel Paterson
The scariest part of the word "leader" is that implies "followers."
That there are many "followers" of these "leaders" is part of the problem.
Your last sentence has one too many instances of the letter m.
I can understand someone's spouse or kids looking up to them, but, really - should any politician deserve hero worship the way they do today?
Not to my mind. I’m certain about Hunter and Chelsea - how were Ron and Patti immune?
Reagan was a rare example of a top politician whose kids openly disagreed with him. Wish it happened more often, but that's not how it works. The media's feudal-style practice of extending the president's exalted status to his whole family (First Lady, First Daughter, First Son) reflects how a president's family is usually content to bask in the glory of his office.
Proble
Those who think it's enough to proudly identify part of the problem are part of the problem.
The problem with your statements is that any housecleaning along the lines you describe cannot, by definition, be bloodless, because it cannot be accomplished within the constraints of civil society defined by the current government. It'll keep being the same whorehouse it has always been during my lifetime.
I don't think I used that word.
"I cannot stress enough that it's time for a house cleaning."
Yes, of course. I meant that I did not actually use the word "bloodless". I understand it's a far field to clean our house. I actually think that a 'Trump'-like figure can do it. And before anyone goes breathless on me- by that I mean someone who is unattached to either party, and unaffected in any way by media opinion. That's a start. That person would have a large following. But then there's the entrenched state. The DOJ and it's components. The State Dept.. All Intel sectors. The IRS. There are a lot of unelected bureaucrats and individuals with their own agenda, accountable to no one, running the show. And there's Obama and his crew- still at work, many back in power. I have no idea who they think they work for, who they answer to, or what they think the final outcome is to be. But...that's where the rubber meets the road.
I think that is what we had with the last administration with Trump, someone who had not held political office, was an outsider etc. For all of Trump's faults, and there were many, he was considered an outsider by the political elites and that is what many people voted for. The end result of this outsider was a cabal of political elites, news media, and state actors who ganged up on him and those who voted for him. The level of outrageous lies spread by politicians, the media as well as those in the DOJ, CIA, FBI et al (choose your acronym) is truly despicable and continues unabated while the sheep continue to cheer for the "team". Large following or not, the hill will be too steep to climb, and that is what is depressing. And you are right, it is the ones we do not know, do not see and do not vote for who are pulling the strings.
Both the Left and the Right hate Trump not because he lied and held disgusting opinions. They hate him because he sometimes told the truth.
Let’s keep fighting the enemy. The all powerful state, and the uniparty
Here here!! How do you eliminate the military industrial complex(Ike warned us in ‘59), the deep state, globalists, entrenched apparatchiks? you saw what they did to trump.
Correct. Wouldn’t hire any of them.
"That this DOJ investigation of Schiff and Swalwell was baseless or abusive may turn out to be correct: time will tell."
How is it not only conceivable but almost certain that Schiff leaked classified information to the media -- repeatedly -- for the sole purpose of undermining Donald Trump and his administration? That the wholly inept and Democrat-infested DoJ never actually looked hard enough to uncover anything is the more likely story here.
If the DOJ investigation did not also include staffers then it missed the very obvious real culprits. That would not be surprising if done intentionally.
Two NSC staffers were overheard at the very first NSC briefing of the Trump administration discussing between themselves how they had to "get rid of" him.
One, Eric Ciaramella, would go on to be the Ukraine call whistleblower. The other, Sean Misko, left the NSC and went to work as a staffer in Adam Schiff's office.
You can actually see Misko in the Impeachment 1.0 hearings. I expect he was also seated behind Schiff during the secret hearings in the SCIF. He's definitely the guy whose communication records I'd want to see.
Interestingly, before taking a job in government, Ciaramella worked as a researcher for the Brookings Institution, where he became very close with one Fiona Hill. She went on to work alongside Ciaramella in the NSC, and become a star witness against Trump in Impeachment 1.0.
Even MORE interestingly, the two were fairly close with British ex-spy Christopher Steele, acting as go-betweens between him and the US government.
And perhaps even MORE, more interestingly, Hill and Ciaramella were very chummy back in the day (2007-2010) with then-fellow Brookings researcher... Igor Danchenko, who was the primary sub-source of the information in the Steele Dossier.
And even more interesting still, Danchenko had been the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 on suspicion of him being a Russian spy. The file was closed because Danchenko moved back to Russia in late 2010.
And even MORE interestingly than ALL of the above, Danchenko was never named in the Mueller report. All those fancy Russian indictments over alleged Russian meddling in the election, and yet Mueller declined to name the suspected Russian operative who sourced a ton of salacious and damaging gossip about Trump for Hillary and the DNC during the presidential race.
I guess that just wasn't the kind of Russian meddling he was looking for...
You missed mentioning the Atlantic Council, Ukraine, and Hunter Biden. And from the Atlantic Council we connect to Google and CrowdStrike, the OCCRP and Open Society/George Soros. And lest we fail to acknowledge that the Atlantic Society has its "Digital Forensic Research Lab" where they "help" Facebook restrict content that is "offensive" or "misinformation." And don't forget that Mark Zuckerberg created the "Center for Tech and Civic Life" with $300million of his own money to send Democrat operatives to "help administer" local elections in heavy-Democrat districts in swing states.
Believe me, I know. It's all connected.
I just found the connections between these five people (Misko, Ciaramella, Hill, Steele and Danchenko) to be particularly interesting, because they've been very publicly key players in trying to take down candidate, then president Trump.
I mean, look at it this way. In January of 2017, the FBI discovered who the Dossier's primary sub-source was.
Investigation 101: "okay, let's look through our files and see if we already have anything on this guy."
Does anyone really think no one at the FBI did that?
Mueller kept Danchenko's name out of his report, because all the report was for was to rubber stamp (inasmuch as possible) Crossfire Hurricane.
The CIA email that was doctored to support the final FISA warrant re-up against Carter Page was received by the FBI in AUGUST of 2016, before they applied for the first warrant. If IG Horowitz hadn't made that detail public, does anyone really believe Mueller's report would have included it? Or would they have "missed it"? I mean, it was just one word, after all. And a tiny word at that.
I'm so disgusted by this, it's not even funny. That there are still otherwise sensible people out there who believe Putin wanted Trump to win is astounding to me.
I know how you feel.
I know, right?! The polls fooled even Putin in 2016. He, OF COURSE, would rather have had Clinton as POTUS, but he didn't want her to be able to claim a "mandate," so he tried to help DJT, who was supposed to be a buffoon.
You're kidding re Clinton, I presume?
There is way too much classified information. I object to the classification of all this info more than I object to leakers.
Fair point. However these people weren’t leaking real classified info. They were leaking fake and political convenient ones. They would leak something while behind closed doors the exact opposite was true. This was confirmed last year after the russiagate testimonies was finally declassified.
Also no answer on how cnn got the leak about Roger stone swat raid at 3am?
Information classification is a joke in most cases. When dealing with time/place/force structure of incipient military operations, it has a place. The diplomatic bag existed before classification came into vogue, and that seems to be a requirement of statecraft.
Most of the rest is just garbage. Of course, if we keep having endless wars, we keep having endless (over)classification of information. Most people can't even identify the classifying authority for documents, and many are considered classified because of their presence on a classified network, which is wrong on many levels.
The number of people holding clearances is about 1% of the population. I submit that is too many to keep any kind of secret for long. Thank goodness for need to know.
It's why I liked Ric Grenell. His MO leaned toward, "declassify all the things!"
I suspect what was going on with this investigation wasn't trying to determine the source of classified information, but to identify the anonymous sources that were "leaking" false or misleading information to the media.
That first bombshell Russia-gate article in the NY Times that won its authors a Pulitzer? Peter Strzok's margin notes are compelling.
"This paragraph is misleading on its face." Referring to the NYT's description of the FBI's alleged detailed assessment of certain bank records, "we've requested those documents, but have not received them yet." At one point, he says one of the claims is so out in left field, "we do not know, nor can we figure out, where this is coming from." He couldn't even find a way to chalk it up it to the authors misinterpreting or misconstruing accurate information. He was basically just like, "wut?"
Keep in mind, this is Peter "Trump is Evil Incarnate" Strzok, basically saying, "this entire article is filled with misinformation." Allegedly, the anonymous sources for the article were "familiar with" the FBI's investigation into Trump-Russia collusion, yet the lead investigator on that case was baffled by the claims made.
Now picture Schiff and Swalwell doing the media rounds, claiming they had seen evidence of the article's bogus claims in the secret Intel hearings. Of course they'd be the prime suspects.
If Schiff and Swalwell (or their staffers) were the sources, they were not leaking classified information. They were feeding the media misinformation which they could then claim to have seen supporting evidence of in hearings and other documents they never thought would be declassified and released to the public.
How in the hell is Eric Fartwell still on the House Intel Committee after compromising himself with CCP honeytrap FangFang???
Shut up and stop asking reasonable questions.
Answer: He's Nancy's toy.
:)
Their expressions of moral outrage carry the same weight as those of shoplifters caught red handed.
One thing I appreciate about Glenn's Substack space is that the comments are generally better quality. There are frequent disagreements that are sometimes strongly worded. But the people here still engage with each other. I was over at The Hill and The Washington Post and it is pretty pointless to leave comments there.
The Hill's comment section has to be the worst one on the internet. Thousands of comments of people calling each other names. Utterly useless.
You should have seen the Politico comment section back in the day. Not only was there constant name calling, but it was also filled with the biggest morons on the planet with a complete lack of reading comprehension skills.
Oh I saw it. I don't know what those people think they are accomplishing really. Literally just hurling insults at each other. They must all be 12 years old or something. Which leads me to wonder how this substack (and most substacks) comment sections avoid this form of childish comments. I guess plopping down $5 a month requires some maturity and shows up as such in the comments.
Yes, this space is above-average for a comments section. Not that you can't find some childishness, tribalism and lack of comprehension. But you can get some fact-based discussion here, at least on a good day.
They are venting in an anonymous forum that lets them be thuggish at will.
When I read your articles I realize how uninformed I was in years past. Makes me wonder what I'm missing/overlooking today.
So true. Having subscribed to Glenn's substack has dramatically increased my education about what's actually going on. SO glad that I found him on here!
Me too, exactly.
I despair of ever getting anything done on this score (reining in intelligence agencies). The general public just doesn't get the issues and you never seem to find enough non-whoring or non-compromised politicians to form a majority.
The general attitude seems to be that it's okay for the government to spy on people as long as they promise to keep them safe (from whatever dangers that same government claims exist), and it's okay for corporations to spy on people as long as they provide cool technology in return.
With the obvious reference to Franklin's comment, which the general public also doesn't remember.
"You do not have the right to possibly pass along a potentially deadly virus to me in the middle of an actual pandemic." My favorite trope of 2020/21
In 1903, if you told the average frustrated Russian peasant that, in the next fifteen years, Russia would fight and lose two wars (one to Japan!) and undergo two or three revolutions, depending on whose counting, after which there would no longer be a tsar in St. Petersburg, or in Russia at all, the peasant would have thought you possessed by an unclean spirit. If you told the average frustrated London banker the same thing, he would have thought you altogether mad.
Or, for that matter, in 1968, Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik wrote "Will The Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?" He thought that ethnic tension and economic and political stagnation would tear the USSR apart. Pretty much everyone everywhere thought he was nuts, especially the professional anti-communist right. Even as late as 1984, responsible, respectable intellectual opinion held that we didn't have to like the Soviet Union, but it was here to say and we would have to learn to live with it.
Of course, Amalrik was wrong - he was off by a few years.
Apologies in advance to the OP in another GG article, but this piece is astonishing if you're into the death of Russian liberalism at the hands of commie woketardation: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/10/suicide-of-the-liberals
Oh, thank you for this!
I didn't suggest it was impossible, but just seemed unlikely given what we have seen to date. I'm not going to put myself in the position of some Kremlinologist from my youth assuming that current events are fixed in stone - too much has changed during my lifespan for that to be true. Though I didn't think the Soviets were likely to collapse when they did, either. Did you?
I was a kitten at the time, not that it matters.
The point is that lots of things that experts and conventional wisdom would say are impossible happen.
Remember, the Law of Unintended Consequences is not supposed to apply to them.
Schitt and Swalwell were leaking classified information. They did so on occasions too numerous to count during the Russia Hoax. Both continuously lied and fed the media a steady diet of fantasy and fiction and conspiracy. Greenwald doesn't care. Apparently we should allow public officials to violate the law anytime they want.
How do you support your claim that "Greenwald doesn't care" about the possibility that Schiff and Swalwell leaked classified information? He wrote "An investigation is certainly warranted to determine the propriety of these subpoenas.", which shows that he admits the possibility that the subpoenas were warranted.
Glenn's main point is that Schiff, Swalwell, and others are being hypocritical in complaining about being the targets of a government investigation.
Greenwald admits no such thing. Come on.
Re: Nosh Itsherlock
You need to work on your reading comprehension, and learn to accept the help being offered herein.
By the way, did you upvote your own posting?
As Usual,
EA
"By the way, did you upvote your own posting?"
Oooh! The ultimate poster-to-poster public pasting! Like upping a dare all the way to Double Dog!!!
(I advise caution, M. Ethan; If the lonely heart was earned honestly, all the adversary need do is add his own to make 2 (two).) ;)
A fitting and appropriate admonishment mon ami, six days hence the idea of the opposition practicing heart abuse must have sent me past the edge of patience.......however hypothetically speaking(;-}) if one considers the aforesaid elapse of time, a still remaining "lonely heart", and the fact that any poster can only award one heart per comment (which they alone can only cancel), it may be likely considered that the "lonely heart" is the result of the actions of a lonely narcissist.
As Usual,
EA
Yes, I agree with your analysis. Now, if I may bend your ear a bit more concerning lonely hearts:
My wife and I lost our (real) lonely hearts some 20 years ago, and yet we are still so quaint as to share a desktop computer. She has a work laptop, but not I. In beautiful marital compromise, I have agreed to turn off notifications of Substack responses/earned-hearts, lest my "popularity" here fill up OUR in-box. No problem, I return to the forum often enough, but still, I know not who is sending forum-love my way. To speed up my "scanning," I use a low bar-of-agreement in bestowing my own hearts (sometimes I like posts just for avoiding the gratuitous insulting!), so I can avoid unnecessary rereading.
To wit: Many lonely hearts were bestowed by me, or another weird poster, but I pledge that none of my many lonely-heart posts were hearted by me (even though I tend to like my posts, AND I love myself).
Why CAN a poster self heart? Seems like it should be easy to dis-allow it.
Certainly no response (even a lonely heart, since I can only wonder its source) is necessary, M. Ethan, to these meanderings.
Enjoying your prose, as usual,
TAS/pop122
In fact, Greenwald says above in a reply that "spying on members of Congress can present unique dangers and abuses and that's why an investigation is needed". Greenwald is perfectly ok with Members releasing classified information and lying to the press. Greenwald seems to think Members are above the law. What a surprise.
Equating "an investigation is needed" with "it's perfectly okay" is not a reasonable argument. If you want to criticize Glenn, at least do it based on what he wrote, not on your unwarranted inferences about what he believes.
Lol. Greenwald wants to investigate the DOJ which was attempting to identify the sources of leaked classified information. We now know that Schitt and Swalwell peddled fraudulent information for a year and a half. And they knew they were lying. They did it in a naked pursuit of power. Greenwald doesn't care about them. If he did he would call for an investigation into those two members. But he doesn't. Leaking classified Intel is of no concern. He had ample opportunity to say so.
The statement from Glenn that I already quoted implies that he's open to two possibilities: the subpoenas were proper, or they were improper. The former case implies openness to the possibility that Schiff and Swalwell engaged in illegal acts. You're simply refusing to acknowledge that what Glenn wrote does not imply what you concluded about his beliefs.
You also claim that Glenn "doesn't care about" Schiff and Swalwell. He clearly cares about their hypocrisy, given that he took the time to write an article about it. But I suppose you mean to say that he's indifferent to the fact that they may have illegally leaked classified information, or that he is more generally indifferent to any such leaks. Your argument seems to be that he didn't explicitly say that there are cases when he thinks leaks are improper. But his article is about the hypocrisy of Schiff and Swallwell; it's not a discussion of the ethics of leaks. Moreover, it's difficult and often unfair to infer what someone believes from what they *didn't* say.
Furthermore, your claim about Glenn's beliefs is inconsistent with his past declarations. For example, in a 2014 interview, Glenn said "So clearly, I believe — and actually Edward Snowden was vehement about the fact — that not all of this information should be published, that some of this is kept secret legitimately, that the NSA has the right and the duty even to spy on al-Qaida and other groups that are genuinely threatening to the United States." He also spoke of "weighing the value of the disclosure for the public interests versus the potential harm it may have to innocent people."
https://www.ijpr.org/2014-05-14/greenwald-on-nsa-leaks-weve-erred-on-the-side-of-excess-caution
Is English your first language. It is VERY clear that Glenn believes that an investigation of the DOJ as to the legality of the subpoena's is warranted. Leaking is a crime that probably needs to be investigated --- legally and under current constraints. But he does not agree with the very broad powers for spying on Americans that both these morons voted for was a predictable result of their actions. What is good for American citizens should apply to these two " very important' political figures. There are always problems with one Party weaponizing the investigative process for political reasons and that presents unique problems not encountered in normal investigations.
Not just leaking classified info. They were purposefully leaking fake and selective info. All for political purposes.
Sort of a "Bonus-22" (along the lines of a "Catch-22") for politicians with intelligence clearances, eh? Whatever info they are privvy to, they use to their selfish politcal agendas, and later just claim they had to "lie" to protect precious State secrets.
I think it's a slight misstatement to call the DOJ under Trump, the Trump DOJ. THe DOJ/FBI/CIA/NSA work for THEMSELVES.
Afterall, it was the "Trump DOJ" that trampled the FISA court to try to frame him.
Can it really be called “Trump’s DOJ/FBI when the leadership of those agencies spent all their time attempting to illegally remove him from office? Moreover, Trump obviously did not give the order to or even know about the spying on Schiff and Swallowell. If he had the leadership of the FBI would have immediately leaked that to the NYSlimes and used it to impeach him. In fact, Trump couldn’t order the DOJ/FBI to do much of anything while in office because those agencies would have used it against him by calling it “obstruction of justice”.
Our political system is such a corrupt joke now days I don’t even care about the details anymore. No high level Democrat EVER gets prosecuted while unpaid low level campaign advisors for Trump have SWAT break down their door in the middle of the night and haul them off to solitary for months on end. They can all burn in hell as far as I am concerned.
Yes, I know…police and “justice” authorities are supposed to work for YOU against THEM.
The Jane Harman incident is worth revisiting in the wake of years of feigned outrage about US elected officials purportedly acting as agents of foreign powers. Harman didn't merely argue for the dismissal of espionage charges against the AIPAC agents out of her reverence for Israel. The conversation she was recorded having was with an Israeli intelligence agent who promised that Israeli intelligence would use its "influence" to have her appointed as the chair of the House Intelligence Committee! A powerful, sitting US Congresswoman promising to use her power to intervene on behalf of a foreign power in a national security criminal prosecution for personal political gain.
“This baseless investigation, while now closed, is yet another example of Trump's corrupt weaponization of justice” - Projection Score: Infinite
Please report more extensively on COVID-related censorship. Last night (June 11) youtube blocked Dr. Hoorman's interview on Tucker Carlson half way through. https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1403361914219024385 Countless similar stories of social media blocking experts for scientific dissent. Nobel Prize winning virologist Luc montagnier, Geert Vanden Bossche, Byram Bridle to name a few, but the list is rapidly growing. Not to mention the fact that the NYtimes hasn't run a story on Fauci's emails or the CDC recent alarming reports on myocarditis. I thought I'd see more of these stories from you for censorship reasons. Jimmy Dore, Bret Weinstein and many other have talked about this. There needs to be more debate, but tech platforms are zealously squashing dissent.
TOTALLY AGREE! These stories are being censored
https://youtu.be/E1KTs0XIL20
Afraid I f*cked that link up..here it is again: DarkHorse Podcast
Here's the Weinstein Youtube video: Watch it quick before it's pulled!https://youtu.be/E1KTs0XIL20
Comes up as private video, requiring sign-in.
Although I'm not a big watcher, Weinstein's DarkHorse Podcast just dropped a new Ivermectin interview w/Pierre Kory. He has pioneered therapies for COVID that are the standard. Seems Mexico had unbiased expert clinician health team that gave out Ivermectin w/posative diagnosis and nearly ended hospitalizations. Of course American Corporatocracy not only is censoring, but would seemingly WANT hospitals or vaccines to be the only 2 options. The Cares act gave a 30,000 dollar (apprx.) pr patient incentive to NOT treat within the 1st week of diagnosis. Here's another great interview with Dr. Peter McCullough: https://odysee.com/@TruthPills:5/full-mccullough-interview:6
Yes, and youtube just pulled the Weinstein video you're referring to. https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1403561674792075264 Joe Rogan pinned the tweet: https://twitter.com/joerogan
Today they shut down Senator Ron Johnson......
Re: Nicki
Here's a recent report on a documented study, presented on June 7th, that you may find informative.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/88n8mv/covid-origins-wild-animal-wuhan-lab-leak-china
As Usual,
EA