He ain't wrong.
As pissed off as I am (live in GA), I won't be sitting this one out.
New emails heighten mystery around presidential vote count in Georgia's largest county
Media were told ballot-counting had stopped; sworn testimony says counters were dismissed.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/county-emails-georgia-fulton-state-farm%2C
Internal emails from Fulton County election workers obtained by Just the News are heightening the mystery surrounding ballot-processing in Georgia's largest county during last November's presidential contest.
Uncertainty arose regarding the ballot processing operation at Fulton County's State Farm Arena on and after Election Night, when ballot-scanning apparently continued even after most election workers had reportedly been sent home.
Two separate sworn affidavits from Election Night poll workers claimed that, at roughly 10:30 p.m. on Nov. 3, an official directed workers to stop working and to return the next day at 8:30 a.m.
Nearly half a dozen local and national media outlets, meanwhile, reported being told that absentee ballot-counting had ceased at around 10:30 p.m. and would resume the next day. Several reports cited county spokeswoman Regina Waller for that information.
Counting at the State Farm Arena, however, continued past 10:30 p.m. after most staffers had left. In December, Waller told Just the News that, contrary to the numerous media reports, she had "stated to all media … that although several workers were released to go home, a small team remained behind to assist with scanning ballots."
It is unclear why no media outlets appear to have mentioned that fact.
John's got jokes. kek.
DOJ 'unlikely' to represent FBI officials sued by Carter Page for misconduct in Russia case
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/wed-doj-unlikely-represent-fbi-officials-sued-carter
The Justice Department has informed current and former FBI officials sued by Russia probe target Carter Page that it is unlikely to represent them in the civil case, signaling they will need to get private lawyers, according to new court filings.
At least two defendants — fired FBI Director James Comey and current FBI intelligence analyst Brian Auten — have already hired private counsel and notified the presiding judge in the case of their representation.
Ordinarily, DOJ represents its employees sued by civilians over their official duties. But court records show the Justice Department has not committed to doing so in this case and told the court as recently as last week it "does not currently represent any of the individual capacity defendants" and needs time to sort through complex issues about whether it should assist in their defense.
Under the bus, bitches.
Guess treason doesn't constitute an 'official duty'.
FBI had doubts about Russia informant's allegation that helped prompt Mike Flynn probe
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/fbi-had-doubts-about-russia-informants-allegation-helped
Five days before the FBI formally opened the Michael Flynn probe in summer 2016, a confidential informant alleged to agents that Donald Trump's national security adviser had left a 2014 foreign meeting alone with a Russian woman. Agents ultimately deemed the account "not plausible" and "not accurate" but proceeded to investigate Flynn anyway, newly declassified documents show.
Declass finally revealing what we've know for years?
Good article, worth the read, imo.
A Federal Judge Has Hidden 200 Hours Of Undercover Footage About Abortion Atrocities For 5 Years
District Judge William Orrick has ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation every step of the way. Can he continue to do so?
https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/24/a-federal-judge-has-hidden-200-hours-of-undercover-footage-about-abortion-atrocities-for-5-years/
(1 of 2)
Late one Friday in July 2015, District Judge William Orrick of San Francisco issued a restraining order blocking the release of undercover videos at the National Abortion Federation (NAF) convention showing Planned Parenthood employees negotiating the sale of aborted fetus body parts. After nearly six years, more than 200 hours of that footage are yet to be seen by the public, but that is now up for deliberation.
Since the first undercover footage was released, The Center for Medical Progress and its founder, David Daleiden, have been fighting legal battles with both NAF and Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). Luckily for both NAF and PPFA, the federal judge presiding over their cases against Daleiden is more than friendly to their pro-abortion causes.
Orrick was nominated to his position by former President Barack Obama and was a major donor to and bundler for Obama’s presidential campaign. Both Orrick and his wife are longtime donors to San Francisco’s Good Samaritan Family Resource Center (GSFRC), where Orrick was a board member and helped fund and open a Planned Parenthood clinic on its site. That clinic sold fetal tissue to StemExpress, a for-profit wholesaler exposed by CMP’s videos and reporting.
Orrick’s wife is also an outspoken abortion advocate on social media, “liking” pro-abortion groups on Facebook and even “liking” posts calling CMP and Daleiden’s videos “domestic terrorism.” Suffice it to say, Orrick is not an impartial judge on abortion. Despite attempts by Daledien and CMP to have Orrick removed from their cases, Orrick has refused to step down or even disclose his relationship with the Planned Parenthood clinic.
Nearly six years later, Daleiden is still fighting both Planned Parenthood and NAF in court, and two cases in particular have put Orrick in an interesting, if not damning, position.
The first is Planned Parenthood’s $16 million civil lawsuit in which Daleiden and CMP just recently filed an appeal in the federal Ninth Circuit, arguing it should be reversed on First Amendment grounds. What’s curious about this lawsuit, and more importantly, how it differs from NAF’s case against Daleiden, is that Planned Parenthood sued Daleiden for fraud, trespass, unlawful recording, and breach of contract, but not defamation.
Planned Parenthood strategically avoided bringing up the issue of whether the content of the videos was false or defamatory. They never denied the truth of what was revealed in those undercover videos.
NAF is taking the opposite approach. They agreed to drop most of their claims, asking only for a summary judgment on its breach of contract claim and seeking a permanent ban on the videos solely because of the way it will harm their reputation. They believe Daleiden will deceptively edit the footage to lie about abortion practices. Unlike Planned Parenthood, NAF is directly putting at issue the truth or falsity of the videos.
(2 of 2)
At a recent hearing via video on Feb. 17, Orrick focused on whether he should make a preliminary injunction he issued in 2016 permanent. “The real question I’m interested in is the scope of the injunction,” he said. “I think the general arguments that the defendants have raised against injunctive relief aren’t persuasive.”
In 2016, he justified blocking the release of the videos by claiming the safety of abortion workers (NAF’s members) outweighs Daleiden’s First Amendment rights. Orrick also stated that he reviewed both transcripts and recordings of the videos in question, and determined that he found “no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing.” But the addition of one of CMP’s witnesses whose testimony was thrown out of the Planned Parenthood case may change that.
Dr. Forrest Smith, an OB-GYN in California who said he’s performed at least 50,000 abortions, was retained by CMP and Daleiden to review their videos and testify that Planned Planned employees violated the medical standard of practice. He took the witness stand in 2019 at the trial of PPFA’s criminal case against Daleiden, testifying that “there’s no question” some of the induced abortions discussed in the videos “were live births.”
In the PPFA civil case, Orrick did not allow Smith to testify because, again, PPFA strategically did not put the veracity of the videos up for debate. Orrick deemed Smith’s testimony unnecessary and his expert report was submitted but never used, and was recently unsealed in late January.
Daleiden and the CMP submitted another even more extensive expert report from Smith in the NAF case, in which he examines videos that have not been released. But because NAF has put the issue of what the videos show at the center of their case, Orrick is not going to be able to keep Smith’s report out the same way he did in Planned Parenthood. Herein lies Orrick’s catch-22.
“Orrick must grapple with Smith’s report in a way that he didn’t have to before,” Daleiden told The Federalist.
The problem for Orrick is that Smith’s expert report directly contradicts what he said in his 2016 preliminary gag order, that he found no “criminal wrongdoing.”
“Here’s a 50-year experienced abortion doctor who’s worked at Planned Parenthood before, who is saying ‘Actually, your Honor, as a professional in this area, I’m telling you this is extremely wrong, extremely unprofessional, extremely unethical, and extremely illegal,'” Daleiden said.
In his recently unsealed report in the PPFA case, Smith found that PPFA abortionists violated standards in obtaining consent from women whose fetal tissue was donated, in the techniques they used to collect the fetus body parts, in the way the clinics accepted payment for the “donations,” and that their procedure resulted in infants being born alive. Although currently sealed, one can presume Smith’s findings submitted in the NAF case are similar.
This pits Orrick, a well-known pro-abortion donor, against one of the country’s longest practicing abortion doctors.
“Is he going to say that he, Judge Orrick, knows better than the abortion doctor, which would show he’s on the side of Planned Parenthood, or is he going to start to liberate some of this footage, which may have consequences for his career as an Obama-appointed judge?” Daleiden said.
During February’s Zoom hearing, Peter Breen, Daleiden’s defense attorney, vice president, and senior counsel at the Thomas More Society, argued that the videos should be made available to police or lawmakers investigating Planned Parenthood, and on top of that, are a matter of “public interest.”
“There’s nothing inconsistent with the court saying ‘I don’t see it but others do’ and certainly the court would not want to stand in the posture of a censor over something that has First Amendment value and public interest value,” Breen said.
Orrick said he found Daleiden’s arguments “unpersuasive,” and seemed to think it was going to be a repeat of his 2016 preliminary injunction, but was also made aware of the issues at play, including Smith’s testimony which previously he was able to avoid.
It remains unclear how, or even when, Orrick will make his decision.
How much more of a conflict of interest can there be?
This case should be reassigned, but as we are well aware, the courts are as corrupt as DC.
There's a special place in Hell for this scumbag!
Anons
Thoughts on Kristi Noem?
In this clip, Tucker sounds more like the MSM with his filibustering approach.
Noem claims she didn't veto the bill, just wants the Dakota congress to get it right to prevent costly litigation (against NCAA, w/very deep peckets, among others). He's making it sound as though she 'caved', which I don't think is the case (Notice how she talks to him like he's a child as she often does with shills).
Pay attention going forward to who trashes her.
Tucker exposed himself here, methinks.
EXCLUSIVE: Republican Senate Candidate Mo Brooks Slams McConnell, RNC And ‘Weak RINO Establishment’ Over Amnesty And Special Interests
https://dailycaller.com/2021/03/23/republican-senate-candidate-mo-brooks-slams-mcconnell-rnc/
A day after announcing his bid for the Senate, Republican Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks criticized Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Republican National Committee, and the “weak-kneed RINO establishment” over amnesty, special interest money, and their support for former President Donald Trump during an interview with the Daily Caller.
The six-term congressman told supporters on Monday night at a gun range in Huntsville, Alabama, that he would be running to replace retiring Republican Sen. Richard Shelby. Brooks aligned himself with Trump’s policy agenda and was joined by former Trump immigration czar Stephen Miller.
In an interview with the Daily Caller on Tuesday, Brooks criticized McConnell for blaming Trump for the January 6th Capitol riot that left four dead after a group of the former president’s supporters stormed the Capitol Building to disrupt the Congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.
Brooks himself spoke at the rally preceding the Riot, telling the crowd to start “taking down names and kicking ass.” (RELATED: House Democrats Seek Punishment For Republican Colleagues Connected To Capitol Riot)
“I most strongly disagree with Mitch McConnell’s assessment of what happened on January the sixth,” Brooks told The Caller. “Mitch McConnell was wrong to blame Donald Trump for what happened on January the sixth. I would prefer that Mitch McConnell support honest and accurate elections rather than oppose them. And I would have preferred that Mitch McConnell wait until the investigation was concluded.”
The sixty-six-year-old lawmaker declined to state whether he would support McConnell to remain as the party’s leader in the Senate, adding, “I am going to vote for the most conservative Republican senator who seeks the Republican leadership position, whomever that may be.”
“Mitch McConnell is a little bit too establishment for my taste, but if he can persuade me that he is going to effectively protect and promote the foundational principles that have combined to make America the greatest nation in world history, then I would consider his candidacy,” Brooks said.
When all these guys learn to fight like Trump (like Mo has), then we will win.
>This; sort of. I didn't bother reading the bill because I'm waiting to see who's speaking the truth.
She did a press conference where she says she's already gotten some other Govs. to join her coalition.
Imo, she's playing this smart.
The MSM is trying to frame this as a 'transgender issue', which it's not.
We'll see, but I predict she will be successful.
Lincoln Project Smears Georgia Lawmaker as Racist, Whips Up Social-Media Mob to Get Him Fired
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/lincoln-project-smears-georgia-lawmaker-as-racist-whips-up-social-media-mob-to-get-him-fired/
A state senate leader in Georgia lost his job after he says he was smeared online by the Lincoln Project, which published a series of since-deleted tweets late last week accusing him of co-sponsoring “a bill meant to suppress black votes” and “institute a new Jim Crow.”
In its tweets, the disgraced anti-Trump organization also tagged Senator John Albers’s employer, and many of the company’s top clients, writing that they are helping to pay his salary “and strip votes away from millions of black Georgians.” The tweets concluded by declaring that “It’s time to stand on the right side of history,” and “It’s time to make a decision.”
But Senate Bill 62, which Albers co-sponsored but did not author, has virtually nothing to do with stripping votes from anyone. Rather, it is a seemingly innocuous piece of legislation that would require ballots to include a precinct name and number, and “overt, covert and forensic” security elements to make them harder to illegally copy and reproduce.
“It’s to just make sure that nobody can mass produce absentee ballots that aren’t actual, real ballots,” Albers said in an interview with National Review “This is a best practice. And, by the way, lots of other states do it. It’s not controversial. It’s security 101.”
According to the Lincoln Project tweets on Thursday night, the bill was “racist.” The tweets tagged Albers’s then-employer, Fisher Phillips, an Atlanta-based labor and employment law firm that had more than $252 million in gross revenue last year and employs 421 attorneys nationwide. The tweets also tagged a series of prominent Fisher Phillips clients, including Walmart, Starbucks, FedEx, Wells Fargo, Publix, and United Airlines.
“This is what I call economic terrorism,” said Albers, who had worked as Fisher Phillips’s chief information officer for just shy of three years.
Albers said Fisher Phillips has systems monitoring social media, which alerted them to the tweets on Thursday night. The company’s leaders discussed the tweets on Friday morning. He said he explained everything, and “it all seemed reasonable that it was just a bunch of B.S.”
But as the tweets gathered steam on social media, things changed by Friday afternoon.
“The typical corporate America response to that was, ‘Oh my God, cut all ties. This is terrible.’ Even though those folks didn’t actually read the truth,” Albers said.
Because of a non-disclosure agreement, Albers can’t say exactly what happened next, but he’s no longer employed by Fisher Phillips, which he called “my most favorite job I’ve ever had in my life.” Officially, Albers resigned, but he added that “I certainly wish I was still working at the firm as normal. I have the utmost respect for the people there, and I loved my job.”
He said he considers Fisher Phillips a victim of the Lincoln Project’s attack “as much as I was.”
On Monday, Albers released a statement about the situation, and gave an emotional speech about it on the Senate floor. “The Lincoln Project knowingly lied about me in a desperate attempt to remain relevant and distract the public from its own transgressions,” he said on the Senate floor, calling the organization’s tactics “disgusting” but “nothing new.”
“Even though the Lincoln Project is a flailing organization plagued by scandal and hypocrisy, its words matter and have devastating consequences,” Albers said in his speech. “Obviously, their strong-arm strategy of tagging my employer and some of its biggest clients with their false and defamatory tweets about me was intended to destroy my career. And of course, regardless of the truth, I have already been falsely labeled, and I lost my job, a job I loved.”