Gates must know some heavy shit is coming and going to hit the fan, and he's lying to make excuses for him funding and pushing the jab. HE'S A FUCKING LIAR!
https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1522657123800334338?s=20&t=ab3HU49OOaNbBVwFJVC0qA
I'll covert and post the video
May his life be plagued with his own plaques…and he suffer in misery until he's thrown in the sacred lake of fire for his second and final death.
TheNo1Waffler
Bill Gates on Covid 19. “We didn’t understand that it’s a fairly low fatality rate & that it’s a disease…
https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1522657123800334338?s=20&t=ab3HU49OOaNbBVwFJVC0qA
Here's the gates video
🇺🇸
@FreeStateWill
Who unlocked the magnetic doors on the east side of the Capitol on January 6? When George Tenney first tried to open them, both were locked. Then after he pointed at the doors and said something, the left door opened. #SmokeyInsider #GreenSidesPack #ScruffyBouncer #January6
https://twitter.com/FreeStateWill/status/1487517697961345025?s=20&t=ab3HU49OOaNbBVwFJVC0qA
Holy Shitto
Exclusive: GOP Senators Slam Schumer For ‘Slandering’ Justices And Enabling Left’s ‘Authoritarian’ Tactics
By: Emily Jashinsky May 06, 2022
GOP letter to Sen. Schumer about his reaction to the Dobbs leak, Blackburn, Lee, and Cruz asked Schumer to condemn threats against justices and ‘respect’ the court’s independence.
A trio of Republican senators from the powerful Judiciary Committee is calling on Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to dramatically walk back his rhetoric on the leaked Dobbs opinion, accusing the majority leader of “slander[ing]” Supreme Court justices and enabling “authoritarian” conduct from Democrats.
In a Thursday letter first obtained by The Federalist, Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, directly asked Schumer to condemn threats against justices and “respect” the court’s independence by refraining from intimidation efforts aimed at pressuring the majority into a different ruling.
Asked by The Federalist on Friday whether Schumer condemns the tactics of groups like “Ruth Sent Us,” which include publishing the alleged private addresses of justices and demonstrating outside their homes, the senator’s press secretary did not respond.
Schumer’s office also declined to respond when asked whether the leaking of Justice Alito’s draft opinion will subject the judicial process to inappropriate external pressures.
Blackburn, Lee, and Cruz took particular issue with Schumer’s rapid reaction to the Politico report that included Alito’s February draft of the majority opinion in Dobbs. “Immediately after this draft was leaked, you attacked the Supreme Court justices from the floor of the Senate, and again from the steps of the U.S. Capitol,” they wrote. “Specifically, during your May 3, 2022 remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, you stated, ‘Several of these conservative justices . . . have lied to the U.S. Senate, ripped up the Constitution, and defiled both precedent and the Supreme Court’s reputation.'”
“We have serious concerns aboutyour decision to slander our Supreme Court justices in order to achieve your preferred policy results,” said Blackburn, Lee, and Cruz, arguing that Republican-appointed justices who acknowledged Roe as “important precedent” in their confirmation hearings did not lie, as Schumer asserted, but demonstrated “neutrality.”
Citing Brown v. Board and Loving v. Virginia, the senators wrote, “There is no question that you support the Court overturning precedent where the Constitution and principles of stare decisis so require it—you just don’t want the Court to overturn the precedents you happen to like.”
They also cited Schumer’s statement in March of 2020 that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would “pay the price” if they decided a different case against the leader’s wishes. “This kind of inflammatory rhetoric is toxic to our democratic system of government,” the letter argued.
After celebrating the opinion for returning decisions about abortion back to the states, the letter further cited Schumer’s failure to “renounce” Democrats’ calls for court packing and nuking the filibuster. “Make no mistake: these are tactics of authoritarian leaders. Dictators change the rules and shatter norms when they cannot achieve their political goals through the democratic process,” said the letter.
In closing, the senators called on Schumer “to make very clear to the American people that all threats and intimidation tactics against our Supreme Court justices are abhorrent.”
“We further urge you to pledge that you will respect the independence of the Supreme Court, regardless of how it rules in Dobbs, and that you will refrain from trying to exert political pressure to influence the decisions of the Court,” they added.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/06/exclusive-gop-senators-slam-schumer-for-slandering-justices-and-enabling-lefts-authoritarian-tactics/
Clinton Lawyer Michael Sussmann’s Latest Defense Strategy: Litigate Trump-Russia Collusion Lies
By: Margot Cleveland May 06, 2022
Court filings reveal that Sussmann’s lawyers hope to make Trump and his supposed Russia affiliations a focus of the trial.
With trial set to begin in just over a week in a Washington D.C. federal court in the criminal case against Michael Sussmann, the former Clinton campaign attorney has revealed his defense strategy: put Donald Trump on trial for colluding with Russia.
Given the heavily slanted anti-Trump jury pool living in the district, it is no surprise that Sussmann’s defense team would seek to play on the Orange-Man-Bad sentiments likely living loudly in the eventual jurors. But a court filing from late yesterday reveals that Sussmann’s lawyers hope to make Trump and his supposed Russia affiliations a focus of the trial.
On Thursday, Sussmann and Special Counsel John Durham’s legal teams filed their respective objections to each other’s proposed trial exhibits. The Special Counsel’s office objected to three categories of exhibits Sussmann appears poised to present to the jury, including: (1) emails related to Sussmann’s work on cyber issues for the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign; (2) notes taken by an FBI agent concerning his investigation of the Alfa Bank allegations and notes taken during a March 6, 2017 briefing by the FBI for the Department of Justice on various Trump-related investigations; and (3) a series of more than twenty news articles about Trump and Russia, which prosecutors listed in a table for the court.
The Special Counsel acknowledged there may be some relevance to the first two categories of trial exhibits, but prosecutors argued that Sussmann must nonetheless establish the documents do not constitute inadmissible hearsay. The third category of supposed evidence in the form of news articles, however, has “no evidentiary or factual basis,” according to Durham’s team.
Those articles, the Special Counsel noted in its court filing, “appear to relate to (i) the DNC hack, and/or (ii) Donald Trump’s purported illicit ties to Russia.”
“News articles regarding such matters are not themselves probative of the charged conduct in any way,” Durham explained. And “permitting the defense to admit the above-listed series of news articles would amount to the ultimate ‘mini-trial’ – of the very sort that will distract and confuse the jury without offering probative evidence,” the Special Counsel stressed in objecting to the admission of the twenty-some articles that date from May 14, 2016, to August 15, 2016.
The Special Counsel did not specify what that “mini-trial” would consist of, but a quick skim of the articletitles makes clear Sussmann’s goal is to put Trump on trial for colluding with Russia.
Sussmann nonetheless seeks to admit these and other articles at his trial, and his legal team will surely argue they are admissible …
“Unfair prejudice,” as the Special Counsel notes, results if there is “an undue tendency to suggest [making a] decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.” Said otherwise, “evidence is unfairly prejudicial ‘if it appeals to the jury’s sympathies, arouses its sense of horror, provokes its instinct to punish, or otherwise may cause a jury to base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case.”
Or, divorced from its legalese, prosecutors are complaining that Sussmann seeks to present to the jury “evidence” that Trump colluded with Russia so jurors will let Sussmann off scot-free. That the Clinton campaign pushed much of that other Russia-collusion coverage matters not to Sussmann because he knows it will be equally irrelevant to an anti-Trump jury.
But it should matter to the judge because Trump is not on trial and the visceral hatred of Trump and Putin — especially now with Russia’s war in Ukraine — make the articles framing Trump as a Russian stooge unfairly prejudicial to the prosecution.
So, watch for the court to exclude those exhibits, while allowing Sussmann to nonetheless argue he approached the FBI out of a genuine concern for our national security. And don’t be surprised if the D.C. jury buys it.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/06/clinton-lawyer-michael-sussmanns-latest-defense-strategy-litigate-trump-russia-collusion-lies/
Who Funds the Campaign to Smear and Pressure Elon Musk?The Democratic activist troika fighting his Twitter acquisition has identified a new front in the battle to turn American life into a perpetual partisan apocalypse
By Armin Rosen
Elon Musk’s maybe-impending purchase of Twitter is being treated not as a mere business acquisition but as a kind of twilight battle over the fate of the American experiment. Maybe there was a time when hypothetical and probably minor changes to the terms of service of a social networking website could be seen as an eminently survivable event, without any larger implications for long-established rights and customs like free speech. But those days are gone now, as evidenced by yet another high-profile, strong-arm effort by a weirdly open combination of private and public powers acting in unison to taint or scuttle the Twitter sale.
On May 3, a trio of so-called “advocacy groups” sent a letter to Twitter’s major corporate advertisers, including image-conscious and regulation-sensitive heavyweights like Coca-Cola and Disney, urging them to pull their business from Twitter if Musk proves unwilling to censor speech on the platform to those organizations’ satisfaction. “Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety,” began the missive, distributed under the letterhead of Media Matters for America, Accountable Tech, and UltraViolet, and co-signed by another two dozen groups, including the Women’s March, Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, and NARAL Pro-Choice America. These groups are promising to mobilize their activists, and whatever other resources they might have, to punish companies that will stick by Twitter if it junks its pre-Musk content moderation regime.
The pitch was a simple one: Nice store you got there. It would be a shame if someone threw a rock through your window.
Musk seemed to take the not-so-subtle threats of brand damage and possible federal regulation as a challenge. “Who funds these organizations that want to control your access to information? Let’s investigate …” Musk suggested on Twitter. But while the question showed moxie, its scope was also clearly too limited. Better to ask: What function do these “advocacy groups” serve? And for whom?
Welcome to the world of fully automated political warfare, about everything, all the time.
Media Matters for America, Accountable Tech, and UltraVioletare all led by former senior Democratic staffers in Congress, the executive branch, and major political campaigns. They all receive funding from liberal foundations that donate widely to Democrats, or from advocacy organizations, like labor unions, that are deeply involved in Democratic Party politics. All three are creatures of the broader Democratic Party apparatus. They are the party’s attack arm.
There is nothing automatically wrong with the public-private vertical representing one side of the American political duopoly deciding to treat the takeover of a web platform popular with journalists and other people with master’s degrees as if it’s a high-stakes special election in a purple congressional district. But the letter, and the work of its three main sponsors, still reveals the application of political campaign-type tactics, organization, and rhetoric to an ever-expanding and potentially unlimited variety of contexts. Welcome to the world of fully automated political warfare, about everything, all the time.
The Democratic Party ties of these “advocacy groups” might also show the purpose of their anti-Musk efforts: It’s to remind him that he’s an enemy of the party, which holds a great deal of formal power, including control of Congress and the presidency. The point here is to threaten Twitter’s new owner into “voluntary” compliance with party ideology. So who are these groups threatening to break the windows of Elon Musk’s shiny new acquisition?
(Details in next post)
. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/who-funds-the-campaign-to-smear-and-pressure-elon-musk
Accountable Techrepresents the Democratic Party’s online dark-money operation. Ironically for a group with the word “accountable” in its name, Accountable Tech is a 501(c)(4), meaning it doesn’t have to disclose its donors. No matter: As right-wing “investigative think tank” Capital Research Group discovered, Accountable Tech is one of the Washington, D.C.-registered alternate names of the North Fund, an advocacy group that received $19.3 million in 2020 from something called the Sixteen Thirty Fund—an outfit which The Atlantic described as the “indisputable heavyweight of Democratic dark money.” Sixteen Thirty is in turn one of several opaque and highly capitalized center-left donor organizations under the management of a nonprofit-focused consulting firm called Arabella Advisors. The North Fund paid Arabella $942,000 in fees in 2020, according to that year’s 990. Got that? Clearly “Accountable Tech” is very dedicated to accountability, as are the people who pay its bills.
Media Matters, the David Brock-led bulwark against Fox News, is by far the best known: The organization launched in 2004 with help from the Center for American Progress, Hillary Clinton, and Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, John Podesta, and apparently received $1 million from George Soros. With over $14.1 million in revenue reported in 2019, according to their latest available 990, Media Matters represents the mainstream face of center-left advocacy. Former Democratic National Committee Chair and Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez, and former Planned Parenthood chief Cecile Richards, are on the group’s Board of Directors; CEO Angelo Carusone served as “deputy CEO for finance & administration of the 2016 Democratic National Convention.” Several Media Matters staffers are well-known pundits who frequently appear in outlets like MSNBC, further blurring the lines between the Democratic Party’s spin apparatus and organizations that still insist on presenting themselves as “the press.” When Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz needed experts—a noun that’s lost all connection to anything real, and is functionally useless by any careful writer or speaker of English—in order to validate the even more pressing evil of the Libs of TikTok Twitter account, she turned to the folks at Media Matters
UltraViolet, the third member of the Let’s Break Elon’s Windows gang, is funded through groups like the American Federation of Teachers and the Libra Foundation, the donor organization for a billionaire member of the left-wing Pritzker family. UltraViolet is unique in the staid world of NGOs for sharing a name with an Andy Warhol superstar (given name: Isabelle Collin Dufresne). The group was #MeToo before #MeToo existed, getting the sneaker company Reebok to drop the rapper Rick Ross as a pitchman in 2013 over his purported support of “rape culture,” and lobbying the next year for TBS to cancel CeeLo Green’s show over his alleged misogyny
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/who-funds-the-campaign-to-smear-and-pressure-elon-musk