wnd--2020-10-15--Trump, Republicans furious with U.S. Attorney John Durham for delay issuing indictments

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
Donald Trump and Republicans are furious that U.S. Attorney John Durham has not brought indictments against senior people who spied on the president ’ s campaign , lied repeatedly to judges in order to do it , and based their intrusions on specious evidence , which they knew to be false -- and had been commissioned by the opposition political party .
We know the broad outlines of this coordinated operation , but we still don ’ t know its full extent , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they played .
Attorney General William Barr promised major developments in this probe by late spring , then mid-summer , then Labor Day , and now sometime after the election .
If , as Republicans say ( and the evidence seems to show ) , there was a systematic effort to weaponize federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political purposes , the public has a compelling right to know .
This need-to-know is urgent because the Democrats ’ presidential nominee , Joe Biden , served as the second-highest ranking member of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have Barr and Durham delayed issuing indictments or producing a comprehensive report ?
There are two ways to view this riddle .
The first is that there have been so many practical obstacles to moving quickly , yet properly , to find out what happened .
Everything was on hold while bumbling Jeff Sessions was attorney general .
The department was , in effect , run by his second-in-command , Rod Rosenstein , who appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel and then let him and his deputy , Andrew Weissmann , operate virtually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , aggressive team seems to have had one overriding interest : take down the president .
( Weissmann confirmed as much in his recent kiss-and-tell memoir harshly critical of Mueller for not doing precisely that . )
When that prolonged effort fizzled and with Barr in place of Sessions , the Department of Justice could finally investigate how Trump was targeted and who did it .
Barr assigned that task to Durham , a nonpartisan , highly respected career prosecutor with previous experience as an independent counsel .
Durham met predictable resistance from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very acts being investigated .
The CIA , now headed by Gina Haspel , and the FBI , now headed by Christopher Wray , refused to turn over any documents they weren ’ t forced to .
Their resistance significantly slowed Durham ’ s work .
So did the pandemic , which prevented grand juries from meeting to consider the evidence he uncovered .
These delays are only half the story .
The other half is the inherent , unresolvable tensions between the political and criminal dimensions of this investigation .
Career prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assembling solid evidence to win criminal convictions , however time-consuming that is .
If one indictment is part of a broader picture and might reveal information to other targets , prosecutors keep it secret as long as they can .
These procedures pose no problems in ordinary cases .
In this case , however , they pose big problems since the crimes being investigated were directed at political figures , had political consequences , and may have been politically motivated .
Citizens have a right to know -- right now , before another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous presidential election were undermined by the very agencies who are supposed to be the bulwarks of American democracy .
The targeting by the FBI and CIA of Donald Trump ’ s campaign , transition , and presidency corrupts the very idea of free-and-fair elections , the peaceful transfer of power , and nonpartisan law enforcement .
If that ’ s what happened , Americans must know who did it .
The Gordian Knot here is the unavoidable , unresolvable tension between the proper procedures used to investigate complex , white-collar crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes being investigated in this case .
The logic of law enforcement pulls on one end of the rope .
The logic of informed , democratic choice pulls on the other end .
One demands secrecy ; the other , openness .
Both are completely legitimate .
Because they pull in opposite directions in this case , the knot keeps getting tighter .
Secretive criminal investigations proceed with a logic that is fundamentally different from that of free and open democratic elections .
Each has its own timetable , and the gap between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day 2020 .
Durham has moved on a legal timetable , not a political one .
That ’ s entirely appropriate .
But it comes at a high cost to voters and to the Trump White House .
It leaves the attorney general with no way to inform citizens what his department has discovered before they cast ballots .
Although Barr could speak about the broad contours of his findings , doing so would seem partisan and , in any case , would be hard to do without naming names .
Those names @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or court cases .
Indict or shut up .
Violating that cardinal rule was the same mistake FBI Director James Comey made when he discussed Hillary Clinton ’ s emails and server .
Barr and Durham won ’ t repeat it .
So , how can citizens acquire the information they need between now and Nov. 3 ?
How can they find out what senior officials in the Obama administration did to surveil political opponents and cover it up when they lost the election ?
There aren ’ t many options .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is demanding : Executive branch agencies must release all relevant documents with as few redactions as possible .
His demand is entirely political , designed to help him win reelection .
Still , he has the legal authority to do it .
Whether it helps the country depends on what the documents tell us and whether they disclose any secret intelligence techniques .
What we have seen so far is a textbook example of bureaucrats covering their tracks , even if it harms the country they were hired to serve .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security and on-going criminal investigations , many others were likely made to protect government agencies from humiliation or worse .
That self-protection is why the State Department , FBI , and CIA have refused to give up documents .
Lower-level bureaucrats have an additional reason .
They fear the disclosures will help Trump .
Now that Election Day is so imminent , these agencies have even more leverage to keep their secrets .
Trump can not fire the Slow-Walkers-in-Chief , Christopher Wray and Gina Haspel , since doing so would ignite a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wray , Haspel , and their colleagues know that , so they try to wait out Trump and hope for the best .
Still , the president does have some levers .
John Ratcliffe , who is the director of national intelligence , outranks Haspel and can overrule her .
He should do so if he thinks she is stalling to protect her agency or her position .
She is vulnerable because she headed the CIA ’ s London station when Obama ’ s CIA ran so many anti-Trump operations on her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Barr ’ s subordinate in the Justice Department .
The AG should override the FBI director unless disclosures would imperil a Durham prosecution .
The practical danger is that Wray would complain to the New York Times and Washington Post , just as Comey and his deputy , Andrew McCabe , did .
Those friendly publications would undoubtedly reprise their old headlines : “ Sources say AG undermining rule of law to help Trump.
” As we peer through a glass darkly , we should remember who failed to inform us about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with so few options now .
It was the Democratic House of Representatives and the mainstream media .
On the Senate side , the Intelligence Committee was useless , and the two committees that did try to investigate , Judiciary and Homeland Security , were stonewalled by the very bureaucracies they were probing .
They are still being stonewalled .
The only breach in this cone of self-serving silence came thanks to the Freedom of Information Act , used by Judicial Watch and a few others to obtain government information hidden from our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been an embarrassment .
It so revered the Obama administration that , instead of reporting on its officials ’ malfeasance , it protected them .
It is still protecting them , as well as Hillary Clinton and her campaign .
The country ’ s leading news organizations had zero interest in uncovering serious violations of constitutional norms governing fair elections and unbiased law enforcement .
Instead , they leaped head-first down the “ Trump-Russia collusion ” rabbit hole .
They emerged dirty but unbowed .
One result is that about half the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ branch of the Democratic Party .
Actually , everyone does , but only half thinks it ’ s a bad thing .
Republican frustration with this coverup is palpable .
After four years , they say , we still don ’ t have a full accounting of how the Obama administration used the powerful tools of law enforcement and intelligence agencies against a political opponent .
We ought to know before the election , but we won ’ t .
If the Democrats win and take back the Justice Department , we may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ever want to pursue that issue ?
This veil of ignorance , constructed so assiduously by its malefactors , goes to the heart of our democratic process .
It bears directly on the current election .
Yet the biggest questions linger unanswered because Congress and the media failed in their duties .
Their failure left only federal prosecutors to investigate , and they couldn ’ t begin until Mueller and Sessions were gone .
Durham ’ s criminal investigation is necessarily secret , and properly so .
It moves at its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s too slow .
The alleged crimes are grave , those involved were high-ranking officials plus the Democrats ’ 2016 candidate .
The party ’ s 2020 nominee ranked second only to Barack Obama when the crimes were committed .
The unhappy result is this whole nettle of serious crimes remains hidden from voters who deserve to know .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Charles Lipson
Real Clear Politics
Donald Trump and Republicans are furious that U.S. Attorney John Durham has not brought indictments against senior people who spied on the president’s campaign, lied repeatedly to judges in order to do it, and based their intrusions on specious evidence, which they knew to be false -- and had been commissioned by the opposition political party. We know the broad outlines of this coordinated operation, but we still don’t know its full extent, all those involved, and what precise roles they played.
Attorney General William Barr promised major developments in this probe by late spring, then mid-summer, then Labor Day, and now sometime after the election. If, as Republicans say (and the evidence seems to show), there was a systematic effort to weaponize federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political purposes, the public has a compelling right to know. This need-to-know is urgent because the Democrats’ presidential nominee, Joe Biden, served as the second-highest ranking member of the administration that conducted these acts.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Why have Barr and Durham delayed issuing indictments or producing a comprehensive report? There are two ways to view this riddle.
The first is that there have been so many practical obstacles to moving quickly, yet properly, to find out what happened. Everything was on hold while bumbling Jeff Sessions was attorney general. The department was, in effect, run by his second-in-command, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel and then let him and his deputy, Andrew Weissmann, operate virtually without restraint.
Mueller’s biased, aggressive team seems to have had one overriding interest: take down the president. (Weissmann confirmed as much in his recent kiss-and-tell memoir harshly critical of Mueller for not doing precisely that.) When that prolonged effort fizzled and with Barr in place of Sessions, the Department of Justice could finally investigate how Trump was targeted and who did it. Barr assigned that task to Durham, a nonpartisan, highly respected career prosecutor with previous experience as an independent counsel.
Durham met predictable resistance from the same agencies that had committed the very acts being investigated. The CIA, now headed by Gina Haspel, and the FBI, now headed by Christopher Wray, refused to turn over any documents they weren’t forced to. Their resistance significantly slowed Durham’s work. So did the pandemic, which prevented grand juries from meeting to consider the evidence he uncovered.
These delays are only half the story.
The other half is the inherent, unresolvable tensions between the political and criminal dimensions of this investigation. Career prosecutors are obliged to be concerned only with assembling solid evidence to win criminal convictions, however time-consuming that is. If one indictment is part of a broader picture and might reveal information to other targets, prosecutors keep it secret as long as they can.
These procedures pose no problems in ordinary cases. In this case, however, they pose big problems since the crimes being investigated were directed at political figures, had political consequences, and may have been politically motivated. Citizens have a right to know -- right now, before another Election Day -- how the results of the previous presidential election were undermined by the very agencies who are supposed to be the bulwarks of American democracy. The targeting by the FBI and CIA of Donald Trump’s campaign, transition, and presidency corrupts the very idea of free-and-fair elections, the peaceful transfer of power, and nonpartisan law enforcement. If that’s what happened, Americans must know who did it.
The Gordian Knot here is the unavoidable, unresolvable tension between the proper procedures used to investigate complex, white-collar crimes and the inherently political nature of the crimes being investigated in this case. The logic of law enforcement pulls on one end of the rope. The logic of informed, democratic choice pulls on the other end. One demands secrecy; the other, openness. Both are completely legitimate. Because they pull in opposite directions in this case, the knot keeps getting tighter. Secretive criminal investigations proceed with a logic that is fundamentally different from that of free and open democratic elections. Each has its own timetable, and the gap between them cannot be closed by Election Day 2020.
Durham has moved on a legal timetable, not a political one. That’s entirely appropriate. But it comes at a high cost to voters and to the Trump White House. It leaves the attorney general with no way to inform citizens what his department has discovered before they cast ballots. Although Barr could speak about the broad contours of his findings, doing so would seem partisan and, in any case, would be hard to do without naming names. Those names should only be revealed through criminal charges or court cases. Indict or shut up. Violating that cardinal rule was the same mistake FBI Director James Comey made when he discussed Hillary Clinton’s emails and server. Barr and Durham won’t repeat it.
So, how can citizens acquire the information they need between now and Nov. 3? How can they find out what senior officials in the Obama administration did to surveil political opponents and cover it up when they lost the election?
There aren’t many options. The only realistic one is exactly what President Trump is demanding: Executive branch agencies must release all relevant documents with as few redactions as possible. His demand is entirely political, designed to help him win reelection. Still, he has the legal authority to do it. Whether it helps the country depends on what the documents tell us and whether they disclose any secret intelligence techniques.
What we have seen so far is a textbook example of bureaucrats covering their tracks, even if it harms the country they were hired to serve. Although some redactions are necessary to protect national security and on-going criminal investigations, many others were likely made to protect government agencies from humiliation or worse. That self-protection is why the State Department, FBI, and CIA have refused to give up documents. Lower-level bureaucrats have an additional reason. They fear the disclosures will help Trump.
Now that Election Day is so imminent, these agencies have even more leverage to keep their secrets. Trump cannot fire the Slow-Walkers-in-Chief, Christopher Wray and Gina Haspel, since doing so would ignite a political firestorm, just as firing Comey did. Wray, Haspel, and their colleagues know that, so they try to wait out Trump and hope for the best.
Still, the president does have some levers. John Ratcliffe, who is the director of national intelligence, outranks Haspel and can overrule her. He should do so if he thinks she is stalling to protect her agency or her position. She is vulnerable because she headed the CIA’s London station when Obama’s CIA ran so many anti-Trump operations on her territory. As for Wray, he is Barr’s subordinate in the Justice Department. The AG should override the FBI director unless disclosures would imperil a Durham prosecution. The practical danger is that Wray would complain to the New York Times and Washington Post, just as Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe, did. Those friendly publications would undoubtedly reprise their old headlines: “Sources say AG undermining rule of law to help Trump.”
As we peer through a glass darkly, we should remember who failed to inform us about these scandals for years, leaving us with so few options now. It was the Democratic House of Representatives and the mainstream media. On the Senate side, the Intelligence Committee was useless, and the two committees that did try to investigate, Judiciary and Homeland Security, were stonewalled by the very bureaucracies they were probing. They are still being stonewalled. The only breach in this cone of self-serving silence came thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, used by Judicial Watch and a few others to obtain government information hidden from our elected representatives.
The mainstream media has been an embarrassment. It so revered the Obama administration that, instead of reporting on its officials’ malfeasance, it protected them. It is still protecting them, as well as Hillary Clinton and her campaign. The country’s leading news organizations had zero interest in uncovering serious violations of constitutional norms governing fair elections and unbiased law enforcement. Instead, they leaped head-first down the “Trump-Russia collusion” rabbit hole. They emerged dirty but unbowed. One result is that about half the American public now believes the media is a branch of the Democratic Party. Actually, everyone does, but only half thinks it’s a bad thing.
Republican frustration with this coverup is palpable. After four years, they say, we still don’t have a full accounting of how the Obama administration used the powerful tools of law enforcement and intelligence agencies against a political opponent. We ought to know before the election, but we won’t. If the Democrats win and take back the Justice Department, we may never know. Why would a Biden administration ever want to pursue that issue?
This veil of ignorance, constructed so assiduously by its malefactors, goes to the heart of our democratic process. It bears directly on the current election. Yet the biggest questions linger unanswered because Congress and the media failed in their duties. Their failure left only federal prosecutors to investigate, and they couldn’t begin until Mueller and Sessions were gone. Durham’s criminal investigation is necessarily secret, and properly so. It moves at its own deliberate pace. For voters, that’s too slow. The alleged crimes are grave, those involved were high-ranking officials plus the Democrats’ 2016 candidate. The party’s 2020 nominee ranked second only to Barack Obama when the crimes were committed. The unhappy result is this whole nettle of serious crimes remains hidden from voters who deserve to know.


wnd--2020-10-15--Can Trump pull a 2nd rabbit out of the hat?

`` Apres moi , la deluge , '' predicted Louis XV after his army 's stunning defeat by Prussia 's Frederick the Great at the Battle of Rossbach in 1757 .
`` La deluge , '' the Revolution , came , three decades later , to wash the Bourbon monarchy away in blood and to send Louis XV 's grandson , Louis XVI , and his queen , Marie Antoinette , to the guillotine .
Donald Trump is issuing similar warnings for the republic if Joe Biden wins the presidency and Democrats capture the Senate .
And the stakes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divides us , are indeed high .
The Democrats are out to remake America , and , 17 days from the election , a Democratic sweep remains a real possibility .
Early turnout is already at record numbers .
According to most polls , Biden is ahead in almost all of the major battleground states – Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin , Ohio , North Carolina , Georgia , Florida and Arizona .
To win , Trump must carry six or seven of those states .
In national polls , Trump is further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflecting the mammoth Democratic majorities in populous and deep-blue California , New York and Illinois .
Still , this thing is not over .
For , at this stage of the 2016 campaign , Hillary Clinton was showing equally impressive poll numbers , and she would go on to lose all eight of those battleground states in the greatest upset since Harry Truman defeated Tom Dewey in 1948 .
Can Trump repeat the miracle of 2016 ?
Perhaps .
When it comes to energy , excitement , enthusiasm and a capacity to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this the worst of pandemics , Trump is unrivaled .
When Trump calls , his followers come .
Not in living memory has there been a president who could bring out such vast crowds with such consistency as Donald J. Trump .
By contrast , Biden 's meager gatherings seem to evoke as much excitement as a seniors bocce ball tournament .
His appearances , reading from teleprompters and spewing canned attacks written by others , produce polite applause .
Rarely does a day goes by that Biden does not mumble and misremember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The essence of the Biden campaign is the avoidance of actual campaigning .
And it has worked .
On some days , the campaign `` puts the lid on '' – has no more news events today – by 9 a.m .
The question this has raised is no longer whether Joe has `` lost a step '' – few deny that – but whether he retains sufficient mental acuity to be a decisive leader of the free world for the next four years .
Two weeks out , however , voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to care enough to reject the Biden-Harris ticket .
The issue has been Trump .
And the imperative for the president and his campaign remains to persuade the nation of several truths : Biden is not physically or mentally up to the job .
He will not be able to stand up to the radicals in his party who have extensive plan to enact in the next two years and a real possibility of doing so .
If Biden wins , they will insist that the Senate do what Barack Obama told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jim Crow relic '' known as the filibuster , and use 50 Senate Democrats to enact an agenda more sweeping than FDR 's New Deal .
Of what does that agenda consist ?
To shift the goal from equality of opportunity in race relations to equality of results – in income , wealth , power .
Reparations for slavery .
Pursue the Black Lives Matter demand to `` reimagine policing '' and to `` defund the police . ''
On immigration , open an immediate path to citizenship and the ballot box for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Grant amnesty to all 11 million to 22 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Abolish ICE .
Open America 's borders to new and higher waves of immigration to make America the most racially , ethnically , socially and culturally diverse society in the history of man .
Pack the Senate by extending statehood to Puerto Rico and D.C. , adding four new Democratic senators and making us a bilingual nation .
Pack the Supreme Court by adding two new justices .
Raise taxes on payrolls , personal incomes , corporations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end to carbon emissions by halting all offshore drilling and ending any reliance for energy , on coal , oil , gas or fracking .
Free education for all from prekindergarten through college .
On and on the agenda runs .
But again , without the abolition of the filibuster , a GOP Senate minority could block this agenda that is designed to create a new American nation unlike the one we have known .
No , this is not the French Revolution .
But nor is it the country that evolved over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Antifa and BLM radicals remind us of this as they go about smashing icons and statues of the men who brought the Christian faith and Western civilization to these shores and founded the republic that may now be fading away .

"Apres moi, la deluge," predicted Louis XV after his army's stunning defeat by Prussia's Frederick the Great at the Battle of Rossbach in 1757.
"La deluge," the Revolution, came, three decades later, to wash the Bourbon monarchy away in blood and to send Louis XV's grandson, Louis XVI, and his queen, Marie Antoinette, to the guillotine.
Donald Trump is issuing similar warnings for the republic if Joe Biden wins the presidency and Democrats capture the Senate. And the stakes, given the magnitude of the chasm that divides us, are indeed high.
The Democrats are out to remake America, and, 17 days from the election, a Democratic sweep remains a real possibility.
Early turnout is already at record numbers. According to most polls, Biden is ahead in almost all of the major battleground states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Arizona. To win, Trump must carry six or seven of those states.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In national polls, Trump is further behind, in some by double-digits, reflecting the mammoth Democratic majorities in populous and deep-blue California, New York and Illinois.
Still, this thing is not over.
For, at this stage of the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton was showing equally impressive poll numbers, and she would go on to lose all eight of those battleground states in the greatest upset since Harry Truman defeated Tom Dewey in 1948.
Can Trump repeat the miracle of 2016?
Will Donald Trump be reelected? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 96% (72 Votes) 4% (3 Votes)
Perhaps. When it comes to energy, excitement, enthusiasm and a capacity to bring out crowds of loyalists, even in this the worst of pandemics, Trump is unrivaled.
When Trump calls, his followers come. Not in living memory has there been a president who could bring out such vast crowds with such consistency as Donald J. Trump.
By contrast, Biden's meager gatherings seem to evoke as much excitement as a seniors bocce ball tournament.
His appearances, reading from teleprompters and spewing canned attacks written by others, produce polite applause. Rarely does a day goes by that Biden does not mumble and misremember something or lose his train of thought.
The essence of the Biden campaign is the avoidance of actual campaigning. And it has worked. On some days, the campaign "puts the lid on" – has no more news events today – by 9 a.m.
The question this has raised is no longer whether Joe has "lost a step" – few deny that – but whether he retains sufficient mental acuity to be a decisive leader of the free world for the next four years.
Two weeks out, however, voters seem not to care, or rather not to care enough to reject the Biden-Harris ticket.
The issue has been Trump. And the imperative for the president and his campaign remains to persuade the nation of several truths:
Biden is not physically or mentally up to the job. He will not be able to stand up to the radicals in his party who have extensive plan to enact in the next two years and a real possibility of doing so.
If Biden wins, they will insist that the Senate do what Barack Obama told them to do: Abolish the "Jim Crow relic" known as the filibuster, and use 50 Senate Democrats to enact an agenda more sweeping than FDR's New Deal.
Of what does that agenda consist?
To shift the goal from equality of opportunity in race relations to equality of results – in income, wealth, power. Reparations for slavery. Pursue the Black Lives Matter demand to "reimagine policing" and to "defund the police."
On immigration, open an immediate path to citizenship and the ballot box for DACA "Dreamers." End deportations. Grant amnesty to all 11 million to 22 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Abolish ICE. Open America's borders to new and higher waves of immigration to make America the most racially, ethnically, socially and culturally diverse society in the history of man.
Pack the Senate by extending statehood to Puerto Rico and D.C., adding four new Democratic senators and making us a bilingual nation.
Pack the Supreme Court by adding two new justices. Raise taxes on payrolls, personal incomes, corporations, capital gains and estates.
Accelerate an end to carbon emissions by halting all offshore drilling and ending any reliance for energy, on coal, oil, gas or fracking.
Free education for all from prekindergarten through college.
On and on the agenda runs. But again, without the abolition of the filibuster, a GOP Senate minority could block this agenda that is designed to create a new American nation unlike the one we have known.
No, this is not the French Revolution.
But nor is it the country that evolved over two centuries out of the American Revolution. The Antifa and BLM radicals remind us of this as they go about smashing icons and statues of the men who brought the Christian faith and Western civilization to these shores and founded the republic that may now be fading away.


wnd--2020-10-15--How real men (and a woman) respond to systemic anti-whiteness

How is it possible to debate Critical Race Theory yet fail to mention its salient characteristic – that it is exclusively and ethnocidally anti-white ?
Easily , if one is a Beltway conservative .
They complain a lot about Critical Race Theory , and construct elaborate theories around its crass cornerstone , yet seem constitutionally or congenitally incapable of calling it what it is : anti-white agitprop .
One Federalist piece , `` Critical Race Theory Is A Classic Communist Divide-And-Conquer Tactic , '' brings it back to communism .
Quite how this adds up is unclear , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploits the amorphous `` tragedy of racial divisions in America . ''
In essence , some bad people with a communistic manual and mindset are n't interested in healing us .
Boohoo .
Really ?
Did communism , an equal-opportunity oppressor , revolve around the exclusive blackening of whites ?
Western democracies are third-way political and economic systems .
They are already heavily socialized .
Once Western societies go from third way to third world , debate over communism will cease , for communism will have arrived .
In other words , dissecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the province of relatively wealthy , stable , developed democracies .
America is indeed racially divided .
Blacks , for the most , hate whites for a variety of unjust reasons , not least the incessant , institutionalized propagandizing by progressive whites .
These blacks want to hurt whites and make them pay .
For what ?
For everything ; for whatever is wrong with their lives .
Deal with this and reject it , Beltway boys .
Communism is but an intellectual crutch .
By deferring to communism and identity politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives cloak themselves in the raiment of respectable argument .
Then there is that Uriah Heep-like obsequiousness .
Going by the aforementioned Federalist writer , conservatives refuse to even take credit for the `` oppressive '' culture for which Europeans are being berated .
Ludicrously , they universalize the creed , the Protestant Ethic .
Recall the `` Smithsonian display on whiteness '' that condemned as `` white '' all elements of a civilized society , including politeness , hard work , self-reliance , logic , planning , delayed gratification and family cohesion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' values , '' assures our Federalist apologist , as she criticizes Critical Race Theory for framing them as white .
Imagine being so obsequious and apologetic as to wash your hands of a really cool thing you invented , evolved or were born into : Western civilization .
Almost all these values are most pronounced in the European culture .
One might even pin them down to Western Europe , because the sanctity of a man 's word , the handshake , culminating in the legally binding contract – these are some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed capitalism to take off particularly well in the Anglosphere .
Arguably , these are not part of the Eastern European ethos .
Crypto-conservative Dave Rubin , of YouTube fame , also wo n't say `` anti-white . ''
Critical Race Theory is … wait for it , `` racist . ''
Racist ?
Is Critical Race Theory anti-black , anti-Hispanic , anti-Asian , anti-Amerindian ?
Even City Journal 's Christopher Rufo , a formidable warrior against institutionalized Critical Race Theory , still ca n't bring himself to say it .
By Rufo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` a radical ideology that advocates the overthrow of capitalism , meritocracy , and equal protection under the law . ''
Sure .
But those base objectives are secondary to singling out whites for a punishing program of reeducation , subjugation and intimidation .
Douglas Murray is , indubitably , one of the more articulate neoconservative second-handers , whose book , `` The Strange Death of Europe , '' cribs its title and theme from George Dangerfield 's 1935 `` Strange Death of Liberal England . ''
Across the pond , Murray finds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only to be plunged into trammels of despair by `` Black Lives Matter '' imagery , projected over the city 's `` vast screens . ''
The `` sinister rotation of images beaming out over London 's most famous junction '' were `` a horrible sight , not just for the threatening iconography , but for the profanity , '' shudders Murray .
He describes the culturally atavistic attire and utterances to which we Americans have willingly habituated .
Black Lives Matter imagery is , invariably , that of masked men , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in gangster grammar against `` white people . ''
For some reason , Murray 's Piccadilly Circus sojourn is conducive to a literary tangent , in which he shows himself to be deficient in the sourcing department .
Although Murray swanks , in a tangent , about correctly attributing a quotation , he errs and must be corrected .
Bear with me .
`` If not us , then who ?
If not now , then when ? ''
is not originally by civil rights activist John Lewis .
Rather , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Jewish sage and scholar Rabbi Hillel ( 110 B.C.-A.D. 10 ) : Perhaps I , as a Jew , should call that `` cultural expropriation '' and plagiarism .
Back on terra firma , our English effete effectively describes the culturally alien hysterical apparitions that dog him across central London .
There is `` a black man wrapped in chains with a manacle around his neck and a gas mask covering most of his face . ''
There are `` crowds of frightened people , shouting , screaming , yelling , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from America , Black Lives Matter `` iconography '' is too horrible to behold .
In Murray 's context , it constitutes a cultural colonialization of London , that most English of cities .
When he comes up for air , however , Murray fizzles , meekly blaming … the media for pushing a `` narrative of disunity and dissent . ''
All the current crop of conservatives can muster , seemingly , is to accuse Critical Race Theory peddlers within and without the hive media and academia of preventing multicultural America from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crave and know we are capable of .
Denied , the systemic war on whites will not end well .
Witness my homeland of South Africa .
This , Andrew Breitbart of blessed memory understood .
His warrior retort to the systemic , anti-white offensive was :

How is it possible to debate Critical Race Theory yet fail to mention its salient characteristic – that it is exclusively and ethnocidally anti-white?
Easily, if one is a Beltway conservative. They complain a lot about Critical Race Theory, and construct elaborate theories around its crass cornerstone, yet seem constitutionally or congenitally incapable of calling it what it is: anti-white agitprop.
One Federalist piece, "Critical Race Theory Is A Classic Communist Divide-And-Conquer Tactic," brings it back to communism. Quite how this adds up is unclear, but the writer decries a way of thinking that exploits the amorphous "tragedy of racial divisions in America." In essence, some bad people with a communistic manual and mindset aren't interested in healing us. Boohoo.
Really? Did communism, an equal-opportunity oppressor, revolve around the exclusive blackening of whites?
Western democracies are third-way political and economic systems. They are already heavily socialized. Once Western societies go from third way to third world, debate over communism will cease, for communism will have arrived. In other words, dissecting and decrying communism is an ideological luxury, the province of relatively wealthy, stable, developed democracies.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
America is indeed racially divided. Blacks, for the most, hate whites for a variety of unjust reasons, not least the incessant, institutionalized propagandizing by progressive whites. These blacks want to hurt whites and make them pay. For what? For everything; for whatever is wrong with their lives. Deal with this and reject it, Beltway boys. Communism is but an intellectual crutch.
By deferring to communism and identity politics and ducking anti-white animus, the ever-quaking conservatives cloak themselves in the raiment of respectable argument.
Then there is that Uriah Heep-like obsequiousness. Going by the aforementioned Federalist writer, conservatives refuse to even take credit for the "oppressive" culture for which Europeans are being berated. Ludicrously, they universalize the creed, the Protestant Ethic.
Recall the "Smithsonian display on whiteness" that condemned as "white" all elements of a civilized society, including politeness, hard work, self-reliance, logic, planning, delayed gratification and family cohesion.
"None of those are 'white' values," assures our Federalist apologist , as she criticizes Critical Race Theory for framing them as white.
Imagine being so obsequious and apologetic as to wash your hands of a really cool thing you invented, evolved or were born into: Western civilization.
Almost all these values are most pronounced in the European culture. One might even pin them down to Western Europe, because the sanctity of a man's word, the handshake, culminating in the legally binding contract – these are some of the cultural and religious values that allowed capitalism to take off particularly well in the Anglosphere. Arguably, these are not part of the Eastern European ethos.
Crypto-conservative Dave Rubin, of YouTube fame, also won't say "anti-white." Critical Race Theory is … wait for it, "racist." Racist? Is Critical Race Theory anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Asian, anti-Amerindian?
Even City Journal's Christopher Rufo, a formidable warrior against institutionalized Critical Race Theory, still can't bring himself to say it.
By Rufo's definition, Critical Race Theory is "a radical ideology that advocates the overthrow of capitalism, meritocracy, and equal protection under the law." Sure. But those base objectives are secondary to singling out whites for a punishing program of reeducation, subjugation and intimidation.
Douglas Murray is, indubitably, one of the more articulate neoconservative second-handers, whose book, "The Strange Death of Europe," cribs its title and theme from George Dangerfield's 1935 "Strange Death of Liberal England."
Across the pond, Murray finds himself wandering the streets of central London, only to be plunged into trammels of despair by "Black Lives Matter" imagery, projected over the city's "vast screens."
The "sinister rotation of images beaming out over London's most famous junction" were "a horrible sight, not just for the threatening iconography, but for the profanity," shudders Murray.
He describes the culturally atavistic attire and utterances to which we Americans have willingly habituated. Black Lives Matter imagery is, invariably, that of masked men, women and children all gesticulating and grunting in gangster grammar against "white people."
For some reason, Murray's Piccadilly Circus sojourn is conducive to a literary tangent, in which he shows himself to be deficient in the sourcing department.
Although Murray swanks, in a tangent, about correctly attributing a quotation, he errs and must be corrected. Bear with me.
"If not us, then who? If not now, then when?" is not originally by civil rights activist John Lewis. Rather, it is a distorted riff of an ancient adage by Jewish sage and scholar Rabbi Hillel (110 B.C.-A.D. 10):
If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
And if not now, then when?
Perhaps I, as a Jew, should call that "cultural expropriation" and plagiarism.
Back on terra firma, our English effete effectively describes the culturally alien hysterical apparitions that dog him across central London.
There is "a black man wrapped in chains with a manacle around his neck and a gas mask covering most of his face." There are "crowds of frightened people, shouting, screaming, yelling, and crying" about democracy denied.
Exported from America, Black Lives Matter "iconography" is too horrible to behold. In Murray's context, it constitutes a cultural colonialization of London, that most English of cities.
When he comes up for air, however, Murray fizzles, meekly blaming … the media for pushing a "narrative of disunity and dissent."
All the current crop of conservatives can muster, seemingly, is to accuse Critical Race Theory peddlers within and without the hive media and academia of preventing multicultural America from having that big group hug we all crave and know we are capable of.
Denied, the systemic war on whites will not end well. Witness my homeland of South Africa. This, Andrew Breitbart of blessed memory understood. His warrior retort to the systemic, anti-white offensive was:
"F--k you. … WAR." (Watch.)


wnd--2020-10-15--Will Obama's 'scandal-free' legacy survive Obamagate?

OK , the cat is out of the bag .
Obama knew .
According to information released recently by Director of National Intelligence ( DNI ) John Ratcliffe , Obama 's CIA Director John Brennan 's own handwritten notes indicate that he briefed Obama in July 2016 about the real provenance of the Steele dossier .
In Brennan 's words , the briefing dealt with the `` alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26 , 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton 's dirty tricks , Obama and his henchmen , Brennan most notably , pretended that the claim of Russian interference was valid .
Hillary 's involvement was one secret they did not leak .
Indeed , it was not until October 2017 that Devin Nunes and the investigators of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ( HPSCI ) forced into the public realm the fact that Clinton and the DNC had authorized and paid for the Steele dossier .
The saying goes that a scandal is not a scandal until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scandal '' on the front page , and by that definition , perversely , the Obama administration still is `` scandal-free . ''
The Times is not likely to blow the whistle on what is not just an extraordinary political scandal but easily the greatest media scandal post-Gutenberg .
For its role in covering up Obamagate , the Times won a `` national reporting '' Pulitzer in 2018 , shared with the Washington Post .
Enough was known in 2018 to make the Pulitzer 's praise for the `` deeply sourced , relentlessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dramatically furthered the nation 's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign , the President-elect 's transition team and his eventual administration '' read like the punch line to a joke .
Not since the Times ' own Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer for covering up Stalin 's terror famine that killed millions in the Ukraine has a Pulitzer been awarded so wrongheadedly .
But then again , they also say that the only real difference between the New York Times and the old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were being lied to .
Times readers prefer comforting lies .
`` I am proud of the fact that we will – knock on wood – leave this administration without significant scandal , '' said Barack Obama near the end of his second and last term in office .
The use of the word `` significant '' scarcely dimmed the wattage of this boast .
Obama quickly added , `` In terms of just abiding by the rules and norms and keeping trust with the American people , I will put this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Two years later , Obama felt free to repeat the claim , telling a tech audience , `` I did n't have scandals , which seems like it should n't be something you brag about . ''
Obama was not alone in thinking his administration was uniquely unblemished .
Prominent media gatekeepers had been encouraging him to think along these lines for years .
In 2011 , Jonathan Alter headlined a Bloomberg story , `` The Obama Miracle , a White House Free of Scandal . ''
In 2014 , New Yorker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it a `` huge '' achievement that `` there 's been no scandal , major scandal , in this administration , which is a rare thing in an administration . ''
In 2016 , New York Times columnist David Brooks insisted the Obama administration was not just scandal-free , but `` remarkably scandal-free . ''
A CNN discussion on the eve of Donald Trump 's inauguration showed how likely it was that fake news would soon become fake history .
`` He is almost unimpeachable , '' said presidential historian Douglas Brinkley .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and integrity , and he 's not only leaving with that 60 percent [ approval rating ] we keep talking , but a growing reputation .
And the legacy of having eight scandal-free years is going to look larger and larger in history . ''
Can an historian be impeached ?
By any sane definition , the Obama administration was awash in scandal .
Just on its own , the mischief surrounding the passage and implementation of the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) – aka `` Obamacare '' – puts Obama in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then , too , of course , there was Benghazi , Solyndra and the IRS oppression of the Tea Party , not to mention the deadly Fast and Furious , which Comedy Central 's Stephen Colbert laughed off as `` the biggest scandal in history I have ever forgotten to talk about . ''
Of course you did , Stephen .
You still believe the New York Times .
I am just not sure the families of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and a hundred or more Mexicans killed as a result of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jack Cashill 's new book , `` Unmasking Obama : The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency , '' is widely available .
See also www.cashill.com .

OK, the cat is out of the bag. Obama knew. According to information released recently by Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe, Obama's CIA Director John Brennan's own handwritten notes indicate that he briefed Obama in July 2016 about the real provenance of the Steele dossier.
In Brennan's words, the briefing dealt with the "alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services."
Instead of investigating Clinton's dirty tricks, Obama and his henchmen, Brennan most notably, pretended that the claim of Russian interference was valid. Hillary's involvement was one secret they did not leak.
Indeed, it was not until October 2017 that Devin Nunes and the investigators of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) forced into the public realm the fact that Clinton and the DNC had authorized and paid for the Steele dossier.
The saying goes that a scandal is not a scandal until the New York Times calls it a "scandal" on the front page, and by that definition, perversely, the Obama administration still is "scandal-free."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The Times is not likely to blow the whistle on what is not just an extraordinary political scandal but easily the greatest media scandal post-Gutenberg.
For its role in covering up Obamagate, the Times won a "national reporting" Pulitzer in 2018, shared with the Washington Post.
Enough was known in 2018 to make the Pulitzer's praise for the "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect's transition team and his eventual administration" read like the punch line to a joke.
Not since the Times' own Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer for covering up Stalin's terror famine that killed millions in the Ukraine has a Pulitzer been awarded so wrongheadedly.
But then again, they also say that the only real difference between the New York Times and the old Soviet Pravda is that Pravda readers knew they were being lied to.
Times readers prefer comforting lies. "I am proud of the fact that we will – knock on wood – leave this administration without significant scandal," said Barack Obama near the end of his second and last term in office.
The use of the word "significant" scarcely dimmed the wattage of this boast. Obama quickly added, "In terms of just abiding by the rules and norms and keeping trust with the American people, I will put this administration against any administration in history."
Two years later, Obama felt free to repeat the claim, telling a tech audience, "I didn't have scandals, which seems like it shouldn't be something you brag about."
Obama was not alone in thinking his administration was uniquely unblemished. Prominent media gatekeepers had been encouraging him to think along these lines for years.
In 2011, Jonathan Alter headlined a Bloomberg story, "The Obama Miracle, a White House Free of Scandal."
In 2014, New Yorker editor and Obama biographer David Remnick thought it a "huge" achievement that "there's been no scandal, major scandal, in this administration, which is a rare thing in an administration."
In 2016, New York Times columnist David Brooks insisted the Obama administration was not just scandal-free, but "remarkably scandal-free."
A CNN discussion on the eve of Donald Trump's inauguration showed how likely it was that fake news would soon become fake history.
"He is almost unimpeachable," said presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. "He has governed with such honesty and integrity, and he's not only leaving with that 60 percent [approval rating] we keep talking, but a growing reputation. And the legacy of having eight scandal-free years is going to look larger and larger in history."
Can an historian be impeached? By any sane definition, the Obama administration was awash in scandal. Just on its own, the mischief surrounding the passage and implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – aka "Obamacare" – puts Obama in the Harding-Grant strata of scandal-plagued presidencies.
Then, too, of course, there was Benghazi, Solyndra and the IRS oppression of the Tea Party, not to mention the deadly Fast and Furious, which Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert laughed off as "the biggest scandal in history I have ever forgotten to talk about."
Of course you did, Stephen. You still believe the New York Times. I am just not sure the families of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and a hundred or more Mexicans killed as a result of Fast and Furious got the joke.
Jack Cashill's new book, "Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency," is widely available. See also www.cashill.com.


wnd--2020-10-16--South African town braces for racial violence over farm killing

( LONDON DAILY MAIL ) A South African town was bracing for racial violence today as black protesters armed with @ @ @ @ @ faced off with white farmers in pick-up trucks outside a court where two black men @ @ @ @ @ farmer .
The killing of Brendin Horner has led to riots in the town of @ @ @ @ @ the courthouse , fired shots and set fire to a police car last week .
@ @ @ @ @ protesters linked to the Economic Freedom Fighters movement - which supports redistributing land from white @ @ @ @ @ courthouse with some hurling rocks despite efforts to keep calm .

(LONDON DAILY MAIL) A South African town was bracing for racial violence today as black protesters armed with golf clubs and cricket bats faced off with white farmers in pick-up trucks outside a court where two black men are accused of killing a farmer.
The killing of Brendin Horner has led to riots in the town of Senekal where white protesters stormed the courthouse, fired shots and set fire to a police car last week.
Today, hundreds of black protesters linked to the Economic Freedom Fighters movement - which supports redistributing land from white people - gathered outside the courthouse with some hurling rocks despite efforts to keep calm.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-16--Twitter will enforce rules against Trump after he leaves office

( GIZMODO ) In the past three years and change , it seems as though the entire world has learned to revolve around our very special boy in chief , Donald Trump , in ways big and small .
Hardly the most consequential of these : Twitter—by far his favorite platform for whipping his base into a frenzy—was forced to create an entirely new policy exemption just for those holding political office , who couldn ’ t possibly be expected to play by the rules that govern the rest of us .
So Trump has been free to tweet just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter .
Blessedly , though , the company confirmed to Gizmodo today that Trump ’ s get-out-of-jail-free card is revoked as soon as he leaves office .
The policy in question came into existence on this day last year and carved out a grey area for content on the platform that technically broke Twitter ’ s rules , but happened to be posted by a big , powerful person with lots of followers .
No , really , that ’ s part of the equation : In order for the “ world leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in question has to be verified , have over 100,000 followers , and belong to a current holder of—or nominated candidate for—a “ local , state , national , or supra-national governmental or legislative body.
” Instead of removing content that crosses the line , if it ’ s posted by someone who ticks all those boxes , Twitter merely slaps a version of the following warning label on it :

(GIZMODO) In the past three years and change, it seems as though the entire world has learned to revolve around our very special boy in chief, Donald Trump, in ways big and small. Hardly the most consequential of these: Twitter—by far his favorite platform for whipping his base into a frenzy—was forced to create an entirely new policy exemption just for those holding political office, who couldn’t possibly be expected to play by the rules that govern the rest of us. So Trump has been free to tweet just about anything with very little interference from Twitter. Blessedly, though, the company confirmed to Gizmodo today that Trump’s get-out-of-jail-free card is revoked as soon as he leaves office.
The policy in question came into existence on this day last year and carved out a grey area for content on the platform that technically broke Twitter’s rules, but happened to be posted by a big, powerful person with lots of followers. No, really, that’s part of the equation: In order for the “world leaders” exemption to apply, the account in question has to be verified, have over 100,000 followers, and belong to a current holder of—or nominated candidate for—a “local, state, national, or supra-national governmental or legislative body.”
Instead of removing content that crosses the line, if it’s posted by someone who ticks all those boxes, Twitter merely slaps a version of the following warning label on it:
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-16--FBI seized Hunter Biden computer in December 2019 -- did nothing

( GATEWAY PUNDIT ) After years of leadership from the likes of Robert Mueller , James Comey and Christopher Wray @ @ @ @ @ name is severely tarnished .
Numerous major criminal activities were brought to the FBI ’ @ @ @ @ @ and never addressed because the participants were from a protected class .
The actions by @ @ @ @ @ reason Americans believe there is a two-tiered system of justice in the US .
Over @ @ @ @ @ we uncovered more evidence related to major crimes committed by leaders in the Democrat party @ @ @ @ @ Bannon , via The New York Post dropped an October surprise on Joe Biden on @ @ @ @ @ are scrambling to run cover for crooked Joe and his crackhead son Hunter .

(GATEWAY PUNDIT) After years of leadership from the likes of Robert Mueller, James Comey and Christopher Wray, the FBI’s name is severely tarnished. Numerous major criminal activities were brought to the FBI’s attention but were ignored and never addressed because the participants were from a protected class. The actions by the FBI are the major reason Americans believe there is a two-tiered system of justice in the US.
Over the past couple of days we uncovered more evidence related to major crimes committed by leaders in the Democrat party.
Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon, via The New York Post dropped an October surprise on Joe Biden on Wednesday and the media hacks are scrambling to run cover for crooked Joe and his crackhead son Hunter.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-16--Iran threatens Gulf countries making peace with Israel

( INVESTIGATIVE PROJECT ) Iran is escalating threats toward the United Arab Emirates ( UAE ) and Bahrain after the @ @ @ @ @ deals between Israel and the two Gulf states .
Following the peace agreements between both @ @ @ @ @ Emirates and Bahrain and the normalization of the relationships between the latter countries to Israel @ @ @ @ @ States , the Iranian regime escalated its threats towards both countries in an unprecedented manner @ @ @ @ @ clandestine activity by the Israeli intelligence services or their agents in the Islamic Republic or @ @ @ @ @ will not be directed at the Zionist entity only , and the UAE will be @ @ @ @ @ '' said Iranian deputy House Speaker Hassan Abdel Lahian .

(INVESTIGATIVE PROJECT) Iran is escalating threats toward the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain after the United States helped broker peace deals between Israel and the two Gulf states.
Following the peace agreements between both Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and the normalization of the relationships between the latter countries to Israel, sponsored by the United States, the Iranian regime escalated its threats towards both countries in an unprecedented manner.
"Any apparent or clandestine activity by the Israeli intelligence services or their agents in the Islamic Republic or the region, the response will not be directed at the Zionist entity only, and the UAE will be part of the response," said Iranian deputy House Speaker Hassan Abdel Lahian.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-16--Dossier creators played role in 2nd debunked conspiracy theory

Following on the heels of their work on the infamous Steele dossier , the operatives behind the controversial document began investigating possible links between the Russian government , supporters of the Brexit campaign and the now-defunct data firm , Cambridge Analytica .
As with their dossier work , the dirt-digging effort led by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson has turned up little evidence to support their initial collusion conspiracy theory .
A British information commissioner concluded her investigation into Cambridge Analytica last week , issuing a report that found that the firm played a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The commissioner , Elizabeth Denham , also said that she did not find “ any additional evidence ” of Russian links to Cambridge Analytica .
Steele and Simpson ’ s work on the dossier , which accused the Trump campaign of conspiring with the Kremlin , has been a prominent fixture in the news in the three-plus years since the document was published .
But lesser known are their efforts to uncover links between Russia , Cambridge Analytica , the Brexit vote and the Trump campaign .
Christopher Wylie , the former Cambridge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noticed passage in his autobiography last year , “ Mindf -- - , ” that he met with Steele and Simpson in 2018 in the offices of Damian Collins , a member of parliament .
Wylie said that he had obtained a trove of documents and recordings from inside the Leave.EU campaign , which supported the Brexit referendum .
Wylie discussed the information during an interview in June 2018 with Rep. Adam Schiff , the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee .
“ Steele ’ s firm had learned about the documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source , and Fusion GPS told us they had documents and information of their own that illuminated the same set of connections—between the Russians , Brexit , and Trump ’ s campaign , ” Wylie wrote in his book .
“ Like a jigsaw , Collins , Fusion GPS , and I had each acquired different sets of documents about the same events , and we began piecing everything together.
” Wylie , who worked as a data analyst for Cambridge Analytica through 2014 , said that he was contacted by Fusion GPS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wylie gave a nod to both Schiff and Simpson in his book .
He thanked Schiff and the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee “ for all the unseen work you do.
” He also shouted out “ Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS ( for your brilliant investigative work ) .
” Rep. Devin Nunes , the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee , said he is not surprised to learn that Schiff , Steele and Fusion GPS were pursuing yet another collusion story .
“ This newly revealed connection is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ There clearly was a cabal of bad actors centered around Fusion GPS who propelled the Russia hoax , both for political purposes and for their own financial gain.
” It is unclear if Schiff and Simpson exchanged information about Cambridge Analytica .
Schiff was spotted meeting with Simpson in June 2018 , but it is unclear what they discussed .
It is also unclear what Fusion GPS or Steele did with any information about Cambridge Analytica .
During their dossier work , Fusion GPS served as a public relations conduit for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm arranged for Steele to brief reporters , and worked with journalists on various stories pushing the collusion conspiracy theory .
Simpson and his Fusion GPS partner Peter Fritsch described their investigation of the Brexit campaign in their book , “ Crime in Progress , ” but did not mention Wylie .
They wrote that on March 4 , 2017 , they met with Daniel Jones , a former FBI agent and former staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee , to develop a list of leads related to Russian meddling in Western democracies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked together on a non-profit group that Jones formed on Jan. 31 , 2017 called The Democracy Integrity Project ( TDIP ) .
Jones told the FBI in March 2017 that he formed TDIP with the financial backing of between seven and 10 wealthy progressive donors who had pledged $ 50 million .
He said that he worked with Fusion GPS and Steele to collect evidence about Russian meddling in Western politics that they planned to give federal investigators , lawmakers and media outlets .
Tax filings show that TDIP paid Fusion GPS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s firm more than $ 250,000 in 2017 .
Billionaire progressive financier George Soros has contributed at least $ 1 million to TDIP , according to publicly available records .
TDIP also paid a British consulting firm , Istok Associates , nearly $ 150,000 .
The founder of Istok , Neil Barnett , pushed the Brexit-Russia conspiracy theory in a series of reports from 2016 to 2018 , including in a study for The Atlantic Council , a prominent Washington , D.C. think tank .
Wylie ’ s lawyer in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Manhattan district attorney ’ s office who is a founding board member of TDIP .
One item of interest for the consortium of investigators was “ Moscow ’ s ties to the key financial backers of Brexit in the U.K. , ” according to the Fusion GPS founders .
They wrote that in collaboration with Steele , they “ began giving Britain ’ s vote to leave the European Union the thorough scrub it so clearly needed.
” Much as with Donald Trump ’ s election victory over Hillary Clinton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 23 , 2016 , came as a shock in the U.K. And as with the U.S. presidential election , that shock gave way to allegations that Russian interference influenced the outcome of the vote .
“ The vote to depart the EU faced many of the same questions of outside meddling and dubious funding streams as Trump ’ s election , yet it was not getting much investigative attention , ” the Fusion GPS founders asserted in their book .
“ Steele and the Fusion team had spent much of the past year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group of Britons with curious ties to Russia who had backed Brexit.
” They identified three people they believed were at the center of a Trump-Brexit-Russia conspiracy : Robert Mercer , Steve Bannon and Arron Banks .
Mercer , a conservative billionaire donor , was the majority owner of Cambridge Analytica .
Bannon , who took over as the Trump campaign manager in August 2016 , was a vice president on the firm ’ s board .
Banks is an insurance executive who loaned the equivalent of $ 10 million to Leave.EU , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Analytica had consulted for several Republican presidential campaigns , including for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz , before doing work for Trump after he won the GOP nomination .
In his book , Wylie asserted that Russia , Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign were somehow linked together in a grand conspiracy to influence elections in the U.S. and U.K. “ If my hunch was correct , Cambridge Analytica was not only using the data tool I had worked on to manipulate American voters into supporting [ Trump ] , it may have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sway the election , ” Wylie wrote .
Wylie said that he provided U.S. investigators with “ evidence tying Cambridge Analytica to Donald Trump , Facebook , Russian intelligence , international hackers and Brexit.
” He claimed he had documents which demonstrated that the Trump and Brexit campaigns “ deployed the same strategies…all under the spectre of covert Russian involvement .
Schiff interviewed Wylie in June 2018 in the offices of then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as part of his investigation into whether the firm improperly helped the Trump campaign , possibly with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Banks have had contacts with Russians , though investigators have not found evidence of any conspiracy to influence elections .
Alexander Nix , who served as CEO of Cambridge Analytica , reached out to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2016 seeking help in tracking down emails that Hillary Clinton deleted from her private server .
Assange has said that he rejected Nix ’ s request .
WikiLeaks released emails that were hacked from the DNC and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta , but not any of Clinton ’ s deleted emails .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence operatives on charges that they hacked the Democrats ’ emails and used WikiLeaks as a conduit to release the documents .
Cambridge Analytica was not named in the indictment .
Last week , Denham , the U.K. ’ s information commissioner , closed an investigation into Cambridge Analytica that she opened in May 2017 .
The Financial Times noted in a story last week that Denham ’ s report shattered some of the early theories about Cambridge Analytica .
In September 2019 , the National Crime Agency ( NCA ) , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Banks of any wrongdoing in connection with his funding for Leave.EU .
The NCA found that Banks loaned his own money to the group .
The special counsel ’ s office , which investigated possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia , did not mention Cambridge Analytica in its 448-page report .
The Senate Intelligence Committee detailed Cambridge Analytica ’ s work for the Trump campaign , but did not reveal any evidence that the company worked with Russia to help Trump .
The dossier , which Steele and Fusion GPS compiled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , has all but fallen apart over the past 18 months .
The special counsel ’ s report said investigators found no evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy , which was the dossier ’ s core claim .
A report from the Justice Department inspector general undercut the credibility of the dossier and Steele .
The report said that Steele ’ s primary source , Igor Danchenko , provided the FBI with statements that undercut the dossier ’ s credibility .
It also said that the FBI received evidence in early 2017 that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Steele , who operates out of London .
A lawyer for Wylie did not respond to a request for comment .
Nor did Fusion GPS , Steele ’ s firm , Orbis Business International , or Schiff ’ s office .
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact [ email protected ]

By Chuck Ross
Daily Caller News Foundation
Following on the heels of their work on the infamous Steele dossier, the operatives behind the controversial document began investigating possible links between the Russian government, supporters of the Brexit campaign and the now-defunct data firm, Cambridge Analytica.
As with their dossier work, the dirt-digging effort led by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson has turned up little evidence to support their initial collusion conspiracy theory.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
A British information commissioner concluded her investigation into Cambridge Analytica last week, issuing a report that found that the firm played a minimal role in the Brexit campaign. The commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, also said that she did not find “any additional evidence” of Russian links to Cambridge Analytica.
Steele and Simpson’s work on the dossier, which accused the Trump campaign of conspiring with the Kremlin, has been a prominent fixture in the news in the three-plus years since the document was published. But lesser known are their efforts to uncover links between Russia, Cambridge Analytica, the Brexit vote and the Trump campaign.
Christopher Wylie, the former Cambridge Analytica employee, wrote in a little noticed passage in his autobiography last year, “Mindf---,” that he met with Steele and Simpson in 2018 in the offices of Damian Collins, a member of parliament.
Wylie said that he had obtained a trove of documents and recordings from inside the Leave.EU campaign, which supported the Brexit referendum. Wylie discussed the information during an interview in June 2018 with Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
“Steele’s firm had learned about the documents and recordings I had through a British source, and Fusion GPS told us they had documents and information of their own that illuminated the same set of connections—between the Russians, Brexit, and Trump’s campaign,” Wylie wrote in his book.
“Like a jigsaw, Collins, Fusion GPS, and I had each acquired different sets of documents about the same events, and we began piecing everything together.”
Wylie, who worked as a data analyst for Cambridge Analytica through 2014, said that he was contacted by Fusion GPS shortly after he was interviewed by Schiff.
Wylie gave a nod to both Schiff and Simpson in his book.
He thanked Schiff and the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee “for all the unseen work you do.” He also shouted out “Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS (for your brilliant investigative work).”
Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said he is not surprised to learn that Schiff, Steele and Fusion GPS were pursuing yet another collusion story.
“This newly revealed connection is unsurprising,” he told the DCNF. “There clearly was a cabal of bad actors centered around Fusion GPS who propelled the Russia hoax, both for political purposes and for their own financial gain.”
It is unclear if Schiff and Simpson exchanged information about Cambridge Analytica. Schiff was spotted meeting with Simpson in June 2018, but it is unclear what they discussed.
It is also unclear what Fusion GPS or Steele did with any information about Cambridge Analytica. During their dossier work, Fusion GPS served as a public relations conduit for Steele and multiple news outlets. The firm arranged for Steele to brief reporters, and worked with journalists on various stories pushing the collusion conspiracy theory.
Simpson and his Fusion GPS partner Peter Fritsch described their investigation of the Brexit campaign in their book, “Crime in Progress,” but did not mention Wylie.
They wrote that on March 4, 2017, they met with Daniel Jones, a former FBI agent and former staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee, to develop a list of leads related to Russian meddling in Western democracies.
Jones, Fusion GPS and Steele worked together on a non-profit group that Jones formed on Jan. 31, 2017 called The Democracy Integrity Project (TDIP).
Jones told the FBI in March 2017 that he formed TDIP with the financial backing of between seven and 10 wealthy progressive donors who had pledged $50 million. He said that he worked with Fusion GPS and Steele to collect evidence about Russian meddling in Western politics that they planned to give federal investigators, lawmakers and media outlets.
Tax filings show that TDIP paid Fusion GPS more than $3.3 million and Steele’s firm more than $250,000 in 2017. Billionaire progressive financier George Soros has contributed at least $1 million to TDIP, according to publicly available records.
TDIP also paid a British consulting firm, Istok Associates, nearly $150,000. The founder of Istok, Neil Barnett, pushed the Brexit-Russia conspiracy theory in a series of reports from 2016 to 2018, including in a study for The Atlantic Council, a prominent Washington, D.C. think tank.
Wylie’s lawyer in the U.S. was Adam Kaufmann, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office who is a founding board member of TDIP.
One item of interest for the consortium of investigators was “Moscow’s ties to the key financial backers of Brexit in the U.K.,” according to the Fusion GPS founders.
They wrote that in collaboration with Steele, they “began giving Britain’s vote to leave the European Union the thorough scrub it so clearly needed.”
Much as with Donald Trump’s election victory over Hillary Clinton, the Brexit vote, held on June 23, 2016, came as a shock in the U.K. And as with the U.S. presidential election, that shock gave way to allegations that Russian interference influenced the outcome of the vote.
“The vote to depart the EU faced many of the same questions of outside meddling and dubious funding streams as Trump’s election, yet it was not getting much investigative attention,” the Fusion GPS founders asserted in their book.
“Steele and the Fusion team had spent much of the past year delving into links between Trump and a group of Britons with curious ties to Russia who had backed Brexit.”
They identified three people they believed were at the center of a Trump-Brexit-Russia conspiracy: Robert Mercer, Steve Bannon and Arron Banks.
Mercer, a conservative billionaire donor, was the majority owner of Cambridge Analytica. Bannon, who took over as the Trump campaign manager in August 2016, was a vice president on the firm’s board. Banks is an insurance executive who loaned the equivalent of $10 million to Leave.EU, which supported the Brexit referendum.
Cambridge Analytica had consulted for several Republican presidential campaigns, including for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, before doing work for Trump after he won the GOP nomination.
In his book, Wylie asserted that Russia, Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign were somehow linked together in a grand conspiracy to influence elections in the U.S. and U.K.
“If my hunch was correct, Cambridge Analytica was not only using the data tool I had worked on to manipulate American voters into supporting [Trump], it may have been knowingly or unknowingly working with Russians to sway the election,” Wylie wrote.
Wylie said that he provided U.S. investigators with “evidence tying Cambridge Analytica to Donald Trump, Facebook, Russian intelligence, international hackers and Brexit.”
He claimed he had documents which demonstrated that the Trump and Brexit campaigns “deployed the same strategies…all under the spectre of covert Russian involvement.
Schiff interviewed Wylie in June 2018 in the offices of then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as part of his investigation into whether the firm improperly helped the Trump campaign, possibly with Russian assistance.
Cambridge Analytica executives and Banks have had contacts with Russians, though investigators have not found evidence of any conspiracy to influence elections.
Alexander Nix, who served as CEO of Cambridge Analytica, reached out to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2016 seeking help in tracking down emails that Hillary Clinton deleted from her private server. Assange has said that he rejected Nix’s request. WikiLeaks released emails that were hacked from the DNC and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, but not any of Clinton’s deleted emails.
The special counsel’s office indicted Russian intelligence operatives on charges that they hacked the Democrats’ emails and used WikiLeaks as a conduit to release the documents. Cambridge Analytica was not named in the indictment.
Last week, Denham, the U.K.’s information commissioner, closed an investigation into Cambridge Analytica that she opened in May 2017.
The Financial Times noted in a story last week that Denham’s report shattered some of the early theories about Cambridge Analytica.
In September 2019, the National Crime Agency (NCA), the British equivalent of the FBI, cleared Banks of any wrongdoing in connection with his funding for Leave.EU.
The NCA found that Banks loaned his own money to the group.
The special counsel’s office, which investigated possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia, did not mention Cambridge Analytica in its 448-page report.
The Senate Intelligence Committee detailed Cambridge Analytica’s work for the Trump campaign, but did not reveal any evidence that the company worked with Russia to help Trump.
The dossier, which Steele and Fusion GPS compiled on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, has all but fallen apart over the past 18 months. The special counsel’s report said investigators found no evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy, which was the dossier’s core claim.
A report from the Justice Department inspector general undercut the credibility of the dossier and Steele. The report said that Steele’s primary source, Igor Danchenko, provided the FBI with statements that undercut the dossier’s credibility.
It also said that the FBI received evidence in early 2017 that Russian intelligence operatives may have fed disinformation to Steele, who operates out of London.
A lawyer for Wylie did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did Fusion GPS, Steele’s firm, Orbis Business International, or Schiff’s office.
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-10-16--Hannity: Savannah Guthrie a 'Joe Biden surrogate' at Trump town hall

( FOX NEWS ) -- Sean Hannity accused NBC News Thursday night of turning its town hall with President Trump @ @ @ @ @ '' with the president and moderator Savannah Guthrie on opposite sides .
`` NBC fake @ @ @ @ @ ambush President Trump at tonight 's town hall , '' the `` Hannity '' host @ @ @ @ @ his show .
`` He pretty much debated Savannah Guthrie and what we all witnessed @ @ @ @ @ was a political debate with the morning host of the 'Today ' show serving as @ @ @ @ @ it did n't really work out well for her .
`` Questions , topics , @ @ @ @ @ but pure political bias , '' Hannity added .

(FOX NEWS) -- Sean Hannity accused NBC News Thursday night of turning its town hall with President Trump into a "political debate" with the president and moderator Savannah Guthrie on opposite sides.
"NBC fake News did their best to ambush President Trump at tonight's town hall," the "Hannity" host said at the top of his show. "He pretty much debated Savannah Guthrie and what we all witnessed was not journalism, it was a political debate with the morning host of the 'Today' show serving as a Joe Biden surrogate and it didn't really work out well for her.
"Questions, topics, tactics all reeking of nothing but pure political bias," Hannity added.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-16--Biden given pass on son Hunter's Ukraine and China scandals at town hall

( FOX NEWS ) -- Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said voters deserve to know his stance on Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ while President Trump faced a grilling by NBC on the coronavirus , taxes and white @ @ @ @ @ Thursday night .
Biden , the former vice president , signaled at an ABC News @ @ @ @ @ announce his stance on court-packing after the Senate votes on Trump 's nomination of Amy @ @ @ @ @ Nov. 3 election .
The Democratic presidential nominee reiterated his position from the presidential primaries @ @ @ @ @ been a fan of court packing '' but reversed course on his previously tight-lipped stance @ @ @ @ @ to expand the number of justices on the court to combat a conservative majority .

(FOX NEWS) -- Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said voters deserve to know his stance on Supreme Court packing before the election, while President Trump faced a grilling by NBC on the coronavirus, taxes and white supremacy in dueling town halls Thursday night.
Biden, the former vice president, signaled at an ABC News town hall that he'd announce his stance on court-packing after the Senate votes on Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and before the Nov. 3 election.
The Democratic presidential nominee reiterated his position from the presidential primaries that “I have not been a fan of court packing" but reversed course on his previously tight-lipped stance on whether he'd try to expand the number of justices on the court to combat a conservative majority.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-16--Trump says he corrected fan: Jesus Christ is the most-famous person in the world, not me

President Donald Trump shared on Thursday how he recently corrected a fan who lauded him as the `` most famous person in the world , '' telling the fan that Jesus Christ is more famous `` and it 's not even close . ''
`` Somebody said to me the other day , 'You 're the most famous person in the world by far , ' '' Trump said to a crowd of rally attendees in Greenville , North Carolina .
`` I said , 'No , I 'm not , ' '' he continued .
`` Yes you are.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Who 's more famous ? ''
the person wondered , according to the president .
`` I said , 'Jesus Christ , ' '' Trump responded , to which the Tar Heel State audience cheered .
`` I ’ m not taking any chances , '' he added .
`` I ’ m not going to have an argument . ''
“ And let me look up and I ’ ll say it ’ s not even close . ''
Trump also credited God , whom he referred to as `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him from COVID-19 .
The president first noted that two members of Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris ' campaign staff tested positive for the virus on Wednesday .
“ We extend our best wishes , which is more than they did to me , but that ’ s okay , ” Trump said of the Biden/Harris campaign team , though both Biden and Harris did tweet well wishes for a swift recovery .
`` It ’ s a tricky thing , '' the president said of COVID .
`` Masks .
No masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want , '' he explained .
`` But you know , you still need help from the boss , '' Trump said putting hand to his chest , then pointing to the sky .
`` That ’ s what happened .
Yeah , we need help .
It 's alright to say it . ''
On Saturday , at his first campaign speech since recovering from COVID , Trump thanked those gathered on the South Lawn of the White House for praying for him and first lady Melania Trump .
`` I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your prayers , '' the president said .
`` I know you 've been praying .
I was in that hospital .
I was watching down over so many people '' who had gathered outside in support .
`` On behalf of myself and the first lady , there just has been really and incredible outpouring . ''
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

President Donald Trump shared on Thursday how he recently corrected a fan who lauded him as the "most famous person in the world," telling the fan that Jesus Christ is more famous "and it's not even close."
"Somebody said to me the other day, 'You're the most famous person in the world by far,'" Trump said to a crowd of rally attendees in Greenville, North Carolina.
"I said, 'No, I'm not,'" he continued. "Yes you are.’ I said, ‘Nope.’”
“Who's more famous?" the person wondered, according to the president.
"I said, 'Jesus Christ,'" Trump responded, to which the Tar Heel State audience cheered.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"I’m not taking any chances," he added. "I’m not going to have an argument."
“And let me look up and I’ll say it’s not even close."
"Someone said to me the other day, 'you're the most famous person in the world by far.' I said, 'no I'm not' ... they said, 'who's more famous?' I said, 'Jesus Christ'" -- Trump pic.twitter.com/KaGTYIHdxO — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 15, 2020
Trump also credited God, whom he referred to as "the boss," with helping heal him from COVID-19.
The president first noted that two members of Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris' campaign staff tested positive for the virus on Wednesday.
“We extend our best wishes, which is more than they did to me, but that’s okay,” Trump said of the Biden/Harris campaign team, though both Biden and Harris did tweet well wishes for a swift recovery.
"It’s a tricky thing," the president said of COVID. "Masks. No masks. Everything. You can do all you want," he explained.
"But you know, you still need help from the boss," Trump said putting hand to his chest, then pointing to the sky.
"That’s what happened. Yeah, we need help. It's alright to say it."
"You still need help from the boss. "You need help from the boss. We need help. Right? "Yeah, we need help, it's alright to say it. I'll say it." Amen! God bless the USA 🙏 pic.twitter.com/VOPOey3lw3 — Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) October 15, 2020
On Saturday, at his first campaign speech since recovering from COVID, Trump thanked those gathered on the South Lawn of the White House for praying for him and first lady Melania Trump.
.@realDonaldTrump thanks Americans for their prayers after his COVID-19 diagnosis. pic.twitter.com/vqrWlxJRLP — Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 10, 2020
"I want to thank all of you for your prayers," the president said. "I know you've been praying. I was in that hospital. I was watching down over so many people" who had gathered outside in support.
"On behalf of myself and the first lady, there just has been really an incredible outpouring."
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-10-17--Las Vegas voter: I could have voted 4 times thanks to vote-by-mail

( LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL ) If Laurel Morley weren ’ t honest , she could have voted four times in @ @ @ @ @ ’ s rushed vote-by-mail system .
Morley , a 25-year Las Vegas resident , lives @ @ @ @ @ received five ballots in the mail .
She should have received only two , one @ @ @ @ @ her son who attends an out-of-town university .
But she also received two ballots for @ @ @ @ @ ago and plan to vote in other states .
And she received a ballot for @ @ @ @ @ her before passing away in 2019 .
Morley is confident that she could have voted @ @ @ @ @ have forged her aunt ’ s signature “ well enough that it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ ” she said .
“ Without a doubt ” she could have done the same @ @ @ @ @ , she added .

(LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL) If Laurel Morley weren’t honest, she could have voted four times in this election. Blame Nevada’s rushed vote-by-mail system.
Morley, a 25-year Las Vegas resident, lives alone. Recently, she received five ballots in the mail. She should have received only two, one for herself and one for her son who attends an out-of-town university. But she also received two ballots for adult children who moved years ago and plan to vote in other states. And she received a ballot for an aunt who lived with her before passing away in 2019.
Morley is confident that she could have voted four times. She could have forged her aunt’s signature “well enough that it’s not going to be flagged,” she said. “Without a doubt” she could have done the same for her kids’ signatures, she added.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-17--Oxygen supply just failed in part of the International Space Station

( AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE ) The oxygen supply system has failed in a module on the Russian segment of the International @ @ @ @ @ but the crew is in no danger , Russian space agency Roscosmos said Thursday .
@ @ @ @ @ the Zvezda module on the orbital lab failed late on Wednesday but a second system @ @ @ @ @ operating normally , a Roscosmos spokesperson told AFP .
`` Nothing threatens the security of @ @ @ @ @ , '' said the spokesperson , adding this repair work to fix the issue would @ @ @ @ @ .

(AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE) The oxygen supply system has failed in a module on the Russian segment of the International Space Station (ISS) but the crew is in no danger, Russian space agency Roscosmos said Thursday.
The oxygen supply system on the Zvezda module on the orbital lab failed late on Wednesday but a second system on the American segment is operating normally, a Roscosmos spokesperson told AFP.
"Nothing threatens the security of the crew and the ISS," said the spokesperson, adding this repair work to fix the issue would be carried out on Thursday.
Read the full story ›