therightscoop--2020-04-28--YouTube REMOVES viral video of two California doctors disputing stay-at-home orders

YouTube has removed a viral video of two doctors from California who were disputing the stay-at-home orders and their effectiveness based on their own test results : If you click the video it shows : As Johnny Dollar points out , the video that YouTube took down was actually posted on YouTube by 23 ABC News , a local ABC affiliate in Bakersfield : I believe the video had received over 5 million views when it was taken down .
While I don ’ t know specifically why it was taken down , it appears that the American College of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emergency Medicine both had something to do with it .
They issued this statement about the video : The American College of Emergency Physicians ( ACEP ) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine ( AAEM ) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi .
These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19 .
As owners of local urgent care clinics , it appears these two individuals are releasing biased , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial interests without regard for the public ’ s health .
They not only call it reckless , but accuse the doctors of advancing their own personal financial interests .
Wow .
I haven ’ t watched the video myself so I can only go by what others are reporting on it .
Here ’ s what was reported on Bakersfield Now : Doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi of Accelerated Urgent Care are calling for the county to reopen despite the on-going COVID-19 pandemic .
The two held a press conference Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic both at the state and local level .
The doctors talked about the quarantine measures currently in place and stated that quarantining the healthy goes against what they studied .
“ We decided to keep people at home and isolate them , even though everything we ’ ve studied about quarantine , typically you quarantine the sick .
When someone has measles you quarantine them .
We ’ ve never seen the healthy , where you take those without disease and without symptoms and lock them in your home .
So some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve studied from immunology and microbiology aren ’ t really meshing with what we know as people of scientific minds who read this stuff , ” said Erickson .
That ’ s just a snippet .
You can watch the full video at Bakersfield Now .
I tried to embed it but it wouldn ’ t allow it .
UPDATE : The embed is working now : Or if you prefer you can watch the video from Laura Ingraham ’ s show last night .
She interviewed both doctors about their findings :

YouTube has removed a viral video of two doctors from California who were disputing the stay-at-home orders and their effectiveness based on their own test results:
Is it just me or did @YouTube take down Dr. Erickson's viral video with 5 million views? https://t.co/eNjJ0e7K34 — Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) April 28, 2020
If you click the video it shows:
As Johnny Dollar points out, the video that YouTube took down was actually posted on YouTube by 23 ABC News, a local ABC affiliate in Bakersfield:
That video wasn’t posted by the doctors, or some political group. It was posted by 23 ABC News | KERO so taking it down was an action against a journalistic org. I hope @brianstelter raises hell about this in his newsletter tonight. He has always been a champion for press freedom https://t.co/T30nW3YCgg — johnny dollar (@johnnydollar01) April 28, 2020
I believe the video had received over 5 million views when it was taken down. While I don’t know specifically why it was taken down, it appears that the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine both had something to do with it. They issued this statement about the video:
The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.
They not only call it reckless, but accuse the doctors of advancing their own personal financial interests. Wow.
I haven’t watched the video myself so I can only go by what others are reporting on it. Here’s what was reported on Bakersfield Now:
Doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi of Accelerated Urgent Care are calling for the county to reopen despite the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. The two held a press conference Wednesday during which they talked about the coronavirus pandemic both at the state and local level. The doctors talked about the quarantine measures currently in place and stated that quarantining the healthy goes against what they studied. “We decided to keep people at home and isolate them, even though everything we’ve studied about quarantine , typically you quarantine the sick. When someone has measles you quarantine them. We’ve never seen the healthy, where you take those without disease and without symptoms and lock them in your home. So some of these things from what we’ve studied from immunology and microbiology aren’t really meshing with what we know as people of scientific minds who read this stuff,” said Erickson.
That’s just a snippet. You can watch the full video at Bakersfield Now. I tried to embed it but it wouldn’t allow it.
UPDATE: The embed is working now:
Or if you prefer you can watch the video from Laura Ingraham’s show last night. She interviewed both doctors about their findings:
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com


therightscoop--2020-04-28--US ready to back Israel’s annexation of the West Bank!

The Trump administration announced yesterday it is ready to back Israel ’ s annexation of parts of Judea and Samaria , otherwise known as the West Bank : CBN NEWS – The United States said Monday it is ready to recognize Israel ’ s annexation of parts of the West Bank , according to a State Department source cited by AFP .
The French news agency reported that the US will approve of Israel ’ s decision to “ extend Israeli sovereignty and the application of Israeli law to areas of the West Bank , ” referring to territories selected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US President Donald Trump ’ s peace plan released last year .
These territories include settlement communities and the Jordan Valley .
The Palestinians hope these territories will become part of a future state of their own .
US recognition of the annexation would be given “ in the context ” of Israel agreeing to negotiate with the Palestinians along the lines of Trump ’ s peace plan , the source said .
These include an offer to establish a Palestinian state with economic support from the international community .
The Palestinians and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas threatened last week to end all agreements with the US and Israel if the country moves forward with the annexation .
Meanwhile , US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the move was “ Israel ’ s decision.
” The annexation was a major campaign point for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing base .
Netanyahu recently announced that he would form a unity government with rival Blue and White leader Benny Gantz , which would give him the stability he needs to move forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency government deal , Netanyahu will be able to bring forward the annexation plan for approval by the cabinet and or the Knesset as early as this summer .

The Trump administration announced yesterday it is ready to back Israel’s annexation of parts of Judea and Samaria, otherwise known as the West Bank:
CBN NEWS – The United States said Monday it is ready to recognize Israel’s annexation of parts of the West Bank, according to a State Department source cited by AFP.
The French news agency reported that the US will approve of Israel’s decision to “extend Israeli sovereignty and the application of Israeli law to areas of the West Bank,” referring to territories selected to become part of Israel according to US President Donald Trump’s peace plan released last year.
These territories include settlement communities and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians hope these territories will become part of a future state of their own.
US recognition of the annexation would be given “in the context” of Israel agreeing to negotiate with the Palestinians along the lines of Trump’s peace plan, the source said.
These include an offer to establish a Palestinian state with economic support from the international community.
The Palestinians and much of the international community rejected the plan and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas threatened last week to end all agreements with the US and Israel if the country moves forward with the annexation.
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the move was “Israel’s decision.”
The annexation was a major campaign point for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing base. Netanyahu recently announced that he would form a unity government with rival Blue and White leader Benny Gantz, which would give him the stability he needs to move forward with the annexation.
According to the emergency government deal, Netanyahu will be able to bring forward the annexation plan for approval by the cabinet and or the Knesset as early as this summer.


therightscoop--2020-04-29--Yahoo reporter who was scolded by Trump yesterday apologizes

The Yahoo reporter who got his facts wrong yesterday and was subsequently scolded by Trump has now apologized : Yesterday @ @ @ @ @ incredulous to the end .
I ’ m glad that once he left the White @ @ @ @ @ figure out his error .
That said , I wouldn ’ t give him any @ @ @ @ @ Below is the data source that he misread :

The Yahoo reporter who got his facts wrong yesterday and was subsequently scolded by Trump has now apologized:
In the Oval Office, I asked about test rates and infection rates compared to South Korea. President Trump and Dr. Birx said I was wrong that they've done more tests per capita. Trump said I should apologize. They did not address multiple questions about our higher infection rate. — Hunter Walker (@hunterw) April 28, 2020
We have passed South Korea in the number of tests conducted per capita. I misread the mobile version of this chart and am sorry about that @realDonaldTrump . Our infection rate is far higher though as I noted. — Hunter Walker (@hunterw) April 28, 2020
Yesterday I wrote that he was incredulous to the end. I’m glad that once he left the White House he was able to figure out his error.
That said, I wouldn’t give him any awards for his apology.
Below is the data source that he misread:
Here is the latest data on testing that I was looking at. We passed South Korea, oer capita, some time this month. https://t.co/yRl4PB8EVz — Hunter Walker (@hunterw) April 28, 2020


therightscoop--2020-05-05--BOOM: Israel claims they’ve created a vaccine for coronavirus

They predicted they would do it .
Now Israel ’ s Defense Minister is claiming that the country ’ s biological research institute has created a vaccine to the coronavirus , or more specifically to COVID-19 : TIMES OF ISRAEL – Defense Minister Naftali Bennett on Monday said he witnessed a “ significant breakthrough ” by Israel ’ s defense biological research institute in developing an antibody to COVID-19 , as the researchers wrapped up the development phase and moved to patent and mass produce the coronavirus vaccine .
Bennett visited the labs of the Israel Institute for Biological Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that works under the Prime Minister ’ s Office , in Ness Ziona and was shown the “ antibody which attacks the virus in a monoclonal way and can neutralize it within the bodies of those ill , ” according to a statement from his office .
The statement said the vaccine ’ s development had been completed .
The institute was in the process of patenting the find “ and in the next stage , researchers will approach international companies to produce the antibody on a commercial scale.
” “ I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrific breakthrough , ” said Bennett .
“ Their creativity and the Jewish mind brought about this amazing achievement.
” It was not immediately clear if the breakthrough presented to Bennett was in addition to progress that was reported in late March and no further details were provided .
The statement also did not specify whether human trials were conducted .
What a huge breaking through this would be if true .
I hate to sound skeptical , but I just wish there was more known about the testing and development of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sounds like they must ’ ve already completed human trials since they are patenting it and getting ready to mass produce it .
I don ’ t know about other countries , but here some doctors here are very careful about what they prescribe for a patient , with some even being unwilling to prescribe HCQ since it doesn ’ t have the rigorous history of trials and testing with COVID-19 that it does with other diseases .
Let ’ s hope this vaccine has a solid history of testing and development that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at ease about approving it .
Because we could definitely use a vaccine right now .

They predicted they would do it. Now Israel’s Defense Minister is claiming that the country’s biological research institute has created a vaccine to the coronavirus, or more specifically to COVID-19:
TIMES OF ISRAEL – Defense Minister Naftali Bennett on Monday said he witnessed a “significant breakthrough” by Israel’s defense biological research institute in developing an antibody to COVID-19, as the researchers wrapped up the development phase and moved to patent and mass produce the coronavirus vaccine. Bennett visited the labs of the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR), a secretive unit that works under the Prime Minister’s Office, in Ness Ziona and was shown the “antibody which attacks the virus in a monoclonal way and can neutralize it within the bodies of those ill,” according to a statement from his office. The statement said the vaccine’s development had been completed. The institute was in the process of patenting the find “and in the next stage, researchers will approach international companies to produce the antibody on a commercial scale.” “I am proud of the institute staff for this terrific breakthrough,” said Bennett. “Their creativity and the Jewish mind brought about this amazing achievement.” It was not immediately clear if the breakthrough presented to Bennett was in addition to progress that was reported in late March and no further details were provided. The statement also did not specify whether human trials were conducted.
What a huge breaking through this would be if true. I hate to sound skeptical, but I just wish there was more known about the testing and development of this vaccine. Based on the above it sounds like they must’ve already completed human trials since they are patenting it and getting ready to mass produce it.
I don’t know about other countries, but here some doctors here are very careful about what they prescribe for a patient, with some even being unwilling to prescribe HCQ since it doesn’t have the rigorous history of trials and testing with COVID-19 that it does with other diseases.
Let’s hope this vaccine has a solid history of testing and development that will set doctors, and the FDA, at ease about approving it. Because we could definitely use a vaccine right now.


therightscoop--2020-05-06--WATCH: Salon owner who opened her business in defiance of governor’s orders gives EPIC response when

WATCH: Salon owner who opened her business in defiance of governor’s orders gives EPIC response when asked to admit she was wrong

A judge just essentially asked a Dallas hair salon owner to admit she was wrong for defying the governor ’ s orders and she could avoid jail time .
But the salon owner , Shelley Luther , came back with an epic response : After explaining that she has “ much respect ” for the court and the laws governing her , Luther told the judge “ I have to disagree with you sir when you say that I ’ m selfish .
Because feeding my kids is not selfish .
I have hair stylists that are going hungry because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , sir , if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed , then please go ahead with your decision but I am not going to shut the salon.
” Boom !
What a great response to the judge .
It ’ s only a shame that he wasn ’ t swayed by it : Dang .
In addition to the 7 days in jail , it looks like Luther will have to pay upwards of # 5500 unless she closes the salon this week .
I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone ’ s going to start a fundraiser for her if the haven ’ t already .

A judge just essentially asked a Dallas hair salon owner to admit she was wrong for defying the governor’s orders and she could avoid jail time. But the salon owner, Shelley Luther, came back with an epic response:
The judge told Shelley Luther she
could avoid jail time if she apologized, admitted she was wrong, and agreed to close her hair salon until it was allowed to open. This is her response…@CBSDFW pic.twitter.com/1phdNUsLme — Andrea Lucia (@CBS11Andrea) May 5, 2020
After explaining that she has “much respect” for the court and the laws governing her, Luther told the judge “I have to disagree with you sir when you say that I’m selfish. Because feeding my kids is not selfish. I have hair stylists that are going hungry because they’d rather feed their kids. So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with your decision but I am not going to shut the salon.”
Boom! What a great response to the judge. It’s only a shame that he wasn’t swayed by it:
BREAKING: Shelley Luther, a Dallas hair salon owner who opened in violation of the governor’s executive order, sentenced to 7 days in jail for civil / criminal contempt of court and fined $7,000. @CBSDFW — Andrea Lucia (@CBS11Andrea) May 5, 2020
Correction: The amount of the fine is $3500 and growing. $500/ day for the 7 days the salon was open. $500/ per day for every day it remains open through Friday, when the governor has said all salons may open. — Andrea Lucia (@CBS11Andrea) May 5, 2020
Dang. In addition to the 7 days in jail, it looks like Luther will have to pay upwards of #5500 unless she closes the salon this week. I would be willing to bet you money that someone’s going to start a fundraiser for her if the haven’t already.


therightscoop--2020-05-05--REPORT: Republicans turn up pressure on FBI Director Wray as report suggests Trump “would love to re

REPORT: Republicans turn up pressure on FBI Director Wray as report suggests Trump “would love to replace” him…

It doesn ’ t sound like FBI Director Wray has much more time in the saddle after it appears he ’ s turned a blind eye to the Michael Flynn shenanigans that happened in early 2017 .
Republicans want to know why we have to learn about this from court filings in 2020 rather than from him : NY POST – FBI Director Christopher Wray is under fire as his agency faces backlash over its handling of the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn , according to reports .
Top House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee sent Wray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he “ personally knew of the FBI ’ s misconduct ” with respect to the Flynn investigation , according to Axios .
The letter , written by Reps. Jim Jordan ( R-Ohio ) and Mike Johnson ( R-La . )
, questions the motives of the embattled FBI chief , asking him why the public “ is learning of the FBI ’ s misconduct with respect to LTG Flynn from court filings rather than from you.
” The news comes as frustration has mounted among President Trump and his allies with Wray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly released documents in Flynn ’ s case , in which the then-counterintelligence director of the bureau openly questioned if their “ goal ” was to “ get him to lie.
” The four-page document included one page of handwritten notes , believed to be written by former FBI counterintelligence director Bill Priestap .
The notes were taken in January 2017 , following a meeting with former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , according to Fox News .
Priestap ’ s handwritten remarks were taken down on the heels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ installed national security adviser regarding Flynn ’ s contacts weeks earlier with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak .
It ’ s a really great question .
Wray has been the FBI Director for three years now and he ’ s not said anything about this ?
Is he woefully incompetent or does he just not care ?
Either way , it looks like the writing is on the wall for him as it ’ s being reported that Trump doesn ’ t trust him and “ would love to replace ” him… President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handling of the situation and would love to replace him , three sources who have discussed the matter with the commander in chief told Axios over the weekend .
Trump “ has never felt like Wray was his guy ” and does not trust him to “ change the culture ” at the FBI , a source told the outlet .
The president , however , is unlikely to do so before the election , those sources said , citing advisers who don ’ t want to cause controversy by firing a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those advisers also are said to not have an obvious replacement in mind , someone who Trump considers an ally that could get confirmed by the Senate .
It sounds to me like the FBI needs its own version of AG Barr to really shake things up over there .
But I guess we ’ ll have to wait until after November to see what happens…

It doesn’t sound like FBI Director Wray has much more time in the saddle after it appears he’s turned a blind eye to the Michael Flynn shenanigans that happened in early 2017. Republicans want to know why we have to learn about this from court filings in 2020 rather than from him:
NY POST – FBI Director Christopher Wray is under fire as his agency faces backlash over its handling of the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, according to reports. Top House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee sent Wray a letter Monday demanding he answer for when he “personally knew of the FBI’s misconduct” with respect to the Flynn investigation, according to Axios. The letter, written by Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mike Johnson (R-La.), questions the motives of the embattled FBI chief, asking him why the public “is learning of the FBI’s misconduct with respect to LTG Flynn from court filings rather than from you.” The news comes as frustration has mounted among President Trump and his allies with Wray’s lack of reaction to the newly released documents in Flynn’s case, in which the then-counterintelligence director of the bureau openly questioned if their “goal” was to “get him to lie.” The four-page document included one page of handwritten notes, believed to be written by former FBI counterintelligence director Bill Priestap. The notes were taken in January 2017, following a meeting with former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to Fox News. Priestap’s handwritten remarks were taken down on the heels of a critical interview with the newly installed national security adviser regarding Flynn’s contacts weeks earlier with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
It’s a really great question. Wray has been the FBI Director for three years now and he’s not said anything about this? Is he woefully incompetent or does he just not care?
Either way, it looks like the writing is on the wall for him as it’s being reported that Trump doesn’t trust him and “would love to replace” him…
President Trump is not happy with Wray’s handling of the situation and would love to replace him, three sources who have discussed the matter with the commander in chief told Axios over the weekend. Trump “has never felt like Wray was his guy” and does not trust him to “change the culture” at the FBI, a source told the outlet. The president, however, is unlikely to do so before the election, those sources said, citing advisers who don’t want to cause controversy by firing a second FBI director so close to the election. Those advisers also are said to not have an obvious replacement in mind, someone who Trump considers an ally that could get confirmed by the Senate.
It sounds to me like the FBI needs its own version of AG Barr to really shake things up over there. But I guess we’ll have to wait until after November to see what happens…


therightscoop--2020-05-06--BREAKING: Texas Governor Abbott calls for RELEASE of hair salon owner who was jailed for seven days

Yesterday we told you about Shelley Luther being fined and jailed for seven days for keeping her hair salon open @ @ @ @ @ you missed her epic response to the judge , who tried to get her to @ @ @ @ @ you can watch it here .
Since yesterday there ’ s been an outcry from @ @ @ @ @ like Ted Cruz and Dan Crenshaw : Now Texas Governor Greg Abbott has released a @ @ @ @ @ and calling for the release of Luther : I love how Abbott referred to her @ @ @ @ @ ’ , no doubt a reference to her epic comments yesterday .
He joined Texas @ @ @ @ @ this statement a short time earlier :

Yesterday we told you about Shelley Luther being fined and jailed for seven days for keeping her hair salon open during the pandemic. If you missed her epic response to the judge, who tried to get her to admit she was wrong, you can watch it here.
Since yesterday there’s been an outcry from many, including government officials like Ted Cruz and Dan Crenshaw:
7 days in jail for cutting hair?? This is NUTS. And government officials don’t get to order citizens to apologize to them for daring to earn a living. https://t.co/3rulRlN0gE — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 6, 2020
These punishments are NOT just. They are not reasonable. Small-minded “leaders” across the country have become drunk with power. This must end. https://t.co/d31aEZg8b4 — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) May 6, 2020
Now Texas Governor Greg Abbott has released a statement disagree with the judge and calling for the release of Luther:
I love how Abbott referred to her as a ‘Texas mother’, no doubt a reference to her epic comments yesterday.
He joined Texas AG Ken Paxton who released this statement a short time earlier:


therightscoop--2020-05-07--BREAKING: Schiff releases the Russia investigation transcripts

Adam Schiff has finally released the long-awaited Russia investigation transcripts after acting DNI , Richard Grenell , forced his hand @ @ @ @ @ himself .
At the link to Schiff ’ s intel website you will find a @ @ @ @ @ transcripts of those interviewed .
I ’ ve copied the links below for your convenience @ @ @ @ @ David Kramer ( December 19 , 2017 ) • Letter from Counsel to David Kramer @ @ @ @ @ , 2017 ) • Interview Transcript of David Kramer ( January 10 , 2018 ) @ @ @ @ @ David Kramer to HPSCI ( January 5 , 2018 ) • Letter from Counsel to @ @ @ @ @ January 10 , 2018 ) • Interview Transcript of Erik Prince ( November 30 , @ @ @ @ @ HPSCI to Department of Justice ( April 30 , 2019 )

Adam Schiff has finally released the long-awaited Russia investigation transcripts after acting DNI, Richard Grenell, forced his hand by threatening to release them himself.
At the link to Schiff’s intel website you will find a ton of links to the transcripts of those interviewed. I’ve copied the links below for your convenience:
Enjoy reading them all!


therightscoop--2020-05-08--Never Trumper Rick Wilson’s “Mourning in America” ad got slapped with Fact Check warning on Facebook

Never Trumper Rick Wilson’s “Mourning in America” ad got slapped with Fact Check warning on Facebook for false information

Rick Wilson , one of the Never Trumpers at the Lincoln Group who put out the ad the other day entitled “ Mourning in America ” , just got censored on Facebook with a fact check warning for the ad containing false information : The issue Facebook took with the ad is based on a Politifact article which states that the claim , “ Trump bailed out Wall Street , but not Main Street ” , is completely false .
Essentially they point out that the bail out , approved by Congress and signed by the president , indeed does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loans : • It ’ s wrong to say that coronavirus relief legislation didn ’ t support ordinary small businesses .
The CARES Act included the Paycheck Protection Program , which was designed to support smaller employers .
• Among the loans made with the first $ 350 billion of the Paycheck Protection Program , three-quarters of those loans were made in the smallest loan size category , one that would support a business of roughly seven to 10 people .
• In addition , singling out Trump for problems with coronavirus relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed by virtually all congressional Democrats .
Rick Wilson calls the fact check ‘ bs ’ and says that “ Trump ’ s allies ” at Facebook is trying to censor him… Um , since when did Trump have allies at Facebook or any other social media platform for that matter ?
Looks to me like Rick Wilson is just angry and lashing out over his ad getting called out for false information .

Rick Wilson, one of the Never Trumpers at the Lincoln Group who put out the ad the other day entitled “Mourning in America”, just got censored on Facebook with a fact check warning for the ad containing false information:
The issue Facebook took with the ad is based on a Politifact article which states that the claim, “Trump bailed out Wall Street, but not Main Street”, is completely false.
Essentially they point out that the bail out, approved by Congress and signed by the president, indeed does bail out Main Street with small business loans:
• It’s wrong to say that coronavirus relief legislation didn’t support ordinary small businesses. The CARES Act included the Paycheck Protection Program, which was designed to support smaller employers. • Among the loans made with the first $350 billion of the Paycheck Protection Program, three-quarters of those loans were made in the smallest loan size category, one that would support a business of roughly seven to 10 people. • In addition, singling out Trump for problems with coronavirus relief efforts ignores that the efforts were also backed by virtually all congressional Democrats.
Rick Wilson calls the fact check ‘bs’ and says that “Trump’s allies” at Facebook is trying to censor him…
Yes, folks, we know. The Trump allies at @Facebook are censoring the @ProjectLincoln "Mourning In America" ad page with a b.s. "fact check." They’re doing everything they can to stop you from seeing this ad. Sorry, Don. You can't stop the signal.https://t.co/5KuJSf49oP — Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) May 8, 2020
Um, since when did Trump have allies at Facebook or any other social media platform for that matter? Looks to me like Rick Wilson is just angry and lashing out over his ad getting called out for false information.


therightscoop--2020-05-08--“This is Barack Obama’s blue dress” – Mark Levin on new Flynn docs that expose Obama’s involvement [

“This is Barack Obama’s blue dress” – Mark Levin on new Flynn docs that expose Obama’s involvement [VIDEO]

Last night Mark Levin was on Hannity ’ s show to discuss the new revelation that Obama discussed Flynn ’ s Kislyak phone call with Comey and Yates , calling it “ Obama ’ s blue dress ” : Mark Levin railed against intelligence agencies and Department of Justice abuses during the Obama era on Thursday ’ s broadcast of FOX News ’ ‘ Hannity.
’ Levin said Obama worked with the FBI and intel agencies , knew everything about the counterintelligence program targeting the Trump campaign , and yet he is the one man that was never questioned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released Thursday as exhibits to the government ’ s motion to dismiss the Flynn case reveal that Obama knew about Flynn ’ s visit with then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak .
Levin believes this is what contributed to the formation of a strategy to “ take out Flynn.
” The nationally-syndicated radio host also said Obama knew about the FISA abuses because it is unlikely that the president was not alerted when the FBI went to the FISA court to get surveillance warrants .
Otherwise , Levin said , the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NSC , and other intel agencies went rogue .
“ This is Barack Obama ’ s blue dress , ” Levin said .
“ That ’ s what that is without the DNA on it .
Let me explain what I mean .
We are supposed to believe that during the Obama administration , the FBI went rogue , the Department of Justice went rogue , the CIA went rogue , the DNI went rogue , the NSC went rogue.
” “ I can tell you that you ’ re not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Trump surrogate without letting the president of the United States know , ” he said .
“ You ’ re not going to send spies in the opposition campaign without giving the president a heads up .
You ’ re not going to mess around with a dossier like they did without the president of the United States knowing about the dossier.
” “ The one man who is never questioned about this by any reporter at any time or any investigative organization is Barack Obama , ” Levin added .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apology ” from the Obama administration and Democrats .
Levin called the president the victim of spying and a victim of the FISA court .
He called it “ massive coverup ” the “ greatest scandal in American history.
” “ This is a massive cover-up of the greatest scandal in American history , ” Levin said .
“ We expect and we don ’ t like it when the Russians interfere with our elections or the Chinese or Iran… but we don ’ t expect the Obama administration on the Democrats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spies into the opposition party ’ s campaign , to lie to a federal court , to fix evidence and to try and use the 25th Amendment to take the president of the United States out .
That ’ s why calling this all along a silent coup.
” “ Donald Trump deserves a huge apology , a huge apology from the Obama administration and from the Democrats , ” Levin told Hannity .
“ He ’ ll never get it but why ?
He ’ s the victim !
He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the victim of them changing an email .
He ’ s the victim of what they did with the FISA court .
You look at this document , Obama ’ s blue dress as I said .
They impeached Donald Trump over a perfectly fine phone call transcript .
”

Last night Mark Levin was on Hannity’s show to discuss the new revelation that Obama discussed Flynn’s Kislyak phone call with Comey and Yates, calling it “Obama’s blue dress”:
Here’s more from RCP:
Mark Levin railed against intelligence agencies and Department of Justice abuses during the Obama era on Thursday’s broadcast of FOX News’ ‘Hannity.’ Levin said Obama worked with the FBI and intel agencies, knew everything about the counterintelligence program targeting the Trump campaign, and yet he is the one man that was never questioned about the Russia-Flynn probe.
Levin said documents released Thursday as exhibits to the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case reveal that Obama knew about Flynn’s visit with then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. Levin believes this is what contributed to the formation of a strategy to “take out Flynn.” The nationally-syndicated radio host also said Obama knew about the FISA abuses because it is unlikely that the president was not alerted when the FBI went to the FISA court to get surveillance warrants. Otherwise, Levin said, the FBI, DOJ, CIA, DNI, NSC, and other intel agencies went rogue.
“This is Barack Obama’s blue dress,” Levin said. “That’s what that is without the DNA on it. Let me explain what I mean. We are supposed to believe that during the Obama administration, the FBI went rogue, the Department of Justice went rogue, the CIA went rogue, the DNI went rogue, the NSC went rogue.”
“I can tell you that you’re not going to go to the FISA court going after a Trump surrogate without letting the president of the United States know,” he said. “You’re not going to send spies in the opposition campaign without giving the president a heads up. You’re not going to mess around with a dossier like they did without the president of the United States knowing about the dossier.”
“The one man who is never questioned about this by any reporter at any time or any investigative organization is Barack Obama,” Levin added.
He said President Trump deserves a “huge apology” from the Obama administration and Democrats. Levin called the president the victim of spying and a victim of the FISA court. He called it “massive coverup” the “greatest scandal in American history.”
“This is a massive cover-up of the greatest scandal in American history,” Levin said. “We expect and we don’t like it when the Russians interfere with our elections or the Chinese or Iran… but we don’t expect the Obama administration on the Democrats to interfere with our election and to send spies into the opposition party’s campaign, to lie to a federal court, to fix evidence and to try and use the 25th Amendment to take the president of the United States out. That’s why calling this all along a silent coup.”
“Donald Trump deserves a huge apology, a huge apology from the Obama administration and from the Democrats,” Levin told Hannity. “He’ll never get it but why? He’s the victim! He’s the victim of the spying. He is the victim of them changing an email. He’s the victim of what they did with the FISA court. You look at this document, Obama’s blue dress as I said. They impeached Donald Trump over a perfectly fine phone call transcript.”


therightscoop--2020-05-08--Here’s full interview with AG Barr and Catherine Herridge on the decision to drop the Flynn case and

Here’s full interview with AG Barr and Catherine Herridge on the decision to drop the Flynn case and more!

As you may have heard by now , AG Barr sat down with Catherine Herridge to discuss the decision to drop the Flynn case and all things therein .
Unfortunately CBS News never put out the full interview in video format , at least that I could find , so instead I ’ m providing you the entire transcript that CBS News put out .
I ’ ve broken it up by section to highlight what was discussed .
The questions from Herridge are in bold : What action has the Justice Department taken today in the Michael Flynn case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismiss the charges against General Flynn .
At any stage during a proceeding , even after indictment or a conviction or a guilty plea , the Department can move to dismiss the charges if we determine that our standards of prosecution have not been met .
As you recall , in January , General Flynn moved to withdraw his plea , and also alleged misconduct by the government .
And at that time , I asked a very seasoned U.S. attorney , who had spent ten years as an FBI agent and ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jensen , from St. Louis , to come in and take a fresh look at this whole case .
And he found some additional material .
And last week , he came in and briefed me and made a recommendation that we dismiss the case , which I fully agreed with , as did the U.S. attorney in D.C .
So we ’ ve moved to dismiss the case .
So this decision to dismiss by the Justice Department , this all came together really within the last week , based on new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jensen since January has been investigating this .
And he reported to me last week .
Does Judge Sullivan have a say ?
Yes .
Under the rules , the case can be dismissed with leave of court .
Generally , the courts have said that that provision is in there to protect defendants , to make sure the government doesn ’ t play games by bringing a charge and then dismissing it ; bringing another charge , dismissing it .
But he does have a say .
But is the Flynn case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s point of view ?
We think the case against Flynn for false statements should be dismissed , as far as the Department of Justice is concerned .
And depending on the judge ’ s decision , could charges be brought against General Flynn in the future for other actions he took during the presidential campaign or during the transition ?
Well , no charges like that have been brought .
And I ’ m not gon na speculate about what charges there may be .
All of that said , General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigators during his interview in January of 2017 .
And Flynn admitted in court , quote , his “ false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI ’ s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals with the campaign and Russia ’ s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
” Does the fact remain that General Flynn lied to federal investigators ?
Well to constitute a false statement , you need two things .
One , you need a false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to be material to a legitimate investigation .
And I think on the question of lying , it ’ s as Comey , Director Comey said just a few months after this episode , he said it was a closed question .
And that , while you might make that argument , it was a very closed question .
But it ’ s on the question of materiality that we feel really that a crime can not be established here because there was not , in our view , a legitimate investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage , based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the transition .
So .
Let me just also say that when he pled , the issue of materiality is related to whether the government has a bona fide investigation going on .
And that ’ s information that ’ s really within the control of the government .
The individual party would really not have that information .
So as new information just became available that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legitimate investigation , that requires us , our duty , we think is to dismiss the case .
Does the new evidence show that the counterintelligence case against General Flynn was simply left open to lay a trap for lying ?
Yes .
Essentially .
They had started a counterintelligence investigation during the summer , as you know , related to the campaign .
But in December , the team , the Crossfire Hurricane team , was closing that and determined they had found nothing to justify continuing with that investigation against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepared the final papers , the seventh floor , that is the director ’ s office and the deputy director ’ s office up there , sent down word they should keep that open .
So that they could try to go and question Flynn about this call he had with the Russian ambassador .
Let me say that , at that point , he was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump , and was part of the transition , which is recognized by the government and funded by the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new administration .
And it is very typical , very common for the national security team of the incoming president to communicate with foreign leaders .
And that call , there was nothing wrong with it whatever .
In fact , it was laudable .
He– and it was nothing inconsistent with the Obama administration ’ s policies .
And it was in U.S. interests .
He was saying to the Russians , you know , “ Don ’ t escalate.
” And they asked him if he remembered saying that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember that .
What should Americans take away from your actions in the Flynn case today ?
Well , as I said in my confirmation hearing , one of the reasons I came back is because I was concerned that people were feeling there were two standards of justice in this country .
And that the political and that the justice , or the law enforcement process was being used to play political games .
And I wanted to make sure that we restore confidence in the system .
There ’ s only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that this case , that justice in this case requires dismissing the charges against General Flynn .
Are the actions you ’ re taking today bigger than the Flynn case ?
Well , I think they are bigger because I hope that it sends the message that there is one standard of justice in this country .
And that ’ s the way it will be .
It doesn ’ t matter what political party you ’ re in , or , you know , whether you ’ re rich or poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for everybody .
Was there a crime committed , do we believe a crime was committed ?
And do we have the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt ?
And we don ’ t think either of those standards were applicable here .
Has this been one of the most consequential decisions that you have made as attorney general ?
I don ’ t know .
I let other people judge that .
It ’ s certainly – I feel good about the decision because that ’ s what we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re here to do what ’ s right .
It was an easy decision , yes .
I think easy because once I saw all the facts and some of the tactics used by the FBI in this instance and also the legal problems with the case , it was an easy decision .
You know , one thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates .
Deputy Attorney General Yates , I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things , but , you know , here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice .
She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration , and they should go and tell the White House about their findings .
They and , you know , Director Comey ran around that .
When the special counsel report was released last year , you were accused by critics of putting your thumb on the scale in the president ’ s favor .
Are you doing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s case ?
No , I ’ m doing the law ’ s bidding .
I ’ m doing my duty under the law , as I see it .
President Trump recently tweeted about the Flynn case .
He said , “ What happened to General Flynn should never be allowed to happen to a citizen of the United States again.
” Were you influenced in any way by the president or his tweets ?
No , not at all .
And , you know , I made clear during my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look into what happened in 2016 and ’ 17 .
I made that crystal clear .
I was very concerned about what happened .
I was gon na get to the bottom of it .
And that included the treatment of General Flynn .
And that is part of John Durham , U.S. Attorney John Durham ’ s portfolio .
The reason we had to take this action now and why U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen came in was because it was prompted by the motions that were filed in that case .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly on it .
But John Durham is still looking at all of this .
This is one particular episode , but we view it as part of a number of related acts .
And we ’ re looking at the whole pattern of conduct .
The whole pattern of conduct before ?
After the election ?
Okay .
You talk about the importance of timing in this decision .
What was the evidence that helped you decide this issue ?
I think a very important evidence here was that this was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they were closing the investigation in December .
They started that process .
And on January 4th , they were closing it .
And that when they heard about the phone call , which is – the FBI had the transcripts too – there ’ s no question as to what was discussed .
The FBI knew exactly what was discussed .
And General Flynn , being the former director of the DIA , said to them , you know , “ You listen , you listen to everything .
You know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So there was no mystery about the call .
But they initially tried some theories of how they could open another investigation , which didn ’ t fly .
And then they found out that they had not technically closed the earlier investigation .
And they kept it open for the express purpose of trying to catch , lay a perjury trap for General Flynn .
They didn ’ t warn him , the way we usually would be required by the Department .
They bypassed the Justice Department .
They bypassed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forth .
These were things that persuaded me that there was not a legitimate counterintelligence investigation going on .
You know you ’ re gon na take a lot of incoming , as they say in the military , for this decision .
Are you prepared for that ?
Yeah , I ’ m prepared for that .
I also think it ’ s sad that nowadays these partisan feelings are so strong that people have lost any sense of justice .
And the groups that usually worry about civil liberties and making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed and standards set seem to be ignoring it and willing to destroy people ’ s lives and see great injustices done .
Just to be clear , you said this was your decision .
Did you consult or discuss the decision in any way with President Trump ?
Did you advise the White House that you had made this decision ?
No .
They were aware , because of the schedule , that the Department would be saying something in court .
And I said that we ’ d make up our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know , sometime before Monday .
File our responses to what was going on in court .
But other than that , no .
So the White House became aware of the decision when it filed today ?
On the FBI asking if they should get Flynn to lie… No .
Okay .
A lot of records have come to light .
You talk about the records for closing the Flynn case .
Were those new records to you ?
Because– –of Jensen ?
Okay .
All right .
In addition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from January 24th , 2017 .
This was the day of Michael Flynn ’ s interview .
And the writer states , “ What is our goal ?
Truth , admission , or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired ?
” Is that a routine , by-the-book conversation between senior FBI officials ?
Well , as many people point out , you know , it ’ s not unusual .
In the course of a bona fide investigation , when you ’ re doing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has a basis it ’ s not unusual to have an interview with someone and expecting that they might lie .
But here ’ s what ’ s different here is that there was no underlying investigation that was legitimate .
And the whole exercise was just about creating the lie .
But that language , does it bother you at all ?
Well , my understanding is , just looking at the documents , the way I interpret them , is there was a disagreement .
And that one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt that “ Let ’ s not be game playing here .
We have the transcript .
Show him the transcripts and find out what you wan na find out.
” Instead of instead of , you know , essentially reading excerpts and saying , “ Do you remember saying that ?
” which seemed to be all for the purpose of trying to catch him in something that could be called a lie .
But , again , because the FBI knew about the call , there was nothing wrong with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the call , whether or not he remembered saying something is not material to anything .
Who at the FBI was driving this ?
What are the consequences for these individuals ?
Based on the evidence that you have seen , did senior FBI officials conspire to throw out the national security adviser ?
Well , as I said , this is a particular episode .
And it has some troubling features to it , as we ’ ve discussed .
But I think , you know , that ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis of all the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of President Trump ’ s administration .
What are the consequences for these individuals ?
Well , you know , I don ’ t wan na , you know , we ’ re in the middle of looking at all of this .
John Durham ’ s investigation , and U.S. Attorney Jensen , I ’ m gon na ask him to do some more work on different items as well .
And I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence is , and I get their recommendations as to what they found and how serious it is .
But if , you know , if we were to find wrongdoing , in the sense of any criminal act , you know , obviously we would , we would follow through on that .
But , again , you know , just because something may even stink to high heaven and be , you know , appear everyone to be bad we still have to apply the right standard and be convinced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal statute .
And that we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt .
The same standard applies to everybody .
It sounds to me like one of your objectives is to never allow the Justice Department to be used as a political weapon .
That ’ s what you ’ re saying you think happened here ?
I think , yes .
I think there was an aspect of that .
And I think , for the last several decades , the Department has been used more and more , or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department into that .
And I think it ’ s very important that that not happen .
People , you know , we should choose our leaders through the election process .
And efforts to use the law enforcement process to change leaders or to disable administrations are incendiary in this country and destroy our republic .
Before we move on to some separate questions , many of these records should have been provided to Flynn ’ s defense team long ago .
Do you still have confidence in FBI Director Christopher Wray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wray has always supported and been very helpful in various investigations we ’ ve been running .
He cooperated fully with Durham , cooperated fully with Jensen .
But , you know , there are a lot of cases in the Department of Justice and I don ’ t consider it the director ’ s responsibility to make sure that all the documents are produced in each case .
So I don ’ t– I wouldn ’ t say that this has affected my confidence in Director Wray .
Does Director Wray have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the FBI ?
Yeah , as I ’ ve said , you know , he ’ s been a great partner to me in our effort to restore the American people ’ s confidence in both the Department of Justice and the FBI .
And we work very well together .
And I think both of us know that we have to step up .
That it ’ s very important to restore the American people ’ s confidence .
Does he have his arms around the gravity of what happened in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more on Flynn ‘ lying ’ … These are very smart people who were working in the special counsel ’ s office , and in senior levels of the FBI .
So what drove them here ?
Well , I think one of the things you have to guard against , both as a prosecutor and I think as an investigator , is that if you get too wedded to a particular outcome and you ’ re pursuing a particular agenda , you close your eyes to anything that sort of doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that ’ s probably the phenomenon we ’ re looking at here .
You know more about the investigation since Horowitz , since December .
Do you see more evidence of personal or political bias today ?
You know , I ’ m not gon na , again , get into reaching a conclusion at this point till I see everything .
There ’ s certainly more information that has come out that , you know , points in that direction .
But I haven ’ t reached a final conclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a couple of off-topic questions , the last thing most Americans remember about General Flynn is that he resigned , was fired .
And that he admitted lying to the FBI .
Does the fact remain that he lied ?
Well , you know , people sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes .
And as I said , the question of lying , you know , it ’ s something he would know about .
On its face , as Director Comey said , it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ materiality is not something he would know about .
That ’ s something that the government knows about .
And we have now gotten into it , drilled down , obtained new information .
And the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation .
So it was not a crime .
Before we leave this topic , is there anything that you would like to add ?
Okay .
Just on COVID-19 .
Some of the news of today .
The valet at the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had any exposure or interaction with this valet ?
I don ’ t think I have , no .
Do you have a view on whether the president , the vice president should self-quarantine or be separated ?
No , you know , I don ’ t have a view on that .
I don ’ t know about how close they were physically or what the medical advice is the president gets .
But we ’ re tested pretty regularly when we ’ re over at the White House to visit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ It depends how frequently , though at least once a week , but sometimes , you know , if you ’ ve been around and could have been infected , you can get further testing .
The president said that he ’ s urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act when it ’ s taken up in the Supreme Court later this year .
What ’ s your position ?
Is that something the Justice Department will continue to back ?
Yes .
You know , we had an opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to discuss this , and the Department is going to be taking the position as the president states .
Even if that means stripping millions of Americans of their health care in the middle of a pandemic ?
Well , the case isn ’ t gon na be argued until October .
And the president ’ s made clear that he strongly supports coverage of preexisting conditions .
And there will be coverage of preexisting conditions .
And , you know , he expects to fix and replace Obamacare with a better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to limit the size of gatherings , including religious services , what further action is the Justice Department prepared to take ?
Well , I think initially , you know , at the very beginning of the crisis , before we knew very much — and while , in some places , the infection rates were skyrocketing and threatening to overwhelm our health care system , you know , the initial limitations may have been defensible .
But as time goes by , it ’ s harder to justify those kinds of blanket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if people can follow social distancing by leaving space , wearing masks and so forth , there has to be accommodation to religious practice .
The Department has already entered a few cases around the country where there have been these sweeping prohibitions against religion where there were comparable secular activities are not controlled the same way .
On the Bureau of Prisons– currently 2,100 inmates and over 360 Bureau prison staff have tested positive for COVID-19 .
Will you make universal testing available to the inmates and the staff ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be testing and perhaps get to that point .
You know , we got , right at the beginning , I dealt with FEMA and I was able to get some of the Abbott machines .
And we ’ ve been building up our testing capacity .
And we ’ re doing more and more tests .
And , you know , we ’ ve been trying to keep our inmates as safe as we can .
We let a lot of inmates who are older and don ’ t pose a threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put them on home confinement to get ’ em outta the institutions .
So we ’ re taking every measure we can to protect those inmates .
Generally speaking , historically , the infection rates roughly , from what I ’ ve seen , are comparable inside the institution ( SIC ) as they are in society at large .
And we ’ ve been able to prevent our prisons from becoming Petri dishes where they sweep through with the same lethality that they have in , you know , nursing homes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work , and the Bureau of Prisons has been working hard on that .
Back to the Flynn case and John Durham… In closing , this was a big decision in the Flynn case , to– to say the least .
When history looks back on this decision , how do you think it will be written ?
What will it say about your decision making ?
Well , history is written by the winner .
So it largely depends on who ’ s writing the history .
But I think a fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good decision because it upheld the rule of law .
It helped , it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice , and it undid what was an injustice .
I mean , it ’ s not gon na be the end of it .
What do you mean , it ’ s not the end of it ?
Well , I said we ’ re gon na get to the bottom of what happened .
And later this year , do you expect a report from U.S. Attorney John Durham ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as you know , I ’ m not gon na predict the outcome .
But I said that we ’ re certainly — there probably will be a report as a byproduct of his work .
But we also are seeing if there are people who violated the law and should be brought to justice .
And that ’ s what we have our eye on .
And that would include individuals involved in the Flynn case ?
I don ’ t wan na get into particular individuals .
Attorney General William @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joining us here at CBS News .

As you may have heard by now, AG Barr sat down with Catherine Herridge to discuss the decision to drop the Flynn case and all things therein. Unfortunately CBS News never put out the full interview in video format, at least that I could find, so instead I’m providing you the entire transcript that CBS News put out. I’ve broken it up by section to highlight what was discussed.
>>UPDATE: CBS News has finally released the full 28 minute video interview with Barr. So if prefer you can watch it below:
The questions from Herridge are in bold:
What action has the Justice Department taken today in the Michael Flynn case? We dismissed or are moving to dismiss the charges against General Flynn. At any stage during a proceeding, even after indictment or a conviction or a guilty plea, the Department can move to dismiss the charges if we determine that our standards of prosecution have not been met. As you recall, in January, General Flynn moved to withdraw his plea, and also alleged misconduct by the government. And at that time, I asked a very seasoned U.S. attorney, who had spent ten years as an FBI agent and ten years as a career prosecutor, Jeff Jensen, from St. Louis, to come in and take a fresh look at this whole case. And he found some additional material. And last week, he came in and briefed me and made a recommendation that we dismiss the case, which I fully agreed with, as did the U.S. attorney in D.C. So we’ve moved to dismiss the case. So this decision to dismiss by the Justice Department, this all came together really within the last week, based on new evidence? Right. Well U.S. Attorney Jensen since January has been investigating this. And he reported to me last week. Does Judge Sullivan have a say? Yes. Under the rules, the case can be dismissed with leave of court. Generally, the courts have said that that provision is in there to protect defendants, to make sure the government doesn’t play games by bringing a charge and then dismissing it; bringing another charge, dismissing it. But he does have a say. But is the Flynn case effectively over today from the Justice Department’s point of view? We think the case against Flynn for false statements should be dismissed, as far as the Department of Justice is concerned. And depending on the judge’s decision, could charges be brought against General Flynn in the future for other actions he took during the presidential campaign or during the transition? Well, no charges like that have been brought. And I’m not gonna speculate about what charges there may be.
On General Flynn ‘lying’…
All of that said, General Flynn pled guilty to lying to federal investigators during his interview in January of 2017. And Flynn admitted in court, quote, his “false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals with the campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.” Does the fact remain that General Flynn lied to federal investigators? Well to constitute a false statement, you need two things. One, you need a false statement, lie. And then it has to be material to a legitimate investigation. And I think on the question of lying, it’s as Comey, Director Comey said just a few months after this episode, he said it was a closed question. And that, while you might make that argument, it was a very closed question. But it’s on the question of materiality that we feel really that a crime cannot be established here because there was not, in our view, a legitimate investigation going on. They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage, based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the transition. So. Let me just also say that when he pled, the issue of materiality is related to whether the government has a bona fide investigation going on. And that’s information that’s really within the control of the government. The individual party would really not have that information. So as new information just became available that has a bearing on whether there was a legitimate investigation, that requires us, our duty, we think is to dismiss the case. Does the new evidence show that the counterintelligence case against General Flynn was simply left open to lay a trap for lying? Yes. Essentially. They had started a counterintelligence investigation during the summer, as you know, related to the campaign. But in December, the team, the Crossfire Hurricane team, was closing that and determined they had found nothing to justify continuing with that investigation against Flynn. On the very day they prepared the final papers, the seventh floor, that is the director’s office and the deputy director’s office up there, sent down word they should keep that open. So that they could try to go and question Flynn about this call he had with the Russian ambassador. Let me say that, at that point, he was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump, and was part of the transition, which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration. And it is very typical, very common for the national security team of the incoming president to communicate with foreign leaders. And that call, there was nothing wrong with it whatever. In fact, it was laudable. He– and it was nothing inconsistent with the Obama administration’s policies. And it was in U.S. interests. He was saying to the Russians, you know, “Don’t escalate.” And they asked him if he remembered saying that, and he said he didn’t remember that.
Two standards of justice…
What should Americans take away from your actions in the Flynn case today? Well, as I said in my confirmation hearing, one of the reasons I came back is because I was concerned that people were feeling there were two standards of justice in this country. And that the political and that the justice, or the law enforcement process was being used to play political games. And I wanted to make sure that we restore confidence in the system. There’s only one standard of justice. And I believe that this case, that justice in this case requires dismissing the charges against General Flynn. Are the actions you’re taking today bigger than the Flynn case? Well, I think they are bigger because I hope that it sends the message that there is one standard of justice in this country. And that’s the way it will be. It doesn’t matter what political party you’re in, or, you know, whether you’re rich or poor. We will follow the same standard for everybody. Was there a crime committed, do we believe a crime was committed? And do we have the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? And we don’t think either of those standards were applicable here. Has this been one of the most consequential decisions that you have made as attorney general? I don’t know. I let other people judge that. It’s certainly – I feel good about the decision because that’s what we’re here to do. We’re here to do what’s right. Not what’s easy. Right. Was it an easy decision? It was an easy decision, yes. I think easy because once I saw all the facts and some of the tactics used by the FBI in this instance and also the legal problems with the case, it was an easy decision. You know, one thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates. Deputy Attorney General Yates, I’ve disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings. They and, you know, Director Comey ran around that. When the special counsel report was released last year, you were accused by critics of putting your thumb on the scale in the president’s favor. Are you doing the president’s bidding in General Flynn’s case? No, I’m doing the law’s bidding. I’m doing my duty under the law, as I see it.
Trump tweets on Flynn…
President Trump recently tweeted about the Flynn case. He said, “What happened to General Flynn should never be allowed to happen to a citizen of the United States again.” Were you influenced in any way by the president or his tweets? No, not at all. And, you know, I made clear during my confirmation hearing that I was gonna look into what happened in 2016 and ’17. I made that crystal clear. I was very concerned about what happened. I was gonna get to the bottom of it. And that included the treatment of General Flynn. And that is part of John Durham, U.S. Attorney John Durham’s portfolio. The reason we had to take this action now and why U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen came in was because it was prompted by the motions that were filed in that case. And so we had to sorta move more quickly on it. But John Durham is still looking at all of this. This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts. And we’re looking at the whole pattern of conduct. The whole pattern of conduct before? And after. And after? Yeah, the election.
Perjury Trap…
After the election? Okay. You talk about the importance of timing in this decision. What was the evidence that helped you decide this issue? I think a very important evidence here was that this was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation – was that they were closing the investigation in December. They started that process. And on January 4th, they were closing it. And that when they heard about the phone call, which is – the FBI had the transcripts too – there’s no question as to what was discussed. The FBI knew exactly what was discussed. And General Flynn, being the former director of the DIA, said to them, you know, “You listen, you listen to everything. You know, you know what was said.” So there was no mystery about the call. But they initially tried some theories of how they could open another investigation, which didn’t fly. And then they found out that they had not technically closed the earlier investigation. And they kept it open for the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn. They didn’t warn him, the way we usually would be required by the Department. They bypassed the Justice Department. They bypassed the protocols at the White House and so forth. These were things that persuaded me that there was not a legitimate counterintelligence investigation going on.
The Flynn decision and President Trump…
You know you’re gonna take a lot of incoming, as they say in the military, for this decision. Are you prepared for that? Yeah, I’m prepared for that. I also think it’s sad that nowadays these partisan feelings are so strong that people have lost any sense of justice. And the groups that usually worry about civil liberties and making sure that there’s proper procedures followed and standards set seem to be ignoring it and willing to destroy people’s lives and see great injustices done. Just to be clear, you said this was your decision. Uh-huh. Did you consult or discuss the decision in any way with President Trump? No. Did you advise the White House that you had made this decision? No. They were aware, because of the schedule, that the Department would be saying something in court. And I said that we’d make up our mind what to do and file, you know, sometime before Monday. File our responses to what was going on in court. But other than that, no. So the White House became aware of the decision when it filed today? Yes. Not earlier? No.
On the FBI asking if they should get Flynn to lie…
No. Okay. A lot of records have come to light. You talk about the records for closing the Flynn case. Were those new records to you? Because– Yes. –of Jensen? Okay. All right. In addition to those records, there are handwritten notes from January 24th, 2017. This was the day of Michael Flynn’s interview. And the writer states, “What is our goal? Truth, admission, or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Is that a routine, by-the-book conversation between senior FBI officials? Well, as many people point out, you know, it’s not unusual. In the course of a bona fide investigation, when you’re doing a criminal investigation or a counterintelligence investigation, that has a basis it’s not unusual to have an interview with someone and expecting that they might lie. But here’s what’s different here is that there was no underlying investigation that was legitimate. And the whole exercise was just about creating the lie. But that language, does it bother you at all? Well, my understanding is, just looking at the documents, the way I interpret them, is there was a disagreement. And that one of the agents, one of the senior agents felt that “Let’s not be game playing here. We have the transcript. Show him the transcripts and find out what you wanna find out.” Instead of instead of, you know, essentially reading excerpts and saying, “Do you remember saying that?” which seemed to be all for the purpose of trying to catch him in something that could be called a lie. But, again, because the FBI knew about the call, there was nothing wrong with the call, the FBI has the transcript of the call, whether or not he remembered saying something is not material to anything.
Who at the FBI was driving this?
Who at the FBI was driving this? Well, this particular episode, it looks like the impetus came from the seventh floor. The seventh floor is Director Comey. I believe it’s Director Comey and the deputy’s office.
What are the consequences for these individuals?
Based on the evidence that you have seen, did senior FBI officials conspire to throw out the national security adviser? Well, as I said, this is a particular episode. And it has some troubling features to it, as we’ve discussed. But I think, you know, that’s a question that really has to wait an analysis of all the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of President Trump’s administration. What are the consequences for these individuals? Well, you know, I don’t wanna, you know, we’re in the middle of looking at all of this. John Durham’s investigation, and U.S. Attorney Jensen, I’m gonna ask him to do some more work on different items as well. And I’m gonna wait till all the evidence is, and I get their recommendations as to what they found and how serious it is. But if, you know, if we were to find wrongdoing, in the sense of any criminal act, you know, obviously we would, we would follow through on that. But, again, you know, just because something may even stink to high heaven and be, you know, appear everyone to be bad we still have to apply the right standard and be convinced that there’s a violation of a criminal statute. And that we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard applies to everybody. It sounds to me like one of your objectives is to never allow the Justice Department to be used as a political weapon. That’s what you’re saying you think happened here? I think, yes. I think there was an aspect of that. And I think, for the last several decades, the Department has been used more and more, or the efforts have been made to draw the Department into that. And I think it’s very important that that not happen. People, you know, we should choose our leaders through the election process. And efforts to use the law enforcement process to change leaders or to disable administrations are incendiary in this country and destroy our republic.
On FBI Director Christopher Wray…
Before we move on to some separate questions, many of these records should have been provided to Flynn’s defense team long ago. Do you still have confidence in FBI Director Christopher Wray? Well, you know, Chris Wray has always supported and been very helpful in various investigations we’ve been running. He cooperated fully with Durham, cooperated fully with Jensen. But, you know, there are a lot of cases in the Department of Justice and I don’t consider it the director’s responsibility to make sure that all the documents are produced in each case. So I don’t– I wouldn’t say that this has affected my confidence in Director Wray. Does Director Wray have what it takes to make the changes at the FBI? Yeah, as I’ve said, you know, he’s been a great partner to me in our effort to restore the American people’s confidence in both the Department of Justice and the FBI. And we work very well together. And I think both of us know that we have to step up. That it’s very important to restore the American people’s confidence. Does he have his arms around the gravity of what happened in 2016 and 2017? I think he does.
Steele Dossier…
Newly declassified footnotes in the Horowitz report suggest that the Steele dossier was likely the product of Russian disinformation. And there were multiple warnings to the FBI at that time, yet they continued to use that. How do you explain that? I think that’s one of the most troubling aspects of this whole thing. And, in fact, I said it in testimony on the Hill, I can’t remember if it was my confirmation, that I said I was very concerned about the possibility that that dossier and Steele’s activities were used as a vector for the Russians to inject disinformation into the political campaign. I think that is something that Robert Mueller was responsible for looking at under his charter, which is the potential of Russian influence. But I think it was ignored and there was mounting indications that this could very well have been happening and no one really stopped to look at it.
FBI motives and more on Flynn ‘lying’…
These are very smart people who were working in the special counsel’s office, and in senior levels of the FBI. So what drove them here? Well, I think one of the things you have to guard against, both as a prosecutor and I think as an investigator, is that if you get too wedded to a particular outcome and you’re pursuing a particular agenda, you close your eyes to anything that sort of doesn’t fit with your preconception. And I think that’s probably the phenomenon we’re looking at here. You know more about the investigation since Horowitz, since December. Do you see more evidence of personal or political bias today? You know, I’m not gonna, again, get into reaching a conclusion at this point till I see everything. There’s certainly more information that has come out that, you know, points in that direction. But I haven’t reached a final conclusion. Before we just move onto to a couple of off-topic questions, the last thing most Americans remember about General Flynn is that he resigned, was fired. And that he admitted lying to the FBI. Does the fact remain that he lied? Well, you know, people sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes. And as I said, the question of lying, you know, it’s something he would know about. On its face, as Director Comey said, it’s not so clear. But the question of materiality is not something he would know about. That’s something that the government knows about. And we have now gotten into it, drilled down, obtained new information. And the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation. So it was not a crime. Before we leave this topic, is there anything that you would like to add? No.
Coronavirus related questions…
Okay. Just on COVID-19. Some of the news of today. The valet at the White House has tested positive. Have you had any exposure or interaction with this valet? I don’t think I have, no. Do you have a view on whether the president, the vice president should self-quarantine or be separated? No, you know, I don’t have a view on that. I don’t know about how close they were physically or what the medical advice is the president gets. But we’re tested pretty regularly when we’re over at the White House to visit. Every day, every other day? It depends how frequently, though at least once a week, but sometimes, you know, if you’ve been around and could have been infected, you can get further testing. The president said that he’s urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act when it’s taken up in the Supreme Court later this year. What’s your position? Is that something the Justice Department will continue to back? Yes. You know, we had an opportunity, all the stakeholders in the administration, to discuss this, and the Department is going to be taking the position as the president states. Even if that means stripping millions of Americans of their health care in the middle of a pandemic? Well, the case isn’t gonna be argued until October. And the president’s made clear that he strongly supports coverage of preexisting conditions. And there will be coverage of preexisting conditions. And, you know, he expects to fix and replace Obamacare with a better health care system. If governors continue to limit the size of gatherings, including religious services, what further action is the Justice Department prepared to take? Well, I think initially, you know, at the very beginning of the crisis, before we knew very much — and while, in some places, the infection rates were skyrocketing and threatening to overwhelm our health care system, you know, the initial limitations may have been defensible. But as time goes by, it’s harder to justify those kinds of blanket restrictions on religious practice. I think, if people can follow social distancing by leaving space, wearing masks and so forth, there has to be accommodation to religious practice. The Department has already entered a few cases around the country where there have been these sweeping prohibitions against religion where there were comparable secular activities are not controlled the same way. On the Bureau of Prisons– currently 2,100 inmates and over 360 Bureau prison staff have tested positive for COVID-19. Will you make universal testing available to the inmates and the staff? I think over time, we’ll be testing and perhaps get to that point. You know, we got, right at the beginning, I dealt with FEMA and I was able to get some of the Abbott machines. And we’ve been building up our testing capacity. And we’re doing more and more tests. And, you know, we’ve been trying to keep our inmates as safe as we can. We let a lot of inmates who are older and don’t pose a threat to the community, we’ve put them on home confinement to get ’em outta the institutions. So we’re taking every measure we can to protect those inmates. Generally speaking, historically, the infection rates roughly, from what I’ve seen, are comparable inside the institution (SIC) as they are in society at large. And we’ve been able to prevent our prisons from becoming Petri dishes where they sweep through with the same lethality that they have in, you know, nursing homes and so forth. It takes a lotta work, and the Bureau of Prisons has been working hard on that.
Back to the Flynn case and John Durham…
In closing, this was a big decision in the Flynn case, to– to say the least. When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written? What will it say about your decision making? Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice. Uh-huh. I mean, it’s not gonna be the end of it. What do you mean, it’s not the end of it? Well, I said we’re gonna get to the bottom of what happened. And later this year, do you expect a report from U.S. Attorney John Durham? Or do you expect indictments? Well, as you know, I’m not gonna predict the outcome. But I said that we’re certainly — there probably will be a report as a byproduct of his work. But we also are seeing if there are people who violated the law and should be brought to justice. And that’s what we have our eye on. And that would include individuals involved in the Flynn case? I don’t wanna get into particular individuals. Attorney General William Barr, thank you very much for joining us here at CBS News. Thank you.


therightscoop--2020-05-09--WATCH: The full Tara Reade interview with Megyn Kelly, as she BLASTS Dems for their Double Standard

Megyn Kelly released her full interview with Tara Reade .
It ’ s an emotional interview , in which Reade @ @ @ @ @ was committed against her by Joe Biden .
She also blasted Democrats for their double @ @ @ @ @ .
Her details on the allegation were graphic .
“ You ’ re nothing to @ @ @ @ @ Biden said to her .
“ His words — those words — stayed with me @ @ @ @ @ took Dems down over their obvious hypocrisy , too .
“ It makes me upset @ @ @ @ @ , because those were people I respected , some of which I voted for or @ @ @ @ @ , ” Reade responded .
“ I supported Elizabeth Warren , who basically said she @ @ @ @ @ dismissed me.
” She sure has the Democrats ’ number , whatever you think of @ @ @

Megyn Kelly released her full interview with Tara Reade. It’s an emotional interview, in which Reade describes the assault she alleges was committed against her by Joe Biden.
She also blasted Democrats for their double standard on sexual assault allegations.
Her details on the allegation were graphic. “You’re nothing to me,” she said Biden said to her.
“His words — those words — stayed with me my whole life.”
Reade took Dems down over their obvious hypocrisy, too.
“It makes me upset, it makes me angry, because those were people I respected, some of which I voted for or worked with in some capacity,” Reade responded. “I supported Elizabeth Warren, who basically said she believed Joe Biden and just dismissed me.”
WATCH:
She sure has the Democrats’ number, whatever you think of her allegation.


therightscoop--2020-05-09--NEW: ‘The Constitution will endure’ writes Judge in HALTING unconstitutional ban on in-person CHURCH

NEW: ‘The Constitution will endure’ writes Judge in HALTING unconstitutional ban on in-person CHURCH in Kentucky

U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove has brought a halt to Kentucky Gov .
Andy Beshear ’ s ban on in-person church services , calling it unconstitutional , after two other courts ruled in the governor ’ s favor .
“ The Constitution will endure , ” reads the opinion .
“ It would be easy to put it on the shelf in times like this , to be pulled down and dusted off when more convenient .
But that is not our tradition .
Its enduring quality requires that it be respected even when it is hard.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : His opinion says Kentucky ’ s attorney general urged the court to apply the injunction statewide , and since the executive order challenged didn ’ t solely apply to Tabernacle , the injunction granted would also have a similar scope .
“ Both rulings affirm that the law prohibits the government from treating houses of worship differently than secular activities during this pandemic , ” Attorney General Daniel Cameron , a Republican , said in a statement late Friday .
As Pajamas Media notes , “ those who don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who want to worship will go to church.
” “ Citizens in Kentucky will now have the choice and not have it made for them by the state , ” wrote Rick Moran on Saturday .

U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove has brought a halt to Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear’s ban on in-person church services, calling it unconstitutional, after two other courts ruled in the governor’s favor.
“The Constitution will endure,” reads the opinion. “It would be easy to put it on the shelf in times like this, to be pulled down and dusted off when more convenient. But that is not our tradition. Its enduring quality requires that it be respected even when it is hard.”
Here’s more from the AP:
His opinion says Kentucky’s attorney general urged the court to apply the injunction statewide, and since the executive order challenged didn’t solely apply to Tabernacle, the injunction granted would also have a similar scope. “Both rulings affirm that the law prohibits the government from treating houses of worship differently than secular activities during this pandemic,” Attorney General Daniel Cameron, a Republican, said in a statement late Friday.
As Pajamas Media notes, “those who don’t want to risk exposure will stay home; those who want to worship will go to church.”
“Citizens in Kentucky will now have the choice and not have it made for them by the state,” wrote Rick Moran on Saturday.


therightscoop--2020-05-09--WATCH: Michelle Malkin (+ 1 in 5 other Americans) will REFUSE ‘jack-booted globalist’ Coronavirus va

WATCH: Michelle Malkin (+ 1 in 5 other Americans) will REFUSE ‘jack-booted globalist’ Coronavirus vaccine: ‘Junk science’ & “Conspiracy’

Michelle Malkin said that she and her fellow “ vaccine skeptics ” are under assault from Silicon Valley and “ control freaks ’ and will therefore not “ bow down ” and take any future hypothetical vaccine against Covid-19 .
“ Silicon Valley has paired up with the likes of the Bill Gates and the big pharma companies and the control freaks to push vaccine skeptics off of the internet and off of the public square , ” she says , in the video shared on Twitter .
She declares in the tweet : “ I will not bow down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Malkin brings up conflicts of interest financially , the ideological agenda , the threat to parental sovereignty , the junk science that ’ s been used , the cover-ups , the conspiracies .
Yes , sometimes conspiracies are true .
They ’ re not conspiracy theories , they ’ re conspiracy truths , they ’ re conspiracy facts.
” A new YouGov poll released this week showed that approximately 1 in 5 Americans reject the idea of taking a Covid-19 vaccine .
The same poll showed that a majority of Americans think things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So go figure that one out .

Michelle Malkin said that she and her fellow “vaccine skeptics” are under assault from Silicon Valley and “control freaks’ and will therefore not “bow down” and take any future hypothetical vaccine against Covid-19.
“Silicon Valley has paired up with the likes of the Bill Gates and the big pharma companies and the control freaks to push vaccine skeptics off of the internet and off of the public square,” she says, in the video shared on Twitter.
She declares in the tweet: “I will not bow down to jack-booted globalists.”
In the video Malkin brings up conflicts of interest financially, the ideological agenda, the threat to parental sovereignty, the junk science that’s been used, the cover-ups, the conspiracies. Yes, sometimes conspiracies are true. They’re not conspiracy theories, they’re conspiracy truths, they’re conspiracy facts.”
I will not take the Gates Vaccine. I will not bow down to jack-booted globalists. I will question the corrupted public health industrial complex & its financial conflicts of interest. I will use my platforms to share silenced views of whistleblowers & dissidents. #FightTheCensors pic.twitter.com/K6l2QMIXP7 — Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) May 9, 2020
A new YouGov poll released this week showed that approximately 1 in 5 Americans reject the idea of taking a Covid-19 vaccine. The same poll showed that a majority of Americans think things are opening back up too fast. So go figure that one out.


therightscoop--2020-05-09--‘THE FINAL STRAW’ Elon Musk says Tesla SUING ‘irrational’ CA county over lockdown, may move HQ to TE

‘THE FINAL STRAW’ Elon Musk says Tesla SUING ‘irrational’ CA county over lockdown, may move HQ to TEXAS!

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has had enough of the restrictions on business in California , and he ’ s not going to take it anymore .
See , on Friday , Erica Pan , health officer for the Alameda County , said that despite the state of California relaxing some of the extremely strict coronavirus restrictions in the state , they still would not allow Tesla to reopen their Fremont factory .
She claimed that authority in an online town hall , saying that “ If there are local orders , whichever is stricter prevails.
” Addressing Musk and Tesla @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not given the green light .
We have been working with them looking at some of their safety plans .
But no , we have not said that it is appropriate to move forward.
” On Saturday , the Third Row Tesla podcast tweeted “ So apparently Alameda county doesn ’ t think Tesla should reopen until June 1 ” Later in the morning , Musk responded to the thread , stating that his company is going to sue the county .
“ The unelected & ignorant “ Interim Health Officer ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governor , the President , our Constitutional freedoms & just plain common sense !
” he wrote .
Ten minutes later he added that this was the last straw .
A lot of people feel like the restrictions in California have been their last straw .
Looks like my home state is about to get a whole lot of new residents .
And business .

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has had enough of the restrictions on business in California, and he’s not going to take it anymore.
See, on Friday, Erica Pan, health officer for the Alameda County, said that despite the state of California relaxing some of the extremely strict coronavirus restrictions in the state, they still would not allow Tesla to reopen their Fremont factory. She claimed that authority in an online town hall, saying that “If there are local orders, whichever is stricter prevails.”
Addressing Musk and Tesla in particular, she added “We have not given the green light. We have been working with them looking at some of their safety plans. But no, we have not said that it is appropriate to move forward.”
On Saturday, the Third Row Tesla podcast tweeted “So apparently Alameda county doesn’t think Tesla should reopen until June 1”
Later in the morning, Musk responded to the thread, stating that his company is going to sue the county. “The unelected & ignorant “Interim Health Officer” of Alameda is acting contrary to the Governor, the President, our Constitutional freedoms & just plain common sense!” he wrote.
Tesla is filing a lawsuit against Alameda County immediately. The unelected & ignorant “Interim Health Officer” of Alameda is acting contrary to the Governor, the President, our Constitutional freedoms & just plain common sense! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 9, 2020
Ten minutes later he added that this was the last straw.
Frankly, this is the final straw. Tesla will now move its HQ and future programs to Texas/Nevada immediately. If we even retain Fremont manufacturing activity at all, it will be dependen on how Tesla is treated in the future. Tesla is the last carmaker left in CA. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 9, 2020
A lot of people feel like the restrictions in California have been their last straw. Looks like my home state is about to get a whole lot of new residents. And business.


therightscoop--2020-05-09--TOM BROKAW: Trump doesn’t care about coronavirus victims! FOUR HOURS LATER: Oh. Nevermind!!

This is kind of hilarious .
Ancient reporter and special correspondent to NBC News Tom Brokaw bashed Trump on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ callous and cold-hearted monster who doesn ’ t care about people dying from coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ Trump talk about victims of the pandemic was all “ oh nevermind.
’ Instead of @ @ @ @ @ it like he was just adding info .
Because that ’ s what they do @ @ @ @ @ , note the ALL CAPS emoting .
The second tweet wasn ’ t quite so @ @ @ @ @ “ catching up ” for that tweet , y ’ all ?
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t actually check that before getting worked up and stuff.
” Notice also @ @ @ @ @ first tweet about casino stock and ‘ triumphant ’ recovery .
In the second tweet @ @ @ @ @ .
No sorry .
No sarcastic jabs at his own foibles .
Just “ credit @ @ @ @

This is kind of hilarious. Ancient reporter and special correspondent to NBC News Tom Brokaw bashed Trump on Twitter this morning for being a callous and cold-hearted monster who doesn’t care about people dying from coronavirus.
Then later after actually watching Trump talk about victims of the pandemic was all “oh nevermind.’
Instead of saying sorry, he played it like he was just adding info. Because that’s what they do.
In the first tweet, note the ALL CAPS emoting.
P Trump complains constantly how HE’S being treated.
Rarely expresses empathy for victims of virus or economic
tsunami. only offers false promise of triumphant recovery by nxt yr. he also has some left over casino stock for sale — Tom Brokaw (@tombrokaw) May 9, 2020
The second tweet wasn’t quite so expressive.
catching up. when the president was interviewed by david muir he was obviously affected when asked about covid victims.
credit where it is due. — Tom Brokaw (@tombrokaw) May 9, 2020
How great is “catching up” for that tweet, y’all? That’s him going “oh I didn’t actually check that before getting worked up and stuff.”
Notice also the sarcastic jabs in the first tweet about casino stock and ‘triumphant’ recovery. In the second tweet it’s all business. No sorry. No sarcastic jabs at his own foibles. Just “credit where due.’
Such a pro.