Slander or Opinion? Claims Of Racism and Defamation Fly After Education Council Member Is Seen Bouncing Black Child On Lap

download-4A New York City education council meeting recent attracted national attention after one member of the council (and its past President), Robin Broshi, accused another member,  Thomas Wrocklage, of racism after he was seen in a zoom meeting bouncing a black child on his lap. The video below is rather breathtaking but the incident has led to countervailing claims of racism and slander.  As is often the case, we tend to jump on any novel torts claims and this is a good example of the tension between opinion and slander, particularly in such overheated (indeed radioactive) moments in public debates.  It is unfortunately an increasingly common legal question in today’s rage-filled politics. The video of his meeting has now been shown throughout the world.  However, it has some interesting elements as a pedagogical tool for understanding the underlying applicability of tort liability, or lack thereof.

 THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The entire 4-hour council meeting is available but here are the highlights. It began with references to a prior “ugly” meeting and a call for more civil discourse by President Maud Maron who notes that “it is possible to condemn racism and at the same time to extend grace and compassion to the people who disappoint you.” That hope however is quickly dashed whenCouncil member Eric Goldberg denounces her “hollow” statement as  “deny[ing her] culpability in creating an environment of division and divisiveness.”

That is when Broshi enters with a bang and refers to a letter campaign and adds:

“a member of this council was racist and I did nothing and I’m ashamed I did nothing and I can sit here during a public meeting and say I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I didn’t speak out verbally when multiple times during the meeting one of the members engaged in behavior that made me ache and hurt for the non-white people that were logged in.”

With that, the meeting was off to the races with allegations of racism and slander.

Ironically, it is Broshi who is then accused by Council Vice-President Edward Irizarry. Irizarry states:

“You, in your comfortable white world can tell us about how we ought to reach down and help the poor Latino, and help the poor black, condescendingly look at us as though we are inferior. Because never, do I see anyone, or any of these advocates, really in communion with these poor students that are not getting the education that they deserve… We don’t want handouts… Cosmetic diversity, that’s what you’re looking for, you’re not looking for true change. You’re not looking to really educate all of the people of this district.”

Broshi then denounces her own white supremacy:

“I want to apologize to you.  I want to acknowledge that calling out the one vote was an example of white privilege and it was an example of trying to silence the legitimacy of your space on this council . . . . There’s work — everyone has work to do and I have work to do.  I have 40 plus years of white supremacy I need to undo and that was unfair of me to make that point and I don’t want to silence your voice, and your voice has merit, Edward.”

It is then that it is clear that Wrocklage was being referenced as a racist earlier and denies the allegation but Broshi again refers to his “racist behavior” and his example of “white people exhibiting their power over people of color.”  She further notes “if you won’t even read a book about white fragility . . . I can’t sit here in a working  business meeting and educate you.” (This issue of the book was raised repeatedly: “Tom! I’ve explained it to you! You can Google, you could read a book!”. “Read Ibram X. Kendi! Read White Fragility! Read How to Talk to White People… It is not my job to educate you! You’re an educated white man! And you could read a book! And you can educate yourself!”).

Well you get the idea, but here is a clip:

This is the relevant transcript:

Morden: During our last meeting you were talking about someone’s friend on someone’s lap when there were actual kids who were saying there are racist acts in your school! Sad! You are sad! But today you want to talk about…

Broshi: Ben!…It hurts people when they see a white man bouncing a brown baby on their lap and they don’t know the context! That is harmful! It makes people cry! It makes people log out of our meeting! They don’t come here! They don’t come to our meetings! And they give me a hard time because I’m not vocal enough! And I’m not trying to be a martyr! I’m trying to illustrate to you that you think I’m a f**k–excuse me–you think I’m a social justice warrior! And you think I’m being patronizing and I’m getting pressure for not being enough of an advocate! And I take that to heart and that hurts me! And I have to learn to be a better white person!

Wrocklage: I would like to know before this meeting adjourns how having my friend’s nephew on my lap was hurtful to people and was racist. Can you please explain?

Broshi: Tom! I’ve explained it to you! You can Google–you can read a book! Read [inaudible]! Read White Fragility! Read How to Talk to White People! It’s not my job to educate you! You’re an educated white man! You could read a book and you could learn about it yourself!

Others then join in on attacking Wrocklage for having a black child on his lap.  Emily Hellstrom joins in attacking Wrocklage and demands an apology:

“You had a smirk and a grin on your face when you pulled that child in… you in a joking tone, said ‘my living room is integrated right now’… as if, as if, the hundreds of years of first slavery and then segregation were nothing, would go poof, because you happened to have a black friend… So the fact that—and perhaps you didn’t intend it to be racist—and that does not matter, actually, was racist… You need to look deep inside and say ‘wow, I hurt a lot of people.’ Whether you intended to or not, you did.”

Wrocklage insisted “I was also laughing at the absurdity of the cognitive dissonance of people like you. People exactly like you, who are telling people of colour how they should feel. How absurd that is.”

However, Council member Shino Tanikawa also demanded an apology from Wrocklage:

“If you’re not willing to read then you’re not doing the work. And this is work we all have to do. And you can disagree with people but this is not an ideological difference. This is how black and indigenous people of color see the world. And it’s not for you and me—East Asian affluent person–to deny that reality. And we have to get on board, we have to understand what these people are telling us, we have to do the work, we have to get uncomfortable. But I don’t see some of you willing to do that uncomfortable work.

…When somebody tells you that you did something wrong, the first thing to do is reflect on that and then apologize, even if you don’t agree, you apologize… That is what grown-ups do.”

That is just a part of the meeting, but it raises a common question for meetings and protests where such allegations fly of racism and other forms of bias.

PRIVATE CITIZEN OR PUBLIC FIGURE?

The first step is to determine the status of these council members. Until this meeting became an international sensation, none of these individuals were high visibility individuals.  However, they are council members who appear at public meetings, including current or former officers of the council.  A claim could be made that they are all at least limited public figures, if not full public figures, due to their thrusting themselves into the public eye. There is however a claim to be made that participating in such public meetings should not cause a private citizen to trigger the higher burdens of being a public figure.  This video has gone viral but, until it did so, this was a small educational council meeting with an open mike.  That threshold issue could create some very interesting arguments over the tipping point for public figures.

This issue will turn on Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases.  The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when  someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).  Given the earlier controversy from the preceding meeting and the letter campaign referenced by Broshi, a court could find that Wrocklage is a limited public figure but there is a room for challenge on this point.

THE STANDARD

Under New York law, Wrocklage must show (1) a “defamatory statement of fact concerning the plaintiff; (2) publication to a third party; (3) fault [(actual malice for public figures)]; (4) falsity of the defamatory statement; and (5) special damages or per se accountability (defamatory on its face).” Biro v. Conde Nast, 883 F. Supp. 2d 441, 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures.

THE ALLEGED DEFAMATION

At various points, it is clear that Wrocklage is being called an effective racist, which Wrocklage objects to as slander.  There is no question that an allegation of racism is a serious matter but Broshi could challenge the basis for claiming a per se category of defamation.  New York recognizes four categories: “statements (i) charging plaintiff with serious crime; (ii) that tend to injure another [plaintiff] in his . . . trade, business, or profession; (iii) that plaintiff has a loathsome disease; or (iv) imputing unchastity to a woman.” Liberman v. Gelstein, 605 N.E.2d 344, 347 (N.Y. 1992). This is not an allegation of a crime, but it certainly would injure the professional reputation of Wrocklage to be labeled a racist.

Yet, a defamatory statement “must do more than cause discomfort or affront”; it must lead “reasonable minds” to “think the speech attributes odious or despicable characterizations to its subject.” Chau v. Lewis, 771 F.3d 118, 127 (2d Cir. 2014). In this case there are countervailing statements that Wrocklage is being accused of acting like a racist rather than being a racist.  For example, consider Broshi’s later comment:

“Integration is a system. Tom I don’t know what to tell you, I know you believe you did nothing wrong, but you have a 100 people that told you—I am not calling you racist… I’m saying that was racist behavior. . . We are all capable of racist behavior. I am capable of racist behavior… I owned up to it in this meeting! Right now, when I apologized to Edward… And we should apologize when we offend people of color! When they get upset. When they say this is a harmful space, when they log out of a meeting immediately because they see white people exhibiting their power over people of color… If you can’t even read a book about White Fragility or Ibrahim X. Kendi, I can’t sit here in a working business meeting and educate you about the distinction between interpersonal racism and systemic racism.”

 

For Wrocklage, the distinction between acting racist and being racist is a precious one.  He is still being denounced as effectively or actually a racist.

That however leads to the next complication: opinion or hyperbole.  The Supreme Court actually dealt with such an overheated council meeting in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted:

It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable.

Of course, calling someone repeatedly a racist is more than simply “rhetorical hyperbole.” However, it is also part of a public debate that is heavily laden with protected political speech.  If Broshi can be sued for defamation in making such an allegation, it could chill political speech at a time when the entire nation is focused on our continuing struggle with racism.  This is her opinion of the actions of Wrocklage– an opinion that has been subjected to both worldwide criticism and support.

Yet, the Supreme Court has shown that there are limits to opinion as a defense as in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). In that case, there was another inflammatory allegation stemming from a public meeting.  An Ohio high school wrestling coach sued over an opinion column alleging that he had lied under oath at a public hearing, saying that it was tantamount to an allegation of perjury.  The trial judge granted summary judgment on the ground that the assertion in the newspaper column was opinion.  The Court however rejected the defense in the case in 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Court noted that “expressions of ‘opinion’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact”  and may inflict “as much damage to reputation” as factual claims. Moreover, some opinions are based on assertions that are “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.”

I would submit that calling someone a racist is not one of those facts easily “susceptible of being proved true or false.”  Moreover, the risk to chilling political speech is too great, particularly when the meaning and systemic presence of racism is being debated throughout our society.

THE VERDICT

Thus, Wrocklage’s denouncing the slander is likely as rhetorical as the allegation of racism from a legal perspective.  That does not excuse any of these attacks, but the recourse for Wrocklage is to engage his critics in the court of public opinion, as he has with a global audience.

 

296 thoughts on “Slander or Opinion? Claims Of Racism and Defamation Fly After Education Council Member Is Seen Bouncing Black Child On Lap”

  1. This much is obvious.

    Those two women are crazier than two Rats fighting in a coffee can.

    And they are on the NYC education council?!

    The Rabbit hole gets deeper by the day.

  2. 6 facts about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China

    By Peter Schweizer and Jacob McLeod

    Peter Schweizer, best-selling author of “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends” and Jacob McLeod, a senior researcher with the Government Accountability Institute, explain Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China when his father was vice president. The furor over Trump’s call for Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden’s business has brought the spotlight back to the former second family’s international dealings. While his Ukrainian business is currently receiving most of the attention, Hunter’s dealings in China deserve at least as much scrutiny.

    Trained as a lawyer at Yale, Hunter had primarily worked as a lobbyist and consultant. His previous foray into financial services, Paradigm Global Advisors, was linked to Stanford Financial, a multibillion dollar Ponzi scheme.

    In 2009, Hunter co-founded a new venture, Rosemont Seneca Partners. Rosemont and Hunter were given extraordinary opportunities in China while his father was vice president. Here are some key facts:

    1. Joe Biden met with Hunter’s Chinese partners days before they established a new investment firm.

    In December 2013, Hunter landed in Beijing aboard Air Force Two, accompanying his father on an official visit to China. Less than two weeks later, Hunter’s company, Rosemont Seneca, became a partner in a new investment company backed by the state-owned Bank of China.

    Christening the new firm Bohai Harvest RST (BHR), the partners set out to raise $1 billion for the new fund.

    Representatives of the Biden family have denied any connection between the vice president’s visit and Hunter’s business. However, a BHR representative told The New Yorker earlier this year that Hunter used the opportunity to introduce his father to Chinese private equity executive Jonathan Li, who became CEO of BHR after the deal’s conclusion.

    2. BHR is a multibillion-dollar enterprise.

    Exceeding their initial fundraising goal, the partners at BHR raised their target to $1.5 billion for the new fund. The company’s website now brags that it manages “over RMB 15 billion” in assets — the equivalent of about $2.1 billion in today’s dollars.

    Under the terms of the deal, BHR, in which Hunter’s firm held an equity stake, would be a lead investor in the fund. Other investors include China Development Bank and China’s social security fund.
    Enlarge Image
    Joe Biden waves as he walks off Air Force Two with his son Hunter and granddaughter Finnegan.
    Joe Biden waves as he walks off Air Force Two with his son Hunter and granddaughter Finnegan.Getty Images

    3. Hunter and his partners had prominent roles within the company.

    Despite his relative lack of private equity experience, Hunter landed a prominent role with the new company. Under the terms of the original deal, Rosemont Seneca, Hunter’s firm, shared a 30% stake in BHR with the Thornton Group, which was run by James Bulger, the son of longtime Massachusetts state Senate President Billy Bulger. Hunter and Bulger joined the board, along with Devon Archer, Hunter’s longtime business partner. Archer would also serve as vice chairman of the fund’s investment committee.

    The value of these partnerships to BHR is clear. Its own website boasts: “BHR, with its unique mixed ownership, combines the resources and platforms of China’s largest financial institutions … and the networks and know-how of our U.S.-based investment fund and advisory firm shareholders.”

    Hunter Biden claimed to the New Yorker that he and his partners have not seen any money from the BHR deal. But even if true, the potential payouts are significant.

    4. BHR represented a unique investment opportunity.

    BHR’s relationships weren’t the only unique thing about the company. Rosemont Seneca was getting a piece of something that no other Western firm had: a private equity fund inside the recently established Shanghai Free-Trade Zone, with a focus on international acquisitions. With the backing of the state-owned Bank of China, one of the country’s “big four” financial institutions, BHR had access to the types of deals that most Western firms only dreamed of, including IPOs of state-owned companies.

    5. BHR invested in strategically sensitive assets in both China and the United States.
    see also
    The troubling reason why Biden is so soft on China

    In December 2014, BHR became an “anchor investor” in the IPO of China General Nuclear Power Company (CGN), a state-owned nuclear company involved in the development of nuclear reactors. Not only is CGN a strategically important company in China, it was also facing legal scrutiny in the United States. In 2016, CGN was charged with espionage by the Justice Department for stealing US nuclear secrets.

    As a “cross-border” investment fund, Bohai Harvest was interested in making deals outside of China. In 2015, BHR acquired Henniges Automotive, a Michigan-based producer of vibration-dampening equipment, alongside Chinese military contractor Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC). Given the military applications of Henniges’ technology, the deal required federal approval. Like CGN, AVIC was suspected of stealing US technology for its purposes.

    Not long after the Henniges deal closed, AVIC debuted its new J-20 fighter — incorporating designs allegedly stolen from the US’ F-35 program.

    6. It wasn’t an isolated incident.

    In 2015, a state-backed real estate conglomerate acquired a controlling stake in Rosemont Realty, a sister company of Rosemont Seneca where Hunter served as an advisor. As part of the deal, the Chinese promised $3 billion for commercial office property acquisitions in the US — a major windfall for the company.

    It wouldn’t be Hunter’s last episode with Chinese capital. In May 2017, he met with Ye Jianming, chairman of Chinese energy company CEFC, to discuss investment opportunities in the US. After the meeting, Ye sent a 2.8-carat diamond to Hunter along with a “thank you” card. When, six months later, a CEFC executive was arrested in New York on unrelated bribery charges, his first phone call was to Hunter’s uncle, James Biden. James told the New York Times that “he believed it [the call] had been meant for Hunter” and that “he had passed on his nephew’s contact information.”

    Ye, now accused of bribing a Communist Party official, has since been detained in his native China.

    All of this adds up to an extremely troubling pattern. Much of the media, as they so often do, have chosen to air the spin, rather than the facts, on this issue. Did the Chinese give favorable treatment to Hunter Biden to curry favor with his vice-president father? The American public deserves to understand what exactly Hunter Biden was doing overseas and the extent of then-Vice President Biden’s involvement.

  3. Robert Mueller On Stone In Today’s Op Ed

    We now have a detailed picture of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. The special counsel’s office identified two principal operations directed at our election: hacking and dumping Clinton campaign emails, and an online social media campaign to disparage the Democratic candidate. We also identified numerous links between the Russian government and Trump campaign personnel — Stone among them. We did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its activities. The investigation did, however, establish that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome. It also established that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.

    Uncovering and tracing Russian outreach and interference activities was a complex task. The investigation to understand these activities took two years and substantial effort. Based on our work, eight individuals pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial, and more than two dozen Russian individuals and entities, including senior Russian intelligence officers, were charged with federal crimes.

    Congress also investigated and sought information from Stone. A jury later determined he lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.

    The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness. Because his sentence has been commuted, he will not go to prison. But his conviction stands.

    Edited From: “Robert Mueller: Roger Stone Remains A Convicted Felon, And Rightly So”

    This Evening’s Washington Post

    1. “two dozen Russian individuals and entities, including senior Russian intelligence officers, were charged with federal crimes”

      And you have no idea that Mueller’s prosecutors were unable to present a single shred of evidence to the Court that backed up their charges.

      But you didn’t know that, did you, Seth?

      You’re an indoctrinated mindless Lemming, who is incapable of critical thinking.

        1. 😁 Good for you Paint Chips. You recognized you had no logical rebuttal, so you went with that. That’s progress. Next for you would be to remain silent. Then, somewhere down the road, you may just agree with the critique. It’s a process, like grief. There is no shortcut.

    2. Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller proves himself subjectively, personally and politically involved in the case, whereas jurisprudence must be impartial and objective. Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller knew from the outset that no crime existed and the appointment of a special counsel was not legal. Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller willfully pursued a political goal by corrupting the law.

      Mr. Shill is unable to discern right from wrong – legal from criminal.

      Alternatively, Mr. Shill will approve any act so long as he obtains unmerited and undeserved benefits and entitlements derived from the wealth of others, the favor and bias of quotas and affirmative action, and the ability to legally commit murder as abortion.

    3. Robert Mueller On Stone In Today’s Op Ed

      Peter thinks Robert Mueller, who had a minder next to him during his congressional testimony, repeatedly refused to answer when examined under oath, and professed never to have heard of Fusion GPS, is lucid enough to produce an op-ed.

      1. That “minder” was a psych nurse from the dementia ward. With all due respect, “Mumbling Mueller” needs to be put out to pasture.

    1. China sponsored virology.

      China sponsored terrorism.

      China deliberately initiated World War III or is irrefutably, willfully or as a consequence of malicious gross negligence and dereliction, a state sponsor of disease, pandemic, wrongful death and terrorism. China may be sued through the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). China’s terrorist act was manipulating lethal diseases in a laboratory with the full knowledge that a global pandemic could be a direct result.

      Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)

      The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) (Pub.L. 114–222) is a law passed by the United States Congress that narrows the scope of the legal doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity. It amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in regards to civil claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages from an act of international terrorism.

      – Wiki
      _____

      800 Families Sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11

      1,500 9/11 first responders and the families of 800 victims have filed suit against Saudi Arabia, accusing the country of complicity in the terror attacks, PIX11 reports. The suit, filed in a Manhattan court on Monday, accuses Saudi Arabia of aiding some the 9/11 masterminds by allegedly helping them settle in the United States. The suit also accuses Saudi royals of funneling money to al Qaeda, and alleges that one Saudi official stayed in the hijackers’ Virginia hotel room the night before the attack. Aviation law firm Kreindler & Kreindler is representing the plaintiffs, and has not specified the damages they seek. Prior to September 2016, Americans were unable to sue Saudi Arabia for its alleged involvement in the attacks. But under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which passed after Congress overrode a presidential veto, 9/11 victims gained the right to press charges against Saudi Arabia.

      – Daily Beast
      ___________

      Global Backlash Builds Against China Over Coronavirus

      As calls for inquiries and reparations spread, Beijing has responded aggressively, mixing threats with aid and adding to a growing mistrust of China.

      – N.Y. Times
      __________

      Netherlands takes Russia to European Court of Human Rights over MH17 flight downing
      July 11, 2020

      The Netherlands filed an inter-state complaint against Russia in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Friday over its role in the downing of a Malaysian Airlines flight six years ago.

      – Jurist

  4. Hurray for Goya foods.
    —-
    OT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/business/goya-boycott.html

    Goya Foods Boycott Takes Off After Its President Praises Trump

    “We’re all truly blessed at the same time to have a leader like President Trump, who is a builder,” he said. “And so we have an incredible builder. And we pray. We pray for our leadership, our president, and we pray for our country, that we will continue to prosper and to grow.”


    In an appearance on Fox News on Friday, Mr. Unanue defended his comments.

    “It’s suppression of speech,” he said, noting that in 2012 he was called to work with the first lady, Michelle Obama, on a different initiative that focused on helping families make healthy meal choices.

    “So you’re allowed to talk good or to praise one president, but you’re not allowed, when I was called to be part of this commission to aid in economic and education prosperity and you make positive comment, all of the sudden that’s not acceptable,” Mr. Unanue said.

    He added, “So I’m not apologizing for saying — and especially when you’re called by the president of the United States, you’re going to say, ‘No, I’m sorry, I’m busy. No thank you.’ I didn’t say that to the Obamas, and I didn’t say that to President Trump.”

    “Want to know the best way to fight #CancelCulture?,” wrote Matt Schlapp, the conservative activist and commentator. “Support American businesses like @GoyaFoods that the Left demonizes.”

    President Trump on Friday evening backed the company on Twitter. “I LOVE @GoyaFoods!” he wrote.

    Goya Foods was founded in 1936 by Mr. Unanue’s Spanish grandparents, Don Prudencio Unanue and his wife, Carolina. The company started as a storefront business in Lower Manhattan and sold authentic Spanish products, including olives, olive oil and sardines, to local Hispanic families. Business steadily grew over the following decades, and Goya Foods is now the largest Hispanic-owned food company in the United States, with over 4,000 employees worldwide. Mr. Unanue, who according to an NBC profile started working in the family business at age 10, began overseeing the company in 2004.

    1. Allan– this afternoon I went to the grocery store and bought five different Goya foods items and play to do so every time we go shopping. I hope everyone does that. It is time to put democrat fascists in their place and support those who stand up for the good in this country instead of trying to tear down things they had no hand in building.

        1. People are buying lots of Goya! It’s easy to buy Goya because it’s the best. The only thing that would have caused me to NOT buy Goya would be if the CEO actually apologized or capitulated in any way to the fascist totalitarian Democrat mob. He did not. We are fully stocked up on Goya products. 🙂

          1. “fascist totalitarian Democrat mob” -Cundy

            oh, brother

            and many people have won’t be buying Goya products, so we’ll see how thing work out

            1. “many people have won’t be buying Goya products,”

              I assume you are referring to lefties who won’t buy Goya. maybe they prefer stealing.

    2. The Democras are boycotting a company that provides food, financial support and jobs for Latinos. Goya has donated food products gratis to the poor, the hungry, those slammed by natural disasters (Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, etc) and more.

      For every breath wasted by DNC supporters vocalizing support of Americans and minorities, their boycott of Goya is one more piece of proof that Democrats hate:
      Americans
      Blacks
      Hispanics
      poor people

      Boycotting the DNC is a smarter move to support Americans, Blacks, Hispanics and poor people and jobs

      Boycotting Goya is thoroughly racist.

      https://www.goya.com/en/our-company/history

      As the Hispanic population grew in New York and throughout the United States, Goya’s product line and facilities expanded as well. The company relocated from Lower Manhattan to Brooklyn in 1958, until it established its current headquarters in New Jersey in 1974. In 2005, Goya launched a 10-year strategic plan and invested $500 million in a global expansion, designed to reach new consumers and strengthen the Goya brand worldwide. From 2014 – 2016, Goya opened five new state-of-the-art manufacturing and distribution centers in Texas, California, Georgia and New Jersey to meet consumer demands for Goya products. In total, the company now boasts 26 facilities throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic and Spain, and employs over 4,000 worldwide.

      Goya has always strived to be a company of passionate people that care about making a difference in the community. In 2018, Goya was ranked #2 as a leading U.S. food brand for its social influence and community support, according to TotalSocial rankings. Through Goya Gives, Goya supports nearly 300 charitable endeavors, programs, scholarships, and events, and donates millions of pounds of food to local food banks and shelters, especially during times of natural disasters such as Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, Superstorm Sandy, and Hurricanes Harvey and Irene. In 2017-2018, the company launched the ‘Can Do’ campaign to benefit Feeding America and donated over 1.5 million pounds of food to families in need across the country. In 2011, President Barack Obama honored Goya for its continued success and commitment to the Hispanic community, the only company to ever be honored by the President. In 2012, Goya collaborated with First Lady Michelle Obama and the USDA to launch the MyPlate/ MiPlato campaign. Goya recognizes the important role businesses play in leading the way for environmental change, and is the largest user of solar energy among Hispanic owned food and beverage companies, ranking as one of the top corporate solar users in the U.S. food and beverage industry.

      Goya Foods remains firm in its goal of being the brand of choice for authentic Latin cuisine while retaining its family-oriented approach to its consumers and its roots in the culinary traditions of Hispanic communities throughout the world.

    3. It’s just so refreshing to have someone stick up for their guns when confronted by economic or physical threats, most especially when doing so is to defend an idea or freedom to speak against what those who are more powerful or numerous demand. This is no different than those who stood up to McCarthyism and were blacklisted as a result–years later, they are looked at as being heroic.

      1. That is right DV. Conservatives are too quiet and let the radical groups trying to destroy America, the American economy and the American worker do what they want. One has to be willing to get dirt on their hands because when there is too much complacency the anti-American enemy walks all over them.

        Every leftistist looting and rioting scene is an example of what these people will do to America. A lot on their side don’t like the violence but don’t realize until the left is stopped cold it will advance eventually killing them and their own.

  5. A few incontrovertible facts: A racist nation doesn’t expend 350,000 lives to free members of another race, call out the military to enforce integration, enact laws to destroy the vestiges of slavery and elect a partially black President twice. An organization that insists on vandalism, defunding police in black neighborhoods and ignores thousands of black on black murders doesn’t care about black lives. Finally, a political party that had a gender test for public office, refuses to condemn mob violence and runs a senile old man for the nation’s highest office doesn’t have America’s interests at heart.

    1. Au contraire…apparently.
      ____________________

      “Frederick Douglass, a gifted African American writer and activist who knew Lincoln, characterized him in a speech delivered in 1876:109

      ‘In his interest, in his association, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white man. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people, to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.

      “Allan Nevins, one of this century’s most prolific and acclaimed historians of US history, summed up Lincoln’s view of the complex issue of race, and his vision of America’s future:110

      ‘His conception ran beyond the mere liberation of four million colored folk; it implied a far-reaching alteration of American society, industry, and government. A gradual planned emancipation, a concomitant transportation of hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions of people overseas, a careful governmental nursing of the new colonies, and a payment of unprecedented sums to the section thus deprived of its old labor supply — this scheme carried unprecedented implications.

      “To put this into effect would immensely increase the power of the national government and widen its abilities. If even partially practicable, it would mean a long step toward rendering the American people homogeneous in color and race, a rapid stimulation of immigration to replace the workers exported, a greater world position for the republic, and a pervasive change in popular outlook and ideas. The attempt would do more to convert the unorganized country into an organized nation than anything yet planned. Impossible, and undesirable even if possible? — probably; but Lincoln continued to hold to his vision.

      “For most Americans today, Lincoln’s plan to “solve” America’s vexing racial problem by resettling the Blacks in a foreign country probably seems bizarre and utterly impractical, if not outrageous and cruel. At the same time, though, and particularly when considered in the context of the terrible Civil War that cost so many lives, it is worth pondering just why and how such a far-fetched plan was ever able to win the support of a leader of the stature and wisdom of Abraham Lincoln.”

      – Robert Morgan

  6. 6 facts about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China

    By Peter Schweizer and Jacob McLeod

    Peter Schweizer, best-selling author of “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends” and Jacob McLeod, a senior researcher with the Government Accountability Institute, explain Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China when his father was vice president. The furor over Trump’s call for Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden’s business has brought the spotlight back to the former second family’s international dealings. While his Ukrainian business is currently receiving most of the attention, Hunter’s dealings in China deserve at least as much scrutiny.

    Trained as a lawyer at Yale, Hunter had primarily worked as a lobbyist and consultant. His previous foray into financial services, Paradigm Global Advisors, was linked to Stanford Financial, a multibillion dollar Ponzi scheme.

    In 2009, Hunter co-founded a new venture, Rosemont Seneca Partners. Rosemont and Hunter were given extraordinary opportunities in China while his father was vice president. Here are some key facts:

    1. Joe Biden met with Hunter’s Chinese partners days before they established a new investment firm.

    In December 2013, Hunter landed in Beijing aboard Air Force Two, accompanying his father on an official visit to China. Less than two weeks later, Hunter’s company, Rosemont Seneca, became a partner in a new investment company backed by the state-owned Bank of China.

    Christening the new firm Bohai Harvest RST (BHR), the partners set out to raise $1 billion for the new fund.

    Representatives of the Biden family have denied any connection between the vice president’s visit and Hunter’s business. However, a BHR representative told The New Yorker earlier this year that Hunter used the opportunity to introduce his father to Chinese private equity executive Jonathan Li, who became CEO of BHR after the deal’s conclusion.

    2. BHR is a multibillion-dollar enterprise.

    Exceeding their initial fundraising goal, the partners at BHR raised their target to $1.5 billion for the new fund. The company’s website now brags that it manages “over RMB 15 billion” in assets — the equivalent of about $2.1 billion in today’s dollars.

    Under the terms of the deal, BHR, in which Hunter’s firm held an equity stake, would be a lead investor in the fund. Other investors include China Development Bank and China’s social security fund.
    Enlarge Image
    Joe Biden waves as he walks off Air Force Two with his son Hunter and granddaughter Finnegan.
    Joe Biden waves as he walks off Air Force Two with his son Hunter and granddaughter Finnegan.Getty Images

    3. Hunter and his partners had prominent roles within the company.

    Despite his relative lack of private equity experience, Hunter landed a prominent role with the new company. Under the terms of the original deal, Rosemont Seneca, Hunter’s firm, shared a 30% stake in BHR with the Thornton Group, which was run by James Bulger, the son of longtime Massachusetts state Senate President Billy Bulger. Hunter and Bulger joined the board, along with Devon Archer, Hunter’s longtime business partner. Archer would also serve as vice chairman of the fund’s investment committee.

    The value of these partnerships to BHR is clear. Its own website boasts: “BHR, with its unique mixed ownership, combines the resources and platforms of China’s largest financial institutions … and the networks and know-how of our U.S.-based investment fund and advisory firm shareholders.”

    Hunter Biden claimed to the New Yorker that he and his partners have not seen any money from the BHR deal. But even if true, the potential payouts are significant.

    4. BHR represented a unique investment opportunity.

    BHR’s relationships weren’t the only unique thing about the company. Rosemont Seneca was getting a piece of something that no other Western firm had: a private equity fund inside the recently established Shanghai Free-Trade Zone, with a focus on international acquisitions. With the backing of the state-owned Bank of China, one of the country’s “big four” financial institutions, BHR had access to the types of deals that most Western firms only dreamed of, including IPOs of state-owned companies.

    5. BHR invested in strategically sensitive assets in both China and the United States.
    see also
    The troubling reason why Biden is so soft on China

    In December 2014, BHR became an “anchor investor” in the IPO of China General Nuclear Power Company (CGN), a state-owned nuclear company involved in the development of nuclear reactors. Not only is CGN a strategically important company in China, it was also facing legal scrutiny in the United States. In 2016, CGN was charged with espionage by the Justice Department for stealing US nuclear secrets.

    As a “cross-border” investment fund, Bohai Harvest was interested in making deals outside of China. In 2015, BHR acquired Henniges Automotive, a Michigan-based producer of vibration-dampening equipment, alongside Chinese military contractor Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC). Given the military applications of Henniges’ technology, the deal required federal approval. Like CGN, AVIC was suspected of stealing US technology for its purposes.

    Not long after the Henniges deal closed, AVIC debuted its new J-20 fighter — incorporating designs allegedly stolen from the US’ F-35 program.

    6. It wasn’t an isolated incident.

    In 2015, a state-backed real estate conglomerate acquired a controlling stake in Rosemont Realty, a sister company of Rosemont Seneca where Hunter served as an advisor. As part of the deal, the Chinese promised $3 billion for commercial office property acquisitions in the US — a major windfall for the company.

    It wouldn’t be Hunter’s last episode with Chinese capital. In May 2017, he met with Ye Jianming, chairman of Chinese energy company CEFC, to discuss investment opportunities in the US. After the meeting, Ye sent a 2.8-carat diamond to Hunter along with a “thank you” card. When, six months later, a CEFC executive was arrested in New York on unrelated bribery charges, his first phone call was to Hunter’s uncle, James Biden. James told the New York Times that “he believed it [the call] had been meant for Hunter” and that “he had passed on his nephew’s contact information.”

    Ye, now accused of bribing a Communist Party official, has since been detained in his native China.

    All of this adds up to an extremely troubling pattern. Much of the media, as they so often do, have chosen to air the spin, rather than the facts, on this issue. Did the Chinese give favorable treatment to Hunter Biden to curry favor with his vice-president father? The American public deserves to understand what exactly Hunter Biden was doing overseas and the extent of then-Vice President Biden’s involvement.

  7. Pelosi gets George Floyd’s name wrong…which democrat’s dementia is worse, Joke Biden, Nanny Peloosi, Pocahontas, Eccentric Emmet Sullivan or Obergruppenfuhrer Robert Mueller?

  8. There’s a hole in your bucket, dear Lizza, dear Lizza…
    There’s a hole in your bucket, dear Lizza, a hole.
    Then fix it dear Georgie, dear Georgie, dear Georgie…
    Then fix it you Commie, dear George fix it!

  9. Is hydroxychloroquine beneficial for COVID-19 patients?

    Does a bear sh!t in the woods?
    Is Peter Shill batsh!t crazy?

    😉

    We have proposed that at the severe stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection, inflammation is critical and leads to tissue damage, especially in the lungs47. At this stage, suppressing inflammation is likely to have therapeutic benefits. We propose that the anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of CQ and HCQ are the mechanisms of therapeutic effects that may be seen in COVID-19 patients at the severe stage. At this stage, through unknown mechanisms, large amount of cytokines are released and the patients develop cytokine release syndrome (CRS), or cytokine storm, an uncontrolled recruitment of immune cells and production of a unique combination of cytokines often in absence of T cells. These cytokines cause special type of ARDS within a very short period of time, requiring intubation and mechanical respiratory support47. This leads to severe damage to tissues of lungs, kidneys, and heart, and eventually results in a multiple organ dysfunction49. At this stage, CQ and HCQ treatment may be beneficial to reduce massive cytokine release by various immune cells through interfering with antigen processing and suppressing TLRs and cGAS-STING signaling. Such mechanisms provide support to the hypothesis that HCQ is likely to have the ability to control the CRS, by suppressing hyperactive immune responses and subsequently promoting tissue repair in COVID-19 patients (Fig. 1).

    Li, X., Wang, Y., Agostinis, P. et al. Is hydroxychloroquine beneficial for COVID-19 patients?. Cell Death Dis 11, 512 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-020-2721-8

    1. As above…..

      ….

      Could HCQ and CQ have protective vascular effects in COVID-19 patients?

      Vascular complications, including endothelium damage and vasculitis-like manifestations, are common traits in severe COVID-19 patients. In some patients vessel hyperplasia, vessel wall thickening, lumen stenosis accompanied by focal hemorrhage and thrombosis have been detected3. Conditions of severe vessel failure aggravate organ ischemia, tissue edema, and overall inflammation. This leads to the suggestion that SARS-CoV-2 may have a direct effect on endothelial cells (ECs), which also express ACE2 receptors. Such hypothesis is supported by findings showing that SARS-CoV-2 can indeed infect human blood vessel organoids50 and by post-mortem histological analysis of COVID-19 patient’s organs51 showing endothelitis and EC inflammatory cell death. These findings provide a strong rationale for the use of HCQ and CQ to alleviate these severe COVID-19 manifestations, since these drugs combine anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombosis21,52 and vascular protective effects21 (Fig. 2). We have previously shown that CQ has anti-angiogenic, tumor vessel normalizing properties in murine models of melanoma, without inducing EC death21. The EC effects induced by CQ included increased vessel barrier function, which alleviated tumor hypoxia. The vascular protective effects of HCQ and CQ, if validated, may be particularly relevant in patients with pre-existing diseases associated to vascular damage, like e.g. in diabetes, hypertension, and obesity.

    2. Estovir, thanks for the nice article. I have been a supporter of HCQ and recognize the controvesy surrounding that treatment. This, however, is more of a review of what has already been studied with a recent date. Any new data coming out that adds promise to HCQ?

      1. Allan, the review article is important for physicians in that it connects the possible utility of old drugs, more so CQ than HCQ, with endothelial cell damage, subsequent thrombosis and the role of the immune system (e.g. cytokine storm). Physicians don’t think in these terms because these ideas are fairly new. For example, atherosclerosis is still considered by most physicians as being caused by “bad cholesterol” / LDL. It is not. It is an inflammatory process. See: AHA article published in 2002:

        Over the last dozen years, appreciation of the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis has burgeoned. Although it was formerly considered a bland lipid storage disease, substantial advances in basic and experimental science have illuminated the role of inflammation and the underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms that contribute to atherogenesis.
        https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/hc0902.104353

        The fact is we are only now understanding what occurs when it comes to stress (oxidative), injury, pathogen and toxin at the cellular level. We have a long ways to go before we understand what occurs at the molecular level. The article I provided is proposing HCQ/CQ for these mechanisms which is rather new.

        To advance the science of understanding molecular mechanisms that cause disturbances at the cellular level which result in pathology require:
        1. researchers / physicians who know the basic science which is continually evolving, e.g. immunology, cell biology, physiology, genetics, etc
        2. researchers who have ongoing funding
        3. researchers with physical labs that can conduct bench-top/pre-clinical research
        4. researchers who are clinicians who can “translate” their bench-top science into clinical practice (aka translational medicine)

        We returned from Mass a few hours ago and spoke to church friends who can not attend. Their daughter has Lupus who depends on HCQ. She has to be careful with her dosing but otherwise she is good to go because she knows how to take it. Same goes for physicians who have COVID-19 sick patients who are prescribed HCQ or CQ. The article furthers this important discussion.

        if you are interested in understanding any of this and do more reading, search for the names Paul Ridker and Peter Libby with regard to atherosclerosis and inflammation. Their work has been pivotal and yet, there is still nothing we can give patients who have an inflammatory process at the cellular level that causes pathology like atherosclerosis. Throwing a lipid lowering agent doesn’t address the real issue….see

        Antiinflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease
        https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1707914

        1. Estovir, I understand review articles are important for physicians. Unfortunately politics has seeped into the prescribing habits of physicians so that the potential use of HCQ for Covid is reduced in physicians with a hatred of Trump and increased in those who love him. The news media hasn’t helped and wide swings in the medical literature that is released to the general public doesn’t help either.

          I think on this subject a physician (medical personal) who is negative towards HCQ will lump any review into old data and completely reject it based on a prejudiced mindset.

          I originally saw your blurb and thought I would send it to some in the medical field that had a leftist persuasion but as a review I felt it was not sufficient to carry any weight even though it is a good review to enhance understanding of some of the processes involved.

          I fall in the more positive camp of those thinking about HCQ because of its history of use and a lack of adequate treatment.

      2. ALL of us should have HOPED for good results from HCQ.

        What kind of vile person would hope that we do NOT find something to save lives ?

        The preliminary evidence requarding HCQ met the “first do no harm” standard.

        It was cheap, plentiful, the risk profile was well known and the 1:1000 people at risk were easily identified.

        HCQ use should have been widespread – until it was established that it was NOT beneficial.

        One of the major problems with our response to C19 is that the left WANTED failure.

        Their objective has been to destory as much and as many people as possible until someone can come up with a proven beyond a shadow of a doubt treatment.

        1. John, please go FY. I have 2 dead relatives and a good friend in his 3rd week of it. Your s..t leader has completely failed his responsibilities, is causing deaths and the 2nd wave of closing the economy and all you can come up with is it is my fault for wishing it to happen.

          1. “John, please go FY.”
            Insults are not arguments.

            “I have 2 dead relatives and a good friend in his 3rd week of it.”
            And that is relevant how ?

            “Your s..t leader has completely failed his responsibilities,”
            I did not vote for him. Regardless, the federal government has a limited tole in public health. The president is not responsible.

            “is causing deaths”
            Thus far the only evidence of anyone “causing deaths” are blue state governors who have sent infected C19 patients into nursing homes.

            To this moment there exists no evidence that any government policy choice of any government in the world has reduced the number of deaths.

            “and the 2nd wave of closing the economy”
            There is no 2nd wave. Hospitalizations have barely ticced up – which is to be expected as we reopen.
            Deaths are not rising

            “and all you can come up with is it is my fault for wishing it to happen.”

            If you were among those ranting against HCQ – then yes you bear fault, and you are at the very least guilty of wishing things to get worse.

            You are little different from the NYC women who said that she did not care if 2M died if that is what it took to get rid of Trump.

            You have soiled yourself through the Trump presidency – you have latched onto the stupidest claims in the hopes of getting rid of Trump.

            Your still arguing that Carter Page is a russian asset – after the FBI has confirmed he was a US asset working against the Russians.

            As to HCQ – Dr. Diddier Roult had done decades of research on the combination of Chloroquines and antibiotics as a anti-virals.

            There was good reason to try HCQ and Z against C19. It was safe except in rare and easily identifiable cases, it met the “do no harm” standard. If it was ineffective it would have cost us a pittance.

            It should have been used heavily from the start based on the evidence available at the time.

            Instead YOU engaged in a spitball contest over it, and its use was severely limited.

            I do not know that the recent Ford study – or any of the several others supporting HCQ are correct. There are counter studies – though fewer.
            It is still possible that HDQ + Z is ineffective. But what is absolutely clear today as well as 3 months ago, is there was good enough evidence to widely try it

            If it is as effective as the Ford study claims – we would have saved about 30,000 lives.

            This is one of very few examples of something that had a real possibility of working – and you fought it tooth and nail – all because Trump said something nice about it.

            You have argued science and medicine – and it is clear you do not understand either.

            You first problem is that you are completely clueless of the fact that we are each ultimately responsible for our own lifes.
            And with few legitimate exceptions – government does nothing but interfere in that.

            Why can’t you by HCQ OTC ? You can in most of the world ?

            Why don’t I get to choose to use it and you get to choose not ?

            Why must the decision be made by some government expert ?

            If i am not infected – why can you restrict what I do ? Why can you close my job ? Require me to stay home, reuire me to wear a mask?

            No one is preventing you from behaving as safely as you choose – why do you have the right to force your choices on others.

            1. John, your accusing “Leftists” of wanting the virus to get worse – you understand that if true, wishing doesn’t actually impact events, right? – but now are insulted that I insulted you. GFY twice.

              You ascribe many other positions to me in your typically diahhretic post which I have not taken, and then make your usual ideological arguments as controlling – no, crack pot libertarianism is not the law of the land, nor is it anywhere and never will be. We are social animals not a collection of unique individuals and as always throughout our long and successful history we act for and are protected by the group. If you don’t like it, GFY. The President, like all our elected officials, is primarily responsible for what he can do within the law to protect our safety and he has failed miserably and transparently by putting his ego before an intelligent response and in 4k color. If you missed it, he’ll do it again today, dollars to donuts.

              PS Why would I take positions on the effectiveness of medicines – I am neither a doctor or pharmacist – because our ignoramus president chooses to? Only a fool would do that. Don;t take that the wrong way.

              1. “John, your accusing “Leftists” of wanting the virus to get worse – you understand that if true, wishing doesn’t actually impact events, right? – but now are insulted that I insulted you. GFY twice.”

                Correct – it does not influence events. But it does influence our judgment of their character.

                Please explain the vitriole with which you and the rest of the left attacked HCQ ?

                There were decade long efforts studying HCQ as an anti-viral with some success.
                There was in vitro tests confirming HCQ would kill C19.
                There was annecdotal evidence as well as published studies from China and South Korea.

                While HCQ had not – and to my knowledge still has not met the gold standard – a large double blind clinical study,
                they was plenty of SCIENTIFIC basis to conclude it was probably effective.

                That is probably insufficient to justify using it absent a compelling need.

                But it is more than sufficient to justify its use during an epodemic.

                Yet democrats, the media and the left – instead of celebrating the possibiity that we might have something that was effective
                Instead attacked it.

                You claim to be – “scientific” – but you clearly are not.
                You claim to rely on facts, logic, reason – but you clearly do not.

                You shutdown the economy, and quarantined the country with no sound evidence of any benefit on the hope that it might help.
                You deliberately did enormous amounts of foreseable damage in the HOPE of some possible good.

                And at the same time you oppose a treatment that had very low and knowable risks and a reasonable probability of benefit.

                You, the left, democrats are not rational, or scientific. You expect reality to bend to your ideology.

                You engaged in a bunch of unproven efforts to fight HCQ that had no known effacacy but serious known harms and opposed those that actually had some probability of working and little risk.

                You are religious zealots looking to impose your beliefs on other by force.

                1. John – you mind if I call you Dufus? – I have never opposed HCQ or whatever it is. As I tried to explain to you once already, only a fool would get in an argument about medicines because our ignoramus president chose to. Why would I do that? I leave that to doctors, researchers, and pharmacists and neither you or I are one of those.

                  Carry on.

                  1. BTB your way of not opposing HCQ sure made it sound like you opposed it big time. Having trouble dealing with your contradictions?

                  2. “John – you mind if I call you Dufus?”
                    Do you mind if I call you Dingbat ?

                    “I As I tried to explain to you once already, only a fool would get in an argument about medicines”
                    Why would that be true ? I am very interested in my own health and the medicines I take.
                    If I get a recomendation for a doctor – I expect them to justiffy that recomendation, and i check it out myself.
                    To a large extent I am on my own determining what otc medicines I take. I am certainly on my own regarding vitamins and nutrition.
                    HCQ is OTC in most of the world. Even in the US it is sold as pool cleaner withous a perscription so you can certainly get it on your own.

                    So why exactly wouldn’t I be interested in information on medicines ? Why is it that I would be a “fool” to have a discussion about medicines with other people ? Possibly even an argument – where people disagree.

                    You are constantly spraying out pablum like this that sounds good on the surface – but clearly you have not thought through.

                    As to Trump – the left has claimed that Trump has failed to lead – and yet telling people that their might be some hope is precisely that – leading.

                    All your complaints about Trump are a self contradictory mess. Look at the attacks on his mt rushmore speach.

                    Absolutely it was dark and divisive – if you are a communist, or socialist. If you are in the mainstream of 75% of this country it was a pretty good speech. Maybe not the gettysburg address but certainly up to the standards of presidential 4th of july addresses.

                    But that is not what the left is saying.

                    As is typical – most of your criticism of Trump as self contradictory. The Mt. Rushmore speech was a celebration of this country. It was a call to americans to be proud of their country. It was an act of leadership into a better future. It was an effort to unify us behind our shared values.

                    Are those things you do not want ?

                    Arn’t those the very things you claim he does not do.

                    You claim Trump is divisive – by what ? Alienating communists ? And those who seek to tear the country down ?

                    What is it you think Trump should do ? Roll over to the far left ? To antifa ? to throw law enforcement under the bus ?
                    To throw the values of most americans out the window ? to celebrate looting and arson as peaceful protest ?

                    “because our ignoramus president chose to.”
                    Because you say so ?

                    “Why would I do that?”
                    Because whether you like it or not, you are ultimately responsible for your own life.

                    “I leave that to doctors, researchers, and pharmacists and neither you or I are one of those.”
                    And yet democratic politicians are dispensing medical advice all the time.
                    Seems like you have a double standard.

                    Regardless, I take responsibility for my own heath, and I am interested in information from whatever sources might interest me – including Trump. Your personal desire to remain ignorant and to abdicate responsibility to doctors and pharmacists gives you no right to limit the knowledge of the rest of us. Further should your reliance on them result either through action or inaction in harm to you – YOU are the one who will pay the price – not your doctor or pharmacist. You do not seem to grasp that it is completely impossible to escape the consequences in your on life of your decisions – including the decision to defer to others.

                    Another poorly thought out argument by BTB

              2. Thwarting the wide spread use of HCQ based on the current start of evidence regarding its effectiveness likely cost 10’s of thousands of lives – so yes, there were real world consequences of your conduct.

              3. I have pointed out repeatedly – that insult is not an argument.

                That remains true.

                But there are two problems with your idiotic efforts to “turn that arround”.

                The first is that “feeling” insulted is not the same as using insults as argument.

                Logical fallacies are not subjective.

                An argument is not a fallacy because you FEEL insulted.
                It is a fallacy because there is nothing to the argument EXCEPT insult.

                If I say you are a pig – that is ad hominem.

                If I say there is sufficient quality information to warrant voluntarily using HCQ and those that thwarted doing so may have killed tens of thousands of people – that is a valid argument. The fact that you are insulted is irrelevant.

                If you are on the wrong side of the truth and the truth insults you and hurts your feelings – that does not make the truth fallacious.

                Ad Hominem is not a valid argument that hurts your feelings.

                It is the substitution of attack on the person for valid argument.

                Your emotional response to a valid argument is your problem.

                1. Your emotional response to a valid argument is your problem.

                  It is from their gospel by their leader Saul Alinsky. Surely you know this

                  Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals

                  “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. ‘Have-Nots’ must build power from flesh and blood.”

                  “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

                  “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

                  “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

                  “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”

                  “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

                  “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

                  “Keep the pressure on.”
                  “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.”

                  “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”

                  “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.”

                  “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

                  “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

                  1. And the reason that the left is thoroughly wigged out over Trump is that he is very effectively using Alinsky against them.

                    1. Never heard of Alinsky except by similar right wing “truisms” like John is here parroting. Never read a sentence he wrote, or know who he is, and I’ve been politically aware for 50+ years, at one time active in the CR movement.

                      John imagines another characteristic of those he wants to argue with and is wrong. Why not stick to the issue?

                    2. “Never heard of Alinsky”
                      Ever hear of wikipedia ?

                      You can get a copy on Amazon.
                      https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Practical-Primer-Realistic/dp/0679721134

                      “except by similar right wing “truisms” like John is here parroting. Never read a sentence he wrote, or know who he is,”
                      I am absolutely certain that Obama not only knows who he is but has known for many decades
                      Hillary Clinton wrote a college Thesis on Alinsky.
                      Obama wrote an essay in a memorial for Alinsky

                      “and I’ve been politically aware for 50+ years,”
                      But aparently clueless.

                      As I have noted – Alunsky is primarily about political tactics. Though Alinsky and most who use his tactics are on the left.
                      The tactics are politically agnostic.

                      Part of what pisses the left off about Trump is that he very effectively uses many of alinsky’s tactics.

                      Alinsky’s rules do not tell you the principles of government. rules for radicals is not about ideology – it is about winning a political fight – by any means necescary.

                      Alinsky’s rules presume you are prepared to abandon morality so long as you can win. That the ends justify the means.

                      One of the problems with Alinsky’s rules is that while they are very effective if only one side follows than. If both sides do – we have the chaos we have today – that is because there is no moral foundations in Alinsky’s rules.

                      “John imagines another characteristic of those he wants to argue with and is wrong. Why not stick to the issue?”

                      I get to pick my own issues. Especially given that you have not actually raised any.

                    3. “Never heard of Alinsky except by similar right wing “truisms” like John is here parroting. Never read a sentence he wrote, or know who he is, and I’ve been politically aware for 50+ years,”

                      Nobody outside the right wing bubble has heard of Alinsky

                    4. Michelle Obama quoted him in one of her speeches. Barack Obama wrote an Essay about him for a memorial, Hillary Clinton wrote a thesis on him. Democratic underground recently praised Sanders for incorporating Alunsky’s tactics. One of Beto’s political advisors Slammed Alinsky as a moderate.

                      Are they part of the right wing bubble ?

                      Regardless you are correct that thanks to Trump Republicans are discovering and using Alinsky effectively against democrats.

                    5. I guess I’ll have to feel bad for the master of using Alinsky against people when he’s indicted on tax and insurance fraud charges then.

                      Watching you argue is fascinating, John. Whether it be blaming climate change on cosmic rays discovered in the early 1900’s but leaving alone entirely the issue of carbon released from combustion of fossil fuels, or stating flatly that the only factors that have any effect over CV 19 are diet and demographics…it’s really fun watching you argue internal causatives when that aligns with the political lens you frame your arguments, and then switching over to external causatives when that’s expedient to the type of political point you wish to make. What’s usually lacking in a big way is any sort of synthesis of belief…, maybe because that would be close to the ‘3rd way’ thinking made most popular by Bill Clinton?

                      And it’s really interesting watching the right trot out the old school ‘commie’ rhetoric when backing Trump speak (as if Trump wasn’t the most in the pocket Russian asset ever loosed on American politics).

                      Let me guess, you’re just a riot at a cocktail party, ay?

                    6. “I guess I’ll have to feel bad for the master of using Alinsky against people when he’s indicted on tax and insurance fraud charges then.”
                      Why should I beleive those who have been telling me that Trump is a Russian Asset ? Why should I beleive those who are afflicted with the collusion delusion ? We have heard all of this rot before.

                      You have been after Trump for 4 years. Thus far he looks less like a crook than when you started.
                      Meanwhile Biden looks more like one.

                      “Whether it be blaming climate change on cosmic rays discovered in the early 1900’s”
                      Where to begin ? The role of Cosmic rays in Cloud formation was not understood at all until the late 80’s and it was not confirmed by CERN until a few years ago.
                      There is no “blaming” here. do we “blame” gravity for tides ?

                      More warmist claptrap. Whatever the cause the earth has been warming for about 250 years. Climate has changed – often radically throughout the earth’s history.

                      “leaving alone entirely the issue of carbon released from combustion of fossil fuels”
                      Human releases of CO2 are a tiny fraction of the releases and absorbtions of the ocean.
                      US and EU emissions are dropping China’s emissions are greater than the EU and US combined – and then there is india’s.
                      Both india and China’s emissions are rising exponentially.

                      And yet atmostpheric CO2 as measured at Mona Loa have increased linearly at about 1.2ppm per year – without correlation to human CO2 emissions.

                      “stating flatly that the only factors that have any effect over CV 19 are diet and demographics”
                      The results of a study in europe.

                      Regardless if you can demonstrate evidence of some government policy effect – the entire world would love to see that evidence.
                      We are all looking for something that demonstrably works.

                      “really fun watching you argue internal causatives when that aligns with the political lens you frame your arguments, and then switching over to external causatives when that’s expedient to the type of political point you wish to make.”

                      Nope – just arguing the facts.

                      “What’s usually lacking in a big way is any sort of synthesis of belief”
                      I am libertarian – there is no ideology in existance with a proven track record of correlation with reality superior to libertarian or classical liberalism. As to synthesis – there is no ideology in the world as internally consistent either.

                      Internally and externally consistent – that is the gold standard.

                      Progressivism is both externally and internally inconsistent – and also fundimentally nihlistic.

                      “And it’s really interesting watching the right trot out the old school ‘commie’ rhetoric”
                      Well if the left was not trying so hard to revive marxism and socialism that would not be necescary.

                      Any pretense of the morality of socialism died in the 60’s as we got a glimpse of the evils of the USSR and PRC and others.
                      The 20th century should have put the concept of state egalitarianism to rest as a bloody bad idea permanently.
                      Or you could read the Gulag archepelego.

                      Do not try to revive is and there will be no need for “commie rhetoric”.

                      “when backing Trump speak”
                      The attacks on cultural marxism started long before Trump.
                      The marxist destruction of the academy was well understood almost a decade ago.

                      The evils of any form of marxism were understood 60 years ago.

                    7. First time I ever heard of Saul Alinsky was watching one of Dinesh D’Souza’s rabid documentaries by mistake. Soon after that he got indicted on campaign contribution violations I believe. Then he did some jail time i think.

                    8. “First time I ever heard of Saul Alinsky ”
                      Why would you confess to ignorance ?

                      Both Barack and Michelle Obama are familiar with him as is Sanders, Beto, and Clinton.

                      Trump is certainly familiar with him and using his tactics effectively – the same ones democrats use all the time.
                      Turn about is fair play.

                2. “It is the substitution of attack on the person for valid argument.”

                  It’s the “comments” section of a blog, John.

                  If you don’t like personal attacks, then don’t be such a jerk.

                  1. This is not about what I like.

                    Lobbing personal insults IS being a jerk.

                    Pointing out that lobbing insults is not an argument is NOT being a jerk.

                    No one is stopping you from hurling insults – from being a jerk.

                    But you are not entitled to the respect or others, to be treated as if you have integrity is your comments are nothing more than unsupported insults.

            2. HCQ w/Zinc, best I recall from late last week Rick of Pawn Stars show was on Mark Levin & they posted on Levin’s site a discarded prescription bottle of a type of HCQ that Obama was taking in 2008.

              Rick bought the bottle from a cleaning lady that brought it into his store.

              1. If HQC was widely available – I would be taking the appropriate prophylactic dose – which is quite low and safe.
                The prophylactic dose is likely safe even in the 1:1000 that are at risk for problems.

                If I had symptoms I would be taking the higher appropriate dose.

                HCQ is routinely taken by people who travel to tropical countries.
                I would not be surprised if Obama was being given it just as a result of his travels.

                Despite the fact that there is evidence that many of the CDC and other recomendations may be innefective at preventing HCQ
                if they are otherwise relatively safe – I am doing them anyway.

                I am taking Vitamin D, and wearing a mask and sanitizing my hands.

                I am not doing these because they are KNOWN effective, but because they have little cost and cause little harm and MIGHT reduce my risks.

                I am doing so BY CHOICE.

                1. I am taking Vitamin D, and wearing a mask and sanitizing my hands.

                  I am not doing these because they are KNOWN effective, but because they have little cost and cause little harm and MIGHT reduce my risks.

                  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                  You should wear a mask to protect others, in case you become infected but don’t know it. Masks are effective if everybody wears one. Its a concept that Americans uniquely can’t grasp and as a result Americans have the worst outcomes from covid.

                  1. Do you believe that standard fencing will stop mosquitos coming in from your neighbors yard or do you think they will fly through the large spaces?

                    Americans don’t have the worst outcomes though Democratically run NYState and NYC are in the running.

                  2. “You should wear a mask to protect others, in case you become infected but don’t know it.”
                    There is no evidence that those who are infected by do not have symptoms spread C19.

                    “Masks are effective if everybody wears one.”
                    There is lots of conflicting evidence on Masks.
                    There are many actual studies that say their effects are minimal.
                    Further they are ineffective unless used properly and few people do.
                    And masks have health hazards of their own.

                    Regardless, masks are merely a delaying action – even doctors in hospitals with the best PPE with eventually get infected if they treat C19 patients long enough. Even a 95% effective rate means a 100% chance you get C19 eventually.

                    There is no cure for C19. There is no vaccine.
                    If you are not naturally immune or resistant, you have about an 80% chance of getting C19 eventually,
                    Engaging in myriads of protective measures only improves you long run odds if most other people DO NOT protect themselves.

                    If we were not brain dead we would want as many people under 45 to get this as possible – this is less dangerous for them than the flu,
                    We need to protect those about 45 even more so as age rises or as they have more health complications.
                    NOT everyone else.

                    “Its a concept that Americans uniquely can’t grasp”
                    Yes americans uniquely understand the concept of individual liberty.

                    “as a result Americans have the worst outcomes from covid.”
                    And yet they do not. Belgium, France, the UK, Spain and italy all have more deaths per million population.

          2. Anon – your governor and friends are responsible for their health, not the President. BTW, if you really want someone to blame, blame the CCP, they are still hiding their vital statistics on the CCP Virus.

            1. Paul, I eagerly await the President’s campaign ads denying his responsibility for our health. Perhaps you have missed his claims of great success in that “effort”.

              1. BTB American Hating Commie, Ck with your Stats Guy! Last I seen a few days ago was around 42% of all the USA death claims of the Chicom Bio-Weapon, Covid 19, happened in only 3 states, MA, NJ, NY.

                Why the outliers? Murder or Manslaughter Charges????

                And the word is Bill Gate & his puppet Dr Fauci are now having trouble covering their Chicom C19 Bio-Weapon azzes. Their Sh*t pile is to big to cover.

                1. The America Haters I see here are Oky. Mespo, Honest, and Kurtz. All ready to take up arms if the majority of Americans regain control of our country.

                  1. Why are you supporting people like Mr Nipple rings, Gov Como the Homo killing all those elderly people in nursing homes with Chicom C19?

                  2. Anon – I am offended that you left me off the list. Just to remind you, Hillary did not get a majority of eligible voters to vote for her. She got a majority of a minority. I am happy to fight against those odds

                  3. “The America Haters I see here are Oky. Mespo, Honest, and Kurtz. All ready to take up arms if the majority of Americans regain control of our country.”

                    Why is someone a “hater” just because you call them that ?
                    I am not very familiar with Oky, Mespo and Honest. I disagree with Kurtz on many things. He is wrong, not a hater.

                    All the hate i see here – comes from you. You almost never make valid arguments, your posts are solid ad hominem.
                    You are still clinging to the thoroughly debunked collusion delusion, you would rather see people die than see the possibility that something Trump suggests proves true.

                    As to the american people – on issue after issue – Trump is most closely aligned with their views.

                    62% of americans do not even want confederate statues torn down.
                    Support for a dreamers/wall deal is over 80% – only democrats are in the way of that.
                    Most americans want an end to endless wars.
                    Most americans want an end to the Obama american appology tour.
                    Most americans accept this country is exceptional.
                    Most black americans want more not less polifce.
                    Most americans are sympathetic to minorities and poor – but do not see evidence of systemic racism.

                    I can go on and on.

                    Most americans oppose the platform of the left and support what Trump has done.

                    1. I’m sure you could go on and on. You imagine the positions of your opponents – including their wishes – then make up arguments you want them to have made – I have never argued pro or con on HCQ. What would be the point of that since I am neither a doctor or pharmacist?

                      Have a good time, but maybe clean up and wash your hands when you’re done.

                    2. I”’m sure you could go on and on. You imagine the positions of your opponents – including their wishes – then make up arguments you want them to have made – ”

                      You replied to a post that asked a question – why are people haters just because you say they are ?

                      You have not addressed that. Regardless, it is clear that you are the one sure you know what your opponents think.

                      “I have never argued pro or con on HCQ.”
                      To use a leftist tactic against you – it you did not come out supporting it – then you must have opposed and therefore you are responsible for the deaths because we did not use it earily.

                      “What would be the point of that since I am neither a doctor or pharmacist?”

                      The point would be that you not your doctor or pharmacist are responsible for your life.

                      You do not seem to get this fundimentally – you seem to think it is perfectly fine for purported experts to make choices for you – with no input from you that will have life of death impact on you.

                  4. Whatever bro. I was busy all day but Im back for a few simple messages

                    a) forget about all this political debate aka trolling. waste of time

                    b) get fit, plant a garden, trim debt, organize the neighborhood watch. the chaos is 2 months into it almost and we are entering a ‘failed state” phase where law enforcement collapses

                    c) come end of july when the unemployment bonuses run out, prolly the bankruptcies will start choking the system, it will all get worse

                    d) Democrat National leadership & Biden team wants this campaign of national chaos, economic ruin, iconoclasm and anarchy, to harass and intimidate Trump voters.
                    What a hateful, awful, destructive cynical lot they are. They deserve retribution for what they’re doing to trash our home.

                    e) COVID is spiking in big cities because the 100% Democrat mayors all FAILED to restrict illegal protests by BLM which should never have happened but they let them rip
                    now they blame Trump as if he was out there looting, burning, and terrorizing law abiding citizens, and personally spreading the COVID himself!

                    SO yeah I hate the people ruining my home.

                    “America” is the name of my home where I was born. But it is NOT an “IDEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT” it is a place where people live.,

                    it is home for people of living flesh and bone.

                    Folks, get organized fast, make sure you have a team because only people will save your life in the end not any phony “ideals”

              2. I fully expect Trump to run campaign adds claiming to have been a great leader fighting C19.
                Just as I expect Cuomo to do the same, and Biden to claim he would have done better.

                Politicians are narcissists and lie – what is new.

                Two things actually matter:

                What is true – Trump was ineffective, all world leaders were ineffective, there was very little Trump could have done. Trump errored in passing a stupid aid bill that will burden us for decades.
                Cuomo is morally responsible for the death of many thousands of people in nursing homes. Bidden would have done worse than Trump but it would not matter because the virus would not have cared. As many people would have gotten sick and died, And the economic harm would have been larger.

                The other thing that matters is what voters believe. Just short of 90% of republicans are going to support Trump. One of the reasons they are going to do so is that the left and the media and democrats have lied about Trump so much, they no longer listen to them.
                Trump could be caught diddling a 13yr old in the oval office by Barr and Trump voters would beleive it was a plot by the deep state.
                While they would be wrong, they would almost be justified – because we really do have a broad conspiracy by the “deep state” to get Trump, as well as an insane media and wacky left.

                About 50% of the left is going to vote against Trump – because “orange man bad”. They are immune to rationality. These are people who still beleive that Carter Page was a russian agent, and that if only they could get Trump’s taxes or whatever the current shiny thing being waived in their face that they would have enough proof that everyone would have to beleive their hairbrained theories.
                Regardless, no one is disuading those voters.

  10. Criminal U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is doing his best to protect the criminal Obama.

    “Obama’s henchmen knew there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and, under oath, behind closed doors, they told the House Intelligence Committee so, yet the lie they let loose kept running. Flynn was a marked man from the moment Obama fired him as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, ostensibly for “insubordination.” Really, it was because Flynn, the most effective intelligence officer of his generation, had embarrassed Obama by refusing to go along with the “big lie” that the Islamist enemy was defeated. In 2014, after Obama dismissed ISIS as a terrorist “JV team,” Flynn warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that the jihadist group was a growing threat. He was fired soon afterward. “Frankly, at the White House, it didn’t meet the narrative,” he later told the New York Times. Obama held onto his grudge against Flynn, a war hero in Iraq and Afghanistan, the man who, with another heroic general fired by Obama, Stan McChrystal, is credited with saving America from half a dozen terrorist attacks. After Trump won the 2016 election, Obama went to the trouble repeatedly of warning him not to hire Flynn as his national security adviser.”

    – New York Post
    _____________

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious criminal act in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey,
    Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,
    Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,
    Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,
    Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,
    Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
    James E. Boasberg et al.

    1. George – as Sidney Powell says, the longer this takes, the more Brady material they owe me.

  11. Important findings though predictable.

    Being pleasantly plump looks cute in Rembrandt paintings but there are many costs to pay for being obese. Now there is one more:

    Clinical epidemiological analyses of overweight/obesity and abnormal liver function contributing to prolonged hospitalization in patients infected with COVID-19

    The expression of ACE2 is enriched in adipocyte and cholangiocytes. With large amounts of ACE2-expressing cells, people with overweight/obesity will be more vulnerable to COVID-19 and more of its pathogen, and thus they might be easy to spread the disease and hard to recover.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-020-0634-3

  12. Professor Turley Quoted In Story About Bannon’s Testimony On Stone

    Former White House strategist Steve Bannon gave sharply contradictory accounts under oath of his discussions with convicted felon Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, a review of official records by The Post shows.

    On Jan 16, 2018 — roughly five months after he left the White House – Bannon told members of the House Intelligence Committee repeatedly that he and political operative Stone had never discussed WikiLeaks or its boss Julian Assange at any time during their relationship. The testimony, part of Rep. Adam Schiff’s Russia Investigation, was declassified and made public on May 7.

    Bannon, 66, the former chairman of Breitbart News and CEO of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, said exactly the opposite on Nov 8, 2019.

    He was called as a witness for the prosecution in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s case against Roger Stone, who was charged with lying to Congress about his role in the WikiLeaks scandal, in which Democratic party emails hacked by the Russians and harmful to Hillary Clinton’s campaign were published. Stone has always denied involvement.

    Under questioning from Department of Justice prosecutor Michael Marando, Bannon bluntly said that Stone had in fact discussed Assange and WikiLeaks with him before Bannon took over Trump’s campaign in August 2016, according to a transcript of Bannon’s trial testimony.

    “There does appear a glaring and irreconcilable conflict in what Bannon stated in testimony before Congress and the court. What is striking is that this was not a peripheral point but one of the main areas of inquiry,” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School who testified during President Trump’s impeachment hearings.

    “He has two diametrically opposite sworn statements in a high-profile controversy with dozens of attorneys in attendance,” Turley told The Post.

    Edited from: “Steve Bannon Flip-Flopped On Roger Stone’s Wikileaks Connection Under Oath

    The New Yorl Post, 5/16/20

      1. The entire DNC email thing has collapsed.

        Mueller as well as the house and senate intel committees dug into this.

        CrowdStrike TESTIFIED that:
        It had no idea who actually hacked the DNC.
        It could not even say that the DNC emails were acquired as a result of hacking.

        Mueller beat the crap out of Stone Credico, Corsi.
        What he found was that Stone had no actually knowledge of anything related to wikileaks
        That his “Back Channel” Credico was not forwarding Assange requests to Wikileaks nor Telling Stone anything about Wikileaks,
        and that nobody had any actual forekinowledge of anything from wikileaks.

        Stone is a BS artist. There are myriads of them right and left. Most of us find them unappealing if not reprehensible.
        But stone committed no crimes.

        Minor innaccuracies in testimony are irrelevant.

        Finally the really big lesson from this entire fiasco is that we should not criminalize politics.

        Clinton’s games with Steele and Fusion GPS and the Russians are despicable, but they are not criminal.
        They are politics.
        Trump’s hopes that Natalia might provide useful dirt on Clinton are no different.

        Nothing Stone did was a crime.

        Hacking the DNC was a crime – but we do not know who actualy did that. And we do not know that the DNC emails were hacked rather than leaked. The left and press have made a big deal of this – because conspiracy to hack the DNC is a crime.
        But leaking DNC emails is merely a firing offense.

        Regardless the emails were damning to clinton and the DNC.
        They were damning because the DNC and the press conspired to screw sanders and they were caught.

        The way to not be embarrassed by leaked emails is to not conspire to screw Sanders.

        If you do your job ethically and morally you have little to fear from hackers.

  13. Pelosi gets George Floyd’s name wrong…which democrat’s dementia is worse, Joke Biden, Nanny Pelosi, Pocahontas, Eccentric Emmet Sullivan or Obergruppenfuhrer Robert Mueller?

      1. A first decisive attack on the Double Standard.

        Everyone around Hillary was immunized.

        Everyone around Trump was persecuted &/or prosecuted.

        Hillary was guilty. Trump was innocent.

        The commutation was justice. @RudyGiuliani

        Truth, brother.

      2. Joe Demented Biden is the “Blithering Idiot”

        Trump 2020 ALL THE WAY, baby. And when Trump wins (again) Pelosi retires.

  14. Pelosi gets George Floyd’s name wrong…which democrat’s dementia is worse, Joke Biden, Nanny Pelosi, Pocahontas, Eccentric Emmet Sullivan or Obergruppenfuhrer Robert Mueller?

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: