The Corporate Media Aristocracy Is Completely Out Of Touch On What’s Important And Urgent

The Corporate Media Aristocracy Is Completely Out Of Touch On What’s Important And Urgent

On Sunday’s “Face The Nation,” CBS News host John Dickerson urged viewers to care more about Democrats’ January 6 production than they do inflation:

JOHN DICKERSON (voice-over): President Eisenhower warned that, in managing national affairs, you can’t let urgent matters eclipse important ones.

The nation’s leaders faced a test of that theory this week. In the urgent category is inflation, up 8.6 percent compared to May a year ago, a 40-year high. In the important category, the House hearing about the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election.

Eisenhower’s advice was aimed at a truth. If you only attend to the urgent, important problems will become urgent soon enough, and you won’t be prepared.

Dickerson is a thoughtful broadcaster. His words are certainly more reasonable than what some of his peers were pushing. Matthew Dowd, who until recently was ABC News’ chief political analyst, repeatedly compared people concerned about inflation to Nazis. But on this day, Dickerson’s analysis suffered from myriad problems.

Here’s one. While it is true that 8.6 percent inflation — a 40-year high — is not considered an existential threat to prominent broadcasters and others who make millions of dollars each year, the same can not be said of the average American voter. Their cost of living and what they’re able to afford with their disposable dollars is not just urgent but extremely important — far more important than a one-sided television production.

Gas is averaging more than $5 a gallon, the stock market has lost $11 trillion this year, and very few people think the economy is headed in the right direction. Elites have spent the last year telling Americans that the inflation will be transitory.

Again, people who have been making comfortable salaries for years on end, and who anticipate continuing to make that kind of money and have tons of cash on hand, understandably do not think inflation is “important,” just “urgent.” But for most Americans, being able to feed, clothe, shelter, and transport their family members is of vital importance. It is condescending and extreme to say otherwise.

Second, the January 6 riot was not unimportant, but its importance has been blown wildly out of proportion by Democrats and their compliant media mostly because it’s a vehicle to get rid of the politician they detest.

If Democrats in Congress actually worried about political violence, they would have opposed rather than vocally supported the violent Black Lives Matter riots that rocked the country for the entire summer of 2020. Those riots included serious and sustained attacks on the White House, federal courthouses, police precincts, small businesses, and private homes.

If Democrats in Congress actually worried about political violence being used to disrupt constitutional proceedings, they would have opposed, rather than coordinated, the disruptions of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. At that time, Democrats in the Senate invited and worked with left-wing groups to import activists to disrupt the confirmation interviews and even the hearings by getting arrested. These activists had their travel paid for and bail paid.

In this context, the incessant moralizing from the media and government aristocracy is offensive.

Third, the sudden opposition to election challenges appears to be ignorant of history or, worse, being done in bad faith. The last presidential election loss that Democrats fully accepted was President George H.W. Bush’s defeat of Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Following President George W. Bush’s victory in 2000, litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Democrats spent years saying he was “selected, not elected.” In 2004, many Democrats in Congress, including California Sen. Barbara Boxer, objected to certifying votes on January 7 on the grounds that Karl Rove controlled voting machines in Ohio to deliver Bush’s re-election victory.

Democrats have never held that such objections were tantamount to an insurrection. Neither should they.

Congress is one of the places Americans are allowed to express objections to the administration of elections. It isn’t even wrong to do so, much less criminal. And no counting of electoral college votes was as disputed as the 1876 election. Maladministration of that election led to chaos, disputed certifications, and violence. According to our Constitution, which provides rules and mechanisms for disputes, Congress was a proper venue to air such disputes in 1877 and it’s a proper venue today, contrary to what Rep. Liz Cheney and other Donald Trump-addled politicians are claiming.

But nothing compares to the widespread refusal of the establishment to fully accept Trump’s victory in 2016. Democrats ran a massive and coordinated operation to disseminate the lie that Trump colluded with Russia to steal that election.

They tried to get the Electoral College voters to become “faithless” to keep from voting for Trump. They disseminated a fake “dossier” of invented salacious information with the goal of possibly keeping Trump from being inaugurated.

On January 6, 2017, FBI Director James Comey ran an operation against Trump by briefing him on the fake allegations, the fact of that briefing soon being leaked to propaganda network CNN to fan the flames of a well-funded and extremely coordinated “resistance” to undermine the administration. One out of every three Democrat members of Congress refused to attend Trump’s inauguration on the grounds that his election was illegitimate.

On the day Trump was installed, the Washington Post published a call for his impeachment. The hoax campaign alleging Trump stole the election by colluding with Russia was allowed to operate without any scrutiny for years. And to this day, nearly no one has been held accountable for the damage wrought by that known lie.

The Russia collusion hoax was just one of many ways the aristocratic class in government and the media attempted to subvert the will of the people, and was just one of many reasons many Americans were skeptical of the 2020 election. They also knew that the media had invented other stories defaming Trump, while hiding true stories about the corruption of the Biden family business of selling access.

They knew that tech oligarchs had meddled in the election through censorship, deplatforming, and algorithmic game-playing. They knew that hundreds of laws and processes had been changed suddenly in the months prior to the November election to enable tens of millions of mail-in ballots to flood the system. More than anything, they were skeptical that Joe Biden, a twice-failed presidential contender who was too feeble to campaign and unable to articulate his thoughts, had truly won 81 million votes.

The establishment’s position is that the 2020 election, easily the strangest election in recent history, can not be questioned in any way, shape, or form. They claim that the infusion of $450 million in private funding by Mark Zuckerberg to take over election offices in the blue areas of swing states is of no concern. They say that it can’t be objected to even though the funding happened to pay overwhelmingly partisan dividends.

They are incurious about the fact that the same man who ran the Russia collusion hoax — Hillary Clinton’s general counsel Marc Elias — ran the coordinated effort to weaken election security in 2020. They don’t care that the tech and media environment is so corrupt that international election observers would sound the alarm if the election were in any other country.

The establishment said the election was pure, just as they promised that Biden was the most competent, moderate, and uniting presidential candidate. They look down upon the people who find it all fishy.

To summarize, the establishment’s position is that nothing can or should be done to hold anyone accountable for their republic-threatening Russia collusion hoax, but that the entire country must stop operating until every grandmother within a mile of the Capitol on January 6 is imprisoned. It’s obscene.

Last year, a Republican official in a state far from D.C. told me that voters there don’t care about the January 6 riot, and those who did probably had a very different view on it than the elites in D.C. did. That was true even before Biden and his Democrat Senate and Democrat House put the country in such a precarious position.

The only reason the establishment is pretending to view the Democrat-appointed January 6 committee as legitimate, much less important, is to cover up what a mess the 2020 election was and to get their nemesis out of politics. That’s why Americans outside the narrow confines of the media aristocracy find the Stalinist show trial neither urgent nor important. And they wish that leaders of the country would truly get working on things that are both.


Source

The Left Owns Too Much Cultural Ground Without The Few Conservative Harbors Like Fox News Giving It Away

The Left Owns Too Much Cultural Ground Without The Few Conservative Harbors Like Fox News Giving It Away

The right has come to expect transgender accolades in the corporate media, with networks such as CNN and MSNBC perpetually promoting that left-wing ideology. But conservative viewers were stunned on Friday to see that radical narrative being pushed by the only major cable network still sympathetic to their views: Fox News.

As part of its push for Pride Month, Fox aired a segment about a family who transitioned their now-14-year-old daughter when she was only 5 years old because, as Fox said, “before Ryland could even speak, ‘he’ managed to tell his parents that he is a boy.”

The entire segment, about Ryland Whittington and the rest of the family, was trans propaganda. It legitimized the idea that incoherent toddlers can discern their sex, that sterilizing children is compatible with “Christian faith,” that pumping wrong-sex hormones into young bodies protects them from suicide, and that pretending a girl is actually a boy is what “living authentically” looks like.

Fox News viewers felt deep betrayal — not only because the segment promoted the abuse of children and flew in the face of everything they stand for, but because in a culture where the left controls virtually every major institution, corrupting the few remaining places conservatives have a home with lies throws the game away.

Aside from a shrinking batch of good churches that still preach the gospel and the remaining nuclear families that have prevailed against societal odds, the left dominates all major institutions.

It controls universities, which it uses to pump out political activists with otherwise-useless degrees and silence students who dissent.

The left dominates health care, where conservatives are made to quit or violate their consciences over experimental vaccines, gender-bending procedures, and the killing of the unborn.

The left owns big tech, which routinely censors any deviation from the leftist script and props up Democrat political candidates and policies.

It controls taxpayer-funded public schools, which are weaponized to instill radical ideas about race and sex in young minds.

It dominates the FBI and the rest of the deep state, which it uses to harass and intimidate conservatives.

It’s captured the military, which now prioritizes nonsense diversity and inclusion quotas over ability and preparedness.

The left even controls language, with leftists deciding how words are defined in the dictionary and how media are instructed to communicate (such as using the plural pronoun “they” to refer to a singular person who rejects the realities of sex).

Likewise, the left controls corporate media, from print newspapers at The Washington Post and The New York Times to a plethora of cable news networks that shape the way Americans across the country see the world through both overt left-wing rhetoric and subtle framing. Every day, the left-wing media tells the country what they should care about through what they cover versus what they conceal.

Fox News, along with a few online conservative publications, was one of the few remaining places normal Americans, abandoned and despised by every other institution, could count on to give it to them straight. Fox was a network conservatives could trust to give them cultural courage: To say, no, violent riots are not peaceful protests; yes, critical race theory has infiltrated classrooms; no, boys are not girls and girls are not boys. But on Friday, viewers were betrayed.

By lying that a 14-year-old girl is actually a 14-year-old boy, Fox News threatened its spot as a trustworthy network — for now. But the network has a choice.

First, it must not allow rogue producers and so-called reporters to call the shots and lean into lefty gimmicks like Pride Month. Those who greenlighted a transgender-accolades segment should be called to account and probably fired. Otherwise, honest employees and contributors should resign — and Americans will stop watching.

We can be force-fed trans fodder from anywhere. Why on earth would we put up with it from Fox?

But because the right has so few safe harbors, Fox News has a real opportunity here, and it must meet the moment. If it cares about its viewers, and therefore its revenue, it must own up to its mistake.

Americans crave the type of call-it-like-you-see-it programming they could count on from Fox. They need the one network that’s willing to air anything but the sham Jan. 6 show trial that nobody but Liz Cheney and Nancy Pelosi cares about. The one network where someone can say, no, actually we shouldn’t go to war with Russia. No, the Capitol riot wasn’t an insurrection. No, the president isn’t cognitively fine. This is the way.

The left owns way too much cultural ground for conservatives to watch one of its few remaining harbors like Fox News give the game away. It’s time for Fox to come back to its viewers so its viewers can come back to Fox.


Source

‘Supply Chain Disruptions’ Are Not An Accident, They’re The Logical Result Of Stupid Lockdowns

‘Supply Chain Disruptions’ Are Not An Accident, They’re The Logical Result Of Stupid Lockdowns

In Joe Biden’s painful and inaccurate speech about inflation on Tuesday, he finally shifted from blaming racism for everything to blaming Covid for everything to now blaming “the supply chain” and “Mr. Putin’s war in Ukraine” (that Biden baited Putin into) for everything.

These “supply chain disruptions,” as everyone is painfully aware, are doing everything from starving babies to shooting up the price of everything, as Wednesday’s 8.3 percent annual inflation number affirmed again. They are also not random, and they’re not a virus’s fault. They’re the direct and foreseeable consequence of ill-advised global lockdowns that nearly all of our nation’s political leaders refused to take into account when they and corporate media colluded to gaslight the world into accepting them.

Our historic “supply chain problems” are not the result of happenstance. They are the result of cowardly, ignorant, and just plain malevolent leadership throughout the entire Covid era.

Lockdowns never needed to happen. Global lockdowns were never before advised or attempted for much worse pandemics, they were based on faulty models, and the Information Age doesn’t change their imprudence. The “supply chain” consequences alone, as well as many of the other horrific medical and social consequences, should be enough evidence for all rational people to conclude that we must never, ever lock down again.

Focused protection of the most vulnerable during the next pandemic? Absolutely. Voluntary prudential health measures that allow societies to keep normal life going? Sure. But never, ever again lockdowns of the kind Americans were forced to endure in Covid-tide, which have resulted in massive, evil social consequences that are only now beginning to be visible.

The supply chains are only the tip of this dark iceberg. As I pointed out this March on the two-year anniversary of the beginning of this human rights catastrophe, there are many consequences, including:

A June 2021 study by world-renowned scientists across 43 countries, for example, found that lockdown length and strength were correlated with excess deaths, often due to delayed or missed medical care. A January 2021 study also by world-class scientists found that lockdowns did not reduce Covid deaths.

Besides their at best negligible effect at reducing Covid hospitalizations and deaths, lockdowns caused additional and completely unnecessary deaths from delayed or foregone medical care, as well as through starvation due to drastically increased world poverty. According to also-vindicated legitimate experts like Dr. Martin Kulldorff, lockdowns may have also caused additional Covid deaths due to prolonging the outbreak. In short, lockdowns cost lives, while at best saving none.

Various studies estimate lockdowns will have caused millions more malaria and tuberculosis deaths, as well as untold increases in cancer severity and deaths, hundreds of thousands more AIDS deaths, and likely millions more starvation deaths and children living hungry long-term. One study in The Lancet estimated up to 2.3 million additional deaths of children globally per year from lockdowns.

The reality is, it is impossible to just hit “pause” on an economy. An action like this must have millions of unforeseeable effects, and the phrase people are using to summarize some of these butterfly effects now is “supply chain issues.” Justin Hart gives an example of the effects of shutting down the manufacture of just one item — toilet paper.

Now imagine you’re an executive down at the fictitious TP supplier ‘Wipe World.’ The call comes in for the shutdown and you have some serious decisions to make. Production managers at the Big Roll Mill (your supplier for industrial reems of TP) have shut down and will eventually furlough most of the staff. Your shipping contracts will go into default, trucks with slabs of TP rolls tightly wrapped and ready to be dispensed will be called back or even mothballed. The proverbial target of your product is about to hit the fan.

…So a national shutdown leads to a run on toilet paper, caused by a sudden drop in at-work wiping, leading to massive manufacturing rework, supply-chain shifts, and a janitorial staff  forced to walk the halls of vacated buildings like Jack Torrance from The Shining, simulating a proxy population doing their business to keep everything from falling apart.

Anyone who had any familiarity with the insane complexity of making anything or any cooperative activity such as education should have logically deduced that “pausing” an entire society is entirely impossible and idiotic to even suggest. The pause will always have its own effects that make a restart at best really complicated and possibly never able to occur.

That’s already visible in the labor market. We all see the evidence that the shutdowns dampened working-age Americans’ already weak willingness to work. There are “help wanted” signs everywhere and yet another record high number of able-bodied, working-age people refusing to fill positions needed to resolve the problems lockdowns created.

Yes, the “stimulus” hush money played into that — another Covid response failure perpetuated by those in power — but so did the insane panic and the refusal to tell the truth that most working-age people were not at high risk from contracting Covid. So did the lockdowns, which like masks were used not as a health tool but as a manipulation tool, to frighten and control people. That’s also going to have effects that can never be fully undone, including deepening distrust of authorities and public institutions among the minority who were aware of the truth and its mass manipulation in the era of Covid.

This foolish Covid “cure” of lockdowns will end up being much, much worse than the disease. And it never needed to have been foisted on Americans and the entire West in the first place.

All it would have taken was a few more courageous leaders or a less demonic press to protect the American people from responding to a natural disaster with even bigger man-made disasters. But we don’t have either, so Americans punished themselves by suffering 10 times what was in store had we just followed common sense and ridden out the storm with more courage and honesty.

The least we can do to help rectify and correct our shameful behavior is be honest about what we’ve done. Acknowledging that one did wrong is the first essential step towards repentance, which is the first essential step towards restoration and wholeness.

One way would be to stop blaming Covid-19 for our irrational response to it. Instead of saying Covid or “the pandemic” caused the supply chain issues, like Biden does, we can start saying that lockdowns did so. To go a step farther, we can stop calling them “supply chain” issues at all, and call them “lockdown consequences.” That is the truth.

We can all also etch in our memories who exactly was complicit in leading us into panic and devastation, and hold them accountable. That is going to require some electoral changes, starting with the man at the top and going right down through state and federal “health” agencies. No funds for them until they clean house.

It also includes never again believing in any media outlet or writer who proved willing to lie and coerce others with lies. These people have forfeited their moral and professional authority.

Until there is accountability rooted in truth, which starts with telling the truth now and going forward and acting upon it prudently, our society’s vulnerability to mass hysteria will only get worse. That should keep up at night every person who has the power to hold these charlatans accountable and hasn’t yet used that power for its just ends.


Source

The Only Way To Fight Disinformation Is To Fight Political Censorship

The Only Way To Fight Disinformation Is To Fight Political Censorship

If outfits like the Aspen Institute’s “Commission on Information Disorder,” along with Big Tech’s faceless “fact-checkers,” ever get a total monopoly on dictating reality, the result will be a 24/7 mix of falsehoods with the occasional limited hangout to cover up their lies.

The icing on this fake cake is the use of conferences about disinformation, such as the recent stunt at the University of Chicago that served as cover for justifying political censorship. There former President Obama presented the perfect picture of psychological projection: a panel of propagandists accusing others of wrongthink.

The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum, for example, sought to censor the reality of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal by announcing she didn’t find it “interesting.” See how that works? Truth depends upon how our elites personally feel about what should be true.

But it gets much worse, because political censorship creates deep dysfunction in society. In fact, the surest way to kill a democracy is to practice political censorship under the guise of protecting society from disinformation.

Censorship causes disinformation. It’s the grandaddy of disinformation, not a solution to it. The sooner everyone recognizes this obvious fact, the better off we’ll be.

Whenever a self-anointed elite sets up a Ministry of Truth, the link between censorship and disinformation becomes clear. Before long, they invent reality and punish anyone who expresses a different viewpoint.

So, it’s no small irony that those who claim to be protecting “democracy” from disinformation are the biggest promoters of disinformation and greatest destroyers of real democracy. Their dependence on censorship obstructs the circulation of facts. It prevents any worthwhile exchange of ideas.

Unchecked Censorship Isolates People

Consider what happens if a society is only permitted one propagandistic narrative while all other ideas and information are silenced. People start self-censoring to avoid social rejection. The result is a form of imposed mental isolation. Severely isolated people tend to lose touch with reality. The resulting conformity also perpetuates the censorship.

This is unnatural and dangerous because human beings depend on others to verify what’s real. People weren’t able to verify reality in Nazi Germany, during Joseph Stalin’s Reign of Terror, or during Mao Zedong’s brutal Cultural Revolution. All were societies in the grip of mass hysteria because of ruthless censorship to protect a narrative.

As psychiatrist Joost Meerloo noted in his book “The Rape of the Mind,” no matter how well-meaning political censorship might be, it creates dangerous conformity of thought: “the presence of minority ideas, acceptable or not, is one of the ways in which we protect ourselves against the creeping growth of conformist majority thinking.”

The only way we can strengthen ourselves against such contagion is through real freedom of speech that allows fully open discussion and debate. However, if we’re confined by Big Tech to a relentless echo chamber and punished for expressing different thoughts, we’ll just keep getting more and more disinformation.

In fact, we are now drowning in the distortions produced by “fact-checkers.” Take, for example, narratives that promote the gender confusion and sexualization of children. Public school teachers routinely post TikTok videos of themselves spewing forth their gender confusion. And if someone calls out Disney for its open grooming of children, Twitter suspends them.

If we never push back against such absurdities, we ultimately end up in a state of mass delusion, each of us a cell in a deluded hive mind, obedient to commands about what to say, how to act, and what to think. To get an idea of what that looks like in a population, check out this clip from North Korea:

Censorship-Invoked Social Contagion Is Real

One of the most telling incidents of censorship over the past year was YouTube and Twitter’s take-down of virologist and vaccine inventor Dr. Robert Malone, claiming he was “spreading misinformation”—i.e., spreading a second opinion—about Covid vaccines and treatments.

But big tech saw an even bigger threat in Malone’s discussion of Mattias Desmet’s study of Mass Formation Psychosis (MFP) on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast. This is a big reason Spotify was under pressure to de-platform Rogan entirely. Open discussion of such things would erode the illusions big media and big tech so doggedly prop up.

Malone explained how a propaganda-saturated population can end up in a state of mass hypnosis that renders people incapable of seeing reality. He described Desmet’s theory about how social isolation, a high level of discontent, and a strong sense of free-floating anxiety are keys to the development of this psychosis.

The anxiety is so painful that it causes people to cling, trancelike, to any narrative that seems to offer stability. Once all other views are censored, people become so invested in the narrative that they cannot consider any alternative views. They will even mob anyone who endangers the narrative. This phenomenon was prevalent in the German population under Nazism. Their obedience to the propaganda rendered them incapable of understanding any opposing narrative.

Mass psychosis should not sound farfetched. There’s nothing new about it. Hundreds of instances of mass hysteria are documented. In the 19th century, Scottish journalist Charles MacKay wrote up a whole catalog of them. In 2015 medical sociologist Robert Bartholomew co-authored a compendium of popular delusions or “mass sociogenic illness.”

Most past incidents of mass hysteria have been confined to geographic regions, such as the witch trials in 17th century Salem, Massachusetts. But with the internet accessible and addictive in the 2020s, the possibility of mass delusion on a global scale is upon us. Censorship—in the name of protecting “democracy” from disinformation—is the key to creating it.

Propagandists Guard Their Illusions Like Magicians

By definition, propaganda aims to psychologically affect people and change their attitudes. So our social survival depends upon becoming aware of such phenomena. Building self-awareness about our vulnerability to crowd psychology would serve as a sort of psychological vaccine.

Of course elites do not want us even entertaining the possibility that we can be manipulated or vulnerable to social and psychological pressures. Propagandists are illusionists by nature. If their illusion falls apart, then the game is over for them. This is why they depend so heavily on the slur “conspiracy theorist” to distract us from the truth and from their use of censorship to cut us off from other ideas.

The late Nobel laureate Doris Lessing spoke against the dangers of social conformity and censorship in 1986. She noted there was a great body of knowledge that was continuing to be built about the laws of crowd psychology and social contagion. It was odd that we weren’t applying this knowledge to improve our lives.

Lessing concluded that no government in the world would willingly help its citizens resist group pressures and learn to think independently. We have to do it ourselves. Fast forward to the twenty-first century, and it sure looks like the keepers of this secret knowledge use it as a means of social control.

No sane person would want to live inside the boxes that the censors who claim to be fighting disinformation are building around us. If we want to escape this Twilight Zone existence, we must destroy that canard and insist on real freedom of speech everywhere.


Source

One Key Argument For Michael Sussmann’s Defense Has Already Crumbled

One Key Argument For Michael Sussmann’s Defense Has Already Crumbled

Former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann’s defenders have already been proven wrong on their claim that prosecutors will have a hard time proving Sussmann told the FBI that he was sharing Alfa Bank “intel” on his own, and not on behalf of a client.

Shortly after Special Counsel John Durham charged Sussmann with making a false statement to former FBI General Counsel James Baker when he provided Baker with data and three “white papers” purporting to establish a secret communication channel between the Trump organization and the Russia-based Alfa Bank, Sussmann’s friends, former colleagues, and political bedfellows launched a defense of the former Clinton campaign attorney.

Predictably, The Brookings Institute, which served as ground zero for the Russia collusion hoax, provided cover to Sussmann on its Lawfare blog. Chief collusion conspiracy theorist Benjamin Wittes penned a veritable defense brief. Wittes, who acknowledged in his article that “Baker is a personal friend and former colleague at Brookings and Lawfare,” attacked both Durham and the indictment.

Durham’s 27-page speaking indictment is “one of the very weakest federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than 25 years covering federal investigations and prosecutions,” Wittes proclaimed, asserting “the evidence that Sussmann lied at all is weak.”

“As a preliminary matter, the indictment by its terms concedes that the entire case—notwithstanding its many pages of narrative of the conduct of the Clinton campaign and its agents—hinges on the testimony of a single witness: the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker,” Witte wrote. “This concession appears on page 18 of the indictment, which describes the Sept. 19, 2016, meeting between Sussmann and Baker at FBI Headquarters where the supposed lie happened. The indictment notably includes the fact that ‘[n]o one else attended the meeting.’”

Wittes then ticks off the prosecution’s three pieces of evidence that Sussmann told Baker he was not acting on behalf of any client, calling it “thin gruel,” with the gruel getting “a lot thinner when one looks at each of these pieces of evidence in any detail.”

First, there will be Baker’s testimony that Sussmann told Baker he was not acting on behalf of any client, Wittes notes. But Wittes claims Baker will be an unconvincing witness, because in his congressional testimony in October 2018, “Baker repeatedly disclaims specific memory of whether Sussmann identified his clients.” “It is hard for me to understand how a criminal case against Sussmann can proceed in the face of this testimony,” Wittes wrote.

Sussmann’s friend then downplays the “contemporaneous notes of Bill Priestap,” a higher up at the time in the FBI. Those notes, which Priestap penned after Baker relayed his conversation with Sussmann to his colleague, read “said not doing this for any client.” The note seems to corroborate Baker’s memory, Wittes acknowledges, before discounting it as hearsay. (Hearsay or not, the note will likely be admissible.)

Durham’s third piece of evidence concerns Sussmann supposedly repeating the lie to the CIA in January, but that “doesn’t cleanly corroborate the allegation that Sussmann lied to Baker,” Wittes concludes.

While Wittes’ Lawfare piece presented the most comprehensive defense of Sussmann, his fellow Russia collusion hoaxers also pushed the “it will be impossible to prove Sussmann lied to Baker” theme. In an op-ed for MSNBC, “Russia, Russia, Russia” queen Barbara McQuade called the case “weak on the merits,” claiming the special counsel could not prove Sussmann made the false statement.

“Sussmann maintains that he did not make the statement,” McQuade wrote, before repeating Wittes’ point that “it appears that the whole case is built on the testimony of one witness, Baker.” Like Wittes, McQuade stressed Baker will be a weak witness given his prior testimony. She also discounted Priestap’s corroborating notes as hearsay.

The Washington Post likewise critiqued the special counsel’s case, arguing that “even if the charge is legally sound, proving it will be a huge challenge.” “The alleged false statement was not written down or recorded. There were no witnesses other than the FBI attorney,” the Post wrote. And “given the nature of human language and memory, it’s almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt precisely what was said during a portion of a single conversation five years ago,” the article announced.

The New York Times also worked to counter the special counsel’s criminal case by citing Sussmann’s defense lawyers, Sean Berkowitz and Michael Bosworth. According to the Times’ piece, Sussmann’s legal team “have denied the accusation, insisting that he did not say he had no client and maintaining that the evidence against him is weak.”

The Times’ Russian-hoaxer team of Savage and Goldman continued: “The case against Mr. Sussmann turns on Mr. Baker’s recollection that Mr. Sussmann told him he was not at the meeting on behalf of any client—which Mr. Sussmann denies saying. There were no witnesses to their conversation.”

Sussmann’s lawyers went further in a statement released after the indictment, with NPR and others reporting the Latham and Watkins attorneys’ claim that the special counsel “is bringing a false statement charge based on an oral statement allegedly made five years ago to a single witness that is unrecorded and unobserved by anyone else.”

For all the ink spilled over the “you can’t prove Sussmann said he was not representing a client” defense of the former Clinton campaign attorney, 42 words dissolve that narrative: “Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

Last week, the special counsel’s office revealed Sussmann sent that text to Baker at 7:24 p.m. on the night before the meeting at which Sussmann handed the Alfa Bank material to the then-FBI general counsel. Just like that, the thin gruel seems more like cement.

Of course, it will be for a jury to decide whether Sussmann lied to Baker and is guilty of the offense charged, but Sussmann’s text message dispatches one of the strongest defenses pushed by his cohorts in the court of public opinion, which raises an intriguing question: Why is this text only becoming known now?

It isn’t as if Durham’s team went light on the details, either in the indictment or follow-up legal filings. And from comments they made to the press, Sussmann’s attorneys seemed unaware that prosecutors possessed the text message—which would be bizarre if the special counsel’s office knew of the text before dropping the indictment. After all, the special counsel would want to show Sussmann the strongest evidence it had of the alleged crime, to push him to enter a plea deal and cooperate with prosecutors.

Together these facts suggest that neither the special counsel’s office nor Sussmann’s legal team knew this damning text existed prior to the indictment. How, then, was the text discovered?

One possible explanation is that the text was recovered from one of Baker’s two cellphones the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General had secreted from the special counsel’s office until January 2022. But those phones were “FBI cellphones,” and according to Durham’s filing, the text was sent to Baker’s personal cell phone.

So, maybe instead the special counsel’s office somehow just recently obtained access to Baker’s personal cell phone or texts sent to that phone. If so, why the delay? Was someone keeping this evidence on the sly? Or did Baker possibly forward the Sussmann text from his personal cell phone to one of his FBI cellphones, and thus the text was on the phones the OIG had long possessed? If so, that raises even more questions.

The mysterious case of the appearing text will have to wait for another day. For now, though, we know that, contrary to the Russia-collusion hoaxers’ claim, the special counsel has ample evidence that Sussmann told Baker he was not working on behalf of a client, striking down one of the two main defenses touted by Sussmann’s backers. With a decision by the court on Sussmann’s motion to dismiss imminent, the second attack of the indictment—that the lie was not material—will likely crumble soon too.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

Biden’s Media Lapdogs: If Everything Weren’t Horrible, Everything Would Be Awesome

Biden’s Media Lapdogs: If Everything Weren’t Horrible, Everything Would Be Awesome

Gas prices are at record highs, grocery bills are through the roof, and supply-chain disruptions are still leaving business shelves bare, but even amid the instability, some things never change: Democrats’ media lapdogs are still spinning the facts to a dizzying degree.

As an apt illustration, The Washington Post shared this article about Biden’s economy, from self-serious columnist Jennifer Rubin, to Twitter on Monday with the following snippet: “If it weren’t for inflation, this president’s economic performance would be unmatched.”

You really can’t make this stuff up. America is in such dire straits under the leadership of barely coherent President Joe Biden that the only way left to defend him is to say, If it weren’t for everything being horrible, it would all be wonderful.

To help Biden’s media lapdogs out, here are a few more amazing things — or, you know, things that would be if the opposite were reality.

If It Weren’t for Gasoline Being $5 a Gallon, Gas Would Be So Affordable

Gas has jumped 100 percent since 2020, with the national average above $4.00 per gallon. In some areas of the country, it’s a couple of dollars more, with fuel just outside Death Valley in California topping the charts at nearly $9.00 per gallon.

If the Washington Post needs help framing stories on gas prices, they’re welcome to use this headline: “If Biden’s $5 Gasoline Were Less Expensive, It Would Be Cheaper.”

If It Weren’t for Short-Staffing, Businesses Would Be Fully Staffed

Even as Rubin pumps recent employment numbers, plenty of stores across the country are still displaying “temporary hours” signs, waitresses are apologizing for slow service because “we’re just so short-staffed,” and “we’re hiring” signs are ubiquitous.

The pseudo boost in jobs isn’t coming from some sort of economic boom; it’s a painfully slow recovery from government lockdowns that hasn’t even reached where we were before the pandemic. Furthermore, the “unemployment rate” tells you nothing of the multitudes of people who opted to exit the labor force altogether and therefore aren’t included in the figure. But as the media would tell you, “If It Weren’t For Short-Staffing, Businesses Would Have All The Staff They Need.”

If It Weren’t for Supply-Chain Lockdowns, We Could Get Necessary Goods

Essential items are still taking forever to make it to their destinations, thus the shipping delays and empty shelves. That’s one of the many reasons the Biden administration’s gas-price solution of just buying an electric car was so absurd (that and, of course, the price tag).

But supply-chain disruptions certainly aren’t the Biden administration’s fault, and they’re not really a problem anyway because — and again, corporate press, feel free to nab this headline — “If It Weren’t For Supply-Chain Issues, We Could Get Our Hands On All The Things We Need.”

If It Weren’t for the Humanitarian Crisis on the U.S. Border, Biden’s Policies Would Be Second to None

After Biden’s political posture prompted more than 2 million Border Patrol encounters with illegal aliens on the border in 2021 alone, what could go wrong with his administration’s plans to repeal Title 42, the Trump-era policy that sped up the return of illegal border-crossers during Covid-19?

Thanks to his policies, dangerous cartels are empowered at the expense of women and children, and desperate migrants are left vulnerable at the mercy of the elements and the deadly Rio Grande. Yet journalists have used their platforms to explain that the border crisis is a result of the president being so “moral,” so they would probably be interested in a headline like, “If They Weren’t Empowering Cartels To Rape Women, Biden’s Border Policies Would Be Top Notch.”

If It Weren’t for Biden Family Scandals, This President Would Be Scandal-Free

We’ve known that Hunter Biden’s laptop was real since before the 2020 election — and thus all that the bombshell entails for his “big guy” father and their family corruption. But even as the corrupt media finally come out and admit it, they’re burying the lede to take attention off the Biden family and give the illusion that this administration is scandal-free.

In other words, their Biden coverage has the same air about it as Rubin’s fare: “POTUS Would Be Scandal-Less… If It Weren’t For The Biden Family’s Hard Drives Being Utterly Scandalous.”

If We Weren’t Depending on Foreign Adversaries for Oil, Biden’s America Would Be Energy Independent

Shortly after Biden willfully relinquished America’s energy independence that was achieved under President Donald Trump, our country has gotten a front-row seat to the atrocities that result from relying on your enemies for commodities such as oil.

The president and his press secretary have done their best to assure us that canceling the Keystone XL pipeline and suspending federal oil and gas leases had no effect on U.S. oil production. But one thing we can know for sure is that “If It Weren’t For Our Energy Dependence On Foreign Enemies, Biden’s America Would Be Energy Independent.”

This Is the Media’s Pattern

Rubin and The Washington Post make criticism of their work too easy, but Monday’s embarrassingly blatant spin wasn’t a lapse in journalistic judgment or a one-off oopsie. This type of framing is the media’s pattern, and it isn’t relegated to opinion columns.

It pervades America’s newsrooms. It also seeps out in fake fact-checks that acknowledge a statement is true but rate it “mostly false,” in wire stories that co-opt language like “pro-choice” and subversive pronouns, and in the continued use of Trump as a red herring to distract from whatever Biden nightmare is unfolding on a given day.

The corporate media are nothing more than a public relations arm for the Democrat Party, even if it means making nonsensical declarations like “If it weren’t for inflation, this president’s economic performance would be unmatched.”


Source

While Everyone Else Panicked Two Years Ago, The Federalist Was Right About Lockdowns Doing More Harm Than Good

While Everyone Else Panicked Two Years Ago, The Federalist Was Right About Lockdowns Doing More Harm Than Good

None of us two years ago knew exactly how unprecedented lockdowns adamantly advised by the world’s most credentialed people and top politicians would change history. But some of us knew these “experts” generally didn’t deserve to be believed. Only two years later, we’ve been vindicated, and it’s likely we’ll continue to be vindicated as the evil effects of lockdowns continue to pound Americans and the world with suffering.

On March 19, 2020, California became the first U.S. state to implement mass lockdowns, upon the advice of President Trump’s Covid advisor, Dr. Deborah Birx. That same day, as fear became a social contagion more potent than even Covid-19, The Federalist published an article I wrote titled, “Will The Costs Of A Great Depression Outweigh The Risks Of Coronavirus?

Two years later, we know now that Birx — and everyone who listened to her — was completely wrong, and The Federalist was completely right. Here’s part of what I wrote at the time, with limited reliable information available:

We’re acting as if coronavirus is for sure going to amount to the worst-case scenario without knowing that is true. If we all do shelter in place for the next year and a half while politicians pass the equivalent of the Obama-Bush stimulus that suffocated the economy 12 years ago, the ‘experts’ will insist the nation’s long-term ability to provide for itself was required to save millions of lives. There will be no way to prove them wrong, even if they are.

It seems a fool’s errand to pre-emptively and indefinitely risk everyone’s livelihoods without hard information about what is happening and a risk assessment that includes the serious dangers of killing the U.S. economy, not what computers project will happen with lots of missing, unreliable, and rapidly changing information.

I also pointed out that the data available at the same time lockdowns were rolling across the United States and world showed that those with severe pre-existing diseases and the very elderly were the most vulnerable to Covid cases, while children appeared to be at very little risk. That has persisted. It means the data was available to support a decision not to lock down from the very beginning, and nearly no politician heeded it.

“Would it be more prudent to severely shelter those at risk while the rest of us keep the country going?” I asked on March 19, 2020. “We can take steps like this while not choosing to crush small businesses and employees who cannot telework for one or two months, let alone 18.”

Unlike the hysteria-mongering “experts” and the politicians who listened to them, my common-sense assessment holds up two years later, with lots more information available (and lots more apparently being withheld by the Centers for Disease Control and other federal agencies, which should tell you something). There is now overwhelming evidence that lockdowns caused more global death and suffering than the competing proposal of focused protection for the vulnerable would have.

A June 2021 study by world-renowned scientists across 43 countries, for example, found that lockdown length and strength were correlated with excess deaths, often due to delayed or missed medical care. A January 2021 study also by world-class scientists found that lockdowns did not reduce Covid deaths.

Besides their at best negligible effect at reducing Covid hospitalizations and deaths, lockdowns caused additional and completely unnecessary deaths from delayed or foregone medical care, as well as through starvation due to drastically increased world poverty. According to also-vindicated legitimate experts like Dr. Martin Kulldorff, lockdowns may have also caused additional Covid deaths due to prolonging the outbreak. In short, lockdowns cost lives, while at best saving none.

Various studies estimate lockdowns will have caused millions more malaria and tuberculosis deaths, as well as untold increases in cancer severity and deaths, hundreds of thousands more AIDS deaths, and likely millions more starvation deaths and children living hungry long-term. One study in The Lancet estimated up to 2.3 million additional deaths of children globally per year from lockdowns.

Politicians lied, children died. According to “the science,” that is not hyperbole.

Not only did lockdowns cost lives while likely not reducing Covid deaths, they also caused incalculable suffering from personal costs, such as the loss of friends, strained family relationships, and the inability to hold grandma’s hand while she died or one’s wife’s hand while she gave birth.

While my husband was mercifully allowed to attend the birth of our youngest child in May 2020, we were initially told he wouldn’t be. That atop threats to his job and us both forced into working from home with a horde of de-schooled small children made the last months of that pregnancy almost unbearably anxious.

I almost had a nervous breakdown on the phone once with my midwife. It was traumatizing. It destroyed the trust between me and my birth team that is often crucial for a healthy birth. As history often goes, the people who did this to us all have only as a class gained power, funding, and prestige upon the wreckage they made of millions, billions of human lives.

So how did I, a random journalist from the Midwest with zero scientific credentials, make a more prudent guess about public policy than most highly-placed advisors with Phds and long careers in fields such as statistics and public health? I suspect it’s my aversion to groupthink.

Here at The Federalist, every single day we focus on epidemics, not of physical health, but of information warfare. My Federalist-trained news sense, not to mention my flyover-country common sense and homeschool upbringing’s liberation from peer conditioning, were all blaring category five alarms over the ruling class’s wild and apparently unopposed rush into lockdowns.

Stampede in one stage-managed direction at the alarmist demands of “experts” who repeatedly failed upwards? Check. Demands to do something (shut down all of society indefinitely) that utterly defies common sense and has never before been attempted? Check. Wild and unverifiable claims of catastrophic consequences for not supporting the stampede? Check. Massive social pressure against anyone who raises valid objections or even questions? Check.

(By the way, anyone paying attention is noticing right about now that all these factors are operative right now in the direction of getting the United States to go to war with Russia ostensibly on behalf of Ukraine. That’s what it is currently. It will be something else in a few weeks at most, unless the push to enlarge the war succeeds in dragging out this hysteria longer.)

Covid might have been deemed essentially “over” because perpetuating the overweening fear of it is no longer stampeding Americans in the direction the ruling class wants them to go. But the factors that accelerated our nation and the world’s loss of its everloving mind haven’t gone away. If anything, they have intensified. The organs of censorship and repression are only stronger in the wake of the Covid craze.

Don’t think Communist China, the non-stupid members of the American ruling class, and all their fellow travelers won’t hesitate to do it again. Surely, they already are. As long as this dangerous spiral continues, The Federalist will provide sense and insight to anyone who wants to observe the people behind the curtains and their true motivations instead of the show they’re putting on to keep us distracted.


Source

Did The New York Times Admit Joe Biden Is Corrupt So Democrats Can Get Rid Of Him?

Did The New York Times Admit Joe Biden Is Corrupt So Democrats Can Get Rid Of Him?

It is painfully obvious, as was predictable, that Joe Biden’s presidency is a dumpster fire. As demonstrated by the party’s destructive callousness towards children, the elderly, and the poor during their Covid lockdown frenzy, Democrats care about none of these real-world results of their policies. But they do care about polling, and Joe Biden’s is abysmal.

According to even heavily politicized polls, Biden is at least performing as badly as Donald Trump. Biden is between the third- and fifth-most ratings-underwater president ever in American history at this point in his first term.

Biden of course also has the advantage of a wildly favorable press and social media communications monopoly while Trump had the strong headwind of a wildly negative one. That factor obscured for a great many of American voters actions that easily demonstrated long before his election that Biden was unfit for the presidency.

Now that he’s president, however, and very publicly bungling essentially every major issue all the way up to U.S. national security, Biden’s weakness and incompetence have been impossible for the corrupt media to entirely cover up. Biden’s appalling withdrawal from Afghanistan may have been the first major blow to public confidence in his governing ability, and it’s been followed by blow after blow: the repercussions of ending U.S. energy independence, historic inflation caused by massive government spending, aggression by America’s foreign foes, a tacitly open border with human border trafficking of historic proportions, not to mention fueling America’s legalized mass killings of unborn infants and forcing schools to inflict gender dysphoria on the children in their care.

So yes, the polls look bad. That’s why Democrat officials suddenly switched away from their Covid mania, lifting mask mandates in blue states, ending the daily falsified “body counts” on TVs and newspapers, and jumping immediately into European war hysteria. But that’s not been enough to turn those polls around. Historic indicators presently suggest a “red wave” in the upcoming midterms.

That brings us to The New York Times’s recent “limited hangout“: its highly suspicious, very late acknowledgment that, hey, that laptop containing evidence that Joe Biden is just as corrupt as his son Hunter Biden told Russian prostitutes — that laptop is real, and so is its data. Yes, the United States’s top foreign adversaries likely have blackmail material on the U.S. president, and likely paid him some very big bribes.

Oh, and yes Twitter and Facebook did use their global communications monopolies to rig the election for Joe Biden by hiding this information (and who knows what else).

Why would The New York Times do this — and Facebook and Twitter not ban this information release just like they did before? Well, one explanation is hierarchy reinforcement. As I wrote Monday, like forcing their “minions” to wear face masks, the ridiculously belated laptop confirmation also equals the ruling class “flexing their power to say things they won’t allow their political opponents to say.”

There’s another explanation, though. It’s that Joe Biden is no longer useful to the ruling class. After being used to win an election, he’s now making it impossible for them to credibly foist on Americans the idea that his party could win another one with him on their masthead. The donkey is showing through the lion skin, and so they need a new donkey.

So while it seems utterly legitimate to insist on accountability such as appointing a special counsel to investigate the Biden family’s apparent corruption, that also could relieve the Democrat Party of their greatest liability. They’d probably deeply appreciate that, in fact. Biden got the ruling class what they wanted, and they don’t need him any more. Getting rid of him now would in fact be highly convenient for maintaining their power.

There’s only one problem with that. Kamala isn’t at all going well for them either.

Enjoy that bed you made for yourselves, Democrats. I hope it’s at least as uncomfortable as that bed you’ve made for all the Americans whose long-term outlook is more suffering, thanks to Democrats’ criminal prioritization of power for themselves above all else.


Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)