Saturday, April 22, 2023

First Felon Hunter Biden

THE DAILY MAIL notes, "A retired CIA leader coordinated a letter from former intelligence chiefs claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation because he wanted to help Joe Biden's presidential campaign. Mike Morell (pictured left) told the House Judiciary Committee that he was asked by Antony Blinken, the Secretary of State – who at the time was a senior member of the Biden campaign – to help discredit the laptop reporting. "  And Connor Surmonte (RADAR) adds:


The former chief of the CIA recently admitted to “helping” Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 presidential election by organizing more than 50 spies to discredit damning emails found on Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell,” RadarOnline.com has learned.

In a sudden development to come as House Republicans investigate President Biden regarding his alleged involvement in his son’s overseas business dealings, ex-CIA Chief Mike Morell claimed he organized 51 spies to write a letter in October 2020 discrediting the emails found on Hunter’s laptop as Russian disinformation.

According to sworn testimony Morell recently gave to the House Judiciary Committee, the alleged scheme started “on or before” October 17, 2020, when current Secretary of State Anthony Blinken – who was serving as a senior official in Biden’s campaign at the time – reached out to Morell about the New York Post’s bombshell story connecting then-candidate Biden to Ukraine.

Blinken then allegedly emailed Morell an article published by USA Today reporting that the FBI was investigating whether the Hunter laptop story was part of a possible Russian “disinformation campaign.”

Morell then reached out to retired CIA Senior Operations Officer Marc Polymeropoulos to help him compile a letter discrediting the Post’s story connecting then-candidate Biden to Ukraine, at which point Morell gathered a total of 51 signatures from intelligence officials.

The letter, published by Politico on October 19, alleged that the story published by the Post days earlier had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

During his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, Morell reportedly told the panel that he organized the letter because he wanted to “help Vice President Biden” and “because [he] wanted [Biden] to win the election.”


The House Judiciary Committee released the following:


WASHINGTON, D.C. – New testimony by Michael Morell, a former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and one of the 51 signatories of the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails,” revealed that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, then senior advisor to the Biden campaign, was the impetus of the public statement signed in October 2020 that falsely implied the New York Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden was the product of Russian disinformation. In response, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH) just sent a letter to Secretary Blinken demanding documents and communications related to the Committees’ investigation.

BACKGROUND:

On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published a report detailing how Hunter Biden used the position and influence of his father, now-President Joe Biden, for personal gain with the apparent awareness of President Biden. The article reported on several emails found on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that he had abandoned in a Delaware computer shop. The contents of the emails cast doubt on President Biden’s previous denials of speaking to his son about his international business dealings.
 
Within five days of the article, on October 19, 2020, 51 former intelligence officials released a public statement attempting to discredit the contents of the New York Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden, stating that the story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” News publications immediately ran with the statement, with Politico publishing a story with the conclusive headline, “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former officials say.” During the final presidential debate on October 22, then-Vice President Biden cited the public statement to rebut President Trump’s criticism of the Biden family business dealings.

NEW INFORMATION: 

The Committees recently conducted a transcribed interview with Michael Morell, a former Deputy Director of the CIA and one of the 51 signatories of the public statement. In his transcribed interview, Morell testified that on or around October 17, 2020, Blinken served as a senior advisor to the Biden campaign and reached out to him to discuss the Hunter Biden laptop story. According to Morell, although your outreach was couched as simply gathering Morell’s reaction to the Post story, it set in motion the events that led to the issuance of the public statement.  
 
That same day, October 17, Blinken also emailed Morell an article published in USA Today alleging that the FBI was examining whether the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a “disinformation campaign.”  The very bottom of the email he sent to Morell included the signature block of Andrew Bates, then-director of rapid response for the Biden campaign.
 
Morell testified that his communication with Blinken was one of a few communications he had with the Biden campaign, explaining that he also received a call from Steve Ricchetti, Chairman of the Biden campaign, following the October 22 debate to thank him for writing the statement.  Morell also explained that the Biden campaign helped to strategize about the public release of the statement. Morell further explained that one of his two goals in releasing the statement was to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist him in winning the election.
 
Based on Morell’s testimony, it is apparent that the Biden campaign played an active role in the origins of the public statement, which had the effect of helping to suppress the Hunter Biden story and preventing American citizens from making a fully informed decision during the 2020 presidential election. Although the statement’s signatories have an unquestioned right to free speech and free association—which we do not dispute—their reference to their national security credentials lent weight to the story and suggested access to specialized information unavailable to other Americans. This concerted effort to minimize and suppress public dissemination of the serious allegations about the Biden family was a grave disservice to all American citizens’ informed participation in our democracy.

Read the full letter to Secretary Blinken here.
###



Yes, I am back to The Felon Son, Hunter Biden.  NBC NEWS reports:


Federal prosecutors have considered charging Hunter Biden with three tax crimes and a charge related to a gun purchase, said two sources familiar with the matter.

The possible charges include two misdemeanor counts for failure to file taxes, a single felony count of tax evasion related to a business expense for one year of taxes, and the gun charge, also a potential felony.

Two senior law enforcement sources told NBC News about "growing frustration" inside the FBI because investigators finished the bulk of their work on the case about a year ago. A senior law enforcement source said the IRS finished its investigation more than a year ago. 

The Washington Post previously reported that federal investigators believed they had gathered enough evidence to charge Hunter Biden with tax crimes and a false statement related to a gun purchase.

The decision on which charges to file, if any, will be made by U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who was appointed by President Donald Trump and retained by the Biden administration to continue the Hunter Biden investigation. There are no indications a final decision has been made, said the two sources familiar with the matter.



You think that has anything to do with the whistle-blower (see "Blowing the whistle on Hunter Biden?") who wants to come forward?  Me too.  They should have charged Mr. Biden some time ago but they have refused to do so.  I am starting to see why the whistle-blower is saying that government officials are telling Congress one thing while, behind the scenes, favoritism is being shown. 

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Friday, April 21, 2023.  Matt Taibbi is being attacked by a pretend Congress member and it needs to be called out -- and she's actually harming election chances for the Democrats with her unhinged and rabid behavior.



These snapshots are dictated.  I'm usually working out -- if I'm away from home, they're dictated while I'm running, otherwise I'm on a treadmill or stepper.  Things are pulled all the time before something  gets published.  I dictate these primarily to three friends.  And one would tell you that if I'm bothered by ______, he tells me "stop, you know it's not going to make it into the published snapshot."  And he's actually right, it usually doesn't but _____ is so frustrating that it helps me get whatever out of my system.  Sometimes something's dropped because it overwhelms something else that I want to emphasize.  Sometimes it's dropped because I think I could do it better covering it the next day.  Sometimes it's dropped for space, I think the snapshot's going way too long.  Or maybe it's a humorous note in the wrong place.

Example:

Yesterday,  Glenneth Greenwald raged at Mark Hamill (fine with me, Mark's not my friend) and then Glenneth typed "From experience, no sub culture is dumber than Hollywood."  Oh, Glenneth, should you really talk about Jane Hamsher that way? 


Another dropped this week, longer, was on Matt Taibbi.  We're copying and pasting that in.  After I'll explain why.

I'm not a Medhi Hasan fan.  That predates this decade and goes back to Iraq and statements -- especially on THE DIANE REHM SHOW -- that were flat out lies.  Mehdi and Matt Taibbi got into it on Mehdi's show not long ago.  Ava and I covered it in "TV: The media's lack of accountability."


Matt Taibbi is back from Disney Land and his trip to meet family in Hawaii.  And he's back on Twitter.  Lee Fang is using Twitter to question Medhi's reporting.  Lee's charge -- use previous link -- is that Mehdi is guilty of plagiarism -- a serious charge.  There is no defense of, "I was only writing about ___ and that's not hard news."  You're a journalist and you chose to write about it, you were required to be accurate and, no, I'm not going into this in any greater length, it's not the 90s and NEWSWEEK hasn't just lied that Chandler was the one handcuffing a woman.  (An error NEWSWEEK refused to correct and claimed, it was only an entertainment story -- only.  Rachel's boss handcuffs Chandler, for those who didn't see the episode.)  It was revealing about the author -- that he was a liar and that clearly he had his own kink at play if he needed to see it a way other than how it actually happened.  The same is true of Medhi -- the spanking focus tells a great deal about him.


Matt seems to think this is where he (Matt) goes for the throat.  It's not.  


Don't know what to do here but speak slowly.  Ava and my piece resulted in hysterics insisting we had crucified Matt.  

The topic of our piece was accountability.  Confronted with errors, two or three, Matt took accountability.  When others lied after the interview aired -- there appears to be a gulf between honesty and YOUTUBERS -- Matt took accountability and noted he did not come off well.  We noted he was one of the few adults in the room, we noted too many others that week were not taking accountability.

That's not slamming him and it's definitely not crucifying him. 

There was an error in a Tweet.  Not the end of the world.  But when your 'report' is not a written report but a series of Tweets, yes, all Tweets have equal value.  He needs to write a report.  

While he went on vacation, a series of people have mocked him -- as he knew they would.  Not a slam for him going on vacation before someone e-mails a "How dare you!"  

My opinion, he should be working on a report.  Not Tweets.  







Post-segment, Hasan took the incredibly serious step of accusing me of lying to congress. Talk about “press as police”: that’s a felony charge, and Hasan has been insisting to everyone who’ll listen that I’m guilty of it. Hasan's claim is based on the idea that I was “suggesting a nonprofit was an intel agency to try & prove government collusion/censorship.”

This was a reference to my conflating the Center for Internet Security (CIS) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in a #TwitterFiles tweet. One letter in an acronym may not sound like much, but it would have been a serious mistake indeed, if I’d implied an “intel agency” like CISA was partnered with Twitter and Stanford’s Election Integrity Project, if it was not.

But CISA absolutely was a partner to the EIP, as was the CIS. Hasan appeared not to have been aware of this, which may be why (apart from my bumbling demeanor) he seemed to think this was such a gotcha moment on air.

CISA, CIS, and EIP openly partnered through the 2020 election process, as TwitterFiles emails documents as well as publicly available information repeatedly demonstrate. I even tweeted months ago, in TwitterFiles #6, that the two agencies were easily confused, as both were partners to Stanford’s election initiative. Neither CISA, the CIS, Twitter, nor the EIP has ever claimed CISA wasn’t a partner to the EIP project. It would be an impossible thing to assert: there are too many public announcements describing the CISA-EIP partnership. From the EIP’s own website:



Hasan said claiming CISA involvement with the EIP was “key to my thesis,” and since this “thesis” wasn’t true, House Judiciary chief and Weaponization of Government Subcommittee chair Jim Jordan needed to correct the record. (He doesn’t). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose MO these days seems to involve loudly planting a flag in every online wedge controversy with any chance of trending, chimed in to claim the “entire Oversight hearing and investigation” was “based on these errors,” and therefore the GOP had wasted “tons of public time and dollars” on the Files material.

To say that all of this has been infuriating is a massive understatement. I have three little kids and these people are accusing me of a serious crime for which I could go to jail, yet they themselves are the ones making the mistake. The sheer viciousness of the ploy is mind-blowing.






I don't live in a world where no one makes mistakes -- I make mistakes all the time.  But I do expect to live in a world where people own their mistakes.  

If you're seeing me crucifying Matt or anything similar, that's your mistake. 

We've noted various reactions -- by reposting videos -- and people can have whatever reaction they want.  But speaking for me, the end of the world would have been Matt saying, "No, no, I don't make mistakes."  Instead, he owned the one that was explored and I think he said he'd have to check on the other but if he was wrong, he was wrong.  He also owned that it was a bad interview.  

A friend once had what she thought was a career-ender interview.  It didn't help that her (cheating) husband was against her doing the interview to begin with and slammed her for it to everyone they knew.  She didn't get any sleep in the 24 hour period ahead of the interview.  You could see it in her eyes which were glassy and watering.  "Repetitive but effective" is how a major periodical termed her part of the interview.  She's a major communicator who had much more experience with hostile interviewers.  And she felt she choked.  She could have been better (and maybe with support from the hideous husband she would have been).  But it happens to everyone.  I never forgave Barbara Walters for that interview and I was so happy that it ended her marriage -- she didn't just go after my friend, she harmed her husband's business interest with that interview.  

Most people don't remember the interview today -- not even the ones who watched it -- and it won the time slot.  

Matt handled himself like a grown up.  

I didn't appreciate the people who lied and said, "Matt showed him! Matt destroyed him!"  I don't appreciate lies.  By the same token, those insisting that Matt's work on The Twitter Files got destroyed are also lying.  Again, he'd be doing himself a favor to write a report but his work did not get destroyed.  

Nor did he lie to Congress.  We reported on that hearing.  I don't think most of the people saying Matt lied before Congress know what they're talking about.  They don't appear to have even read his opening statement, let alone know what he actually said at the hearing.


Lee Fang has reasons to continue his probing of Mehdi's work.  It would probably do Matt better to leave that alone.  Barbara Walters sold her soul (many times over) and when she did (every time) the bill was collected.  Medhi, like Barbara, will have to live in a hell of his own making.  Matt should take comfort in that and not bother giving Mehdi another thought.



People were high-fiving Barbara Walters for her stunts.  By not going after her publicly but instead focusing on their own work, those Barbara attacked came off looking better.  There's nothing Mehdi benefits from more than a back-and-forth on this issue.  It fuels publicity for his show and it fuels the people who do hate Matt.  So the best thing Matt can do is leave it alone, Lee Fang has it under control.

That was pulled for space and also because the piece Ava and I wrote was also slammed by some for 'rescuing' Matt so I wanted to read over it before I included it (which I haven't -- even now, I just said to paste the above in -- there's never enough time).

So the reason we're on Matt today, and we have to be, is a new attack on him which Glenn notes in this Tweet:


He also calls her a "fake" which she is.  Go back to the March 10, 2023 snapshot for when Stacey pops up on this site's radar (also to "TV: The Tired and The Disappointing").  We didn't cover her in the '00s or the '10s when she was a Republican.  Not because she was a Republican but because she was a failure -- she was an abject failure.  

Stacey's a Karen -- yes, there can be Karens of color.  They're women of color who steal roles that are not their roles to take, roles that belong to women of color.  So if, for example, Raza Unida was looking for a spokesperson in 1971 and a woman of color seized that role?  She may have been a woman of color but was she Chicano because that's was a Chicano political party?  Nope.  But she couldn't get a prominent role any other way so she stole the role from a deserving woman of color.  That's how she ended up a Karen.

Stacey was a failure.  She was born in the Brooklyn and she grew up there.  She was a Republican and,  until her 'strange' (you term as you'd like) 'relationship' with Bully Boy Bush, she was going nowhere.  Strange?  Kind of like MTG and Kevin McCarthy who touch and peer at each other on the House floor as though they're lovers and not colleagues.  That sort of relationship led Bush insiders to joke that Bully Boy was grooming Stacey as his "Condi-spare."  

For whatever reason, bowing and scraping didn't get her too far.  

So she ends up moving to the Virgin Islands where she remakes herself -- I don't just mean the cheap weave, I mean she switches to the Democratic Party and begins running for office. Running for office  requires her to switch to the Democratic Party because there is very little support for Republicans in the Virgin Islands.  If you win the Democratic Party primary, you pretty much win the general election.  (See her 2014 race, for an example).

So she got her fake weave, her fake political positions and she faked her way into office.

The Virgin Islands does not have real representation in Congress.

They have no voting rights.  So she is a fake member of Congress.  

She's also a fake member of Congress in that the office she holds is nothing but representational and, as such, should go to someone who grew up in the Virgin Islands.  

But Stacey couldn't win on the mainland of the US.  So she goes somewhere else to steal a seat.  She's a fake ass Karen.

The Democratic Party needs to curb her and keep her on a short leash because she's not acting like a Democrat.  That's why she seems like some strange object right now.  She's bringing the worst of the Republican Party with her and it's not a good look for Democrats.

Let's go into the worst for a second so that we're all clear.




The Republican-led House Committee on Homeland Security on Wednesday struck comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and ended her time to speak after she called Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas a liar.
[. . .]

But as Greene continued with her comments, she criticized Mayorkas for the spread of fentanyl in the United States  

“I want to know from you, how many more people do we have to watch die every single day in America? How many more young people do we have to see die? How many more teenagers?” the Georgia Republican asked.  

Mayorkas tried to respond to the lawmaker, saying, “let me assure you that we're not letting it go on,” before Greene said she was reclaiming her time in the committee and called Mayorkas “a liar.”  
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sought to have Greene’s words taken down, saying “We have a history of being a bipartisan committee that works on solutions. Now we can disagree, but we’ve gotten to the point of the language that we're using is not the kind of language that historically we as members of this committee have used.” 

Committee Chair Mark Green, R-Tenn., approved the move, saying “identifying or calling someone a liar is unacceptable in this committee.” The chair then noted that Greene was no longer recognized. 




No longer recognized?  She needs to be removed from the Committee.  Her applause for the leaker is disturbing.  Her applause for mishandling classified documents is appalling.

She should not be allowed to sit on the Homeland Security Committee.  


WDBJ notes that a closed door briefing on the leak was supposed to take place earlier this week but did not and they quote Senator Tim Kaine stating, "There's no way he should have been able to do this with the brazenness and without his chain of command being aware of it.  And so, there is a real dereliction of duty by the chain of command that allowed this to go on and I want to understand what consequences that are going to be there."


One consequence should be expelling MTG from the Committee for applauding a leaker -- not a whistle blower -- who took the documents online in order to impress his 'buddies.'  

MTG?  I just can't stand  the press coverage of her that tries to treat her as sane and rational.  Glenn Greenwald and Tara Reade love her so I guess they're admitting to loving racism.  

Her defense of the leaker?  She applauded him for his race, among other things.  I've noted here before being at hearings where that woman can't shut up about "White."  She'll supposedly be expressing concern for children, for example, but it will come out of her big mouth as "White children."  This happens over and over.  She's a racist and this needs to be noted.  In 2023, Georgia's 14th Congressional district has elected to be represented by a racist.  

If Georgia won't take their trash to the curb, Congress needs to.  She applauded the mishandling of classified information that makes her unfit to serve on a Homeland Security Committee.  For those who are too dumb or sheepish to join that call, Marjorie could be a poster girl for 2024.  "Today's Republican Party?  It's not your parents party.  Marjorie Taylor Green, dangerous to national security.  She Tweeted to praise a man who mishandled classified documents noting that he was 'white, male, christian and antiwar.'  Ron DeSantis, dangerous to business and to taxpayers.  He has left Floridians in debt as he has launched one lawsuit after another at DISNEY.  Lauren Boebert, dangerous to the rule of law.  If your son has a wreck and has drugs on him, he'd be in jail, not so for Boe-Boe. . . ."



Just go down the list.  Just show how out of touch they are.  That's your campaign commercial.  Especially in a bad economy.  "They treat a legislative session like encounter group therapy and that's why nothing gets done."

Or  "While Ron was flirting with his 2024 run for president and attacking DISNEY, Floridians were left having to beg the governor to do his job.  As NEWSWEEK reported:"


 

Ron DeSantis is being put under further pressure to resolve Florida's gas shortage issue as Twitter users rage at the governor.

Southern Florida has been affected by gas shortages after last week's extreme weather, most notably high levels of flooding, disrupted the regular distribution and delivery of fuel.

Heavy rain in eastern Broward County last week caused floods in Port Everglades roads, preventing truck drivers from making fuel deliveries.

Social media users have complained and shared clips of gas stations without any fuel and the long lines they would have to queue in to get any gas.


The ads write themselves but for them to be effective, those of you who consider yourself foot soldiers of the Democratic Party should be laying the groundwork now.   I don't consider myself a foot soldier.  People who are friends can pick up the phone and call and they'll offer an issue or something and ask me to game it out.  And I will and I'm good at it.  But writing like that here?  That's not the role here.  And I'm looking around wondering where are the Spencer Ackermans?  They obsess over elections long before the cycles start.  So why aren't they calling out Marjorie for her praise of someone who mishandled classified information?  You don't save that for two weeks before the election.  You build it and you talk about it and you chip away at her daily.  

Back to Stacey.  She really needs to be put in a corner and told to think about her actions.  She's not just lying about Matt, she's harming the face of the Democratic Party.

Supposedly, Joe Biden's about to declare he's running for relection.

If that's the case and he gets the nomination (Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are both declared in the race for that nomination), the party's not going to be able to handle fake ass Stacey and her anger issues.  Nor should we have to handle her, she's a bit player desperate for attention.  

But if we get stuck with Joe as the nominee?  The only card the party has to play is "We're responsible, look at those crazies."  

When you got crazy Stacey, it makes it harder to play, "Look at the other side."  

She is a non-voting member of Congress -- a woman who stole the seat from a person born in the Virgin Islands.  It does matter.  

Crazy Stacey needs to learn to shut up.  She's nothing and she's never going to be something.  Her tantrums in public get her press attention but it's not the sort of attention the Democratic Party needs going into a 2024 election -- especially if they end up saddled with Joe Biden as the nominee.

So that deals with Matt.  

Let's deal quickly with Glenneth on another issue.  Four people are accused of something by the government.

We've noted videos when others have defended them.  I'm not defending them.

That's not saying they're guilty, that's not saying they're not.

Why would I defend people I don't know?  I don't know the particulars other than they supposedly collaborated with a foreign government (Russia) -- on the face of it, the charge seems ludicrous and part of the re-starting of the Cold War.  As we hear what evidence is available, I'll be better able to make a determination of where I stand.  

But, as it stands, there are charges that have not been argued in court about four people I don't know.  I would assume they are innocent -- and that's the legal assumption in this country.  But that's about all I can say of the four of them.



Where to start?  "They're coming for you next!"


I don't play with scare tactics.  Yesterday, there was a woman who'd been hurt outside a building and after she had assistance and was fine, one of my friends said they always marvel over how calm I remain.  Enemies would say, "How cold you are."  I don't like drama.  The woman needed help, first aid and greater medical assistance.  When everyone was standing around her -- I didn't know these people, I was exiting the building -- building drama and nonsense, my loathing of drama kicked in and I began issuing orders because that's how you get a hysterical group to calm down and I began speaking with the woman that everyone wanted to help but no one was listening to.

That's because I don't respond to scare tactics.  That's why I called out THE NATION with their "torture election" nonsense.  They didn't know how the election was going to go but knew it could go one of two ways.  To scare up voters, they started pimping the lie that the election in question would determine the fate of the US and where it stood on torture.  No, for the American voters it was just another election.


So, if you're trying to get me to support the four, you're not going to win me over with, "They're coming for you next!"

No, crazy, they're not coming for me.  The US government didn't come for me with the MEK.  It's not coming for me with regards to Russia.  Because I'm not a devotee like Tara Reade.  I don't worship Russia.  I don't worship the MEK.  I've tried never to make this statement that I'm about to make but to make it really clear, I'm going to have to.


The MEK are, I'm sure, no different than you or me.  However, their leadership is creepy as can be.  I defended them with regards to the US' legal obligations to them.  They are Iranian dissidents who were in Iraq.  Under Saddam Hussein, they had his support.  When the US overthrew Saddam, they had no protection.  Some Iraqis felt the MEK was threatening and carried out or would carry out violence against Iraqis.  That did not happen.  The MEK felt they would be attacked by Iraqi militias and troops and that did happen.  


Prior to the attacks, the US government asked the MEK to disarm.  They would ensure the MEK was safe if they disarmed.

They did what was asked of them.

And then the US wanted to walk away.

No.  Under international law, they were required to provide protection.

I got attacked constantly for defending the MEK.  At one point, when I was visiting a friend at the Justice Dept (I regularly lobbied for a compassionate release for Lynne Stewart who was dying in prison), the friend said, "We need to talk."  He closed his office door and brought up the MEK.  To which I replied, "I'm not even offering, 'Look, you know me.'  Because that shouldn't matter.  I am offering that you know everything I've written online.  I rarely mention them in campus speeches but I'm sure you have notes on that.  And I know you have the only exchange that ever took place between the MEK and myself.  The leadership had e-mailed the public account to say that I should be emphasizing this and not that."  I replied back: Do not write me again.  I am not having contact with you.  I cover the issue from my perspective and I'm not coordinating any message with you.  They replied back in an angry manner."

They creeped me out.  I never said that then.  I would prefer not to say it now.  I got a lot of flack for defending them.  But every point I made was sound and backed up by the law.  

The fact that they (leadership) creeped me out has nothing to do with legal obligations. 

Two politicians with national profiles were investigated -- that is public.  I know both.  One I know and I like, the other I can't stand.  I didn't bring their names up when speaking with DOJ.  Because I didn't know what they were doing and wasn't part of their effort.  

What I did was done here.  Anything stated on campus was reflected in statements made here.

I never made the case that the MEK were saintly.  I made the case that the US government had a legal obligation.  And made that case to the US State Dept especially when a friend with the State Dept complained that they were doing all they could and the MEK was responding that, no, they wouldn't go there.  At which point, I said legally this is not a travel agency.  They need to arrange for a host country.  It can't be Iran because they're Iranian dissidents.  And it can't be a country cozy with Iran.  But other than that, if Sweden, for example, agrees to take 50 and this offer is made but the MEK says no, then the legal obligations are over.  Good faith efforts were made, a host country was found and the MEK just didn't like it.  Too bad.  They're now on their own.  

No one's ever accused me of writing fan fiction for governments in other countries.  I would not end up in the boat that is sinking for four Americans.

And I know that and, with regards to the MEK, the US Justice Dept understood that as well which is why I was not under investigation -- they had all I'd said and the one communication I'd had with the MEK -- so don't give me the nonsense of "This is how it starts!"  

 
Tara's crazy and Caitlin Johnstone is worse.  The one thing I've yet to call Tara is "coward."  Tara's not a coward.  Caitlin is.  I'm tired of you pathetic losers in other countries who won't call out your own country but continue to fixate on the United States. Caitlin, you live in Australia.  Police your own government.  It's far from perfect.  John Howard took your country to war -- the Iraq War -- and you had nothing to say about that.  You did make time to Tweet about Bully Boy Bush on the 20th anniversary.

How brave!!!!! I'm not impressed.  I call out Joe Biden here.  I called out Donald Trump.  I called out Barack Obama.  I called out Bully Boy Bush.   I'm not a scared bunny who can't call out her own government.  

 

Robert Pether has been held in an Iraqi prison for two years now.  He's an Australian citizen.  When exactly does Caitlin intend to call that imprisonment out?  When does she intend to hold her own government accountable?  After Robert's dead.

No, she'll probably still be a coward then.

Catilin Tweets,  "Look at the bizarre verbal gymnastics they're performing to justify outlawing political dissent."

Do they not speak English in Australia.

She's referring to these words in a WASHINGTON POST article: "conspiring to have US citizens act as illegal, unregistered agents of the Russian Government."

Again, is it English that's the problem.  She didn't highlight the full sentence.  Maybe grammar is her problem?

At any rate, I've looked at what's known publicly.

Not a lot is known publicly.

So you won't see my staking my reputation on four people I don't know when they are surrounded by unknowns.

I think a lot of people are stupid.

When I defended Tara, I didn't vouch for her character.  Within a few weeks of her going public, her character did not impress.  But even when it wasn't a known issue, I didn't vouch for her character.  I said she was credible (I still believe that and that she had more supportive documentation backing her up then in any other he-said/she-said).  

But I don't know her from Adam.

I'm not going to be an idiot.

Caitlin and Tara are idiots.  They're telling you that nothing happened.  They don't know that and they don't know the people involved.  I'm not an emotional person.  I'll cry for children and I'll cry for Iraq.  But I'm not someone who gets conned over and over.


Crazy people are the ones screaming, "They're innocent!"  

You don't know that.  I support them getting a strong defense, I support the press looking seriously into the charges.  I don't believe anything is true just because someone in the government or a government agency insists it is.

I'm not getting tripped up in this because I'm not pathetic. 

And I really do think a lot of people are pathetic because they have to butt in to topics they know nothing about and insist that this is true or that is true or I peered into his soul and saw . . .

I don't have time for the nutty talk, sorry.   "This is how it starts!  They're innocent!"  I don't indulge in nutty talk.

If I know you, I'll defend you or say I think you're guilty.   When I don't know you, I'm not playing a fool and stepping forward just because others are.

I went to the matt for Lynne Stewart because I knew Lynne.  I lobbied everyone who would listen in the Justice Dept, I begged the White House, and I'd do it again.  

But the reason that I can make a case like that, the reason people will sometimes listen, is because I'm not the drama queen.  I'm not running barking after every ambulance.  

The people -- I don't believe Glenn did this -- who were lying that Matt won in the exchange on MSNBC?  They just made it harder to defend Matt next time because he didn't win.  Your own eyes told you that.  And all you revealed was that you'll say anything so why should anyone believe you? 



While we're talking about Congress, and as we wind down, something needs to be clarified because there's a lot of confusion out there.

Dianne Feinstein does not own a Senate seat.  She occupies a Senate seat.

That seat is reserved for someone who represents California.  Dianne has overstayed her welcome by many years.  She no longer is present in DC.  That's her job.  I don't care that she's a she, I don't care that she's a Democrat.  I do care that she can't do her job.

As a California voter, I'm not paying for her to sit on her ass at home and derail the work of the Senate -- especially not the Senate Judiciary Committee.  If a Democrat does not win the White House in November 2024, it's very likely that we will see more court packing like we did from January 2017 to January 2021.  Judges need to be appointed now because there is a backlog of cases.  The Republicans are happy to let Dianne run out the clock on Joe's judicial nominees.  I'm not.  

This is bigger than her sorry ass.  She needs to do what's good for the collective and step aside.  

In two months, she'll be 90 years old.  She needs to step down.  She is owed nothing.  This is an elected position that has certain job requirements.  She is not fulfilling those job requirements, she needs to go.  I don't fire people very often but when I do it's because they are not meeting the job requirements.  Call me cold blooded but I never feel bad for firing someone who is not doing the job they were hired to do.  That's now the case with Dianne.



The following sites updated:








Posted by at