Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?
US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)
- Thread starter Borscht
- Start date
There were texts between him and his 14 year old niece setting up a booty call.
His dad openly molests little girls in public and his sister confirmed in her diary that she was made to take showers with the old man when she was a kid.
Why would anyone think that the second picture isn't him?
That family is messed up in more ways than you could count.
She's just unlikable. If I was advising her I'd tell her to stop trying to come across as human, it just makes her look worse as she's a terrible actor.
She should just be herself. Yes she's a boring, uncharismatic and overly ambitious barren harridan who people cross the street to avoid but that person is the real Kamala. Pretending to be a hip wine mom just comes across as fake. No one likes a faker.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2016
@Gehenna I d love your thoughts on this
archive.md
If Democrats return to centrism, they are doomed to lose against Trum…
archived 8 Nov 2021 15:38:10 UTC
If Democrats return to centrism, they are doomed to lose against Trump
Samuel Moyn
Biden was once touted as the ‘New FDR’. That ambition is fast dying – as are Democrats hopes of remaining in power
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, at her weekly press conference on 4 November. Photograph: Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/REX/Shutterstock
Mon 8 Nov 2021 08.56 EST
104
Congress’s passage on Friday of Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill would ordinarily have been a cause for celebration. But there is a good chance it was the beginning of the end of his presidency. After all, the bill’s final days marked a new consensus around a centrist set of economic remedies, chosen out of fears of what will supposedly happen when progressives with a transformative agenda exercise too much influence on the Democratic party agenda.
Only 10 months ago, Biden came into office with great expectations – but greater terrors. Even more apparent at the start than now, Biden’s presidency has been defined by fear rather than hope. With the assault on the Capitol earlier in the month, the culmination of a four-year deathwatch for American democracy, the emergency could hardly evaporate overnight. With Donald Trump temporarily ousted, his replacement also drew 1930s comparisons. The question “is he or isn’t he?” had been asked of Biden’s predecessor for four years. To redeem the country from the fascist, was Biden going to be Franklin Roosevelt?
Like FDR, Biden led Democrats who have rightly stressed economic transformation for the sake of the poor and vulnerable but also for the angry and disaffected voters of the stagnating middle. But unlike Roosevelt, Biden’s coalition is fragile and fissures emerged to threaten his success almost from the start – fissures that broke it apart definitively last week even in the midst of Biden’s infrastructure victory.
Other causes were forced to the margins along the way. Biden subordinated even critical fixes to American democracy, like reforms of courts and elections, to the economic agenda. As for his immigration policies, which mostly resembled the disgusting ones of prior presidents, they were treated with a partisan silence, provoking rage among the few principled enough to demand fewer cruelties and restrictions no matter who is imposing them. But Biden got a pass because enough agreed with the priority to address the economic reasons for Trump’s breakthrough, which are undeniable.
Yet in comparison to Roosevelt’s first “100 days” – which saw 15 major bills and gave the early phase of every presidency its name – Biden’s first 100 days were bogged down. A Covid-19 relief and stimulus bill was passed, adding $1.9tn in emergency spending to the $2.2tn of the first such bill signed by Trump in March 2020. But the real hopes fell on the big-ticket measures for “infrastructure” and welfare that Biden resolved to pursue separately. After all, the American Rescue Plan was only meant to be a temporary stopgap for an American society beset with deeper ills even beyond those that the virus laid bare.
The game was on. At first the debate seemed to be about how costly to make the bills and how to fund them. This was especially true for the American Families Plan, which was supposed to take steps towards an American welfare state – including by making relief measures for children in earlier bills permanent. Progressives in Congress, understanding the risks, were lauded for an early victory in August, refusing to back the first narrower infrastructure bill if Democrats abandoned the second more ambitious social spending bill. Centrists tried to tag progressives as the obstructionists. But the mainstream narrative remained that by holding infrastructure hostage, progressives were wisely keeping centrists from returning to form.
Even as it became clearer and clearer that Democratic centrist Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and like-minded Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives, were doing damage to the ambition of the bills, a breakthrough after generations of Democratic austerity and neoliberalism still seemed possible. Then came the critical event that allowed for the centrist breakthrough last week: the election for Virginia governor last Tuesday.
In an electoral shock, Republican Glenn Youngkin won – and, more important, grizzled and uncharismatic Democratic party sage Terry McAuliffe, who had once held the governor’s office, lost. Even though McAuliffe’s reputation for decades has been one of a centrist on economics – he served as Bill Clinton’s campaign chair in the 1990s – centrists scored a narrative victory. Wasn’t it because of progressive excess that voters were turning on the party? “Wokeness derails the Democrats,” one headline ran. Lawmakers in Washington scurried to marginalize progressives by passing the infrastructure bill, with some progressives voting no, and others citing promises that Democrats will still continue on to the welfare measures.
The rush to judgment was peculiar. It is not until 2022 that the Democrats will need to show something for themselves, and there was no reason to abandon the social spending plan. Suddenly, however, progressives holding tough – since some Republicans supported the infrastructure plan – were dispensable.
The new narrative was that Youngkin won because of antiracist rhetoric many Democrats have adopted, along with elites branded as “out of touch” by other elite commentators. Centrists saw a golden opportunity to call for a return to their moderation, including in containing spending.
In an extraordinary op-ed, the New York Times called for an “honest conversation” about abandoning progressive goals across the board – including the economy, where Americans demand “bipartisan solutions” that respect inflationary risks and refuse to spend very much. The truth was that Americans had gotten bipartisan neoliberalism for decades, but no matter. One Twitter commentator snarkily noted that it was hardly surprising that “the lessons from Tuesday’s election” matched the “ideological goals” neoliberal elites “had before the election and decades before that. What are the odds!”
Democrats blew by the possibility that McAuliffe’s failures were mainly his fault, and due less to “critical race theory” that allegedly was already reshaping public education than to an abandonment of parents forced to endure school closures for years (itself an economic issue). Either way, the critical error is assuming that voters rejected progressive economic policies, which are popular across the board.
Even before the events the other day, Democrats defined what was in Build Back Better – their slogan and the name of the welfare bill – downwards. Free college was stripped out early, family and medical leave – standard across industrialized democracies for decades – were killed late, and Biden kowtowed to centrists who demanded a more marketized version not just of environmental concern but of funding government across the board, as taxes hikes were reversed. With its fate no longer hostage to infrastructure, in spite of written promises from some centrists that progressives reportedly exacted at the last minute, there is no reason to be optimistic about the final bill’s fate.
An infrastructure bill for a country in decay and decline was much needed and has itself eluded Democrats for decades. Though cut in half to win acceptance, its $1tn for a grab bag of spending – much focused on transport – is nothing to trivialize. But rarely in history has a greater looming defeat been snatched from the jaws of a political victory as the other day.
In the first year of Biden’s presidency, Democrats agreed that the only alternative to barbarism is, if not socialism, some modicum of economic change. Many agreed that opening acts of Barack Obama’s administration had been fatefully insufficient. Now, despite the lessons of the Obama presidency, Republicans are set to recapture one house of Congress after two years – or both. By contrast, FDR gained seats in both houses after delivering substantive change, and won the presidency three more times.
Of course, even if progressives were to secure a welfare package and retain influence in their party, Trump – or an even more popular Republican – could still win the presidency. But this outcome is a near certainty if the Democrats return to centrist form – as seems the likeliest outcome now.
- Samuel Moyn is a professor of law and history at Yale and the author of Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World
… we have a small favour to ask. With the world's eyes on the crucial UN climate summit, the Guardian will bring you the facts, negotiations, news and science. For years, climate experts have stressed that Guardian reporting - independent, rigorous, persistent and open to all - is a critical tool to confront the climate crisis, which is intensifying around the world. Leaders, influenced by powerful lobbies, are now set to make decisions that will determine our future.
We have no shareholders and no billionaire owner. Just the determination and passion to deliver high-impact reporting for the world, always free from commercial and political influence. Reporting like this is vital for democracy, for fairness and to demand better from the powerful. And we provide all this for free, for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it.
As such, tens of millions have placed their trust in us for the last 200 years, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. With more than 1.5 million supporters in 180 countries, our model for open access journalism is better sustained, meaning we can reach more people. This helps everyone keep track of global events like the climate summit, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action.
We take this emergency seriously as a news organisation: two years ago, we pledged to prioritise the climate crisis, and we've published some 6,000 pieces of environmental journalism since. We set ambitious targets to green our business, and have turned away from fossil fuel investments and advertising as a result. We are on track to meet our goals, including that of transparency, where we will continue to update you on our progress.
But to keep working as we do - as an open, fiercely independent news organisation that focuses on the climate - we need your help. Every contribution, however big or small, counts.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
Yes and no. Believe most Americans have little to no trust in government/law enforcement/media/judiciary, but still have a good deal of trust in each other. We work and do business together with a lot of trust. We trust the plumber will fix the pipes, the mechanic to fix the car, the doctor to treat the illness. We trust our tenants to pay the rent. We trust those who owe us to pay the bill. There is a sense of community, but it's changed. To be sure, the concept of "community" constantly evolves.
Having said that, the national level of anger stays as high as I have ever seen it. Last week's elections helped lower the level a bit, but Joey and his regime can always be depended on to piss Americans off yet again.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2021
I wonder if when those pictures leaked, if some three letter agency took care of that kid, just to make sure she can never come forth and testify against Hunter.
If a US agency didn't do anything with her, it seems like some Russian, Chinese or other nation would have snatched her up for use as blackmail or something. Like I can't imagine she is still out there in the wild, the blackmail value of her testimony would just be too great.
the streetcar suburb model is the best
Hunter is just outright exceptional. He kept all of that shit on his laptop. Yes some of it was him acting the boomer, forgetting that he had synced his phone, but a lot of it he saved as spank bank material.
I don't think he was being blackmailed, quite the opposite, Hunter is just your typical connected degenerate. He was comfortable raping kids while high on crack, he knew that whatever happened he'd be protected. And guess what? He was.
Right now he's living a life of fabulous privilege while selling his 'art' and probably still smoking all the meth he can get his hands on.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
Concentrated hydrogen peroxide is an arsonists wet dream. It's a powerful oxidizing agent that leaves no trace since it just decays to water and oxygen. So a person can squirt it onto a wall near as outlet and leave. Then a couple of hours later it will start to smoke and catch fire and it will be indistinguishable from an electrical fire. It'd be like having TNT on store shelves next to the cigarettes.
Oxous
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2021
Another Republican in the Fed Reserve bites the dust
Fed Governor Quarles Resigns
(archive)
...and another one bites the dust.
Federal Reserve Governor Randal Quarles will step down from the central bank in the last week of December.
Quarles joined the Board in 2017.
In October, the Fed announced that Fed Vice Chairman for Supervision Randal Quarles will be removed from his role as the main watchdog of Wall Street banks after his four-year-term officially expired. The Fed made the announcement in a statement that sought to answer key questions for banks and Democrats about how the Trump appointee’s era of oversight will end.
As Bloomberg reports, his resignation answers a thorny question for the White House, too, which was forced to wonder how long the appointee of former President Donald Trump would stay on the board and slow down the leadership overhaul the administration is planning for the Fed. Technically, Quarles could have stayed in his governor term and many of his Republican friends had asked him to hold on into 2022.
One can't help but get the feeling this is a cleaning of the house before Brainard takes over from Powell as Quarles has been criticized by Senator Elizabeth Warren for sanding down bank regulations during his tenure, and she has also said she would not support a second term for Powell.
Brainard is the only sitting governor on the Board appointed by a Democrat who is seen as a contender for all three leadership positions.
This now leaves President Biden to fill four jobs at The Fed.
* * *
Full Statement from The Fed:
Randal K. Quarles submitted his resignation Monday as a member of the Federal Reserve Board, effective at the end of December. He served as the Board's first Vice Chair for Supervision and has been a member of the Board since October 13, 2017.
As Vice Chair for Supervision, he oversaw the supervision and regulation of financial firms in the Board's jurisdiction. He served simultaneously as Chair of the Financial Stability Board, or FSB, an international body established by the G20 to ensure the resilience of the global financial system. His three-year term as FSB Chair ends on December 2.
In both positions, he played a central role in ensuring the safe operation of both the domestic and international financial systems during the stress of the COVID event.
Prior to his appointment to the Board, Quarles was founder and managing director of the Cynosure Group, a private investment firm. He also served in a variety of senior positions at the Treasury Department under both Bush administrations, including Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, was the U.S. Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund, and was a partner at both the Carlyle Group, and earlier, Davis Polk & Wardwell. He is married with three children and is from Utah.
...and another one bites the dust.
Federal Reserve Governor Randal Quarles will step down from the central bank in the last week of December.
Quarles joined the Board in 2017.
In October, the Fed announced that Fed Vice Chairman for Supervision Randal Quarles will be removed from his role as the main watchdog of Wall Street banks after his four-year-term officially expired. The Fed made the announcement in a statement that sought to answer key questions for banks and Democrats about how the Trump appointee’s era of oversight will end.
As Bloomberg reports, his resignation answers a thorny question for the White House, too, which was forced to wonder how long the appointee of former President Donald Trump would stay on the board and slow down the leadership overhaul the administration is planning for the Fed. Technically, Quarles could have stayed in his governor term and many of his Republican friends had asked him to hold on into 2022.
One can't help but get the feeling this is a cleaning of the house before Brainard takes over from Powell as Quarles has been criticized by Senator Elizabeth Warren for sanding down bank regulations during his tenure, and she has also said she would not support a second term for Powell.
Brainard is the only sitting governor on the Board appointed by a Democrat who is seen as a contender for all three leadership positions.
This now leaves President Biden to fill four jobs at The Fed.
* * *
Full Statement from The Fed:
Randal K. Quarles submitted his resignation Monday as a member of the Federal Reserve Board, effective at the end of December. He served as the Board's first Vice Chair for Supervision and has been a member of the Board since October 13, 2017.
As Vice Chair for Supervision, he oversaw the supervision and regulation of financial firms in the Board's jurisdiction. He served simultaneously as Chair of the Financial Stability Board, or FSB, an international body established by the G20 to ensure the resilience of the global financial system. His three-year term as FSB Chair ends on December 2.
In both positions, he played a central role in ensuring the safe operation of both the domestic and international financial systems during the stress of the COVID event.
Prior to his appointment to the Board, Quarles was founder and managing director of the Cynosure Group, a private investment firm. He also served in a variety of senior positions at the Treasury Department under both Bush administrations, including Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, was the U.S. Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund, and was a partner at both the Carlyle Group, and earlier, Davis Polk & Wardwell. He is married with three children and is from Utah.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Nobody "founded" anything. Do you know how land settlement works?
Homegrown Homophobia
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 17, 2017
Call me a perennial optimist, but I could see electrification of cars going completely haywire, and having the opposite effect with ICE and hybrid cars being worth their weight in gold as the general public realizes how much of a lemon they've been sold, with supply chain shortages of new ICE cars being bottlenecked by lack of production capacity as we wait for further development of hydrogen cars which we really should be investing our time and energy into.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2019
The dangers of it is concerning, but it can be worked out. The real problem is the human factor.
We have gas stations that warn about smoking or keeping open flames near the pumps, and there's always that one asshole lighting a cigarette while pumping gas. Or those people filling plastic bags with gas after the pipeline got hacked. Or those people that don't shake the nozzle(?) into the tank and just let gasoline drip around them. Or they don't put the nozzle back into the pump. Or those people who drive off with the nozzle STILL IN THE CAR, etc.
Now take all of that laziness and stupidity and add hydrogen peroxide to the mix.
However, this could be mitigated by bringing back gas pump jockeys.
Oxous
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2021
Strzok in Denial: Fired FBI Agent Denounces Durham Indictments For “Dog Whistles”
(link) (archive)
The indictments of John Durham has shaken up Washington recently as he laid out the critical role played by Clinton campaign associates in the creation of the Russian collusion scandal, including the inclusion of debunked but widely reported allegations. It is clear from the latest indictment why leading Democrats like Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to kill the Durham investigation. None of that however prepared some of us for the response of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who called upon fired FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok to question the indictments. Strzok was fired at the recommendation of career investigators and has been cited as an example of the raw bias of key players in the Russian investigation. Yet, he was the choice of MSNBC to review the recent indictments and he did not disappoint in belittling the crimes alleged by the Special Counsel.
Maddow was one of the leading voices pushing the Russian collusion claims. She has not corrected her past statements or apologized for pushing the discredited claims. She was particularly assertive in touting the debunked Steele dossier.
On her Jan. 13, 2017, program, she stated:
“I mean, had the FBI looked into what was in that dossier and found that it was all patently false, they could tell us that now, right? I mean, the dossier has now been publicly released. If the FBI looked into it and they found it was all trash, there’s no reason they can’t tell us that now. They’re not telling us that now. They’re not saying that. They’re not saying anything.”
In March 2017, Maddow seemed eager to get people to just call the allegations facts. She invited Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) onto her show to highlight the 35-page dossier. She asked Schiff: “When you cited … that dossier, should we stop describing that as an uncorroborated dossier? Has some of the information of that been corroborated?”
Now Durham has detailed how the dossier was the product of the Clinton campaign, which long denied that it funded the dossier and only admitted the truth long after the election.
The response of Maddow was to invite one of the most biased and discredited figures in the scandal to cover the indictment.
Strzok’s bias and violation of FBI rules led to career Justice Department investigators referring his case to prosecutors and led to his firing from the FBI. His emails showed intense bias against Donald Trump and highly concerning statements about having an “insurance policy” in place if Trump were to win the election.
On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Michael Flynn. Strzok intervened.
Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Michael Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”
On that same day, however, Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.” The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”
Strzok also wrote FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the same person Strzok had referenced his “insurance policy” to in emails. Strzok texted Page: “Razor still open.
but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing 
”
That exchange is not as disconcerting as Strzok’s actions. After a finding of “no derogatory information,” Strzok reached for the Logan Act and sent a research paper on the notoriously unconstitutional law.
Now that same fired official is holding forth on Durham, a prosecutor who has been widely praised as an apolitical and unbiased investigator. Strzok declared “I’m certainly concerned when I read these indictments, both Mr. Sussmann’s and Mr. Danchenko’s… They have subtle dog-whistles to these kinds of pro-Trump conspiracy theories.”
Here is my favorite line: “The indictment makes a point to note that the FBI was unable to corroborate Steele’s reporting, but at the same time, it neglects to mention that we weren’t able to disprove it either.”
No line better sums up Strzok’s approach to his work.
First, Durham details how, in 2017, the FBI was informed that the main source for the dossier (and the Page secret warrant) told them that they were “unsubstantiated” and misrepresented. The FBI was also informed that American intelligence believed that Steele relied on a known Russian agent and that the dossier may have been the vehicle for Russian disinformation. The FBI also knew that that then-President Obama was briefed by his CIA director, John Brennan on an intelligence report that Clinton planned to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” That was on July 28, 2016 — three days before the Russia investigation was initiated.
Second, it is bizarre to note that allegations have yet to be clearly disproven. The allegations have been debunked to the extent that the key source has called them unreliable and little more than bar gossip. More importantly, the issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to launch (and continue) the investigation.
Strzok also notes that Mueller was able to nail the national security advisor. However, Mueller prosecuted Flynn for false statements much like the Durham indictments. Mueller found no evidence to support charging of any Russian collusion crimes. Strzok seems stuck in denial and suggesting that somehow targets should effectively have to “prove the negative” — prove they are not secret agents of Russia.
I support the appointment of the Special Counsel on the Russian collusion allegations after Trump fired James Comey. While I stated that the Russian collusion allegations were unlikely to be proven as crimes, I felt the public needed the assurance of an independent investigation. That is also why I supported the Durham investigation. Now that Durham is confirming that the Russian collusion allegations were engineered by Clinton campaign associates, there is a full court press in the media to downplay or ignore the underlying evidence.
The problem is that Durham does not appear to be done.
The indictments of John Durham has shaken up Washington recently as he laid out the critical role played by Clinton campaign associates in the creation of the Russian collusion scandal, including the inclusion of debunked but widely reported allegations. It is clear from the latest indictment why leading Democrats like Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to kill the Durham investigation. None of that however prepared some of us for the response of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who called upon fired FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok to question the indictments. Strzok was fired at the recommendation of career investigators and has been cited as an example of the raw bias of key players in the Russian investigation. Yet, he was the choice of MSNBC to review the recent indictments and he did not disappoint in belittling the crimes alleged by the Special Counsel.
Maddow was one of the leading voices pushing the Russian collusion claims. She has not corrected her past statements or apologized for pushing the discredited claims. She was particularly assertive in touting the debunked Steele dossier.
On her Jan. 13, 2017, program, she stated:
“I mean, had the FBI looked into what was in that dossier and found that it was all patently false, they could tell us that now, right? I mean, the dossier has now been publicly released. If the FBI looked into it and they found it was all trash, there’s no reason they can’t tell us that now. They’re not telling us that now. They’re not saying that. They’re not saying anything.”
In March 2017, Maddow seemed eager to get people to just call the allegations facts. She invited Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) onto her show to highlight the 35-page dossier. She asked Schiff: “When you cited … that dossier, should we stop describing that as an uncorroborated dossier? Has some of the information of that been corroborated?”
Now Durham has detailed how the dossier was the product of the Clinton campaign, which long denied that it funded the dossier and only admitted the truth long after the election.
The response of Maddow was to invite one of the most biased and discredited figures in the scandal to cover the indictment.
Strzok’s bias and violation of FBI rules led to career Justice Department investigators referring his case to prosecutors and led to his firing from the FBI. His emails showed intense bias against Donald Trump and highly concerning statements about having an “insurance policy” in place if Trump were to win the election.
On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Michael Flynn. Strzok intervened.
Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Michael Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”
On that same day, however, Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.” The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”
Strzok also wrote FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the same person Strzok had referenced his “insurance policy” to in emails. Strzok texted Page: “Razor still open.
but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing ”That exchange is not as disconcerting as Strzok’s actions. After a finding of “no derogatory information,” Strzok reached for the Logan Act and sent a research paper on the notoriously unconstitutional law.
Now that same fired official is holding forth on Durham, a prosecutor who has been widely praised as an apolitical and unbiased investigator. Strzok declared “I’m certainly concerned when I read these indictments, both Mr. Sussmann’s and Mr. Danchenko’s… They have subtle dog-whistles to these kinds of pro-Trump conspiracy theories.”
Here is my favorite line: “The indictment makes a point to note that the FBI was unable to corroborate Steele’s reporting, but at the same time, it neglects to mention that we weren’t able to disprove it either.”
No line better sums up Strzok’s approach to his work.
First, Durham details how, in 2017, the FBI was informed that the main source for the dossier (and the Page secret warrant) told them that they were “unsubstantiated” and misrepresented. The FBI was also informed that American intelligence believed that Steele relied on a known Russian agent and that the dossier may have been the vehicle for Russian disinformation. The FBI also knew that that then-President Obama was briefed by his CIA director, John Brennan on an intelligence report that Clinton planned to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” That was on July 28, 2016 — three days before the Russia investigation was initiated.
Second, it is bizarre to note that allegations have yet to be clearly disproven. The allegations have been debunked to the extent that the key source has called them unreliable and little more than bar gossip. More importantly, the issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to launch (and continue) the investigation.
Strzok also notes that Mueller was able to nail the national security advisor. However, Mueller prosecuted Flynn for false statements much like the Durham indictments. Mueller found no evidence to support charging of any Russian collusion crimes. Strzok seems stuck in denial and suggesting that somehow targets should effectively have to “prove the negative” — prove they are not secret agents of Russia.
I support the appointment of the Special Counsel on the Russian collusion allegations after Trump fired James Comey. While I stated that the Russian collusion allegations were unlikely to be proven as crimes, I felt the public needed the assurance of an independent investigation. That is also why I supported the Durham investigation. Now that Durham is confirming that the Russian collusion allegations were engineered by Clinton campaign associates, there is a full court press in the media to downplay or ignore the underlying evidence.
The problem is that Durham does not appear to be done.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2018
People that never face any consequences from their actions can never learn from their actions.
As you said, why WOULDN'T Hunter be exceptional?
Remember, the entire Kyle Rittenhouse situation started because these exceptional individuals were pushing a burning dumpster towards a gas station, and then got angry when Kyle's friends put it out.
derpherp2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2020
A meme made to spite the left, and the left thinks reversing it would work.
With a meme that sounds like Thanks Obama.
Lol ok.
Thanks Brandon.
Awfully naive of you to think child sex slaves live after being used.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2020
So apparently NASCAR has been cucked and her disowned Lets go Brandon. And are threatening sueing.
You got to be kidding me. Do they not realize most their fans are MAGAs?
You got to be kidding me. Do they not realize most their fans are MAGAs?
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
The fuck are they gonna sue for? They don’t own the slogan in any way.
- Joined
- May 28, 2020
Wait, who are they going to sue? That news reporter who started the phrase by mistake or what?
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2020
Agree. I don't understand either since the whole thing started because a Reporter didn't want to admit the truth that a crowd was shutting "Fuck Joe Biden". NASCAR did noting to create it
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2020
Their threatening to sue the use of the slogan with their trademarks
- Status