Category Marxism

Dec 27 2021

Sunday Talks, Apparently Huma Abedin Has Written a Book About Weinergate – No Questions About Abedin’s Laptop That Anthony Tried to Leverage During Plea Deal


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 26, 2021 | Sundance | 145 Comments

Apparently Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, has written a book describing her life experience during a time when her husband Anthony Weiner was sending pictures of his penis to various underage girls around the country.  [One of Andrew Breitbart’s Funniest Moments]

Back in 2011, Andrew triggered a series of events that long outlasted his time with us.  Very influential New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner was texting pictures of his penis (amid other things) to underage girls.  Andrew was tipped off and eventually exposed the story.  It was a hot mess of DNC, MSM and the entire Clinton machine circling the wagons to protect Weiner and attack Breitbart.  Andrew won against the entire machine in epic fashion. It was just awesome.

A few years passed, and then Anthony Weiner was caught doing it again, only this time there were criminal charges.  Huma has written a book about her life in the aftermath of Weiner’s exposure and appears on CNN to talk about it.

There is a facet to the Huma Abedin story that no one in the media will discuss, including Dana Bash.   Huma’s husband, Anthony Weiner, tried to cut a deal with federal officials at the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to avoid criminal prosecution.  Weiner offered to give Huma Abedin’s laptop, which included all of Huma’s electronic communication files with Hillary Clinton, to the US Attorney’s office and FBI in return for no prosecution.

Huma’s laptop was essentially the Abedin/Weiner insurance policy against the Clintons.  The laptop contained copies of all the emails that were missing from the Clinton private servers, because Huma’s email account automatically copied the emails to her account in the cloud so she could access them from any device.  There were 350,000 emails and at least 344,000 Blackberry communications on the laptop. [FBI FILES]

The Abedin laptop had all the Clinton emails that Hillary Clinton’s lawyers said were no longer available, as the servers were destroyed and data deleted.

The Southern District of New York (SDNY) and FBI took custody of the laptop, but never made the deal with Anthony Weiner.

Despite numerous mistaken reports about the Clinton email issues at hand, it was THAT Abedin laptop that was the true purpose of Bill Clinton meeting with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac, Arizona 2016.

A review of the Inspector General report about the FBI activity surrounding the Abedin laptop, an overlay of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages around the time of the laptop, and a review of James Comey statements about the laptop, all tell a remarkable story about the coverup.

Chapter 11 of the IG Report – This issue of the handling of the Weiner/Abedin laptop screams DOJ/FBI coverup operations. Consider this from page #388 (emphasis mine):

Midyear agents obtained a copy of the Weiner laptop from NYO immediately after the search warrant was signed on October 30.

The laptop was taken directly to Quantico where the FBI’s Operational Technology Division (OTD) began processing the laptop. The Lead Analyst told us that given the volume of emails on the laptop, and the difficulty with de-duplicating the emails, that “at least for the first few days, the scale of what we’re doing seem[ed] really, really big.”

Strzok told us that OTD was able “to do some amazing things” to “rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that the Midyear team would have to individually review. Strzok stated that only after that technological breakthrough did he begin to think it was “possible we might wrap up before the election.”  (pg 388)

The key takeaway here is two-fold.  First, the laptop is in the custody of the FBI; that’s important moving forward (I’ll explain later).  Also, specifically important, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, the lead investigative authority in the Hillary Clinton MYE (Mid-Year-Exam), is explaining to the IG how they were able to process an exhaustive volume of emails (350,000) and Blackberry communications (344,000) in a few days; [Oct 30 to Nov 5]

Note: “OTD was able “to do some amazing things to rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop.”

OK, you got that?

Now lets look at the very next page, #389 (again, emphasis mine):

[…] The FBI determined that Abedin forwarded two of the confirmed classified emails to Weiner. The FBI reviewed 6,827 emails that were either to or from Clinton and assessed 3,077 of those emails to be “potentially work-related.”

The FBI analysis of the review noted that “[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation” and therefore the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear investigation. (pg 389)

See the problem?  See the contradiction?

Strzok is saying, due to some amazing wizardry, the FBI forensics team was able to de-duplicate the emails.  However, FBI forensics is saying they were NOT able to de-duplicate the emails.

Both of these statements cannot be true.  And therein lies the underlying evidence to support a belief the laptop content was never actually reviewed.  But it gets worse, much worse….

To show how it’s FBI Agent Peter Strzok that is lying, go back to chapter #9 and re-read what the New York case agent was saying about the content of the laptop.

The New York FBI analysis supports the FBI forensic statement in that no de-duplication was possible, because the metadata was not consistent.   The New York FBI Weiner case agent ran into this metadata issue when using extraction software on the laptop.

CHAPTER 9:    The case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation was certified as a Digital Extraction Technician and, as such, had the training and skills to extract digital evidence from electronic devices.

The case agent told the OIG that he began processing Weiner’s devices upon receipt on September 26. The case agent stated that he noticed “within hours” that there were “over 300,000 emails on the laptop.”

The case agent told us that on either the evening of September 26 or the morning of September 27, he noticed the software program on his workstation was having trouble processing the data on the laptop.  (pg 274)

The New York Case Agent then describes how inconsistent metadata, within the computer files for the emails and Blackberry communications, made it impossible for successful extraction.  The FBI NY case agent and the Quantico FBI forensics agent agree on the metadata issue, and the inability to use their software programs for extraction and layered comparison for the purposes of de-duplication.

Both NY and Quantico contradict the statement to the IG by FBI Agent Peter Strzok.  However, that contradiction, while presented in a factual assertion by the IG, is entirely overlooked and never reconciled within the inspector general report.  That irreconcilable statement also sheds more sunlight on the motives of Strzok.

Next up, there were only three FBI people undertaking the October Clinton email review.  To learn who they are we jump back to Chapter #11, page #389.

The Midyear team flagged all potentially work-related emails encountered during the review process and compared those to emails that they had previously reviewed in other datasets. Any work-related emails that were unique, meaning that they did not appear in any other dataset, were individually reviewed by the Lead Analyst, [Peter] Strzok, and FBI Attorney 1 [Tashina Gauhar] for evidentiary value.  (pg 389)

Pete Strzok, Tash Gauhar and the unknown lead analyst.  That’s it.  Three people.

This is the crew that created the “wizardry” that FBI Director James Comey says allowed him to tell congress with confidence that 1,355,980 electronic files (pg 389), containing 350,000 emails and 344,000 Blackberry communications, were reviewed between October 30th and the morning of November 6th, 2016.

Three people.

Pete, Tash and one lead analyst.  Uh huh.

Sure.

The Inspector General just presents the facts; that’s obviously what he did.  Then, it’s up to FBI and DOJ leadership to accept the facts, interpret them, and apply their meaning.

No bias?

But FBI is committed to bias training?

FUBAR.

There is an actual hero in all of this though.  It’s that unnamed FBI Case Agent in New York who wouldn’t drop the laptop issue and forced the FBI in DC to take action on the laptop.  Even the IG points this out (chapter #9, page 331):

We found that what changed between September 29 and October 27 that finally prompted the FBI to take action was not new information about what was on the Weiner laptop but rather the inquiries from the SDNY prosecutors and then from the Department. The only thing of significance that had changed was the calendar and the fact that people outside of the FBI were inquiring about the status of the Weiner laptop. (pg 331)

Those SDNY prosecutors only called Main Justice in DC, because the New York case agent went in to see them and said he wasn’t going to be the scape goat for a buried investigation (chapter #9, pg 303). “The case agent told us that he scheduled a meeting on October 19 with the two SDNY AUSAs assigned to the Weiner investigation, because he felt like he had nowhere else to turn.” … “The AUSAs both told us that the case agent appeared to be very stressed and worried that somehow he would be blamed in the end if no action was taken.”

On October 20, 2016, the AUSAs met with their supervisors at SDNY and informed them of their conversation with the Weiner case agent. The AUSAs stated that they told their supervisors the substantive information reported by the case agent, the case agent’s concerns that no one at the FBI had expressed interest in this information, and their concern that the case agent was stressed out and might act out in some way. (pg 304)

Why would the New York Case Agent be worried?

Consider Page 274, footnote #165:

fn 165:  No electronic record exists of the case agent’s initial review of the Weiner laptop. The case agent told us that at some point in mid-October 2016 the NYO ASAC instructed the case agent to wipe his work station. The case agent explained that the ASAC was concerned about the presence of potentially classified information on the case agent’s work station, which was not authorized to process classified information.

The case agent told us that he followed the ASAC’s instructions, but that this request concerned him because the audit trail of his initial processing of the laptop would no longer be available. The case agent clarified that none of the evidence on the Weiner laptop was impacted by this, explaining that the FBI retained the Weiner laptop and only the image that had been copied onto his work station was deleted. The ASAC recalled that the case agent “worked through the security department to address the concern” of classified information on an unclassified system. He told us that he did not recall how the issue was resolved.

Now watch embed tweet video:

Summary:

  • There were only three people in the Mid-Year-Event team granted authority to physically do the Clinton email review.
  • They were: FBI Agent Peter Strzok, FBI Attorney-1 Tashina “Tash” Gauhar, and an unnamed lead analyst.
  • FBI Agent Peter Strzok says they were able to cull the number of emails through the use of “some amazing things to rapidly de-duplicate” the emails.
  • The New York FBI case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation, a certified Digital Extraction Technician, as well as the FBI forensics team in Quantico, say it was impossible to use the conflicted metadata to “de-duplicate” the emails.
  • Someone is lying.
  • FBI Director James Comey said his investigative unit used some form of “wizardry” to review the content of the Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner laptop.
  • The Inspector General makes no determination as to who is telling the truth, and never asked the question of whether an actual review of the laptop emails took place.
  • The FBI still has possession of the Abedin/Weiner laptop.

.

.

⇑ These Cannot Both Be True ⇓

Within this interview, former FBI Director James Comey is questioned about the announcement of re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation on October 28th, 2016.  In his response to why there was a delay between the FBI being notified by New York on September 28th, and waiting until October 28th, James Comey revealed a very important nugget.

The New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) called Main Justice in DC to ask about why they were not receiving authority for a search warrant. We knew that call took place on October 21st, 2016.  Now we know “why” and who New York called at DOJ HQ.

Listen closely to James Comey at 06:06 to 07:30 of the interview (prompted):

Baier: “Did you know that Andrew McCabe, your deputy, had sat on that revelation about the emails”?

Comey: “Yeah, I don’t know that, I don’t know that to be the case. I do know that New York and FBI headquarters became aware that there may be some connection between Weiner’s laptop and the Clinton investigation, weeks before it was brought to me for decision – and as I write in the book I don’t know whether they could have moved faster and why the delay”

Baier: “Was it the threat that New York Agents were going to leak that it existed really what drove you to the ‘not conceal’ part?

Comey: “I don’t think so. I think what actually drove it was the prosecutors in New York who were working the criminal case against Weiner called down to headquarters and said ‘are we getting a search warrant or not for this’?  That caused, I’m sorry, Justice Department Headquarters, to then call across the street to the FBI and poke the organization; and they start to move much more quickly. I don’t know why there was, if there was slow activity, why it was slow for those first couple of weeks.”

There’s some really sketchy stuff going on in that answer. Why would SDNY need to get authorization for a search warrant from DC, if this is about Weiner’s laptop?  Yes, you could argue it pertains to a tightly held Clinton investigation run out of DC, but the Weiner prosecution issues shouldn’t require approval from DC.

But let’s take Comey at face-value.  So there we discover it was justice officials within SDNY (Southern District of New York) who called Main Justice (DOJ in DC) and asked about a needed search warrant for “this”, presumably Weiner’s laptop by inference.  Now, let’s go look at the Page/Strzok description of what was going on.

Here are the messages from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok surrounding the original date that New York officials notified Washington DC FBI.  It’s important to note the two different entities: DOJ -vs- FBI.

According to the September 28, 2016 messages from FBI Agent Peter Strzok, it was the SDNY in New York telling Andrew McCabe in DC about the issue.  Pay close attention to the convo:

(pdf source for all messages here)

Notice: “hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s attorney to SDNY”.

Pay super close attention.  This is not an outcome of a New York Police Dept. raid on Anthony Weiner.  This is Weiner’s attorney going to the U.S. attorney and voluntarily turning over emails. The emails were not turned over to the FBI in New York, the actual emails were turned over to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District.

Key point here: Weiner’s attorneys turned over “emails”.  Actual “emails”.

♦If the U.S. Attorney in New York has the actual physical emails on September 28th, 2016, why would they need a search warrant on October 21st, 2016? (Comey’s call explanation)

♦Why would Weiner’s attorney be handing over evidence?

Think about this carefully.  I’ll get back to the importance of it later; but what I suspect is that Weiner had physical material that was his “insurance policy” against anything done to him by Hillary Clinton.  Facing a criminal prosecution, Weiner’s lawyer went to the U.S. Attorney and attempted to exploit/leverage the content therein on his client’s behalf.

Fast forward three weeks, and we go back to FBI in DC.

On October 21, 2016, this is the call referenced by James Comey in the Bret Baier interview.  Someone from New York called “Main Justice” (the DOJ National Security Division in DC) and notified DOJ-NSD Deputy Asst. Attorney General George Toscas of the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails via the “weiner investigation”.

[I would point out again, he’s not being notified of a laptop, Toscas is notified of “emails”]

George Toscas “wanted to ensure information got to Andy“, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe…. so, he called FBI Agent Peter Strzok…. who told George Toscas, “We know”.

Peter Strzok then tells Bill Priestap.

Of course, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe already knew about the emails since September 28th, 2016, more than three weeks earlier.

In his Bret Baier interview, FBI Director James Comey says this call is about a search warrant.  There is no indication the call is actually about a search warrant.  [Nor would there be a need for a search warrant if the call was actually about the emails that Wiener’s attorney dropped off on 9/21].

However, that phone call kicks off an internal debate about the previously closed Clinton email investigation; and Andrew McCabe sitting on the notification from New York for over three weeks – kicks off an internal FBI discussion about McCabe needing to recuse himself.

Now it’s October 27th, 2016, and James Comey Chief-of-Staff Jim Rybicki wants McCabe to recuse himself.  But Rybicki is alone on an island. Lisa Page is furious at such a suggestion, partly because she is McCabe’s legal counsel and if McCabe is recused, so too is she.

At the same time as they are debating how to handle the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails, they are leaking to the media to frame a specific narrative.

Important to note here, that at no time is there any conversation -or hint of a conversation- that anyone is reviewing the content of the emails.  The discussions don’t mention a single word about content… every scintilla of conversation is about how to handle the issues of the emails themselves.  Actually, there’s not a single person mentioned in thousands of text messages that applies to an actual person who is looking at any content.

Quite simply: there is a glaringly transparent lack of an “investigation”.

Within this “tight group” at FBI, as Comey puts it, there is not a single mention of a person who is sitting somewhere looking through the reported “600,000” Clinton emails that was widely reported by media.  There’s absolutely ZERO evidence of anyone looking at emails or scouring through laptop data…. and FBI Agent Peter Strzok has no staff under him who he discusses assigned to such a task…. and Strzok damned sure ain’t doing it.  So what gives?

Moving on – Note to readers. Click the graphics and read the notes on them too:

It’s still October 27th, 2016, the day before James Comey announces his FBI decision to reopen the Clinton investigation.  Jim Rybicki is still saying McCabe should be recused from input; everyone else, including FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, is disagreeing with Rybicki and siding with Lisa Page.

Meanwhile the conversation has shifted slightly to “PC”, probable cause.  Read:

While Lisa Page is leaking stories to Devlin Barrett (Wall Street Journal), the internal discussion amid the “small group” is about probable cause.

The team is now saying, if there was no probable cause when Comey closed the original email investigation in July 2016 (remember the very tight boundaries of review), then there’s no probable cause in October 2016 to reopen the investigation regardless of what the email content might be.

This appears to be how the “small group” or “tight team” justify doing nothing with the content received from New York.  They received the emails September 28th, and it’s now October 27th, and they haven’t even looked at it.  Heck, they are debating if there’s even a need to look at it.

Then on October 28th, 2016, the FBI and Main Justice officials have a conference call about the entire Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton email issue.  Here’s where it gets interesting.

George Toscas and David Laufman, from DOJ-NSD, articulate a position that something needs to happen likely, because Main Justice is concerned about the issue of FBI (McCabe) sitting on the emails for over three weeks without any feedback to SDNY (New York).

Thanks to Deputy Director McCabe, Main Justice in DC, specifically DOJ National Security Division, now looks like they are facilitating a cover-up operation being conducted by the FBI “small group”.  [Which is actually true, but they can’t let that be so glaringly obvious].

As a result of the Top-Tier officials conference call, Strzok is a grumpy agent because his opinion appears to be insignificant.  The decision is reached to announce the re-opening of the investigation.  This sends Lisa Page bananas…

In rapid response mode, Lisa Page reaches out to Devlin Barrett, again to quickly shape the media coverage.  Now that the world is aware of the need for a Clinton email investigation 2.0, the internal conversation returns to McCabe’s recusal.

Please note, that at no time in the FBI is anyone directing an actual investigation of the content of the Clinton emails.  Every single second of every effort is devoted to shaping the public perception of the need for the investigation.  Every media outlet is being watched, every article is being read, and the entire apparatus of the small group is shaping coverage therein by contacting their leak outlets.

So let’s go back to that Comey interview:

♦What exactly would SDNY need a search warrant for?

♦Anthony Weiner’s lawyer has delivered SDNY actual emails.  Why would he do that?

Now lets connect those questions to an earlier report.

According to ABC News, Comey writes in “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership,” that he became the public face of the investigation partly because of a mysterious development which he felt could cast “serious doubt” on Lynch’s independence.

“Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation,” Comey writes, according to ABC. He calls the material a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.” (ABC Link)

On page six of the IG report on Andrew McCabe (point number 4), we find a conference call between Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and the FBI field office in New York, where the subject of the Weiner/Abedin/Clinton email findings overlap with: the Clinton Foundation (CF) investigation, the Clinton Email investigation, pressure for Asst. Director McCabe to recuse himself, and Washington DC via Loretta Lynch using DOJ Main Justice leverage from the Eric Garner case against the NY FBI office and New York Police Department.

From the OIG report:

4. The Attorney General Expresses Strong Concerns to McCabe and other FBI Officials about Leaks, and McCabe Discusses Recusing Himself from CF Investigation (October 26, 2016)

McCabe told the OIG that during the October 2016 time frame, it was his “perception that there was a lot of information coming out of likely the [FBI’s] New York Field Office” that was ending up in the news. McCabe told the OIG that he “had some heated back-and-forths” with the New York Assistant Director in Charge (“NY-ADIC”) over the issue of media leaks.

On October 26th, 2016, McCabe and NY-ADIC participated in what McCabe described as “a hastily convened conference call with the Attorney General who delivered the same message to us” about leaks, with specific focus being on leaks regarding the high-profile investigation by FBI’s New York Field Office into the death of Eric Garner. McCabe told us that he “never heard her use more forceful language.” NY-ADIC confirmed that the participants got “ripped by the AG on leaks.”

According to NY-ADIC’s testimony and an e-mail he sent to himself on October 31, McCabe indicated to NY-ADIC and a then-FBI Executive Assistant Director (“EAD”) in a conversation after Attorney General Lynch disconnected from the call that McCabe was recusing himself from the CF Investigation.

(Page #6 and #7 – IG Report Link)

What makes this explosive is the timing, and what we now know about what was going on amid the FBI “small group” in DC.

On September 28th, 2016, Andrew McCabe was made aware of emails given to New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) directly from Anthony Weiner’s lawyer.  Again, the information relayed to DC is not about a Weiner laptop, it’s about actual emails delivered by Weiner’s lawyer.  The laptop was evidence in the Weiner “sexting” case involving a minor; however, the laptop, reportedly, also contained thousands of State Department documents from Hillary Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s wife.

When Weiner’s lawyer walked into SDNY to deliver his leverage emails, Preet Bharara, a Clinton-Lynch ally, was the United States Attorney.

Again, look at the text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok (Inbox) and FBI Special Counsel to Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page (Outbox):

[The letter to “Congress” at the end of the text exchange relates to notification of the re-opening of the Clinton investigation – Actual date of notification 10/28/16]

According to later reporting, FBI Director James Comey was not notified of the emails until after October 21st, 2016.  However, in late October and early November, there were reports from people with contacts in New York police and New York FBI, about Washington DOJ officials interfering with the Weiner investigation.

On the same date (October 26th, 2016) as the Lynch, McCabe and NY FBI phone call, former NY Mayor Rudy Giuilani was telling Fox News that an explosive development was forthcoming.   Two days later, October 28th, 2016, Congress was notified of the additional Clinton emails.

However, a few more days later, November 4th, 2016, there was an even more explosive development, as Erik Prince appeared on radio and outlined discoveries, within the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner/Hillary Clinton email issues, that were being blocked by AG Lynch.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said. (Link)

An earlier Grand Jury in New York had refused to return an indictment against the NYPD in the Garner case.  As an outcome of that grand jury finding, and as an outcome of their own investigation, the local FBI office and Eastern District of New York DOJ office was not trying to pursue criminal charges against the NYPD officers involved.  This created a dispute, because federal prosecutors (EDNY) and FBI officials in New York opposed bringing charges, while prosecutors with the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department in Washington argued there was clear evidence to do so.

On October 25th, 2016, Loretta Lynch replaced the EDNY New York prosecutors:

New York Times (Oct. 25)  – The Justice Department has replaced the New York team of agents and lawyers investigating the death of Eric Garner, officials said, a highly unusual shake-up that could jump-start the long-stalled case and put the government back on track to seek criminal charges.

With that move – on Oct. 25th, 2016, AG Lynch was now in position to threaten criminal prosecutions against the NYPD, and repercussions against the NY FBI and EDNY using the Garner case as leverage, just like Erik Prince outlined in the phone interview above.

Additionally, we see confirmation from the IG report the Garner case was brought up in the next day (Oct 26, 2016) phone call to the NY FBI field office, just as Erik Prince outlined.  Obviously, Prince’s sources were close to the events as they unfolded.

The NY FBI and Eastern District of New York (EDNY) were threatened by Washington DC Main Justice and FBI, via Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe, to drop the Clinton/Abedin/Weiner email investigation matters, or else the Garner DOJ Civil Rights Division would be used as leverage against the NYPD.  And Loretta Lynch had SDNY U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara as the enforcer waiting for her call.

And so it was…

The emails Anthony Weiner’s lawyer brought to Preet Bharara were Weiner’s leverage to escape prosecution.  Likely, those emails were exactly as Eric Prince sources outlined.  However, the SDNY responding to upper level leadership buried those emails.

In DC, the FBI (Comey and McCabe) created the appearance of a re-opening of the Clinton investigation to keep control and ensure the investigative outcomes remained out of the hands of the Eastern District (EDNY) and New York FBI field office.  They had no choice.

However, once the FBI opened the investigation October 28th, they did exactly the same thing they had done from September 28th to October 28th… they did nothing.

A few days later, they declared the second investigation closed, and that was that.

They never expected her to lose.

Dec 27 2021

Sunday Talks, CBS Continues Trying to Rehab Kamala Harris, Fails Miserably


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 26, 2021 | Sundance | 206 Comments

The most unqualified person to be installed in the position of Vice President is struggling badly.  Several attempts to rehabilitate her public image have failed miserably.  A new team was hired to try and rebrand her image, that too failed miserably.  Kamala Harris is a profoundly unserious person with few intellectual skills, and she requires constant assistance.  It must be very frustrating for those around her.

Today, CBS correspondent Margaret Brennan tries once again to elevate the image of Harris and fails.  You cannot create in someone a skillset that is light-years from their disposition.  Everything becomes a transparent pantomime, a performance of bad acting with a person who has not rehearsed, doesn’t know the plot, has not read the script, has spent no time with the other actors, and yet attempts to produce a performance.

The interview is lengthy, but I want to just draw your attention to a two minute segment that will highlight everything.  Listen to Kamala Harris discuss the current status of the Build Back Better bill, and the connected inflation that legislative spending creates.  [From 4:56 (prompted) to 7:00] WATCH:

That word salad of nothingness perfectly encapsulates Kamala Harris.  She has absolutely no idea what she is trying to say, because she has absolutely no idea what she is trying to talk about.  It’s not an issue of her being merely unqualified, the problem is much bigger, she’s completely clueless.  The team around her cannot make something out of nothing.

What I am describing above is not just visible to critics like you and me. The problem for Biden and Harris is that the majority of Democrats see Harris in exactly the same way, look at the comments section on YouTube.   Only corporate media and far, far left social justice types -who pretend not to know things- are supportive.  That’s why Harris could only gain 3% support from the Democrat base in the 2020 election.

From the outset of the Democrat primary race in 2020, corporate media have consistently focused on trying to make the gender of Harris her attribute for office.  Simultaneously, these same media voices have acted like an immature bunch of high school girls in a clique attempting to connect Kamala Harris to the American people, as if this was a contest for prom queen.  Everything about this effort creates cringe.

Kamala Harris was selected by the people who selected Joe Biden specifically because she is an empty vessel.  It is her complete lack of skills and abilities that made her the perfect candidate for those who were constructing the fake presidency of Joe Biden.  Harris’s lack of ability on everything is a feature they needed; her empty vessel status was not a flaw.

Just like Obama and company needed a stupid person as Director of National Intelligence, so they installed James Clapper – so too did the same crew need stupid in the VP role, so they selected Kamala Harris.   Exact same intents, exact same purposes.

CBS creates this pantomime, yet it is silly in all ways – even the optics.

Spread out the seats to make ‘social distancing’ seem professional or prudent for broadcast one minute….

…Forget the theatrics of social distancing the next minute:

.

All of it… the sum total of every bit of it…. is a consistently bad performance of epic proportions.

In short, Kamala Harris is the female version of Pete Buttigieg.

Dec 26 2021

The International Criminal Court – Fighting For the People (Part 1 – 4)


Armstrong Economics Blog/Human Rights by Martin Armstrong

Part One

A team from the UK has filed a complaint with the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on behalf of the people. The report alleges that government officials, pharmaceutical executives, and others profiting from the pandemic have violated the Nuremberg Code, committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as aggression against civilians. The 44-page complaint extensively lists the crimes committed by the following individuals:

The complaint states that the aforementioned individuals have committed the following crimes:

– Violations of the Nuremberg Code

– Violation of Article 6 of the Rome Statute

– Violation of Article 7 of the Rome Statute

– Violation of Article 8 of the Rome

– Violation of Article 8 bis3 of the Rome Statute

The document contains a lot of detailed information that I will summarize:

COVID Is a Biological Weapon – Gain of Function Research

COVID was created in a laboratory. Leo Poon. Dr. Li-Meng Yan and her team published a report (Appendix 4) claiming that the novel coronavirus was developed “as a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone.” ZC45 and ZXC21 were discovered between July 2015 and February 2017 in military research laboratories. Once the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre, a non-military laboratory, published a conflicting report and was quickly forced by the government to retract its statement. “The existing scientific publications supporting a natural origin theory rely heavily on a single piece of evidence – a previously discovered bat coronavirus named RaTG13, which shares a 96% nucleotide sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2.”

Again, all evidence discredits the notion that the COVID-19 virus developed naturally. “The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the USA has admitted to funding gain of function research on bat coronaviruses at China’s Wuhan lab – despite Dr Anthony Fauci repeatedly denying this.” There is clear evidence that the NIH funded gain of function research between 2014 and 2019. A $3.1 million grant was awarded to EcoHealth Alliance for coronavirus studies on bats. Another grant of $599,000 was provided to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to also study COVID in bats.

Conclusion: The coronavirus did not develop naturally. Rather, the virus was deliberately created in a laboratory after years of government-funded research.

Experimental Vaccines

The vaccine received temporary authorization under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations Act (2012). The report notes that mRNA vaccines have never been approved for human usage and the effects are completely unknown. “The long-term effects and safety of the treatment in recipients are unknown. It is important to note that the Corona Virus ‘vaccines’ are the world’s first introduction to the synthetic m-RNA technology and all previous immunisations [sic] worked in a totally different manner, by way of introducing a deactivated or weakened virus to the body to trigger a natural arousal of the immune system against it.”

The COVID vaccination should be categorized as a gene therapy as it does not meet the requirements for the term “vaccine.” In February 2021, Merriam-Webster changed the definition of “vaccine” to include the COVID-19 mRNA injection. Dr. Mike Yeadon stated in the report: “It’s not a vaccination. It’s not prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with it, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.”

Conclusion: The COVID-19 injection is not a vaccine, but rather a mass experimental form of gene therapy with unknown consequences.

Presence of Graphene Hydroxide in Vaccines

German chemist Dr. Andreas Noack was one of the EU’s top graphene and carbon experts who formulated his doctoral thesis by converting graphene oxide into graphene hydroxide. Dr. Noack examined the vaccines along with other experts and found that the vaccines contain graphene hydroxide. “On November 23, 2021, Dr. Andreas Noack released a video explaining what graphene hydroxide is and how the nano structures injected into the human body act as ‘razor blades’ inside the veins of ‘vaccine’ recipients. Dr. Andreas goes on to explain how due to the nano size of the graphene oxide structures they would not show up on an autopsy as toxicologists can’t imagine that there are structures that can cut up blood vessels causing people to bleed to death on the inside so they would not be looking for them, given their atomic size.”

After speaking out about graphene hydroxide in vaccines on a live stream broadcast, Dr. Noack was arrested on film by German police. On November 26, 2021, Dr. Noack was attacked and murdered. His case remains unsolved.

Conclusion: There is graphene hydroxide in the vaccine, and Dr. Noack was assassinated for speaking the truth.

Part Two

Looking further into the complaint filed with the International Criminal Court, we find additional examples of human rights abuses.

PCR Tests

Oxford University has discovered that PCR tests are so sensitive that they can detect old infections by tracking fragments of dead viral cells. “Originally developed to detect the presence of DNA and RNA in biological samples, even its Nobel Prize-winning inventor Kary Mullis declared that PCR was never intended to diagnose a disease,” the complaint states. Dr. Kary Mullis said that the PCR test can find “almost anything in anybody.” The PCR tests repeatedly cycle to find traces of viral RNA and are chemically amplified with each attempt. Public Health England stated that the PCR test threshold should be set around 25.6, and anything above means there is not enough evidence of the virus to deem a person ill.

Conclusion: PCR tests are often run 40-45 times to artificially increase the chance of a positive result.

Masks

The World Health Organization (WHO) previously admitted that there is no evidence available to indicate masks as an effective method of protecting healthy individuals. “In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germ components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly breathed back into the body, causing self-contamination.” Furthermore, there is actually evidence that face masks can cause toxic particles to build within the mask. “Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression.”

Conclusion: There is no evidence that masks are effective against the transmission of COVID-19; however, there is evidence that wearing masks can be toxic.

Alternative Treatments

There are numerous treatments for the coronavirus that are not offered to the population at large.

  • Hydroxychloroquine – 50% reduction in hospitalizations and death
  • Ivermectin – 70% reduction in deaths
  • Favipiravir – Approved only in Japan
  • Corticosteroids – 87% reduction in hospitalizations; 30% reduction in deaths
  • Colchicine – 25% reduction in hospitalization and deaths

Conclusion: Safe and effective treatments for the coronavirus exist but are not readily available.

Part Three

The complaint filed with the International Criminal Court continues to provide a broad-picture view of the various ways governments have used the coronavirus to exploit the people.

INFLATED COVID FIGURES

Nurses and doctors from hospitals across the world have noted that nearly every death recorded is due to the coronavirus. The complaint notes that if an individual died for any reason within 28 days of receiving a positive COVID-19 diagnosis, their death is deemed a coronavirus casualty. The report notes that between March and June 2020, England and Wales recorded 4,476 deaths with no pre-existing condition.

Yet, deaths for the same period suddenly spiked to 49,607:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is englandwales2-300x259.jpg

The complaint alleges that governments have been artificially inflating figures and misbranding common flu, pneumonia, and other respiratory illnesses as COVID-19. To further show that the common flu has been mislabeled as COVID, data from the ONC shows that flu and pneumonia deaths in 2018 and 2019 came to 29,516 and 26,398, respectfully. In 2020, only 394 people died from the common flu and 13,619 passed away from pneumonia.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is englandwales3-300x156.jpg

Conclusion: The number of fatalities from the coronavirus has been drastically overstated. As mentioned in an earlier post, PCR tests were never meant to be used in their current manner, and often produce false-positive results. Anyone who dies within 28 days of a positive test result is deemed a casualty of coronavirus, even if the virus was not the cause of death.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Censored-300x196.jpg

CENSORSHIP

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, and countless social media platforms have removed any and all information regarding the coronavirus that does not fit the broader agenda. “. Authorities have blocked legitimate websites and ordered the removal of unwanted content. Officials have reinforced these controls by criminalising [sic] more categories of online expression and arresting journalists, activists, and members for public speaking about the government’s performance. To suppress unfavourable [sic] health statistics, critical reporting and other COVID-19 content the UK government has blocked websites or forced users, social media platforms, or online outlets to delete information,” the report states.

Furthermore, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the RNA vaccine, has been removed from all social media platforms for speaking out against the vaccine. “Smear campaigns are being waged against any doctors and scientists who challenge the WHO narrative on Covid-19 and the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’. We are in a situation where governments and global NGO’s have seized control of the medical profession,” the complaint continues.

Conclusion: Media companies are directly filtering and altering public information. Even reputable medical professionals have been scrubbed from the internet. Governments around the world are using the pandemic as a reason to crack down on free speech and information.

Part Four

Clade X and Event 201

“In May, 2018, the WEF partnered with Johns Hopkins to simulate a fictitious pandemic  dubbed ‘Clade X’ (Appendix 12)  to see how prepared the world be if ever faced with a catastrophic pandemic.  A little over a year later, the WEF once again teamed-up with Johns Hopkins, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to stage another pandemic exercise called ‘Event 201’ in October, 2019 (Appendix 13). Both simulations concluded that the world wasn’t prepared for a global pandemic. A few short months following the conclusion of Event 201, which specifically simulated a coronavirus outbreak, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared that the coronavirus had reached pandemic status on March 11, 2020.”

The simulation covered the following scenarios:

  • Governments implementing lockdowns worldwide
  • The collapse of many industries
  • Growing mistrust between governments and citizens
  • A greater adoption of biometric surveillance technologies
  • Social media censorship in the name of combating misinformation
  • The desire to flood communication channels with “authoritative” sources
  • A global lack of personal protective equipment
  • The breakdown of international supply chains
  • Mass unemployment
  • Rioting in the streets

Conclusion: The accuracy of these “simulations” is more than a coincidence. The World Economic Forum (WEF) and its partners were planning for the release of a pandemic. After all of the above scenarios materialized, WEF founder Klaus Schwab said it was now time for the Great Reset.

“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future” — Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum

Dec 26 2021

The Sovereign Debt Crisis Arrives


Armstrong Economics Blog/Sovereign Debt Crisis Re-Posted Dec 26, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

While the world is turning, the economic crisis emanating from the SovereignDebt Crisis in Europe is propelling a very serious outlook as we head into 2022. I have been warning for the past 10 years that the situation would become critical. I have attended meetings with many central banks over this period warning that governments cannot continue to borrow perpetually with no intention of repaying what they borrow.

The Day of reckoning is arriving. They have been using this COVID-19 whipping it up into a panic for the shear purpose to bring us to the point where their solution will be to default disguised as a solution for the poeple. I will report on the real state of the world financial system and it may be shocking for most. This is not a question of simple hyperinflation for that even implies that the currency survives, The real outlook is far from the claims of the pundits that keep pitching the same story for decades since the collapse of Bretton Woods. Those in power are already running stories that there will be an armed revolution if Trump does not win in 2024, It would be nice if we even have that long before political chaos upsets the financial system.

There will NEVER be a return to normal. These people have divided the people on race and politics and the key to civilization has always been that people come together when they ALL benefit. Civilization collapses when you divide the people, and turn one group against the other.

Dec 26 2021

Candace Owens Reconciles President Trump Vaccine Position by Saying “He’s Old” and “Doesn’t Use the Internet”…


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 25, 2021 | Sundance | 538 Comments

Candace Owens likely felt some need to follow up on her interview with President Trump due to overwhelming opinion of Trump’s vaccine position.  Unfortunately, she attempts to reconcile President Trump’s position by casting aspersions toward him [Daily Mail Article].

Mrs. Owens reconciles President Trump’s support for the three COVID-19 vaccines by saying he’s too old to understand the troublesome vaccine information and doesn’t use the internet for his research.   WATCH:

President Trump’s position on the vaccines –as a tool in the arsenal to combat the pandemic– is essentially unremarkable.  Trump supports the vaccines that were developed, under the goal of providing protection for people against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, by the scientific community.  However, President Trump repeatedly insists that no one should be mandated to take the vaccine.

The essential Trump position has consistently been:

‘The American and international scientific and medical establishment have determined that SARS-CoV-2 represents a significant threat to public health.  In response, the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH); in coordination with the World Health Organization (WHO) and various governments around the globe, have worked with scientists and pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines to be deployed under emergency authorizations.  Those vaccines are available for the American public to consider and use, if a person is worried about their health risk.’ 

That’s it, that’s the sum total of President Trump’s position.

Trump doesn’t feel people should be pressured, forced, coerced or mandated to take a vaccine.  Nor should anyone be subject to discrimination or division based on their unique medical decision. Vaccination is an individual choice, and President Trump has said, repeatedly, he respects anyone’s decision either way, and the federal government should not be involved.   From my perspective, this is non-controversial.

Additionally, despite the proclamations of many who have even written on these comment sections, this position is not only the same as Florida Governor ¹Ron DeSantis, but also identical.

Again, position encapsulated: “Here’s what the professionals who work for your federal government have come up with, use them as you see beneficial to yourself and your family.”

In addition to the vaccine development approach, in 2020 President Trump authorized the U.S. medical community to work collaboratively to immediately provide therapeutic options and antibody treatments as tools and resources for doctors and infected patients to use in treatment.

Critics of President Trump have argued that the former president should now be taking a strong position in opposition to the vaccines as a result of new information which undermines the original efficacy of them.  The vaccines now require boosters, and the vaccines do not stop the spread of infection, ergo they are useless or potentially worse, might cause harm.

Despite these issues, the position of the United States government has not changed, and all of the previous U.S. medical institutions who advised on the original approach toward vaccination against the pandemic have not reversed their position.   Those are the current decision makers for public health, not Donald Trump.

The public ire directed toward President Trump would be more appropriately targeted toward the professionals in the scientific and medical establishment who are in the current position to make a modification or reversal in their approach.

There are many people using hindsight to criticize President Trump saying: with revelations over the past two years the entire U.S. medical establishment no longer holds credibility.  However, at the time those original pandemic mitigation decisions were made, and President Trump activated a Cornavirus Taskforce led by Vice President Mike Pence, how many American people really understood the political nonsense happening deep inside the CDC, FDA and NIH?

It’s fair to say almost no one knew how corrupt those institutions of U.S. public health were at the time when the first concerns of the COVID virus were raised.   Similarly, few people knew how corrupt the FBI and U.S. intelligence apparatus was in 2016 when those institutions were spying on and targeting candidate Trump.  Most of the identified revelations of historic corruption surface only as a result of investigations after the fact.

Approximately two-thirds of the American population have taken the vaccine shot(s), and a large number of them are currently in the process of getting boosters.   We can only imagine what would happen if the U.S. government was to officially state the vaccinations are now determined to be detrimental in some manner or form.   That’s why it is certain, regardless of the danger or lack thereof from the vaccination itself, the U.S. government will never, ever, reverse course on their claims of vaccine safety, or even value.

Expecting some entity or individual in the United States to be capable of forcing the United States government, or any medical institution within it, to admit they are potentially harming the public – is an exercise in futility.   It will never happen.  Ever.  That Rubicon was crossed well over a year ago.

We are now at the point where the FDA is authorizing, under emergency use processes, just about anything the medical establishment tells them to authorize.  Which, understandably, has resulted in even fewer people participating in anything the FDA, CDC and NIH come up with.

Is the COVID-19 virus, or any iteration of a variant therein, likely no worse than a severe flu strain?  The answer to that has always been, maybe.  When you layer on sunlight showing how political the FDA, CDC & NIH institutions are, the answer shifts to ‘more than likely.’   However, we are operating now with a hindsight that was not available before, and even now data is still kept from the overwhelming majority of the American people, and Big Tech has been instructed to do exactly that.

Candace Owens reconciles President Trump’s position by saying, “he’s old” and “he doesn’t use the internet for his own research.”   To me that is not only curt and ridiculous, that position shows me Mrs. Owens does not understand the importance of the stable mindedness needed for success at the scale of a United States president.

I said at the early phase of the COVID fear and pandemic rising how we were fortunate to have Donald Trump in the White House, because his general disposition is to permit individual states and individual people to make their own decisions.

At a time, when COVID panic was at its apex, Trump could have gone full totalitarian dictator, and few would have flinched.   But he didn’t… instead he urged calm and told the American people to act prudently, but do not allow fear to overcome us.

All of the issues around vaccines are related to scientific and medical community practices.  Neither Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis is a scientist or a doctor, and they can only rely upon the opinions, suggestions and recommendations provided to them by experts in these fields.

It is one thing for you and me to have research-based opinions on vaccines that may or may not align with scientific consensus.   It is another kettle-o-fish entirely for Donald Trump to have an opinion, where his public statements are weighted toward national policy for public health.

I specifically remember when President Trump told us from the White House podium that the media-driven hype over the COVID-19 “was a hoax,” and the industrial media complex, along with both sides of the political spectrum and the total scientific medical community, blasted him for downplaying the SARS-CoV-2 risk.

From where I sit, given the scale of what has taken place, President Trump’s current position is stable and non-controversial.  Essentially, here’s the vaccine tools they say will help, decide for yourself.

Dec 26 2021

Denmark Vaccination Effectiveness Study Shows Interesting Result, Deserves Much More Inquiry


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 25, 2021 | Sundance | 346 Comments

CTH is just presenting data without too much interpretation on this study, because it could be analyzed two separate ways.

A Denmark study of vaccine effectiveness (VE) to “prevent infection“, and that’s a key point, shows both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine benefits essentially disappear after 90 days to six months. [Study pdf Here]  Now, some people are interpreting the bottom line result to say the vaccine makes you more susceptible to Omicron variant infection after the 150 day point [SEE HERE]. However, I’m not sure that’s the key takeaway.

The data does show that during the 91 to 150 day waning period of vaccine effectiveness, the vaccinated group who used Pfizer were 76.5% more likely to be infected with a variant versus the unvaccinated population.  And the vaccinated group who used Moderna were 39.3% more likely to be infected with a variant versus the unvaccinated population.  [Note, all natural immunity groups (previously infected) were removed from the study]

Yes, the study shows the vaccinated groups are more likely to be infected with Omicron than the unvaccinated population.

However, ¹if the Pfizer vaccinated group within the total population is at or near 76%, and ¹if the Moderna vaccinated group within the total population is at or near 39%, then what this Denmark study actually shows is a non-existent benefit from vaccination toward the Omicron variant.  Not, and I repeat NOT, a finding that the vaccination itself makes you more prone to infection from Omicron.

What we need to know is how many people in the total population are vaccinated, AND what percentage of that total vaccinated population used Pfizer and Moderna.

If the total population Omicron infection rates for both Pfizer and Moderna groups mirror the vaccination rates for Pfizer and Moderna, then the vaccine effectiveness is nil for the prevention of Omicron infection.   To me, that seems the most likely scenario.

The study conclusion is that booster shots are needed and provide essentially a 54.6% reduction in the risk of Omicron infection for Pfizer, and a (small sample) 82.8% reduction of the risk of Omicron infection for the Moderna group.

Obviously, more data is needed before this Denmark outcome can be accurately interpreted.

People are rightly worried that the vaccination itself might make you dependent on the vaccine forever.  Heck, there are people within the British government saying exactly that in their booster ad campaigns (see poster left).

Additionally, does the vaccine itself make you more prone to infection from a variant that defeats the vaccine-specific immunity response.  That’s the basic issue within Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE):

“In some cases, antibodies can enhance virus entry and replication in cells. This phenomenon is called antibody-dependent infection enhancement (ADE). ADE not only promotes the virus to be recognized by the target cell and enters the target cell, but also affects the signal transmission in the target cell.” (LINK)

Does the vaccine only target one version of the infection, and then allow other versions to avoid those vaccine antibodies, thus requiring ever continuing vaccinations that chase ever changing variants?   So far, the answer appears to be yes.

That said, this issue of vaccine effectiveness against ‘infection‘ remains interesting and should be pursued.   The reason is simple, if the vaccine does not prevent infection, then the premise of vaccine passports and/or vaccine mandates are moot.

Remove the ability of the vaccine to prevent infection, which seems brutally obvious at this point, and the only remaining benefit is one of medical outcome.  Does the vaccine make you less likely to have a severe medical condition after you are infected?

When CTH originally started looking at hospitalization rates, what we found was that the percentage of the vaccinated population in the hospital requiring treatment was almost identical to the percentage of the surrounding overall population who were vaccinated.  Ex. If the vaccination rate in the total population was 80%, the hospitalization rate for vaccinated individuals was essentially 80%.   These reviews implied originally the vaccine was useless against severe outcomes requiring hospitalization.

All of the research essentially admits that both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people can be infected with COVID-19 and each variant of it.  There is no vaccine value toward preventing infection.  The issue is: does the vaccine immunity help you overcome the infection?

When you throw in the myriad of pre-existing conditions like obesity, diabetes and heart disease et al that make people more susceptible to any kind of respiratory infection, even without SARS-CoV-2 in the equation, then does all this vaccine chasing really amount to chasing severe cold and flu viruses with a vaccine regime?

The bottom line is that people need to make their own decisions based on their individual circumstances and everyone needs to respect those decisions.   I doubt there is anyone choosing to make themselves more vulnerable with their vaccination decision.

Convincing an adult to do something is an endless quest, because it transfers outcome responsibility to the requester.   The only dependency benefit in the convincing argument comes from the perspective of government.   Politicians would like nothing more than for your outcome in life to be dependent on them.  That’s also the scenario that abusers work diligently to construct.

When I see severe control demands and aspersions cast by who/what I define as an abuser, that flag tells me to exit.

Dec 26 2021

Omicron Spreads Too Quickly, Governments Reducing COVID Quarantine Time to 5 Days


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 24, 2021 | sundance | 337 Comments

On one hand, the Omicron variant of the Rona is so dangerous that forced vaccinations are mandated, thereby eliminating medical autonomy and freedom for all mankind.  On the other hand, the Omicron variant of the Rona quarantine time is being reduced from fourteen days to five.

From the perspective of the global governing elite, a widespread Omicron variant might disrupt their services…. Something must be done.

(Via Wall Street Journal) – Government leaders are adjusting recommended quarantine periods to minimize workforce shortages and scrambling to boost testing capacity to limit the spread of the Omicron variant of Covid-19.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said Friday that critical workers—including those in education, healthcare, transportation, grocery stores and sanitation—who tested positive for the virus will be allowed to return to work after five days under certain conditions.

[…]  Those returning will need to remain masked, Ms. Hochul said. “We need you again, we need you to be able to go to work,” Ms. Hochul added.

New York state’s move comes after the U.K. shortened its quarantine period to seven days for vaccinated people, and some airline executives wrote to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention seeking an adjustment in agency isolation guidelines to avoid disruptions to operations.

On Thursday, the CDC revised its isolation and quarantine guidelines for healthcare workers, partly to help hospitals have enough staff to deal with any rise in admissions due to Omicron.

Under the new CDC guidelines, healthcare workers can go back to work within seven days following a negative test, or potentially even sooner in a staffing crunch. Also, healthcare workers who are fully vaccinated and who got a booster wouldn’t need to quarantine after high-risk exposure to the virus. (read more)

Lawns must be mowed, dinners must be cooked, pools must be cleaned, laundry services must be provided, turndown services must continue, and pillows must be fluffed.

Quick, change the rules, this Omicron cannot be permitted to interfere in the lives of those who govern.

Dec 26 2021

Canadian Vaccine Authorities Put Yellow Patches on Your Jacket as You Load into Trains


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 24, 2021 | sundance | 281 Comments

Someone, anyone… please tell me you can see the problem here.

Canadian railway officials have a rather familiar method to segregate passengers and identify authorized vaccinated citizens who are traveling in railroad cars:

(source)

I do not know which is worse, that the railway line would put yellow stickers on people as they board railroad cars, or that someone would ask: “How should we identify vaccinated passengers?”, and an actual response would be, “Hey, I’ve got an idea“…..

Dec 26 2021

U.K. Government Promotes Boosters with Unusual Ad Campaign


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 24, 2021 | sundance | 239 Comments

Somewhere, someone -or some group of consensus marketing folks- made a decision to approve a marketing and branding campaign for booster shots in Great Britain.   Here’s what they came up with:

What exactly is the forward messaging here?

Think about it.

The direct implication would appear to be that ‘once you get on the Ronacoaster you cannot get off until the ride’s over; and the ride will never be over’.

Apparently.

Dec 26 2021

Snicker, NORAD Caller Jared Wishes Joe Biden “Merry Christmas and Let’s Go Brandon”


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 24, 2021 | sundance | 225 Comments

A little poke in the ribs this Christmastime.   When Joe and Jill were holding their NORAD call with kids and families preparing for the arrival of Santa Claus, a father named Jared handed a little Christmas jab to the White House promotors of “a season of death.”

As Jared wished the Biden’s a merry Christmas he remarked, “Don’t forget, let’s go Brandon”, and Joe agreed.  LOL.  The moment happens at 07:10 in the video below, prompted: