Post by The Peeler
UNBELIEVABLE, but our resident pedophilic cocksucking serb swine just
finished sucking off her FIRST gay neo-nazi gang, today! LOL
Listen to her trying (and failing) to talk with a FRESH big load of jizz in
Post by jew kike SHEENIE paedophile Barry Z. SHEIN's preferred jew aliash Ron Jacobson
YESH FOLKSH! VHILE going TOTALLY APESHIT in SHPITE of ENJOYING and
REVELLING in jew shabbosh SHODOMY, jew paedophile SHCUMBAG/PARASHITE
B'righton Mass FOUND TIME to EXCRETE NINETY-SHIX jew
SHMUT/SHPAM/FORGERY poshtsh on theshe groupsh from the DISHEASHED jew
ANUSH of STD.COM, poshting as 'sick old nazoid pedo Andrew Andrzej
Baron' and DOZENSH of OTHER jew ALIASHESH!
It'sh ALL in the MESSHAGE IDsh, folksh! EVERY POSHT criticishing the
B'RITISH, the POLISH, CATHOLICSH, SHLUTSH, PRIESHTSH, jews,
PAEDOPHILESH(!!), and SHEX ABUSHERSH(!!) comes from jew paedophile
Baruch 'Barry' Shein's disheashed jew ANUSH: STD.COM!
And the BESHT part: the shleazy jew paedophile piece of shite tries
to b'lame SHOMEONE ELSHE for the jew SHMUT/SHPAM.
Shuch a CHUTZPAH already!
If she only swallowed it BEFORE she started talking!
Why, oh WHY, are ALL you nazis, ALWAYS, without ANY exception, such
INSATIABLE COCKSUCKERS? LOL
Yeah, WHY, gay anal Razovic?
The mangina is such a limp-wristed shirtlifting wack-ass buster!
Jack Marshall writes about the FBI scandal.
“Now What?” #2, But No Quiz. Just NOW WHAT?
JULY 25, 2020 / JACK MARSHALL
I admit—perhaps you could tell?—I was very irritated at the former
commenters here who treated me like I was Alex Jones because early on it
became clear to me that the Russian Collusion coup attempt was a partisan
plot, carried out by entrenched members of federal law enforcement agencies
in the U.S., enabled by the Democratic party, and perhaps even Barack Obama.
I remain very troubled by that experience, and am waiting for one—just one
would be satisfying—to come back and have the courage and decency to write,
“I’m sorry. I didn’t want to believe it. You were right.”
I have a couple of candidates who might show such integrity, and I still
have hope. I will not, however, hold my breath,
I have been reluctant to write about the obvious (it seems to me)
conclusions recent declassified documents point to regarding Obama’s overt
and sinister efforts to undermine the Trump administration and seed the
beginnings of the collusion narrative before the President had even been
sworn in. The fact is, I have neither the time nor the skill to follow all
those breadcrumbs and be a reliable analyst—at least not reliable enough. I
have been waiting for a thorough investigation to be launched by a news
organization, like the Post did on Watergate, or the Indianapolis Star did
to expose the Larry Nasser/ Michigan State/U.S. Women’s Gymnastics scandal.
Those things win Pulitzer prizes and enhance reputations, don’t they? Why
hasn’t there been a thorough, published indictment of Obama’s perfidy?
Wouldn’t there be, if the evidence is what it seems to be? Maybe I’m wrong.
It is suspicious, I have to say, how the major mainstream media outlets have
been almost silent on the clear indications that Obama and Biden met with
various Justice Department and FBI personnel and discussed how to “get”
Michael Flynn. For one thing, the notes taken by Peter Strzok tell us that
Joe Biden is lying. Don’t they care? Isn’t that important? Doesn’t
democracy die in darkness? Oh, the Daily Caller and the Federalist and other
“conservative” news organizations have written about it, but you know, they’re
conservative. It’s all lies The claims are being fabricated by “Trumpers.”
The reactions of my Facebook friends tell me what the wider reaction would
be to my connecting the dots publicly. These people are supposed to be my
friends, and it is astounding how vicious—and irrational–most of them are
any time I, or anyone though few now are so audacious, challenges
“resistance” Big Lies and the “likes”-fertilized cant that metastasizes in
their cyber-bubble. I’ve just about reached my limit, in fact. Some of
these people really are friends, or I thought they were, and they are acting
like, to be crude, assholes. I’m about ready to de-friend about 400 of them,
including some relatives. Not only are they being crummy friends, they are
bad citizens too.
Which is much worse.
I have a measure of sympathy, I suppose, because they are being misled by
propaganda and the news media’s complete corruption, and are reacting to the
natural human impulse to be with the “in-crowd,” like gang members and “mean
girls.” But just a measure, and I’m about out. These people are smart; I don’t
have many dumb friends—some, more than I thought, definitely, but not a lot.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
Today, an objective and credible commentator, a better lawyer than me and
someone with more to lose professionally than me but a brave truth-teller
nonetheless, came out and said what I could say and reap nothing but insults
and mockery. That commentator, as you might have guessed, is Professor
Jonathan Turley. He writes today in the Hill in part (read it all here):
The Washington press corps seems engaged in a collective demonstration of
the legal concept of willful blindness, or deliberately ignoring facts,
following the release of yet another declassified document that directly
refutes past statements about the Russia collusion investigation. The
document shows the FBI used a security briefing of then candidate Donald
Trump and top aides to gather possible evidence for Crossfire Hurricane, its
code name for the Russia investigation.
What is astonishing is that the media has refused to see what should be one
of the biggest stories in decades. The Obama administration targeted the
campaign of the opposing party based on false evidence. The media endlessly
covered former Obama administration officials ridiculing suggestions of
spying on the Trump campaign or of improper conduct in the Russia
investigation. When Attorney General William Barr told the Senate last year
that he believed spying did occur, he was lambasted in the media, including
by James Comey and others involved in that investigation. The mocking “wow”
response of the fired FBI director received extensive coverage.
The new document shows that, in the summer of 2016, FBI agent Joe Pientka
briefed Trump campaign advisers Michael Flynn and Chris Christie on national
security issues, a standard practice ahead of the election. It included a
discussion of Russia interfering in the election. But this was different.
The document detailing the questions asked by Trump and his aides and their
reactions was filed a few days after the meeting under Crossfire Hurricane
and Crossfire Razor, the FBI investigation of Flynn. The two FBI officials
listed who approved the report are Kevin Clinesmith and Peter Strzok.
Clinesmith is the former FBI lawyer responsible for the FISA surveillance
conducted on members of the Trump campaign. Clinesmith opposed Trump and
sent an email after the election declaring “viva the resistance.” He is
reportedly under review for possible criminal charges for altering a FISA
court filing. The FBI had used Trump adviser Carter Page as a basis for the
original FISA application, due to his contacts with Russians. Soon after
that surveillance was approved, however, federal officials discredited the
collusion allegations and noted that Page was a CIA asset. Clinesmith had
allegedly changed the information to state that Page was not working for the
Strzok is the FBI agent whose violation of FBI rules led Justice Department
officials to refer him for possible criminal charges. Strzok did not hide
his intense loathing of Trump and famously referenced an “insurance policy”
if Trump were to win the election. After FBI officials concluded there was
no evidence of any crime by Flynn at the end of 2016, Strzok prevented the
closing of the investigation as FBI officials searched for any crime that
might be used to charge the incoming national security adviser.
Documents also show Comey briefed President Obama and Vice President Joe
Biden on the investigation shortly before the inauguration of Trump. When
Comey admitted the communications between Flynn and Russian officials
appeared legitimate, Biden reportedly suggested using the Logan Act, widely
viewed as unconstitutional and never used to successfully convict a single
person, as an alternative charge against Flynn. The memo of that meeting
contradicts claims that Biden he did not know about the Flynn investigation.
Well, what do you know? That’s what I see as well. Now what?
As usual, Turley is infuriatingly professorial and unflappable when he needs
to be flapping vigorously. The media “seems engaged in a collective
demonstration of the legal concept of willful blindness, or deliberately
ignoring facts”? How about, “Our nation and its form of government is being
threatened by a conspiracy that includes the vast majority of our journalism
establishment, aimed at undermining an elected President. The news media is
indeed the enemy of the people, as extravagant as that description seems.
Those citizens who want to protect and preserve the United States of America
, as all citizens should, now must oppose this effort, or accept the
consequences”? Because that’s what this warrants. Since 1974, we have been
told that Richard Nixon’s efforts to subvert the political process and our
laws posed an existential threat to America that we narrowly averted, in
part because of the efforts of the Washington Post. Now Turley is alleging,
and correctly, is that the news media is complicit in a similar plot by its
refusal to inform and warn the public.
Why? I’m not sure. Because it involves exposing a former President whose
popularity relies on emotion more than facts? Because journalists have
gradually come to reject the essential ethics and mission of their own
profession, and now see themselves as partisan operatives for what they have
decided is the greater good? All I am certain of is that there is no longer
a credible argument that their “wilful ignorance” isn’t sinister and
So again, now what? Being passive, observational, or inertly professorial in
the face of a threat to one’s nation and society is not an ethical response.
I am under no illusions that writing blog posts to a limited readership is
action. This is why I gave up on the formal study of ethics: ethicists are
mostly inert and useless. They can cut and slice any conduct according to
dozens of theories and standards, then wax philosophical for hours (or
pages) on end, never reaching any definitive conclusions, and definitely not
pointing the way to any productive action.
Action is needed. Sitting around and talking about democratic institutions
being turned against our republic and feeling superior because we can see
what is going on while so many are willfully blind is negligent. It is an
abdication of the duties of citizenship. It is not enough. I know that.
But now what?
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.