Recommended Posts

What a beautiful action and statement.

This lady has balls.

And I bet something in that plethora of complaints will have enough merit to be a major pain in the ass to the Palm Beach County officials. She cited plenty of laws to back up her charge of treason.

More people need to do this.

btw - I just found the YouTube video.

I love it.

:)

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lo and behold, just days after Berman's being taken out, SDNY's case against Jeffrey Epstein's child victim procurer Ghislaine Maxwell finally proceeds after having been sat on for years. https:/

He's referring to Austin Steinbart. I don't know the nitty-gritty, but he's someone Jones-adjacent, says he was part of Q, or was Q ,or something like that, and alienated himself from Qanon. Theory is

Dayaamm! I knew there was a reason I liked him all this time. Look at this video at about 43:13. Actually look at the whole first half if you are interested in a different take on elitism. (

Posted Images

53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

What a beautiful action and statement.

This lady has balls.

And I bet something in that plethora of complaints will have enough merit to be a major pain in the ass to the Palm Beach County officials. She cited plenty of laws to back up her charge of treason.

More people need to do this.

btw - I just found the YouTube video.

I love it.

:)

Michael

I've seen this going around, and while I applaud the idea, does this have any backing to it? What if they refuse? Who is this person? I heard she's running for office, but this seems more like a publicity stunt than anything that can yield consequences...

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

I've seen this going around, and while I applaud the idea, does this have any backing to it?

TG,

I know nothing about it yet except what I posted.

But there's this. I am not a lawyer, but I have translated over 5,000 legal documents (probably more) when I worked as a Portuguese-to-English translator in Brazil. What I heard from this lady did not sound like bullshit.

:)

It might be fun looking deeper into this whole thing to see what deep dark secrets are floating around the bottom. To do what that lady just did, there has to be some serious money involved.

I posted it without looking deeper because I so love these kinds of disruptions...

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

I know nothing about it yet except what I posted.

But there's this. I am not a lawyer, but I have translated over 5,000 legal documents (probably more) when I worked as a Portuguese-to-English translator in Brazil. What I heard from this lady did not sound like bullshit.

:)

It might be fun looking deeper into this whole thing to see what deep dark secrets are floating around the bottom. To do what that lady just did, there has to be some serious money involved.

I posted it without looking deeper because I so love these kinds of disruptions...

:) 

Michael

I ask because while the legalese sounds legit, so did the bills passed in PA to stop Governor Wolf's emergency declarations and other orders, and documents presented to investigate health Secretary Levine's forcing COVID patients into nursing homes. All done legit by the Senate..., who told PA residents to take off their masks, open their business, and "walk as free people"...to no avail. Vetoed by the governor, and upheld by PA supreme court. The governor is basically a dictator, now, and all the legal actions have become meaningless. The constitution has no meaning there, anymore. So I'm a bit skeptical of this maneuver having any teeth.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tmj said:

Trump is a huge thorn in the CCP's side, but their time frame of operations go beyond our presidential cycles , they move/plan in 50/100 year stages, any one US presidency is an 8 year blip at most. I doubt the Chinese have any personal animus toward Trump , at least not any more than they hold against any other non Chinese . And the response to a pandemic released from China would mean a rapid curtailment of foreign trade and investment between China and the west. It doesn't seem the timing for a release was quite right, given they haven't fully secured the South China Sea or reabsorbed Taiwan, yet.


So whodunnit/and why?

The ChiComs in league with specific persons/coalitions who want a vaccine, with potential for payloads in that, and who want population reduction.  For instance, at this time, impoverished people are dying in Africa and India, not because of the virus directly, because of lack of food from curtailed imports.

Meanwhile, the ChiComs are making further inroads getting power over European governments, and the European Union is falling apart.  Globalist interests don't want that, but it isn't the case, as some persons think it is, that there's a central conspiracy running everything - what I call "the OM hypothesis," "OM" meaning One Master.  There are coalitions which are sometimes in league and sometimes not and which juggle pluses and minuses in their alliances.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank God Snowden is finally getting vindication in the courts.

This might go all the way up to the Supreme Court, but finally the constitutionality of mass surveillance by the federal government of US citizens is on record in the courts as debatable to the point of declaring it illegal. This is massively different than before.

Even if this case does go up to the Supreme Court and loses, a precedent has been set for testing the constitutionality in court. Now it will be one lawsuit after another until they stop the goddam unfiltered surveillance.

And, as usual, the fundies in O-Land have been on the wrong side of freedom, the constitution and history ever since the beginning.

On 5/29/2014 at 8:05 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Mark: Here is a screenshot for corroboration:

Binswanger-Snowden.jpg

Sometimes I wonder what they see in Ayn Rand.

Whatever it is, it doesn't make sense out here in reality when serious and dangerous things happen.

On another point, the Deep State just took another hit and this one, if it sticks, was a mother of a punch.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2020 at 3:42 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

The ChiComs in league with specific persons/coalitions who want a vaccine, with potential for payloads in that, and who want population reduction.  For instance, at this time, impoverished people are dying in Africa and India, not because of the virus directly, because of lack of food from curtailed imports.

Meanwhile, the ChiComs are making further inroads getting power over European governments, and the European Union is falling apart.  Globalist interests don't want that, but it isn't the case, as some persons think it is, that there's a central conspiracy running everything - what I call "the OM hypothesis," "OM" meaning One Master.  There are coalitions which are sometimes in league and sometimes not and which juggle pluses and minuses in their alliances.

Ellen

Ellen

I've always respected your analysis and opinion and I agree with there being no "OM". A cabal of intertwined alliances yes, a homogeneous group following the dictates of a single master , no.

 Though, I am going to point out to my wife that ' I win' and lots to do with Ellen said so :)

Believe it or not Mike Tyson said a very similar thing on Joe Rogan's podcast recently. Or at least in the same meta-narrative ballpark. JR was explaining he thinks certain therapies, involving psychedelics, are being blocked by Big Pharma. MT said (paraphrasing) ".. am not saying they are, but someone is .."

It's hard listening to Tyson speak , at times, but he is actually quite the thinker. (His analysis on some of the greats of antiquity is rather thought provoking) Go Mike !

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who haven't done a dive into just how deep Alex Jones's influence in the culture is, including the part about taking down the Deep State, check out the video below. Just click on the image and the video will open in a new tab.

Alex's guest is Patrick Howley. He's a right-leaning reporter who has been quite active in the mainstream: Breitbart, Washington Free Beacon, Daily Caller, Wall Street Journal, National Review, Sean Hannity and a whole lot of other places. His biggest coup was exposing the blackface and KKK costume photographs of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam in his college yearbook. Then he followed by exposing the sexual assault allegations concerning Justin Fairfax, Virginia's Lieutenant Governor. His main sites are National File and Big League Politics.

If you want to skip to where he comes in, start at 6:43.

They focus on how Kamala Harris & Co are suddenly against vaccines because it looks like a good one is coming out for the coronavirus under President Trump. :) 

image.png

It's a very good interview.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prudence, politics, propaganda ...

On 9/8/2020 at 6:08 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

They focus on how Kamala Harris & Co are suddenly against vaccines because it looks like a good one is coming out for the coronavirus

Is it fair to say Harris and Co are "suddenly against vaccines"?  And who would know that "it looks like a good one is coming out"?  Which one is the 'good one'?

HARRIS

Quote

Senator Kamala Harris of California, the Democratic nominee for vice president, said she would not trust President Trump’s assurances that a coronavirus vaccine was safe, and instead would wait for medical experts to confirm the vaccine was reliable before she received an inoculation.

“I will not take his word for it,” Ms. Harris said of Mr. Trump on the CNN program “State of the Union.”

BIDEN

Quote

Biden was asked on Labor Day whether he’d take a COVID-19 vaccine before the election. “I would want to see what the scientists said,” he replied. “I want full transparency on a vaccine. One of the problems is the way [Trump] is playing with politics. He’s said so many things that aren’t true, I’m worried if we do have a really good vaccine, people are going to be reluctant to take it. And so he’s undermining public confidence.”

“But pray God we have it,” Biden continued. “If I could get a vaccine tomorrow, I’d do it. If it cost me the election I’d do it. We need a vaccine and we need it now,” he said, adding, “But we have to listen to the scientists.”

The same day at a labor union virtual event, Biden also said he’d take a COVID-19 vaccine “[o]nly if it was completely transparent, that other experts in the country could look at it.”

Around the time Trump made his remarks at the rally, the Biden campaign released a statement that outlined multiple ways the government should act to reassure Americans that any vaccine that receives authorization is safe and effective, including making the data publicly available along with statements from Fauci, the career Food and Drug Administration staff and relevant vaccine advisory committee.

TRUMP

Quote

“[Biden and Harris] should immediately apologize for the reckless anti-vaccine rhetoric that they are talking right now, talking about endangering lives. And it undermines science,” Trump said in his Labor Day press conference.

“And what’s happening is, all of a sudden, you’ll have this incredible vaccine, and because of that fake rhetoric — it’s a politic rhetoric; that’s all it is. Just for politics,” he continued. “Because now they see we’ve done an incredible job, and in speed like nobody has ever seen before.”

Later, Trump focused on Harris, saying, “[S]he’s talking about disparaging a vaccine so that people don’t think the achievement was a great achievement.”

The next day during a rally in North Carolina, Trump repeated the same sentiments, but went further to say that the pair was spreading “anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.”

The White House did not explain which comments Trump was referencing, but he was likely responding to statements Harris made on CNN’s “State of the Union,” when she said she would “trust the word of public health experts and scientists” about a vaccine, “but not Donald Trump.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Is it fair to say Harris and Co are "suddenly against vaccines"?

William,

If the vaccines come from efforts by President Trump's administration, yes.

Absolutely it is fair.

Kamala Harris has no medical reason whatsoever for this objection since medical reasons are, and will be, abundantly available and consultable. She just doesn't trust a forthcoming vaccine because she feels it will be developed too quickly and Orange Man Bad.

If she ever gets power, she will miraculously become pro-vax again--even if it is based on half-assed medical information.

That's just the way people like her think.

 

btw - I am not in favor of most vaccines. But I am in favor of some. And, in the case of the COVID-19, it looks like the virus was manmade as a bio-weapon by China, so I will be adding in this factor when I decide whether I will take the vaccine or not. If they offered it to me right at this moment, I would not take it. I want to see what happens with others first. 

My particular orientation does not come from medical reasons, but it does come from experience. It comes from raising a kid who was damaged by vaccines, and being in contact with countless others who had the same experience (kid is fine, kid takes vaccine, kid immediately is not fine), then listening to tons of people aggressively and nastily poo-poo the idea that what happened happened.

I support President Trump, but I am wary of big pharma and the government technocrats around him since they all stand to make a shitload of money with this. And sleazy Bill Gates. Let's not forget sleazy Bill Gates.

Big pharma hurts people when a shitload of money can be made. (Just look at what they did with Oxycontin for an easy example.)

Kamala Harris has no such experience re her distrust of the medical people working under President Trump. Her only experience is Orange Man Bad and Me Want Power.

So, epistemologically, the anti-science caricature image you probably have in your mind about anti-vaxxers is precisely her epistemology. You might not see her that way yourself since she is on what you normally defend as the good guy side (even though it's the bad guy side :) ). But she does not use her brain on this vaccine issue.

I can accuse Kamala Harris of a lot. Not stupid, though. Stupid she ain't. Yet her stance on vaccines has none of her brain in it.

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I support President Trump, but I am wary of big pharma and the government technocrats around him since they all stand to make a shitload of money with this. And sleazy Bill Gates. Let's not forget sleazy Bill Gates.

Interesting thought.

I bet some dork or other here in O-Land will say "Randian hero." 

I have a better archetype: Lex Luther.

:) 

I was going to put this in the Coronavirus thread, but I think I'll leave it right here in Deep State Unraveling.

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I think of Bill Gates I'm usually reminded of the admiration I felt for his foresight in seeing the importance of software over hardware. Now I'm wondering if I was falling for a myth.

Regardless now when I think of Gates my estimation is closer to the tweet above and Lex Luther, his insight may have been genius and his monetization of that insight is legendary, but it's now hard to see him other than a Bond super villian, only much worse in that he has agency in the real world.

Putting the post in this thread seems right, though perhaps it's time for a new term or a refinement thereof. 'Deep state' has an intranational connotation , yeah ? I like Cabal as a better descriptor of globalist actors.

If the US can root out and kill off our Deep State actors, We will still be fighting the Cabal.

In my mind Gates is as American as Soros is Hungarian, neither seems to act in fealty to any nation, they seem to have deemed themselves worthy of grander ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tmj said:

When I think of Bill Gates I'm usually reminded of the admiration I felt for his foresight in seeing the importance of software over hardware.

Hotmail and other Gates inspired software have revolutionized the world. Think of all the celebrities you have admired who were goofy in other aspects of their lives. Carl Sagan for example was for a more socialistic, totalitarian form of government. How can they use science and rationality in much of their lives . . . and then depart reality?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter

At least half the population will line up to get the vaccine, a vaccine, the thing they call a vaccine.

Not a departure from reality if Bill's plan is to get his stuff jacked into a large segment of the population, 'cause it looks like he may just do that .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started thinking about Bill Gates and others who Do the Right Thing and then subvert what they just did. So I searched the letters “surviv”

OPAR, PAGE 405: "As a rule, the defenders of capitalism have been worse - more openly irrational - than its attackers. The man who spread the notion that Capitalism means death for the weak was the system's leading 19th century champion, Herbert Spencer; Capitalism, he held, permits only the "survival of the fittest." This is the conclusion Spencer reached by attempting to deduce Capitalism from the intellectual fad of the period, Darwin's theory of Evolution. Since animals survive by fighting over a limited food supply, Spencer argued in essence, so does man. This "defense" of laissez-faire has been incomparably more harmful than anything uttered by Marx. The wrong arguments for a position are always more costly than plain silence, which at least allows a better voice to be heard if such should ever speak out." end quote.

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: what's wrong with 'solipsistic' egoism? Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:14:22 EST. Luka wrote: What is wrong, logically, with the claim that the standard of value for any given person is the type of life that he wants for himself? For those of you who disagree with this claim, I'd like to hear a non-duty based reason to reject that standard.

A lot is wrong with the idea that the standard of value for any given person is the type of life that he wants for himself. First and foremost, it is utterly subjective. If, for instance, I decide that I value idleness, then it is perfectly legitimate for me to mooch off other people in order to have the money to be idle. If I decide that I value being thought an innovator, then it is perfectly legitimate for me to lie and cheat about my accomplishments and to steal other people's work, in order to achieve this goal. And there go rights, and reason, and objective values.

As Ayn Rand stated, with which I agree -- and for which she gave a lengthy and important validation in Galt's speech -- *life,* not subjective preferences, is the standard of value. If survival is the good, then man's life (according to his nature as a rational being) is the only defensible standard of value. May I suggest, Luka, that you reread this section of Galt's speech. I consider it probably the most important and innovative identification in her philosophy: the proof that values arise from facts; that man's life is rationally his highest value because he requires the acceptance of that value in order to survive. Barbara

From: John Hospers To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Animal Rights Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:32:51. When asked why we should not be cruel to animals, Bentham said, "Because they too suffer."   I believe more people would respond favorably to Bentham's statement than if he had said "Because animals have a right to be well treated."  In fact Bentham thought that talk about rights was "nonsense on stilts", and believed that we have a duty to aid the starving, although the starving may not claim our beneficence (with our own money) as their right. So before getting to rights, I think it's important to find out what we really want to say about our real or alleged duties to animals.

1. Most people would agree that if you adopt a dog or cat, you should not, a year or two, later dismiss the creature ("I'm tired of you, get out").  You have made the animal dependent on you, and you are responsible for the consequences of your decision to adopt.

Question: are you just as morally bound to feed your neighbor's cat as you are your own?

Feed it once, or twice, or every day?  Most people would say no. Perhaps feeding a stray cat or dog would be something you ought to do (depending on circumstances), but that would be a "positive duty", something quite over and above the "negative duty" not to be cruel to them, torture them, catch them in traps, etc. - most of us would be more amenable to this negative duty than to a positive duty to feed these animals, where we'd face questions such as:  how many? how often? At what cost?

2. What about animals in the wild?   There's not much we can do to change the way "nature, red in tooth and claw" is set up.  We can release an animal from a trap; we can decide to forego hunting, which causes injury and death to many creatures; we can pass laws against bull fighting and cockfighting.  All this is "refraining from injuring" rather than doing anything positive.  I can't think of many positive steps we could take to improve the lot of wild animals, most of whom die young through disease or predation.  Would you want to rescue young antelopes from being eaten by lions?  But then you would be depriving lions, who after all are carnivores, of  the only kind of food they can digest.  Trying to "go against nature" seldom succeeds.

When rabbits were introduced into Australia, they just about took over the whole continent by devouring so many other species of living things, till the Australians got rid of the millions of rabbits by poisoning and burning and killing by  whatever means they could, just to retain their native flora and fauna.  Was this wrong?

In India many people won't kill the cobras although the cobras kill the children. That's self-defense, we say, hence justifiable.  But of course killing animals isn't always self-defense.  Can we claim self-defense if we kill the coyotes in suburban Los Angeles?  Aren't we the interlopers into their lives as much as (or more than) they are into ours?  (After all they were there first - for whatever that's worth!)

Is hunting animals always wrong, as some say it is?  How about using them for sport, e.g. riding or racing?  How about using them in medical experiments, which sacrifices the animal but does save lives (both human and animal)?  Yes, we do need animal experiments to cure human diseases - sometimes there is no other way.  To keep an experiment going, is it justifiable to keep a chimpanzee locked up in a cage for years at a time?  (When the chimp is reunited with its former owner, after years of solitary confinement in a cage, it exhibits emotions not really distinguishable from those of people reunited after years of confinement.)   There are many entangled issues here.

When people try to decide on such matters of policy, they usually ask, "what are we doing to the animal?", and try to weigh this against "what is the benefit to be obtained, if any?", and unless you specifically introduce them to the subject, they don't discuss the pros and cons of the policy in terms of animal rights.

3. It seems to me that people are very selective as to which animals they choose for beneficent treatment.  Rats and mice have similar physiological features to cats and dogs, yet we don't usually try to rescue the rats from human predation.  On the contrary: if we don't catch the rats, or get a cat to do so, our house may be overrun with rats, and at this point we kill them by whatever means are available, never mind their death or discomfort.

The main difference is surely that we LIKE dogs and cats, but don't like mice and rats.  Question: is this a proper basis for protecting the former and destroying the latter?  Do we really want to say that the dog has a right to our protection, but the rat does not?   (If we said that they ALL have rights, rats and snakes etc., our behavior would presumably be quite different from what it now is.  So how do we get our  rights-convictions into conformity with our actual behavior? Surely we should be careful before we say that they all have rights. Wouldn't our inconsistencies be showing if we did?)

There are hosts of other questions, such as, "Should we be more careful to preserve an animal if it is a member of an endangered species?" and "If you want to preserve animal life, wouldn't it be wrong to tear down the forests of Madagascar etc. to make room for the burgeoning human population, with the result that the tree-creatures such as lemurs are no longer able to survive?   Doesn't that destroy more animals than hunting ever did?  And should we on that account refrain from expanding the human population, so as to permit the animal population to survive?"

I think we should tread carefully and delicately on all these issues before we step into the "deeper waters" of animal rights. John Hospers

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tmj said:

At least half the population will line up to get the vaccine, a vaccine, the thing they call a vaccine.

As an aside, the show "The Good Witch" the main character owns a store specializing in natural cures and of course some magical cures. But, if someone claimed green tea or cannabis oil would cure Covid I would doubt them without evidence.    

And I am not speaking about myself but what if someone had a dreaded "preexisting condition" so that they might unduly suffer from the virus? Would that put them into the "get the vaccine" camp? I think that all doubting eyes are focused on all the trials going on but the people over a certain age and those who are already sick may take the vaccine after ten seconds of thought. Automatically putting this vaccine into the, "all vaccines are evil" camp simply shows poor epistemology.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2020 at 5:01 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

People do not keep attacking someone they have banned and pushed away unless they still feel threatened.

That refers to Millie Weaver and her documentary ShadowGate.

Well, ShadowGate 2 is coming.

I don't know about others, but I am going to ignore the infighting (who and what is the One True Patriot) and just focus on the information and obvious bad guys.

For me, it is entirely possible to get great information from Millie (and Tore and Patrick for that matter) without getting into their feud with Infowars.

Both sides are calling each other impostors and sellouts.

yawn...

As if celebrities didn't have vanity issues...

:) 

I like them both for what I use.

I watch Alex. (Not all the time since there is so much stuff.) And I can't wait to see ShadowGate 2.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2020 at 10:51 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

ShadowGate 2 is coming.

General Hayden was featured in the first ShadowGate.

It looks like Shadownet (and its progeny) doesn't work as well on President Trump as he wants and he is not amused.

There are responses all over Twitter mocking him. (And a lot of psychophants praising him in worshipful tones, too. :evil: )

Hayden is one of those who promotes endless war for profit. President Trump cut into his Pentagon budget gravy big time.

I hope ShadowGate 2 goes deeper.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is the reason for the Nadler shuffle, but I bet the following is part.

We are finally starting to talk about air-tight jailable offenses for members of the Deep State. This might even take down Nadler, too.

Here are some additional goodies.

And this:

Read the full Twitter thread here.

And this article by Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway in The Federalist, which is really nice:

‘Trump Was Right’: Explosive New FBI Texts Detail Internal Furor Over Handling Of ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ Investigation

I don't have time to quote and discuss, but that article bears reading.

 

Fun Facts

1. The new trove of documents that was just released involved the people in and around the Mueller probe, including FBI agents, yakking it up to each other. Their everyday banter made it clear that they knew and believed they were working on a bogus case and investigations. 

2. In fact, according to one discussion, they all went out and got liability insurance against being sued in the future based on FOIA requests. ALL of them. Including analysts.

I bet they did, too. I wonder if the insurer is going to turn up as this case develops. 

3. Now where did this new trove of documents come from?

It came from one of the most botched attempts to nail General Michael Flynn to date. I don't know if you have been following this case, so I will summarize a few highlights.

During Flynn's railroading, there came a moment when he was found guilty (based on his coerced confession) and was going to be sentenced. The guy who was going to sentence Flynn was genius Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. He hated Flynn and couldn't wait to nail him with everything he could.

Then AG Barr saw what we are now seeing (and probably a whole lot more) and made the Justice Department file to withdraw all charges against Flynn. So everybody expected Sullivan to be pissed, but to dismiss the case. But Judge Sullivan? Noooooooooooooooo....

He went into kindergarten mode. Flynn was guilty and by God he was going sentenced Flynn to Siberia. So Sullivan refused to dismiss the case. Flynn's lawyer, one of the most brilliant in the country, Sidney Powell, appealed it and the appeals court ruled--two to one--for Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case. But Judge Sullivan? Nooooooooooooooooooo....

By God, he had Flynn in his sights and he was going to nail his ass come hell or high water. So he invoked a little used technicality to get the entire appeals court to review whether he can sentence Flynn or not. Eleven judges if I am not mistaken. They could have refused to hear it, but they said, "Hmmmm... Let's see what you've got." Everybody except the fanatics among them knew the request should have been thrown out. But they set a date.

Well, the time came and they saw. And since court documents are public domain, everybody else saw, too.

Within Sidney Powell's court documents this go around, she was able to include formerly restricted communications between the people involved in the Mueller probe, including FBI agents. Those communications are the trove of documents that are making all hell break loose right now.

And Judge Sullivan? Well, I don't know how his sentencing thing is going to go yet (it may end up at the Supreme Court if he does another Noooooooooooooo.... but we all know Flynn's nightmare will finally be put to rest there). As for the rest with Sullivan? He now has egg and ketchup all over this face, including all the people around him, and is probably the most hated man--by the Democrats--in the Democratic world. I envision a serious penalty coming for him. 

Talk about dumb...

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now