https://truth4freedom.wordpress.com/2021/10/20/coup-corruption-mccabe-fbi-memo-describes-coup-plot-against-trump-youtube/
Judicial Watch uncovered this and other key evidence documenting the corruption of Andrew McCabe, who was recently given a taxpayer cash handout by the Biden administration despite his corruption and lies...
Constitution
Victoria’s privacy commission orders release of secret COVID lockdown briefings – ABC News
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-20/victorias-covid-lockdown-briefings-release-ordered/100552548
- Public Access Deputy Commissioner Joanne Kummrow ordered the release of more
than 100 pages of briefings related to February’s five-day lockdown - She rejected the Department of Health’s argument that the release of the documents would “affect the frankness and candour” of future advice
The Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC) ruling … may pave the way for the advice behind other measures to be released.
…
KOMMONSENTSJANE – TARGETING TRUMP: DURHAM UNCOVERS NEW CLINTON/FBI CONNECTIONS IN RUSSIA PROBE. | ARLIN REPORT……………….walking this path together
INVESTIGATIVE BULLETIN
Did this put Bill Clinton in the hospital? The oil is rising to the surface. Wonder if it will go anywhere?
*******
OCTOBER 12, 2021
|
JUDICIAL WATCH
Targeting Trump: Durham Uncovers New Clinton, FBI Connections in Russia Probe
The wheels of justice grind slow—much to the exasperation of, well, everybody. In April 2019, Attorney General William Barr appointed federal prosecutor John Durham to get to the bottom of the Russia mess: the sensational allegations, both before and after Donald Trump’s November 2016 presidential election victory, of Trump connections to dirty Russian money, dirty players, and dirty deeds.
Testifying before a Senate subcommittee, Barr said he wanted a review of “both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016.” Durham’s mandate: investigate the investigators—particularly the FBI. What did the FBI know about Trump’s accusers and when did they know it?
Last…
View original post 1,405 more words
Biden Calls for the Prosecution of Anyone Refusing Subpoenas in the Jan. 6th Riot Investigation – JONATHAN TURLEY
We recently discussed the troubling declaration of guilt made by President Joe Biden at the start of the investigation into border agents allegedly whipping or “strapping” undocumented Haitians trying to enter the country. The statement shattered the integrity of the investigation as well as the reputation of the federal agents. Now, President Biden has called for the Select Committee looking into the Jan. 6th riot to hold those who refuse subpoenas in contempt and for his Department of Justice to prosecute them.
During the Trump Administration, many of us criticized the President for commenting on pending investigations and crossing the line on seeking to influence the Justice Department. A chorus of legal experts declared such public comments to be an attack on the rule of law and the integrity of the Justice Department. Those voices have been largely silent on Biden’s own comments.
Any contempt prosecution would be handled by the Justice Department. I have long been critical of its handling of such cases. However, Biden’s call ignores the fact that most of the Democratic leadership in the House supported the Obama Administration in refusing to even submit contempt cases to grand juries. That was the case with Eric Holder who was in flagrant contempt of House subpoenas in the “Fast and Furious” investigation. If the Democrats seek the prosecution of these Trump officials, they will have to step over a mountain of hypocrisy on such cases.
Of course, such hypocrisy has never been a major obstacle for either party. Indeed, Holder himself seemed immune from the shame of hypocrisy during his calls for total transparency in the Mueller investigation.
Calling for prosecutions as President is always problematic and unwise, particularly given the still unfolding matter before the Select Committee. This is a fairly early stage in such conflicts. There is often some line drawing and then some negotiations on the narrowing of inquiries and the waiver of objections. That may not succeed in this case. With the 2022 midterms looming, the Democrats are at risk of losing the House and these subpoenas may die on the vine. Yet, it is unlikely that there could be any prosecution decision made before the election anyway without an abnormal and reckless rush by the Garland Justice Department.
This matter has not been resolved in Congress, let alone reached any decision stage at the Justice Department. The President should retract his statement and allow the process to work.
Police Unions in Major Cities Across America are Leading the Revolt Against Vaccine Mandates – Nwo Report
Police officers in major cities across the United States are standing up to unlawful orders that force them to be vaccinated for Covid-19 or face termination. In Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Diego and Baltimore, the police are sending the message that these vaccine mandates are unlawful, and they are not going to obey them or enforce them.
In Chicago, a standoff is brewing between the city government and the police in one of the nation’s deadliest cities for violent crime. In the Windy City, the head of Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police, John Catanzara, has called on his fellow officers to defy the ‘improper directive’ to get vaccinated being imposed by Mayor Lori Lightfoot.
On Friday, Mayor Lightfoot announced the city was filing a lawsuit against the Fraternal Order of Police and Catanzara, alleging he sought “to induce an insurrection” by encouraging officers not to disclose their vaccination status. Employees who had failed to comply by the vaccine directive by the October 15 deadline were to be put on no-pay status.
Catanzara made it clear that the vaccine mandate was improper and warned that police staffing could be reduced by half over the weekend if the city followed through with it. As many as 6,500 Chicago police officers could be placed on unpaid leave due to the directive, the Daily Mail noted.
“I do not believe the city has the authority to mandate that to anybody, let alone that information about your medical history,” Catanzara argued in a video reported by the Chicago Sun-Times. “It’s safe to say that the city of Chicago will have a police force at 50% or less for this weekend coming up,” he added.
The city argued in its complaint filed in Cook County Circuit Court that this was “a clear instruction and command to engage in an unlawful strike.” The Fraternal Order of Police subsequently countersued, arguing that the city did not properly negotiate with the union over the vaccine mandate. If police officers choose not to be vaccinated for Covid-19, they will be subject to twice weekly testing requirements.
Mayor Lightfoot, in typical blunt fashion, dismissed the police union president’s concerns outright and urged people to obey the directive.
“What we’re focused on is making sure that we maximize the opportunity to create a very safe workplace,” Lightfoot argued. “The data is very clear. It is unfortunate that the FOP leadership has chosen to put out a counter-narrative. But the fact of the matter is, if you are not vaccinated, you are playing with your life, the life of your family, the life of your colleagues and members of the public.”
In the meantime, a judge has ordered Catanzara to stop encouraging police officers to obey the unlawful vaccine mandates. The temporary restraining order, which bars him from making statement that discourage members from reporting their COVID-19 vaccine status to the city, was reported by the Chicago Tribune.
Baltimore’s police union is similarly advising its officers not to disclose their vaccination status to the city until there is more clarification surrounding the city’s vaccine mandate, the Hill reported.
“It is understandable that our members have questions about a policy with so little information being provided by the city,” Sgt. Mike Mancuso, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said in a letter to his union members. “Until the city responds to our right to bargain these issues, or the courts intervene, I suggest you do nothing in regard to revealing your vaccination status as it is outlined in the city’s policy.”
In Seattle, which has been ravaged by rioting and protests, the police chief has issued a letter to officers imploring them not quit over the vaccine mandate. The letter was reported by Jason Rantz.
“I am going to tell you – I do not want to lose any of you. In the past almost two years, we have lost too many,” Chief of Police Adrian Diaz argued.
Los Angeles County sheriff Alex Villanueva, who runs the largest sheriff’s department in the nation with approximately 18,000 employees, has made it clear he has no intention to enforce the county’s vaccine mandate.
“The mandate was issued by executive order in August and allows only for religious and medical exemptions,” NPR reported. “Villanueva said his employees are willing to be terminated rather than get vaccinated.”
“I don’t want to be in a position to lose 5, 10% of my workforce overnight on a vaccine mandate,” the sheriff said.
Even in cities where the police unions are not standing up for officers, there are rumblings behind the scenes that indicate relations are heating up to a boiling point. In San Diego, ‘hundreds’ of police officers who oppose the unlawful mandate are not getting the public sipport of the union president Jack Schaeffer. The officers are now planning to strike on October 22nd at 3:30PM, outside of San Diego City Hall, Net Breaking reported. And in Raleigh, North Carolina, firefighters, police officers and first responders are threatening to sue over the vaccine mandate.
While New York City has not formally issued a vaccine mandate for the NYPD, socialist Mayor De Blasio has said he is exploring ‘all options.’
“We’re looking at all options,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Brian Lehrer’s WNYC radio show.
“In the coming days I’ll speak about additional steps for different parts of the city, our workforce and beyond, different things we’re going to be looking at, different things we’re going to be doing,” de Blasio added. “But that’s still several days away because we’re doing a very meticulous analysis of what is the next step that makes sense.”
“De Blasio has floated a potential vaccine mandate for the NYPD, the nation’s largest police department, for several weeks, the AP reported. “The department’s vaccination rate has lagged behind the rest of the city, with some officers flat out refusing to get the shots.”
One of the most dangerous aspects of the breakdown in police-city government relations is that it may not be perceived as an ‘unfortunate side effect’ of unlawful vaccine mandates in the eyes of Democratic Party leaders who advocated Defund the Police. The vaccine mandates appear to be an extension of the Democratic Party’s intention to purge the military, police and society of Americans who are willing to stand up for the rights of Americans in the face of tyranny. The new agenda is not just Defund the Police, but also Purge the Police.
Overwhelming Majority of Republicans and Democrats Want Special Prosecutor Durham’s Budget Renewed and Report Released | Political Arena
…A surprisingly high share of Democrats—68 percent—agreed with Republicans and Independents that Durham’s budget should be renewed, while 82 percent of Democrats agreed his report should be released in full.
“The Revenge Of The Fossil Fuels”
https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/10/15/the-revenge-of-the-fossil-fuels/
“The Revenge Of The Fossil Fuels” Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com, What have the climate alarmists been screaming about for the past 40 years or so? Their agenda is well-known. They want to close nuclear plants; shut down coal electric generators; eliminate natural gas and oil-fired electrical plants; and substitute wind, solar and hydropower…
Bild roasts YouTube for stifling free speech in Germany after court rules it was wrong to delete Covid-19 interviews — RT World News
https://www.rt.com/news/537248-germany-youtube-censorship-covid/
YouTube censorship of Covid-19 debate is a “dangerous
encroachment” on the freedom of speech, an editor at leading German
tabloid Bild has said, after the platform deleted two videos of an
online debate on the pandemic.
encroachment” on the freedom of speech, an editor at leading German
tabloid Bild has said, after the platform deleted two videos of an
online debate on the pandemic.
The preliminary
injunction was issued by the Cologne Regional Court in response to a
legal challenge filed by the people behind the #allesaufdentisch
(#EverythingOnTheTable) online campaign. It’s basically a collection of interviews with various experts and public figures about the Covid-19 pandemic that the initiators touted as a “wide-ranging, fact-based, open and factual discourse”
on their website. Some of them challenged the government handling of
the pandemic and raised all sorts of controversial vaccine-related
issues.
injunction was issued by the Cologne Regional Court in response to a
legal challenge filed by the people behind the #allesaufdentisch
(#EverythingOnTheTable) online campaign. It’s basically a collection of interviews with various experts and public figures about the Covid-19 pandemic that the initiators touted as a “wide-ranging, fact-based, open and factual discourse”
on their website. Some of them challenged the government handling of
the pandemic and raised all sorts of controversial vaccine-related
issues.
YouTube found two of those interviews unfit for its
hosting and erased them. The flagged videos showed discussions with
mathematics professor Stephan Luckhaus and the neurobiologist Gerald
Huther. The court called YouTube’s move “unjustified”, saying
that the platform failed to explain which exact parts of the interviews
it deemed in violation of its community rules for health-related
content, according to German media.
The explanation of why the
videos were deleted was kept pretty vague, claiming that some opinions
about the vaccination against Covid-19 went against the scientific
consensus. Overall, the videos contained “a large number of clearly permissible statements”,
the court said, which gave credence to the plaintiffs’ argument that
YouTube had unfairly restricted their freedom of expression. The
injunction said the court decision can be appealed.
Also on rt.com
Google, YouTube will no
longer allow ads on content pushing ‘climate change denial,’ saying it
‘contradicts scientific consensus’
The #allesaufdentisch campaign was launched in late September and
was considered a spiritual successor of a similar #allesdichtmachen
(#CloseEverythig) anti-lockdown online movement, which tilted more to
satirical content.
Critics say the newer interviews are a mixture of justified criticism, trivialities and “targeted disinformation”,
as the daily Die Zeit described it. But many people believe the public
deserves the right to see those opinions and judge their validity for
themselves, without interference from American tech giants.
Jan Schafer, the political director of the influential German tabloid Bild, hailed the court’s decision, calling YouTube’s increasingly broad use of censorship a “dangerous encroachment” on public discourse in Germany.
Bild was the first to obtain and cover
the court injunction on Sunday evening. It remains unclear how much
influence the opinion of the German justice system will have on US-based
Google, the owner of YouTube.
Also on rt.com
YouTube deletes 2 channels of RT’s sister project RT DE with 600K subscribers over alleged community guidelines violation
Last month, YouTube shut down two popular channels of RT DE, the Berlin-based German-language version of RT, using the same “Covid-19 misinformation”
justification. The decision caused a major rift in German-Russian
relationships, as Moscow accused Berlin of tacitly approving the move,
if not orchestrating it behind the scene. Germany denied the allegation.
RT
DE has been facing an increasingly hostile environment in Germany, with
local banks refusing to serve it and some media outlets branding it a
Russian propaganda arm bombarding Germans with misinformation. RT DE
turned to German courts to defend its reputation from what it argued to
be slanderous accusations, securing injunctions in its favor.
Bild was in no rush to defend RT DE from YouTube censorship. In fact, it described the erasure of its channels as a blow to “the central component of [Russian President Vladimir Putin’s] disinformation campaign” and lamented that the channels’ content remained available on other platforms, reaching “hundreds of thousands” of viewers.
Australia is better off without a Bill of Rights | The Wentworth Report
https://wentworthreport.com/2021/10/13/australia-is-better-off-without-a-bill-of-rights/
Australia is better off without a Bill of Rights. By Janet Albrechtsen.
Yes, we may have seen the biggest government heist of our human rights, but a bill of rights is still wrong.
If you didn’t like governments disfiguring our democracy during Covid, that’s nothing compared with what judges will do to mutilate the democratic deal if they are given the power to interpret a list of vague rights that will be longer than Malcolm Turnbull’s political hit list. …
The issue comes down to this: who do you think should rule our lives, parliaments or courts? …
Courts have a limited role in our democracy. If we appoint them philosopher kings to make far-reaching policy decisions, it will mark, as John Howard once said, “the final triumph of elitism in Australian politics — the notion that typical citizens, elected by ordinary Australians, cannot be trusted to resolve great issues of public policy”.
If you think politicians were disconnected from our lives during Covid, their wages intact, able to travel at will, family around them, never having to hole up in hotel quarantine, you’re right. But judges are far more removed from our lives, they have no access to policy advice from the outside world, they would likely be big supporters of locking down entire communities to protect the vulnerable — many of them are getting on in years. And the clincher: we can’t get rid of the buggers.
All of that explains why a gaggle of legal academics and activists have long demanded a bill of rights. …
When press freedom was a hot topic a few years ago, Amnesty International demanded an Australian charter of rights to secure it. The same group was missing in action when it came to repealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which curbs free speech.
These people have one thing in common: they have a policy they feel strongly about but can’t be bothered with the messy, exhausting democratic structures required to secure it.
The anti-democrats want to head straight to the courts, hoping it is easier to get their way from a handful of unelected judges. They have a different view of democracy: a belief in elite rule where the small mouthy groups determine policy by the cases they bring to a court that is newly empowered to determine the content of our laws.
If Australia ends up with a bill of rights, we won’t be able to control or predict the frolics of judges on significant policy issues. It’s a safe guess the views of many judges might be closer to those academics and activists who are so keen to use courts, not parliament, to make policy. Otherwise, why would they be so excited about a bill of rights?
Both systems — the US style of enumerated rights which are misinterpreted by judges to suit the dominant political ideology of the time, or the UK system of letting Parliament rule unhindered and relying on democracy to rein them in — have their pros and cons. But the activist left prefer rule by judge, because it saves them having to convince the majority.
The CDC is Being Called Out for Covid-19 ‘Statistical Manipulation’ as Lawmakers Press for Grand Jury Investigation – Nwo Report
The Centers for Disease Control, after nearly two years of panic-inducing reporting on Covid-19, is finally being called out by lawmakers who are pressing for a grand jury investigation into alleged statistical manipulation by the public health body.
Oregon state Senators Kim Thatcher and Dennis Linthicum, who preside in a state known for some of the most heavy handed Covid policies in the nation, filed a grand jury petition to look into the CDC’s unlawful ‘hyperinflation of death certificate reporting.’ Just the News’ John Solomon recently reported on the development.
The grand jury petition was launched in mid-August, but a public announcement was delayed until mid-September to “protect those involved,” the petitioners Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) said in its announcement.
“The project has been a months-in-the-making combined effort between scientific, legal and public policy experts,” SHF’s release noted. “The letter, submitted exactly one month prior to public release to protect those involved, was addressed to the Honorable Scott E. Asphaug, U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, which stated”:
“What we have learned is worthy of independent State and/or Special Federal Grand Jury Investigation from our vantage point as elected state policy makers. Pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 3332 – Powers and Duties and the case law cited within the Formal Grand Jury Petition, we respectfully request that the petition and preliminary supportive documentation be presented to the members of the grand jury we are petitioning for immediate deliberation. Public trust in elected officials, the Oregon Health Authority, and our ability to lead the resilient people of Oregon through this crisis has been eroded to an all-time low. The peoples’ trust in their ability to participate in their own governance and be heard by their elected officials is perhaps the most essential element for a thriving free and healthy society. As elected officials it is our sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Oregon, the tenets of Informed Consent, and honor our legal obligation to comply with 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony. We are fulfilling our duty by calling for a Special Federal Grand Jury Investigation, or at the very least an independent state district-led grand jury investigation convened by a judge, into the issues and evidentiary materials presented.”
Kim Thatcher, one of the Oregon state senators behind the grand jury petition, argued the justifications for the formal investigation.
“Federal agencies like the CDC have committed atrocities in the name of ‘public health,’ resulting in extensive collateral damage that transformed society in ways that we are still grappling to understand,” Thatcher said in an official statement. “The CDC’s unlawful and questionable changes to death certificates related to COVID, the use of false-positive PCR tests and their callous indifference to individual rights—or science, for that matter—led to fraudulent data that was used to justify sweeping policy changes, not only in Oregon, but across the country.”
“I refuse to stand by and watch as our constitutional rights and liberties are endangered by oppressive agencies, which is why I have chosen to take part in this effort to bring forth a petition for a grand jury investigation. Equal protection under the Constitution is still the right of every American,’ Thatcher added.
Another Oregon state senator, Dennis Linthicum, argued that the CDC has committed “pure data manipulation.”
“Plain and simple: the CDC acted illegally in March of 2020, which has led to these current ‘medical’ mandates stemming from the original lynchpin of corrupted data for COVID death certificates,” Linthicum argued. “Our health and the health of our children is our responsibility, not the government’s, yet the CDC, through pure data manipulation, has promulgated government overreach through incredulous policies in unimaginable ways through this wrongful slight-of-hand, creating a falsified reality that has no place in a free society.”
Stand for Health Freedom included a number of supporting documents to testify to its claims, as well as a petition for signatures.
SHF raises one of the most important points about the Covid-19 pandemic: If the CDC is reporting that 94% of Covid-related deaths had serious co-morbidities, and the average age of death is 78 years old (roughly the age of life expectancy), how much of this human toll should be attributed to Covid and how much should be attributed to old age or serious underlying health risks?
It’s a question that is seemingly ignored by public health organizations and the CDC. But it is an issue that requires more attention and transparency. The state lawmakers’ grand jury petition should prompt more investigations into this deadly serious matter, and not just in the state of Oregon, but across the United States.
