Lies, Damn Lies, and Democratic Operatives
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Bernie Sanders funnels $75,000 more from campaign coffers to his wife, stepson's nonprofit
The institute was established by Sanders' wife, Jane, and his stepson, David Driscoll, six years ago as a think tank to elevate progressive mouthpieces. However, the group has appeared to perform very little work while paying Driscoll six figures worth of compensation.
"The facts present in this case and the family ties involved certainly raise legitimate concern," Kendra Arnold, executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, previously told Fox News Digital. "Obviously, a senator is not allowed to use his campaign to simply transfer large sums of money to family members – regardless of the route the dollars take."
"While on its face, the percentage the nonprofit paid out in salary alone is not necessarily problematic, legally the issue hinges on whether the salaries were paid for bona fide services at fair market value," Arnold said. "In other words, if the nonprofit and its executive director are truly producing work and actually earning the money, it is not illegal, but it is frowned upon. On the other hand, if nothing or very little is being done to earn the money legitimately, then it is highly likely a serious campaign finance violation has taken place."
Ex-NYC Mayor de Blasio deliberately held back cops during George Floyd protests, new Melissa DeRosa book claims
Like many other issues, how to handle the protests that erupted over the police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota triggered disagreements between Cuomo and de Blasio, recounts DeRosa in her forthcoming memoir, “What’s Left Unsaid: My Life at the Center of Power, Politics & Crisis.”
“We learned that a high-ranking member of the police union had reached out directly to the governor that morning with disturbing information: he believed that de Blasio, fearful of more police clashes with protesters going viral on video, was purposefully not deploying additional bodies,” DeRosa writes, according to an excerpt obtained by The Post.
“As a result, knowing they were outnumbered, officers were unwilling to take on the looters.”
Who DIDN'T know that?
From the Outkick article:
The latter 'Free Palestine' event describes the situation in Gaza as follows:
'Resistance fighters'? Really? That description could have been written by the leader of Hamas.
The event also uses the following header image:
How peaceful. How not filled with 'hateful conduct.'
Eventbrite co-founder Kevin Hartz responded to Outkick's question with the following tweet. So professional of him:
Beg your pardon, but you are being called pro-Hamas because the event you are promoting on your site is explicitly pro-Hamas. See how that works, Kev?
But Hartz's bad night was just beginning. Enter Clay Travis, founder of Outkick.
In other words, David French wants to scoot off to an echo chamber where he can mute/block actual conservatives who passionately disagree with him/call him out while he amplifies those who shower him with praise. That's so stunningly brave that I almost let a tear trickle down my face.
Then there was Adam Kinzinger, who tweeted on Saturday that he was "mentally preparing" for his Twitter exit:
I mean "mentally prepare" to leave Twitter? Does that involve some type of weird training regimen? Who even does that? Twitter addicts like Kinzinger, I guess.
I've been on Twitter for a long time. Too long, to be quite honest. For several years early on, I was a prolific Twitter user and I would get into some pretty heated back-and-forths with people. But fortunately, I grew out of it and finally figured out it was not worth my time to try and get the last word with my opponent. Life is just too short for keyboard warrioring.
If I didn't need it for my line of work, I'd be on it even less than I am now. But I've learned to keep the arguing to a minimum there and just mute/block people who I conclude are deliberately not approaching me in good faith who usually proceed to prove my point. That makes things a lot easier to tolerate.
Then there was Adam Kinzinger, who tweeted on Saturday that he was "mentally preparing" for his Twitter exit:
I mean "mentally prepare" to leave Twitter? Does that involve some type of weird training regimen? Who even does that? Twitter addicts like Kinzinger, I guess.
I've been on Twitter for a long time. Too long, to be quite honest. For several years early on, I was a prolific Twitter user and I would get into some pretty heated back-and-forths with people. But fortunately, I grew out of it and finally figured out it was not worth my time to try and get the last word with my opponent. Life is just too short for keyboard warrioring.
If I didn't need it for my line of work, I'd be on it even less than I am now. But I've learned to keep the arguing to a minimum there and just mute/block people who I conclude are deliberately not approaching me in good faith who usually proceed to prove my point. That makes things a lot easier to tolerate.
They will still rally around the democrats because they believe the republicans are evil Nazi's .
In other words, David French wants to scoot off to an echo chamber where he can mute/block actual conservatives who passionately disagree with him/call him out while he amplifies those who shower him with praise. That's so stunningly brave that I almost let a tear trickle down my face.
Then there was Adam Kinzinger, who tweeted on Saturday that he was "mentally preparing" for his Twitter exit:
I mean "mentally prepare" to leave Twitter? Does that involve some type of weird training regimen? Who even does that? Twitter addicts like Kinzinger, I guess.
I've been on Twitter for a long time. Too long, to be quite honest. For several years early on, I was a prolific Twitter user and I would get into some pretty heated back-and-forths with people. But fortunately, I grew out of it and finally figured out it was not worth my time to try and get the last word with my opponent. Life is just too short for keyboard warrioring.
If I didn't need it for my line of work, I'd be on it even less than I am now. But I've learned to keep the arguing to a minimum there and just mute/block people who I conclude are deliberately not approaching me in good faith who usually proceed to prove my point. That makes things a lot easier to tolerate.
Guess these people are not getting the attention they seek to get their own shows on MSNBC or CNN.
Chief Justice Roberts and the Erosion of the Judiciary
By Griff HoganWhen historians review the decline of American judiciary in the 21st century, they may have difficulty evaluating the role of one of its most important figures, Chief Justice John Roberts. His responses to a multitude of challenges have been inconsistent, and at times baffling.
In his 2010 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama broke the event’s longstanding rules of decorum by hectoring the Supreme Court, six members of which were sitting right in front of him. Obama was peeved by the Court’s recent Citizens United decision, which he alleged would “open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections." Obama had a captive audience for one of his straw-man arguments, and made the most of it. It was too much for Justice Samuel Alito, who muttered sotto voce “That’s simply not true.” Sitting right in front of him was Chief Justice John Roberts, who said and did nothing.
Obama’s verbal assault was a preview of serious problems to come. Obama would eventually go beyond rhetoric, as he and his minions deceived the nation's most secret judicial body, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Later, the Left would launch a multifaceted assault on the Supreme Court. Since both are under the supervision of the chief justice, his responses became a critical factor in combating the erosion of the judiciary.
Obama’s abuse of the FISC began during the 2016 presidential campaign when, in collusion with the Clinton campaign, he authorized “Crossfire Hurricane,” an effort to spy on Donald Trump and his staff. The Obama administration, through the FBI and intelligence agencies, submitted misleading and fraudulent information to the court, including the infamous “Steele Dossier,” to convince the court that surveillance was needed. Obama’s henchmen knew the information they were submitting was tainted. The FISC repeatedly accepted their arguments without ever even convening a hearing.