1/31/2025

the disgusting queen of brazil glenneth greenwald


the queen of brazil.  that is a good name for glenneth greenwald.  the mincing queen of brazil - who broke with bari weiss over tulsi - felt the need to defend tulsi the cult member:

The reason reason these bipartisan Deep State loyalists on the Committee are demanding she call Snowden a traitor (even though he's not charged with treason) is he exposed the illegal domestic spying programs they all endorsed.

He served the country and betrayed criminals:

that's what old and ugly tweeted.

no, ed snowden did not serve the country. 
 
you ensured he didn't.


you didn't publish even 1/2 of what he stole.  and you gave that to 'the intercept' - you used it to enrich yourself.

you owe the american an apology but you're just a mincing, lying dishonest failure.

and glenny, you get uglier each day.  if you have an money left, maybe freshen up those squinty eyes and do something about that nose.

oh wait.  that expense would only be justified if you had an audience.

and you don't.


which is why you don't cover brazil - the place you live - and instead obsess over the united states. you don't live here.  take your priss pot nose and get out of our business. again, you elected to make your home in brazil.  we really don't need your help or advice or, most importantly, lies.  you went away now stay away. 

gigi is disgustin.  gigi.  that's what we should call him.  he does look like an elderly grandma these days.


anyway be sure to read ava and c.i.'s 'Media: How Amy Goodman harmed immigrants and helped elect Chump'

let's close with c.i.'s 'The Snapshot:'


Friday, January 31, 2025. Patel, Gabbard and Junior lie to Senate committees, Donald Chump wants to dismantle the US government, why we need to all have a working knowledge of Socialism before the 2028 election, and much more.



Let's be clear up front: Donald Trump doesn't care one iota about the Constitution.

wrote about it for Rolling Stone before the 2016 election, laying out how he had already demonstrated during his first real campaign that he didn't believe "core principles and values" of the nation's founding document. , But I think what we've seen in his first week-plus in office this time around is that he is completely apathetic about it, giving it no thought whatsoever. And that's a scary thing to say about a president.

What we've seen in this short period of time is an unprecedented grab of power in almost every area of law:

Despite the Constitution and federal statute requiring birthright citizenship - people born on American soil are American citizens even if their parents are not - the Trump Administration issued an executive order declaring that it will end on February 19. The order has been met with multiple legal challenges, leading a federal judge to temporarily block it. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, wrote in his decision that the order "blatantly unconstitutional."

Despite the Constitution and federal statute prohibiting the president from refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for a particular purpose, the Trump administration issued an order doing just that, ostensibly so that federal agencies can investigate whether these programs are imbued with, among other things, "DEI" and "woke gender ideology." This order, too, has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge.

Despite Congress putting a firm date on the start of the ban on TikTok, Trump said he was giving the company 75 additional days to comply, a power that finds no basis in the statute. Despite the Constitution and federal statute prohibiting the president from firing people in offices such as the Inspector General office, Trump has fired people in those roles. Despite federal courts having previously declared that a ban on trans people in the military is unconstitutional sex discrimination, Trump reinstated that policy.

President Trump has said that he wants to withhold federal funds from California in the wake of the devastating wildfires until California complies with Trump's wishes about voter ID, despite the Constitution requiring that conditions on federal funds be connected to the purpose of the funds and Congress not placing any condition on federal disaster relief. 


He doesn't abide by the Constitution and he doesn't like the people -- why in the world would he want to be president?  To dismantle the government.  That is what he's doing.  Dismantle the government.  We're going to come back to that point much later in the snapshot 

For now, let's note The Three Great Liars -- Junior, Trashy Garbage and Patel.

Let's start with Junior who we all know is disgusting, not suited for the job and a disaster in every way a human can be.  He did his hearings (plural) with pop-eyed Cheryl Hines behind him.  Some say her career is behind her but she would have to have a career for that to be the case.  And she doesn't.  And hasn't.  So with Cheryl, what Americans have to look forward to is her trying to not look humiliated as this or that affair emerges.  And she can never be anything humiliated.  She can't be surprised because not only did the thing with the reporter emerge during his failed campaign for president -- and rumors of other real affairs in 2024 get alluded to -- Cheryl's a cheater too.  She caught him and roped him in after entering a side piece.  And the fact that he was cheating on his wife just made it all the sexier to trashy Cheryl who apparently climaxed when Junior's wife took her own life.  For more on that, David Corn (MOTHER JONES):

In the early 2010s, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went through a contentious divorce with his second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy. It was ugly. Richardson had found a diary RFK Jr. kept that chronicled multiple extramarital affairs he had engaged in—possibly numbering in the dozens—and she was enraged and tormented by his infidelity. She was drinking and racked up two DUIs. The two fought for years over the custody of their four children. The battle ended on May 16, 2012, with her suicide at their home in Bedford, New York.

During that stretch, RFK Jr., who has been nominated by President Donald Trump to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, secretly recorded telephone and in-person conversations he had with Richardson, and in at least one instance he may have violated state law in doing so.

Mother Jones has obtained a cache of these audio recordings that include more than 60 conversations that occurred in 2011 and early 2012. In many of the recordings, Richardson was distraught over the end of her marriage to Kennedy. Sometimes she bitterly lashed out at him, cursing and yelling; occasionally she asked for reconciliation. Knowing he was recording, Kennedy was decidedly more circumspect than was she. He often pressed her to complete the divorce and blamed her behavior for their breakup and his affairs. In none of the recordings did Kennedy inform Richardson that she was being recorded or ask for her consent to be recorded.

In one angry conversation on June 4, 2011, Kennedy, who had married Richardson in 1994 after his first divorce, said to her, “I want to be in a monogamous relationship. I don’t want to be in a polygamous relationship. I think that’s wrong.” Richardson then asked, “But then why have you done it for 10 years?” Kennedy replied, “I did it because I was being abused at home.” (Mother Jones is not publishing the recordings because they contain allegations we have not confirmed and information about third parties that raises privacy concerns.)

Kennedy did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding the recordings.

Most of the recordings were apparently made while both Kennedy and Richardson were in New York state, which is a one-party consent state when it comes to recording a conversation. That means under New York state law only one person in the conversation needs to be aware of the recording for it to be a legal act.

But in one instance, Kennedy recorded a phone conversation with Richardson when he was apparently in California, which is a two-party consent state. Under California law, a person needs the agreement of all parties to a conversation to record a private call. Violating this law is punishable by a fine up to $2,500 and a prison sentence of up to one year.

This call occurred on June 14, 2011. That week, Kennedy was in Los Angeles for the premiere of The Last Mountain, a documentary on mountaintop removal mining based partly on a 2005 book by Kennedy. During that eight-minute-long call, the two argued, as Kennedy pleaded with her to sign a custody agreement, and Richardson aired her grievances about him and asked him to avoid having their 16-year-old son, Conor, publicly photographed with actor Cheryl Hines, Kennedy’s girlfriend whom he later married. On the audio file of this call, Kennedy did not inform Richardson the conversation was being recorded.






There she is at the premiere, just as sad looking then as she is now.  That's the face of a catalog model -- if she's lucky -- not a TV or film star.  She and Junior go way back.  And we've told you that here and explained that's why no one should ever feel sorry when Junior publicly humiliates her.  After all, as we've noted here, he's complained about her breasts -- well, the dangling one that's "like an empty sock" -- to any male friend who will listen.  With Cheryl and Junior, you're reminded of a remark Frank Sinatra once made, "I've finally found a woman I can cheat on."

Junior's trash and unfit and we've got other things to focus on, however, since David Corn did a deep dive on just how hideous Junior truly is, we need to note it.

Now let's turn to Tulsi Gabbard.  Trashy Garbage as Trina's long dubbed her. What is it with MAGA women and their eyes this week?  Cheryl couldn't stop blinking at Junior's hearings and Tulsi showed with the largest fake eyelashes she's yet to wear in public.  Maybe she thought they'd act as awnings and shield or shadow her face to conceal those ugly pockmarks?

Well.

She was wrong.

This is from Senator Patty Murray's office:


Murray: “There are political realities, we all get that—but there is also right and wrong, fact and fiction. And there’s also people staying healthy, or people dying pointlessly from diseases we can prevent because they thought Congress took its job vetting our health care secretary seriously.”

Murray, a longtime congressional leader on health care who has led hearings on addressing vaccine hesitancy, has been a leading vocal opponent of RFK Jr.’s nomination—speaking out on the Senate floor, holding events, raising the alarm after meeting with him

*** VIDEO of Senator Murray’s FULL questioning with RFK Jr. HERE***

Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, questioned RFK Jr. at the Senate HELP Committee hearing on his nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)—pressing him forcefully on whether he stands by false statements he made about the HPV vaccine and asking about credible accusations of sexual harassment and assault against him.

RFK Jr. has long been one of the anti-vaccine movement’s loudest, proudest champions—peddling dangerous, debunked views and funding anti-vaccine causes—and there is much he could do as HHS Secretary to cause chaos and real harm to families,  from firing top scientists and researchers, to ripping away the approval or insurance coverage of all kinds of vaccines and medicines, to ending our focus on infectious disease research, as he has threatened to do.

Murray began her questioning at today’s hearing by reiterating that HHS has broad and critical responsibilities to protect and preserve health care and social services, from advancing women’s health, to improving child care, to bolstering biomedical research—all priorities of hers—but she would use her limited time for questioning to ask about vaccines. Also noting the tragic plane crash last night in DC, Murray called it “a painful reminder that we need competent people running our federal agencies to respond when a crisis strikes.”

“I think we can agree that cancer is particularly a nefarious chronic disease. And the American Cancer Society reported earlier this month that women under 50 are experiencing a dramatic increase in incidence of the disease. Fortunately, there is clear data showing that the HPV vaccine has saved lives and cut cervical cancer rates dramatically. You have called the HPV vaccine ‘dangerous and defective’ and said it ‘actually increases the risk of cervical cancer.’ Do you stand by those statements? Yes or no?”

Kennedy filibustered, refusing to answer directly—Murray pressed him to answer the question, then continued, “You said that: ‘no loving parents would allow their daughter to receive this vaccine.’ If confirmed as HHS Secretary, would you recommend that parents get their children vaccinated against HPV? Yes or no?”

“I’ll just remind everybody—parents look to our health leaders for advice on these decisions; you would be a health leader,” Murray said, asking unanimous consent to enter Mr. Kennedy’s numerous statements disparaging the HPV vaccine and others into the record.

Murray continued by asking Mr. Kennedy about accusations of sexual harassment and assault by Eliza Cooney, who was hired as a part-time babysitter by his family. “When you were confronted about this accusation, you said you were ‘not a church boy’ and that you ‘have so many skeletons in my closet,’ Murray said. “You then texted Miss Cooney an apology and indicated you had no memory of what she described. Mr. Kennedy, I’m asking you to respond to those accusations seriously in front of this committee. Did you make sexual advances towards Miss Cooney without her consent?”

Kennedy denied the allegations, calling them “debunked,” despite credible reporting to the contrary, when pressed on why he apologized, Kennedy claimed he texted Cooney an apology for a separate reason—in contrast to the published texts. Mr. Kennedy then told the full committee that he had never made any unwanted sexual advances towards any individual without their consent.

“My time is almost up, but having read a lot and listened a lot, I just want to remind all my colleagues that by voting to confirm Mr. Kennedy, we would be telling our constituents he is worth listening to,” Murray said. “That alone will get people killed—before he even lifts a finger. Because he does not even need the levers of power to influence people, as we saw in Samoa—all he needs is a megaphone.

“To affirm his views by voting to confirm him as our highest health official—we should not mince words about what that will mean. When babies die from whooping cough because parents weren’t sure if the vaccine was safe, we will have to look them in the eye. When measles sweeps through schools, hospitals, nursing wards—will this be worth it?”

“There are political realities, we all get that—but there is also right and wrong, fact and fiction. And there’s also people staying healthy, or people dying pointlessly from diseases we can prevent because they thought Congress took its job vetting our health care secretary seriously,” Murray concluded.

When President-elect Donald J. Trump first announced his intention to select Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of HHS, Murray immediately and forcefully condemned the move—and she has consistently spoken out and laid out for her colleagues the case against his nomination since, including in a lengthy Senate floor speech earlier this month—VIDEO HERE. Murray met with RFK Jr. on January 15th and released a statement afterward reiterating her opposition to his nomination and urging her colleagues, “to be honest with themselves about the stakes of putting one of the anti-vaccine movement’s loudest, proudest champions in charge of HHS and join me in opposing RFK Jr.’s nomination.”  In December, Murray held a roundtable discussion at UW Medicine on the importance of scientific research and vaccines—especially for children—and spoke about how having RFK Jr. lead HHS would threaten Americans’ health and safety.

As a longtime appropriator and former Chair of the Senate HELP Committee, Murray has long fought to boost biomedical research, strengthen public health infrastructure, and make health care more affordable and accessible. Over her years as a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, she has secured billions of dollars in increases for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, and during her time as Chair of the HELP Committee she established the new ARPA-H research agency as part of her PREVENT Pandemics Act to advance some of the most cutting-edge research in the field. As Chair of the HELP Committee, Murray was also instrumental in crafting the American Rescue Plan Act, including its landmark investments in public health and health care. Senator Murray was also the lead Democratic negotiator of the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, which delivered a major federal investment to boost NIH research, among many other investments. Murray is also the lead sponsor of the Public Health Infrastructure Saves Lives Act (PHISLA), legislation to establish $4.5 billion in dedicated, annual funding for a grant program to build up and maintain the nation’s public health system across the board. 

In 2019, Senator Murray co-led a bipartisan hearing in the HELP Committee on vaccine hesitancy and spoke about the importance of addressing vaccine skepticism and getting people the facts they need to keep their families and communities safe and healthy. Ahead of the hearing, as multiple states were facing measles outbreaks in under-vaccinated areas, Murray sent a bipartisan letter with former HELP Committee Chair Lamar Alexander (R-TN) pressing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director and HHS Assistant Secretary for Health on their efforts to promote vaccination and vaccine confidence.

###





Gabbard is one of handful of US politicians that has condemned the treatment of Snowden. In 2013, the former government contractor exposed the illegal surveillance operations of the NSA, CIA and other US spy agencies which target millions in the US and around the world. For over a decade, Snowden has remained exiled in Russia after the US government revoked his passport.

Ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Mark Warner (Virginia), speaking for the intelligence apparatus, said, “I have serious doubts about your judgment... You consistently praised the actions of Edward Snowden. Someone who I believe jeopardized the security of our nation and then, to flaunt that, fled to Russia.

“You’ve called Edward Snowden, and I’ll quote here, ‘A brave whistleblower’.”

Warner claimed that Snowden “wasn’t a whistleblower and in this case, I’m a lot closer to the chairman’s words, where he said Snowden is quote, ‘an egotistical serial liar and traitor’ who quote, ‘deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life.’”

Warner asked Gabbard if she still thought Snowden was “brave.” Gabbard did not directly answer the question, stating instead that Snowden, “broke the law” and that she did not agree with how he acted, or everything he released to journalists but that, “the fact is, he also, even as he broke the law, released information that exposed egregious, illegal, and unconstitutional programs that are happening within our government that led to serious reforms that Congress undertook.”

Warner repeatedly asked Gabbard to denounce Snowden or recant her previous characterization of him as “brave.” Gabbard declined but promised to “protect our nation’s secrets” and “prevent another Snowden-like leak.”

This was not enough for Warner who replied, “I don’t think you are the answer. I agree with Tom Cotton, he’s a traitor.”



We're in need of remedials -- I've grasped that fact thanks to the mushy minded we've talked about earlier this week.  

So let me explain that's a critique. 

It's not a critique that amounts to much -- it's neither factual or informed (uninformed as in Jacob pretends not to understand what's going on). 

But it's a critique and I'm sure many Socialists will applaud it.

It's not.

And.  Let's go slow.  Democrats.  And.  Socialists.  Can.  Agree.  And. Overlap. On. Some. Things.  But.  They. Are. Not. The. Same.

What the Dems were doing was focusing on one issue in most of their exchanges and they were focusing on one issue as a group because the media's incapable of telling multiple stories.  Their point was to get across that cult member Tulsi Gabbard cannot be trusted.

And she can't be.

Now WSWS doesn't care for reform or what they'd see a bandaids.  So they applaud Ed Snowden.  They applaud him wrongly.

He is a traitor.

To some, he's a traitor because of what he did back in 2013.  

And that's fine, that's a matter of opinion.

I don't see him as a traitor for 2013.

I see him as a traitor for all the years that followed.

What did he expose?

He and Glenneth were going to expose so much.

Remember?

Remember how Glenny was publishing at THE GUARDIAN and left in a huff and went to THE INTERCEPT to let freedom ring!

Well how long does it take for hunchback Glenneth to go into the belfry and ring the damn bell?

He stormed out of THE INTERCEPT -- stupidly, as we've noted, if he did in fact have a contract guaranteeing him that whatever he wrote would be published --and where's all that information?

You know the fifty-five percent or so never released information that 'whistleblower' Ed liberated or 'liberated'?

Glenneth and THE INTERCEPT were too busy outing Reality Winner and other whistleblowers at that time to apparently cover the bulk of the information -- because the bulk of what Ed walked away with has still not been published.

Ed's a traitor.

To be a whistle-blower, he would have had to have released the information still hidden.

He's hiding in Russia.

I love that, by the way.

Remember how he and Glenneth slammed Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning -- Chelsea/Julian wasn't careful and Julian/Chelsea didn't do this or that and blah blah blah.  

Chelsea didn't run to Russia.  


The little coward did.

And I defended Ed.  We always used "Ed" -- rule number one when someone's being demonized, humanize them by using the name they go by -- and he went by Ed.  

He's been in Russia for over a decade.

Nothing's prevented him from sharing all that didn't get released.

'I don't have a copy!'

He may not. 

I don't think most people would ignore an assertion from him because he no longer had access to the documents he stole because he turned them over to Glenn who -- needing a big money pay day -- turned them over to THE INTERCEPT.

He has internet access -- or did you miss his work cheering on Donald Chump in the 2024 election cycle?

He's happy to post this and that.  And scat.

But he's not posting what the American people, he said, needed to know.

He's moved on.  

And that's not a whistleblower.

That's a traitor.

He tried to damage the system.  He didn't want to reform it, for example.  Now the WSWS and Socialism is not about reforming the system.  But he did want to damage the system of government here in the US which is why he's so comfortable now in Russia.

He's a traitor and he will always be one because he presented himself as someone exposing hidding details that he felt the American people had the right to know!

And when that was his position, I defended him.

But again, a whistleblower blows the whistle.  They don't start to whistle and then say, "You know what, THE INTERCEPT now owns the documents I stole so I'm not going to provide anymore details."

Again, that's a traitor.

If it was so important that we know, you provide what we needed to know.  Not a partial version of it.

He's a traitor -- which means Donald Chump will probably pardon him at some point -- and he's in Russia now.

And Glenny's in Brazil.  He's the Queen of Brazil.  So why's Glenny so obsessed with our country? 

He's chosen not to live here.  I guess trying to grift off Brazil doesn't pay as much and we all know the whore is always about the dollar.


Tulsi's been nominated for Director of National Intelligence.

In that post, most believe you need someone who values intelligence which would mean that they oppose the unauthorized release of it.

A yes or a no.

That's how you respond to questions about Ed.

She couldn't do that.

Now if this was 2014 or 2015, I could sit before a Senate committee and make an argument defending Ed.  And it might be persuasive or it might not be.

But the American people would have seen me answer the question, not dodge it.

She can't even answer that question. 

Because she's a coward.

So she lies and redirects and tries to hide behind military service.

No, dear, you devalue whatever you think you did when you try to use it as a shield to hide behind.

She wouldn't answer questions about Ed or any questions.

Because she's a liar and a coward. 

She will not answer the questions because she doesn't believe in democracy, she doesn't believe in consent, she doesn't believe in an informed society.  She doesn't want to tell the truth to the committee because she's a coward who won't fight for what she believes and because she doesn't feel the American people have the right to know who she is.

Let's note this from Senator Mark Kelly's office:

Today, during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing to consider the nomination of Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard to be the next Director of National Intelligence, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly questioned Gabbard on her decision-making and her record of disputing U.S. intelligence assessments.  

During the hearing, Kelly pressed Gabbard on instances where she expressed public skepticism about Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria. He questioned why she disputed U.S. assessments on two attacks for which public, declassified analysis had been provided, while embracing, without corroboration, the views of a discredited professor and a chemistry student—neither with expertise in chemical weapons. Gabbard admitted in the hearing she was unaware at the time that the student had a record of defending the Assad regime, and that she was unaware until today that the professor had appeared on Russian state media.  

“When we began this, you described a thoughtful approach to analyzing intelligence and reaching conclusions—this is what we expect of our professionals, said Kelly. “[…] But what I have seen makes it clear that at the same time you were skeptical of our intelligence community’s assessments, you would not apply the same skepticism to information that came from sympathizers of Russia and Assad. And I think that’s something that we should all be concerned about.”  

 

Click here to download a video of Kelly’s exchange. Click here to watch the full hearing.   

See the transcript below:       

Sen. Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.   

Colonel Gabbard, I want to first say thank you for your service to this country—in Congress and in the Army. Thank you for meeting with me a couple weeks ago and thank you for being here today.   

You’re nominated to lead and coordinate across the intelligence community’s numerous sources of collection and analytic capabilities. In a few sentences, can you describe how you make assessments and how you’re going to sift through all this intelligence and make careful and thoughtful conclusions?  

Ms. Gabbard: Yes, Senator, there are great professionals who work within the intelligence community. I will build a strong team around me as they present the intelligence reporting to provide to the President through the President ‘s daily brief, and to respond to issues and concerns that this body has. I will welcome dissenting voices to be able to make sure that this information and intelligence is thoroughly vetted prior to presenting it, and make sure that the truth is reported whether that truth is convenient or not.   

Sen. Kelly. Thank you, Colonel Gabbard, and I appreciate that. The President and others are going to rely on that.   

I want to discuss such an assessment made by the IC. For years, the U.S. analyzed evidence of numerous chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Eventually we were able to assess that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for a number of these attacks that slaughtered his own civilians. Do you accept the conclusion broadly, that Assad used chemical weapons against Syrians?   

Ms. Gabbard: Yes, and I’m on the record for years of agreeing with that broad assessment.   

Sen. Kelly: Thank you. Among the attacks, the U.S. assessed Assad was responsible for two that occurred in Douma, in Khan Shaykhun, in Syria. As a member of Congress, and as a presidential candidate, and as recently as this month, in your written responses to this committee, you have cast doubt on the assessment that Assad is culpable. In these two attacks, is that still your position?   

Ms. Gabbard: Senator, I raised those questions, given conflicting information and evidence that was presented at that time.   

Sen. Kelly: Well, thank you. So, to help inform the public, the Trump administration released declassified intelligence in 2017 and again in 2018, showing how experts analyze multiple types of evidence: satellite imagery, medical experts, witnesses, describing sources and showing the reasoning used to determine Assad ‘s culpability in using these chemical weapons, including in Douma and Khan Shaykhun in these attacks. The ones that you question. I have two documents I want to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.   

Were you aware of the declassified assessments, the one I reference?   

Ms. Gabbard: Yes, I was.   

Sen. Kelly: And as a member of the House Armed Services Committee in the Foreign Affairs Committee, did you take time to review these?   

Ms. Gabbard: Yes.   

Sen. Kelly: OK, thank you. And can you explain to me then why you doubted the intelligence community’s conclusions in these two cases? Douma, and Khan Shaykhun, but not the others. Please be specific.  

Ms. Gabbard: These two cases were being looked at to be used as a pretext for a major military movement and my fear was a repeat of the deployment of another half a million soldiers like we saw in Iraq towards what was the Obama administration’s goal, which was regime change in Syria. The question specifically that I raised around these two came about because there were two reasons. One, that assessment was made with high confidence and low information. The information that they had come from those on the ground in an Al-Qaeda controlled area and therefore were Al-Qaeda linked sources, and there was conflicting information that came from the UN’s office on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Inspectors, as well as an MIT professor, Ted Postol, who looked at these extensively.   

Sen. Kelly: So, I want to talk about him for a second. So, did you look into his credentials? Yes or no?   

Ms. Gabbard: Yes.  

Sen. Kelly: And were you aware of his appearances on Russia Today, which is used by the Russians to disseminate government-approved messages?   

Ms. Gabbard: No.   

Sen. Kelly: Were you aware Postol relied on a chemistry student with a record of defending the Assad regime?   

Ms. Gabbard: At that time, I was not. I have been made aware since.   

Sen. Kelly: Do you consider this person or these two individuals now, do you consider them a better source for the chemistry of sarin gas in the US intelligence community?   

Ms. Gabbard: I assess that at the time, the information, I don’t know the second person you’re referring to, but MIT professor Ted Postol and the inspectors of the OPCW provided some credible questions that deserved examination.   

Sen. Kelly: Thank you. Did you attempt to weigh Postol’s claims against the significant evidence and assessments already conducted by the IC?   

Ms. Gabbard: Yes, I did.  

Sen. Kelly: OK, thank you. So, here’s my concern here, Colonel. When we began this, you described a thoughtful approach to analyzing intelligence and reaching conclusions. This is what we expect from our professionals.

But we just kind of walked through how you came to question Assad ‘s use of chemical weapons in these two cases with a different approach, and I don’t reject seeking out differing viewpoints, we need to do that. But you started from a place of doubting the conclusions of the US intelligence community and then you sought out information that confirmed your viewpoint.   

That led you to embrace the opinions of two individuals that I think we disagree on this, you think they had expertise, I do not, and others do not. But these individuals were sympathetic to Russia and the Assad regime. It also led you to minimize or discount the overwhelmingly information that contradicted your viewpoint, including the expert assessments of our own intelligence community. And they don’t get it right a hundred percent of the time, I get that, but what I have seen makes it clear that at the same time that you were skeptical of our intelligence community ‘s assessments, you would not apply the same skepticism to information that came from sympathizers of Russia and Assad.   

And I think that’s something that we should all be concerned about.   

Thank you.  



Sarah K. Burris and Matt Laslo (RAW STORY) cover Trashy and they also cover Patel, we'll note them on Patel so we can move towards wrapping this snapshot up:

Speaking to Raw Story, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said that one of the most disturbing answers Patel gave was when he asked who the FBI works for.
"I think I asked this two or three different ways," the senator recalled. "And he said, 'Well, we report to,' — and I said, 'Okay you're part of the Department of Justice. I agree with that, but I asked Attorney General [Pam] Bondi this question. Who do you work for? And [Patel] said basically, the White House."

Coons said Bondi cited the American people and the Constitution.

The second question he took issue with was Patel's response to questions about how he would respond if Trump asked him to do something illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional.

Coons took issue with Patel's answer: "If directed to do — I would never break the law."

"You have to be willing to refuse an order and resign," Coons said, recalling that he asked the same question of Christopher Wray and his two previous predecessors.

"He just wouldn't..." Coons said, trailing off. "It gives me real pause because he's not — Bill Barr answered easily. Pam Bondi answered easily. Merrick Garland answered easily. I do that with every nominee."



Chump wants to dismantle the government.  We're back to that.  Typical e-mail to the public e-mail account (common_ills@yahoo.com) these days: 'You are so mean and so unfair to Socialists and blah blah blah.'   Ja'han Jones (MSNBC) reports:


President Donald Trump’s attempts to transform the federal workforce into a tool for the conservative movement — including by trying to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs and his administration’s efforts to convince federal workers to resign — is drawing attention to the deeply consequential Office of Personnel Management.
[. . .]

But one reprehensible figure — OPM’s new general counsel, Andrew Kloster, who in 2023 described himself as a “raging misogynist” in a since-deleted tweet — is starting to garner some attention as well.

On Tuesday, the Project on Government Oversight published a report on Kloster, sounding the alarm on the potential dangers he poses as he offers legal guidance to the federal government.

As the nonpartisan watchdog’s Nick Schwellenbach reports:

“Kloster, who is now responsible for advising the government’s H.R. department, has a long history of racist and sexist online comments and social media posts. In a [2012] response to a post on The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog, as reported by The Daily Beast, Kloster wrote, ‘Consent is probably modern society’s most pernicious fetish.’ He also has written online [in 2023] that ‘Slaves owe us reparations.’ In 2023 ... he tweeted, ‘I need a woman who looks like she got punched.’ POGO’s queries sent to OPM and Kloster sought comment on these and other statements; neither addressed these questions.”

But wait, there’s more:

“Kloster is a fierce partisan. While he was working as deputy general counsel at OPM in 2020, the Associated Press reported that ‘Kloster worked as an observer for the Wisconsin Republican Party on election night and was accused of yelling at election workers and police in Green Bay, a claim he disputes.’ He was directly involved in efforts to legally challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election by working for a controversial, taxpayer-funded effort in Wisconsin that ultimately found no widespread fraud. Days after the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, he responded to a tweet raising a scenario that could spark a ‘civil war’ with hand clap emojis between the words ‘Do it.’


I never heard of Kloster until Tuesday night.  I was watching Rachel Maddow's MSNBC program for the first time.  I had unblocked MSNBC and had meant to do that for a bit because Chump is attacking Rachel and others -- and then you get non-Democrats like Krystal Ball attacking Rachel and others.  I'm  not a Rachel fanatic.   
 
So I'm watching Rachel on Tuesday on TV for the first time and that's when I hear of Andrew Kloster for the first time.  And as she's reporting on him, I am thinking "Socialist or Communist."

And that, kids, is why it matters. 

A few phone calls later, I had the information I needed.  He was raised in a Communist family and was that way in his early adulthood before switching over.  

Democrats and Socialists can overlap.  They can share agreement on certain things.

But Democrats aren't calling for the government to be dismantled.

If you'll think back to the 2016, Susan Sarandon argued for her vote choice by stating Chump might be the easiest way to take the whole system down.

That's her opinion, I'm not going to attack her for it  

But that is the difference and it's not aa mild one.  

Most Socialists are not in favor of the democratic system that we have in place.  

And the ones we need to watch are the vile and disgusting ones who creep you out because that's your clue that you're looking at an eventual turncoat.

Socialists were there creating neoconservatism.  

This comes from believing the system needs to be taken down.

Over and over, you can see this take place.  Look at hideous people -- usually men, but we'll name a woman in just a second -- writing their angry garbage pieces at JACOBIN.  And grasp that the Socialist outlet platformed Ana Kasparian.

Out of the kindness of their hearts?

No, because she was a Socialist.

She hid in a closet.

She's now a grifter and a right winger and people will lie -- even when calling her out -- and bill her as a Democrat  She's not.  She's the type of Socialist that really gives Socialism a bad name.  And JACOBIN stood by her.  Even let her attack Katie Halper on the magazine's podcaat. 

She did it using "Nando" -- Villa.  I won't forgive him.  Maybe Katie can find her way back to the left, maybe she can't.  But there was no excuse for Nando to join Ana in her attack on Katie. And there's no excuse for the fact that the left looked the other way when it went down.  Let someone say a mean word about whatever male YOUTUBER and you've got THE VANGUARD and everyone else calling them out.  But when Katie was unfairly trashed, I think I was the only one online who noted it and called it out. 

You need to very wary.  Democrats cross over to Republicans all the time.  Not pretending they don't.  But a radical Socialist or Communist who goes over to the right is much more destructive.  And that has to do with the different end games.  Democrats -- liberals -- are ridiculed for wanting reform.  Fine.  Ridicule us.  But let's not overlook the end game of Socialism in most cases and for most Socialists which is to dismantle the system -- that can make them as dangerous as Donald Chump.

And that's why when you're critiquing a candidate, the audience has a right to know where you're coming from -- are you a Republican calling out a Democrat?  We all seem to agree that requires a disclosure.  But some of us on the left can't seem to grasp that a Socialist calling out a Democrat -- or vice versa -- also requires a disclosure.

If all the Socialists attacking Kamala Harris had been identified as such, DEMOCRACY NOW! viewers would have been able to factor that into the opinions they were hearing and to ponder what Amy Goodman has against Democrats since she couldn't seem to find more than a handful in the three month lead up to the general election.

This also matters because of 2028.

I don't dislike Socialists.  I often disagree with them.  AOC is DSA.  I would vote for her for president.  But I'm fully aware that the GOP really wanted Bernie to get the nomination in 2020 because they planned to 'educate' America on Socialism.  And that's why you better get informed now.  Because should AOC be the nominee in 2028, we're all going to have to run interference.  Better now to educate and better now for her to be clear on where she stands on what issues.  

The following sites updated:

chump will destroy the country if given the chance

pig

 

that's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Two-Bit Karoline" about the fat pig white house spokesperson. 


donald chump is a chump who wants to spread it around and turn us into chumps.  we have to say 'no!'  david macaffee ('raw story') reports:


President Donald Trump is "afraid," and there's a good reason for that, an ex-prosecutor said.

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance in a post dated Thursday weighed in on Trump's attempt to oust millions of federal workers.

"There is a reason Trump is afraid of the federal bureaucracy, the career civil servants he wants to replace. They are powerful. They are knowledgeable. And although they often get a bad rap, in my experience—25 years of it—they are dedicated and mission driven," Vance wrote. "Tell doctors at CDC, federal prosecutors at DOJ, or scientists at the Department of Agriculture that they can’t do their job, and they will find a way to get it done. Tell the entire bureaucracy you want them to leave? You’ve summoned the sleeping giant."

Vance went on to say that's what Trump has done with the so-called "buyout offers" that have been reportedly offered to federal workers by the Trump administration.


he doesn't want oversight.  that's why he got rid of the inspector generals.  he doesn't want any 1 who knows the job to be in place.

he will destroy our government if we let him.

we can't let him.

he's garbage and so is any 1 who supports him.  so is any 1 who helped put him back in the white house. that includes katrina vanden heuvel of 'the nation,' amy goodman and all the rest who spent 3 months ahead of the election attacking kamala harris.

they knew what they were doing.  don't front.

they knew exactly what they were doing.

and as we fight to save our country, we need to remember that and hold these people accountable.

let's close with c.i.'s 'The Snapshot:'


Thursday, January 30, 2025.  The press corps proved they're hypocrites and whores by refusing to call out something that took place yesterday in a briefing, in the Senate the country saw Junior flounder and flail and embarrass himself, priss-pot and grifter Glenneth Greenwald attacks Caroline Kennedy which allows us the reason to examine the real Glenneth and not the p.r. lies pimped regularly by the likes of Krstyal Ball, and so much more.


Lat's start with Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Two-Bit Karoline" which went up last night. 



That's the ugly ass White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt.  You need video?  MEDIATOUCH NETWORK offers the video below on her lies.



Her lies are awful.  Awful.

But it takes more than lying to be a two-bit whore.  

I would like to point out to each and everyone of you that in 2024 when Joe Biden was in the Oval Office or sleeping upstairs in the residence sleeping.


Now the media is sucking up to Convicted Felon Donald Chump.  Part of that is because they've wrongly thought him popular -- GALLUP's new poll made clear that he's not popular and that he's the lowest rated in 70 years -- and that survey took place before his huge horror show this week regarding funding.  There's also this nonsense of a honeymoon period.  That's for first timers.  Chump didn't get it -- I noted that in real time.  It's when the media -- because they're craven and cowardly -- give you the benefit of the doubt more or less for the first 100 days.  It's because you're an unknown.  Chump is a known and there's no reason for the press to bring baggies of blood with them as they waltz into the bedroom with Chump to pretend he just breached their hymen. 

But they pretend it's about decorum and the office and all this other nonsense.





I would like to point out to each and everyone of you that in 2024 when Joe Biden was in the Oval Office or sleeping upstairs in the residence sleeping.


That's what the two-bit whore said.

Now when Chump called Kamala a whore in the debate, we watched stunned as no one in the press wanted to call it out.  As we noted at the gina &krista round-robin, we weren't going to make a big deal of it because that's what he wanted.  But the media, the reporters, they're obligated to cover that.  And they just pretended like it didn't happen or it sailed over their heads.

For the record, Kamala's not a whore.  

For the record, her relationship with Willie Brown was real and genuine.  I can say that because I know Willie and I was there.  And I'm not a K-Hiver.  Kamala and I did not get along.  That's not, "We didn't get a long for a month" or "We didn't get along for a year."  We did not get along for over a decade.  I didn't support her run in 2020 for the presidency.  While calling for Joe to step aside and dictating a snapshot, I started off noting that she'd be among the contenders if he would step aside and in the middle of that snapshot, you'll see where I flip from luke warm to full support.  And that's because I'm listing people's pluses and minuses, the totality of what she's done and what the country needs became so very clear and she was the best choice.  

I've spoken to her since -- and campaigned for her -- but we were not friends.  This was about her record and her strengths.  And I was a big enough person to say, "I was wrong about her."  

She's not a whore.

Nicole what's her name can't say the same.

If you missed it, the woman who was like some maid's daughter or something and wanted to be rich so she pursued men and took their wealth, that one.  The one that wants to be governor of California.  The liar who ran with Robert Kennedy Junior.

That's a whore.

You sleep with men -- maybe marry him, maybe don't -- then dump when you get your money.  

That's what our society has always considered a whore.

And the whore showed up yesterday threatening and spewing and hissing and all I could think was, "She made all that money on her back and that face is the best she could buy?"  

She may be setting a trap for herself by claiming big donations in the past that were supposedly secret because secret donations aren't supposed to take place in public elections.  Guess all the time spent trying to finetune her fellatio skills didn't allow left over time to familiarize one's self with the law.

But what we're dealing with is a tramp.  I don't pretend to know the trashy ways of MAGA tech.  Someone might be desperate enough for a slag with no class who turns forty and who California society is not going to welcome.  Ever.

But I doubt it.

Even so, she has neither the fortitude or the strength to go the distance. 

Her threats to retaliate against any senator who votes against confirming Junior as Secretary of Health and Human Services are a joke.

She doesn't have the skill, she doesn't have the knowledge and have any of you ever met a whore who made his or her money on their back who willingly parted with large sums of their money?

No. 

Whores don't do that.

She doesn't have the strength and she doesn't have the character.

But, thanks to Donald Chump, we're now in The Age Of The Whore.  He's a whore and so are his people.

We're back to the pig.



I would like to point out to each and everyone of you that in 2024 when Joe Biden was in the Oval Office or sleeping upstairs in the residence sleeping.


That should have ended the press honeymoon right there.

As Ruth points out in "Karoline Leavitt is a two-bit . . ..," that has never happened before.  Ruth had just started college when JFK was assassinated.  She's seen one administration after the other.

No whore has ever done what Piggie did.

Now I can't match Ruth's knowledge base.  Prior to the Iraq War, I didn't pay attention to any White House press briefings other than a clip or two that would make it to the news.  (I did observe -- in person -- a few -- especially during Bill Clinton's presidency but I focused on the theatrical aspect -- meaning I was more interested in looking at the reactions of members of the press corps.) 


But with the impending Iraq War and then the creation of this site, I have followed press briefings via transcript or streaming or in four cases during Barack Obama's presidency being present.  I did not follow Chump's first administration for obvious reasons.  


But I've caught Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan, Tony Snow, Dana Perino, Robert Gibbs, Jay Carney, Josh Earnest, Jen Psaki and Karine Jean-Pierre.  And with Jen, I've caught more than her White House press briefings.  With her and Marie Harf, I caught them at the State Dept during Barack's presidency.

None of the people mentioned above -- Republican or Democrat -- would have ever made such a tacky and tasteless remark.


 



I would like to point out to each and everyone of you that in 2024 when Joe Biden was in the Oval Office or sleeping upstairs in the residence sleeping.
 
Karoline Leavitt thought she was being funny and cute.

She was being tasteless and low class.  

Cute?  Have you seen her.

Funny?  Have you seen her.

Yes, the fat piggie was funny because it's always funny to watch a small breasted fat woman with irregular teeth and skin problems that she thinks make up is hiding carry herself on stage with an oddly strong confidence.

Piggie, someone needs to break it to you, you are a freak show.

I'm honestly surprised you go out in daylight, let alone in front of the cameras.

That wasn't funny.  You're not on FOX "NEWS."  You're in the White House and you need to try to conduct yourself appropriately.  Now considering the way you look, you could make first thing on your list be washing off that clown make up -- it's not hiding your many flaws -- and second thing to do be finding a dandruff shampoo, that works.  You can even bring in someone to teach you about make up so your lipstick stops smearing on the side of your mouth and above your lip and on your teeth.  But at some point, Piggie, you need to learn that there's a level of decorum that is supposed to be part of the position you now hold.

And shame on the press for not commenting on this.  Ruth was right to call this out.  But let's all note that it's Ruth who did it.  80-year-old Ruth who has called it out.  Isaiah did his cartoon because of what Ruth wrote.  I'm noting it now because of what Ruth wrote. 

Where is the functioning press?  And, for that matter, where are the YOUTUBERS?

The corporate media is giving Chump a pass and insisting that it's the honeymoon.  You want to end the honeymoon?  Start pointing out how even the basic observations of decorum and fairness are being ignored.  How a White House press briefing is being used to attack a former president of the United States 


This is outrageous.  And it is outrageous for the White House press corps to avert their eyes and pretend this didn't just happen.  You're a hypocrites.  No 'honeymoon' justifies you staying silent on a White House press secretary attacking and mocking a former president.  That's not done and it's unacceptable -- as unacceptable as your silence on this is.


And it's The Year Of The Whore thanks to the ultimate whore Donald Chump.  (For any idiot wanting to e-mail, I'm not the White House spokesperson and I'm not bound by any sense of decorum.) 

Yesterday, as Mike notes in "Junior takes his freak show to the Senate," crackpot Robert Kennedy Junior had his confirmation hearing.  Junior showed up juiced on steroids while running low on basic facts.  He made clear that it's not just his lack of medical knowledge that makes him so wrong to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, it's also his lack of knowledge with regards to what HHS actually does that makes him such a joke.


I don't, for example, remember Donna Shalala showing up at her confirmation hearing for this office sporting a lackadaisical attitude of I'll-learn-as-I-go-along.  No, like a serious nominee, Donna showed up at the hearing prepared and informed because she actually did the work required.

Junior was one non-stop embarrassment after another.

Let's note this from Senator Elizabeth Warren's office.

Washington, D.C. – At a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and member of the Senate Finance Committee, questioned Mr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), about his dangerous conflicts of interest and record of profiting from anti-vaccine conspiracies. 

Mr. Kennedy has made nearly $2.5 million in referral fees from the law firm Wisner Baum. Mr. Kennedy receives a 10% contingency fee in these cases if the plaintiffs win, and his ethics agreement indicates he will continue to receive these payments even if he is confirmed as HHS Secretary. However, during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Kennedy initially appeared to agree to not accept any compensation from lawsuits against drug companies while serving as HHS Secretary, stating, “Well, I will certainly commit to that while I'm Secretary.” He then backtracked and did not clearly commit to ending this arrangement — through which he can profit off of anti-vaccine lawsuits even if he is confirmed as HHS Secretary. 

If Mr. Kennedy does maintain his financial stake in anti-vaccine lawsuits, he will have a serious conflict of interest. Senator Warren highlighted seven ways Mr. Kennedy could benefit financially from anti-vaccine lawsuits and increase his payouts, including: 

  • Publishing anti-vaccine conspiracies on government letterhead to influence juries;
  • Appointing anti-vaccine people to the CDC vaccine panel;
  • Opening vaccine manufacturers to lawsuits by removing vaccines from special compensation programs;
  • Making more injuries eligible for compensation even with no causal evidence;
  • Change vaccine court processes to make it easier to bring junk lawsuits to get vaccines pulled from the market; and 
  • Turn over FDA data to his connections at law firm Wisner Baum, for their use in lawsuits. 

Senator Warren also asked Mr. Kennedy if he would take responsibility for more than 80 deaths in Samoa after Mr. Kennedy spread anti-vaccine conspiracies in the country. Mr. Kennedy refused to take responsibility. 

Transcript: Hearing to consider the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., of California, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services
Senate Committee on Finance 
January 29, 2025

Senator Elizabeth Warren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, I want to start with something that I think you and I agree on: Big Pharma has too much power in Washington. You’ve said that, President Trump asked you to, “clean up corruption and conflicts.” Sounds great. You’ve said you will “slam shut the revolving door” between government agencies and the companies they regulate. That also sounds great.

So here’s an easy question: will you commit that when you leave this job, you will not accept compensation from a drug company, a medical device company, a hospital system, or a health insurer for at least four years—including as a lobbyist or board member? 

Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services: Can you just repeat the last part of the question? Can I commit to what?

Senator Warren: Sure, you’re not going to take money from drug companies in any way shape or form?

Mr. Kennedy: Who? Me? 

Senator Warren: Yes. You. 

Mr. Kennedy: I’m happy to commit to that.

Senator Warren: Good, that’s what I figured. I said, it’s an easy question to start with. And I think you’re right on this question – 

Mr. Kennedy: I don’t think any of them want to give me any money, by the way.

Senator Warren: Let’s keep going. You are right to say yes because every American has the right to know that every decision you make as our number one health officer is to help them—not to make money for yourself in the future.

So, I want to talk more about money. I’m looking at your paperwork right now. In the past two years, you’ve raked in $2.5 million from a law firm called Wisner Baum. You go online, you do commercials to encourage people to sign up with Wisner Baum to join lawsuits against vaccine makers. And for everyone who signs up, you personally get paid, and if they win their case, you get 10% of what they win. So, if you bring in someone who gets $10 million, you walk away with a million dollars. 

Now, you just said that you want the American people to know that you cannot be bought, your decisions won’t depend on how much money you could make in the future, you won’t go work for a drug company after you leave HHS. But you and I both know there’s another way to make money. 

So, Mr. Kennedy, will you also agree that you also won’t take any compensation from any lawsuits against drug companies while you are Secretary and for four years afterwards?

Mr. Kennedy: Well, I will certainly commit to that while I'm Secretary. But I do want to clarify something because you make me sound like a shill. I put together that case. I did the science day presentation to the judge on that case to get it into court, the docket hearing – 

Senator Warren: Mr. Kennedy, it’s just a really simple question. You’ve taken in $2.5 million, I want to know if you will commit right now that not only will you not go to work for drug companies, you won’t go to work suing the drug companies and taking your rake out of that while you are Secretary and for four years after.

Mr. Kennedy: I will commit to not taking any fees from drug companies while I’m Secretary. I –  

Senator Warren: No, I’m asking about fees from suing drug companies. Will you agree not to do that?

Mr. Kennedy: You are asking me to not sue drug companies, and I'm not going to agree to that – 

Senator Warren: No. You can sue drug companies as much as you want. 

Mr. Kennedy: I am not going to agree to not sue drug companies or anybody.

Senator Warren: So, let’s do a quick count here of how, as Secretary of HHS, if you get confirmed, you could influence every one of those lawsuits. Well, let me start the list.

You could publish your anti-vaccine conspiracies, but this time on U.S. government letterhead – something a jury might be impressed by. 

Mr. Kennedy: I don’t understand that.

Senator Warren: You could appoint people to the CDC vaccine panel who share your anti-vax views and let them do your dirty work.  

You could tell the CDC vaccine panel to remove a particular vaccine from the vaccine schedule.

You could remove vaccines from special compensation programs, which would open up manufacturers to mass torts.

You could make more injuries eligible for compensation even if there’s no causal evidence. 

You could change vaccine court processes to make it easier to bring junk lawsuits.

You could turn over FDA data to your friends at the law firm, and they could use it however it benefitted them.

You could change vaccine labelling.

You could change vaccine information rules. 

You could change which claims are compensated in the vaccine injury compensation program. 

There’s a lot of ways you can influence those future lawsuits and pending lawsuits while you are Secretary of HHS, and I’m asking you to commit right now that you will not take a financial stake in every one of those lawsuits so that what you do as Secretary will also benefit you financially down the line.

Mr. Kennedy: I will comply with all the ethical guidelines. 

Senator Warren: That’s not the question. You and I—you have said repeatedly—

Mr. Kennedy: You are asking me—Senator, you're asking me not to sue vaccine—pharmaceutical companies.

Senator Warren: No, I am not. My question is: stop enriching yourself.

Look, no one should be fooled here. As Secretary of HHS, Robert Kennedy will have the power to undercut vaccines and vaccine manufacturing across our country. And for all his talk about “follow the science” and his promise that he won’t interfere with those of us who want to vaccinate our kids, the bottom line is the same: Kennedy can kill off access to vaccines and make millions of dollars while he does it. 

Kids might die, but Robert Kennedy can keep cashing in. 

Mr. Kennedy: Senator, I support vaccines, I will—I support the childhood schedule, I will do that. The only thing I want is good science, and that’s it.

Senator Warren: How about then saying you won’t make money off what you do as Secretary of HHS?

Chair Mike Crapo: Before we go to Senator Tillis, I think it would be important for me to make it very clear that Mr. Kennedy has gone through the same Office of Government Ethics process as every single other nominee in the Finance Committee this year and in previous administrations. In addition to listing his assets, including the items that you've identified, he has signed an ethics letter that has been reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics concerning any possible conflict in light of its functions and the nominee's proposed duties. And we have a letter from the Office of Government Ethics that he has complied completely with all applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest.

Senator Warren: Mr. Chairman, point of information here: have we had a single nominee come through who's made two and a half million dollars off suing one of the entities that it would be regulating and plans to keep getting a take of every lawsuit in the future? Have we had that before?

Chair Crapo: I haven't reviewed the past documentation of every other nominee's financial interests, and so no. But I know that every single time we get a nominee, their financial interests are attacked. That's why we have the Office of Government Ethics. That's why they've reviewed everything that's in his record, and that's why he has even—I think, and I don't know that I want to ask him to get into it—but he has listed his assets and has gone through a discussion of the responsibilities under our ethics laws and is complied with all of those requirements.

Round 2

Senator Warren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, I want to ask about your role in a 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa. In July 2018, two children died immediately after receiving a measles vaccine that nurses had mistakenly mixed with a muscle relaxant. The nurses get charged with manslaughter, but the vaccination rates go down. 

I asked you about this in my office. You told me flatly that your visit to Samoa had nothing to do with vaccinations. We now know that's not true. I have the documentation. You met with the Prime Minister, you talked about vaccinations. You met with an anti-vaccine influencer who described the meeting as “profoundly monumental for this movement.” 

So what happens? Vaccinations go down. There's a measles outbreak, and children start dying, but you double down. You didn't give up just four days after the Prime Minister declared a state of emergency. 16 people already dead. You sent a letter to him promoting the idea that the children had died not from measles but from a “defective vaccine.” You launched the idea that a measles vaccine caused these deaths. 

You are a very influential man. In fact, you are called the leader of the disinformation dozen. UNICEF and WHO, the World Health Organization, investigated this. They say the claims are false. It is not biologically possible what you claimed, and yet, ultimately, more than 70 people died because they didn't get vaccines. 

So my question is, do you accept even a scintilla, just even a sliver of responsibility for the drop in vaccinations and the subsequent deaths of more than 70 people? Anything you’d do differently?

Mr. Kennedy: No, absolutely not. After the—there were two incidents in which children died in 2015 and again in 2018. 2015, it was from the measles vaccine. That's what the New Zealand General Hospital found. The government of Samoa banned the measles vaccine after 2018. I arrived in July of the next year, after the ban had been in place for a year, and the measles—

Senator Warren: Mr. Chairman, understanding that you wanted to hold this to a minute, and then I don't get to present all the facts and documentation I've got. How about if we just decide to make entries for the record on exactly what the record shows about Mr. Kennedy's participation? And I think he's answered the yes or no question. He takes no responsibility. 

Chair Crapo: Senator Warren, we will do that. And Mr. Kennedy, and to all the senators, every senator knows that following this hearing, they will be able to ask you questions off the record, and you will be able to put answers back onto the record. So please give that answer. I apologize that we're shutting you off for giving a full response right now.

###



Here's some video coverage of the hearing. 







On the topic of Junior, if you missed it -- Rebecca didn't, see her "disgusting grifter glenn greenwald" -- the pathetic grifter Glenneth Greenwald's taken to attacking Caroline Kennedy and insisting -- wrongly -- that she knows nothing about healthcare.  We've actually worked on two healthcare issues together in the past, Caroline and I, so I can state for the record, that Caroline knows a great deal about healthcare.

But since the grifter is still around maybe it's time we take a look at him? 

If you need some good news -- and who doesn't -- Glenneth Greenwald -- professional liar and grifter -- is at war with his fellow transphobe Bari Weiss.  What happened?  Who cares, let's just enjoy the two pieces of trash as they fight over who is the bigger toady to Donald Chump.  (If you really do care, they've apparently split over Tulsi Gabbard and Glenneth mistakenly called Bari "Jane" confusing her with his previous rolldog hag). Let's  take a moment to address a few of his lies.  Rebecca looked at his WIKIPEDIA entry that he regularly scrubs.  He claims he was a Constitutional Law attorney.  

No.  

He didn't stand out in his classes and was better known for actions in the basement of a campus building.  But his ignorance of Constitutional Law is why he didn't practice Constitutional Law. He is not a Constitutional  Law attorney, that was not his speciality.  He did do a few cases he claimed were about the First Amendment.  

He claimed they were.  

Like Matthew Hale -- noted criminal and racist -- Glenneth defended him.  Of course he did, where there is racism, there is always Glenneth. Hale hates Black people and hates Jews -- he advocated for a "holy war" that would kill all Jews and all Black people.  Just the type of person you'd expect Glenneth to roll with.  WIKIPEDIA: 

In August 1989,[4] Hale entered Bradley University, studying political science.[4][10] After failing to form a "White Student Union" at Bradley, Hale attempted to lead a series of political organizations in a short period: He founded the American White Supremacist Party, but it failed to attract many members;[4] he then dissolved the AWSP in 1990[11] and attempted to form a chapter of the David Duke incarnation of the National Association for the Advancement of White People, but the chapter was not recognized by the national organization. In 1992 he declared himself the National Leader of the National Socialist White Americans' Party, without having any local members;[11][10] he disbanded that organization in 1995.[4]

Around 1990, Hale burned an Israeli flag[12] at a demonstration, leading to a fine from East Peoria for open burning. The next year, he passed out racist pamphlets to patrons at a shopping mall[citation needed] and was fined for littering. In May[citation needed] 1991, Hale and his brother allegedly threatened three African-Americans with a gun. Hale was arrested for mob action,[citation needed] and because he lied to police about his brother's whereabouts, he was also charged with felony obstruction of justice.[10] Hale was convicted of obstruction, but won a reversal on appeal. In 1992, Hale attacked a security guard at a mall and was charged with criminal trespassresisting arrestaggravated battery and carrying a concealed weapon. For this attack, Hale was sentenced to six months of house arrest and 30 months of probation.[11]

Meanwhile, by 1992, Hale had become involved with an organization called the Church of the Creator.[4] The church believed, and its successors believe, that a "racial holy war" is necessary to attain a "white world" without Jews and non-whites. To this end, it encourages its members to "populate the lands of this earth with white people exclusively."[13] The COTC's founder, Ben Klassen, committed suicide on August 7, 1993,[13] leaving the organization listless[11] and owing a default judgment of $1 million to the family of a murder victim.[13] Though this was the first such organization Hale had been involved in without appointing himself as leader, he soon achieved the same effect:[11] switching his leadership identity from a political party to religious, Hale dissolved his NSWAP and formed a "New" Church of the Creator in 1995 and told followers of Klassen's organization that Hale was the type of leader Klassen had wished for;[13] and in Montana on July 27, 1996, the COTC's Guardians of the Faith Committee renamed the organization to the "World Church of the Creator" and anointed Hale as "Pontifex Maximus".[4]
Hale began at the Southern Illinois University School of Law in 1995,[13] graduating in May 1998 and passing the Illinois state bar examination in July of the same year.[8][conflicted source?]
On December 16, 1998, the Illinois Bar Committee on Character and Fitness rejected Hale's application for a license to practice law. Hale appealed, and a hearing was held on April 10, 1999. On June 30, 1999, a Hearing Panel of the Committee refused to certify that Hale had the requisite moral character and fitness to practice law in Illinois.[14] Attorney Glenn Greenwald represented Hale in a failed federal lawsuit to overturn the licensing decision.[8] The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois concluded it did not have jurisdiction to review an earlier decision of the Illinois Supreme Court upholding the license denial.[15] The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in an opinion filed on July 14, 2003.[15]

Two days after Hale was denied a license to practice law, a World Church of the Creator member and college student, Benjamin Smith, went on a three-day shooting spree in which he randomly targeted members of racial and ethnic minority groups in Illinois and Indiana. Smith killed two people and wounded ten others before committing suicide on July 4. Mark Potok, director of intelligence for the Southern Poverty Law Center, believes that Smith may have acted in retaliation after Hale's application to practice law was rejected.[16]

During a television interview in the summer of 1999,[full citation needed] Hale stated that his "church does not condone violent or illegal activities".[17



This was not a First Amendment case -- though Glenn argued it that way (poorly) and lost.  Free speech is a First Amendment issue.  No one stopped Hale's free speech.  But his speech and his criminal actions -- he was repeatedly arrested, he threatened Black people with a gun and when arrested lied to the police about his brother's whereabouts (his brother was part of the violence) leading to a conviction of obstruction that was later overturned.  He was put on probation.  He did this and he did that.

This was not a First Amendment case.  Again, Glenneth Idiot Greenwald tried to fight it that way.  He was wrong and it was wrong.  

The final verdict was, no surprise, the Illinois Bar Committee on Character and Fitness is a body created to determine whether or not someone was fit to practice law in Illinois.  He was not found fit to practice and that was based, yes, on statements.  But it was not based only on statements.  It was based on actions -- including the obstruction of justice charge (overturned but that only matters to a court, not to a licensing board) -- and many other issues.  

His actions, as well as his statements, made clear to the committee that Hale would not be appropriate as an officer of the court and that is not a Free Speech issue.  The court also rightly rejected the "due process" clause Glenneth went for as well.

He did not practice Constitutional Law (if you want to pretend he did, let's compromise with he didn't practice it accurately or well).  And he doesn't know Constitutional Law.  I actually excelled in it.  And that's why he came across our radar during the Valerie Plame scandal.  We were right.  We were legally sound.  Glenneth?  He was right up there with Jason Leopold.  Remember him?

No?



On May 13, 2006, Leopold reported on Truthout that Karl Rove had been indicted by the grand jury investigating the Plame affair.[32] Rove spokesman Mark Corallo denied the story, calling it "a complete fabrication".[33] Truthout vigorously defended the story saying variously that it had two or three "independent sources", before the executive director, Marc Ash, issued a statement apologizing for “getting too far out in front of the news-cycle”. The grand jury concluded with no indictment of Rove.[34][35]

In his memoir, Courage and Consequence, Karl Rove addressed the Leopold article. Rove writes that Leopold is a "nut with Internet access" and that "thirty-five reporters called [Robert] Luskin or Corallo to ask about the Truthout report". According to Rove, "Fitzgerald got a kick out of the fictitious account and e-mailed Luskin to see how he felt after such a long day".[36


 For the record, I don't think Jason lied.  I think he was told that was coming.  And he ran with it because he's not really much of a journalist.  Like Glenneth, he believes (or believed then) what he's told and rushes it into print without any confirmation, any journalistic skepticism.  In other words Glenneth's the oldest member of the steno pool but he's not a journalist.

He is someone who, please remember, championed the Iraq War.  He loves to trash Cheney or whomever over the Iraq War but he championed it and argued for it.
 

In fairness to Glenneth, he's not the first to lie and claim he's a Constitutional attorney.  We also outed the liar at HARPER'S and he had to correct the record because, unlike Glenneth, he was still a practicing attorney.


You need to ask yourself why he's being brought on as a guest by various YOUTUBERS claiming to be of the left.

BREAKING POINTS.  DUE DISSIDENCE.  Even the kids at THE VANGUARD.  How are left 'friends' so taken in by such an obvious grifter?

In addition to Isaiah's comic noted at the top of the snapshot, Isaiah's  THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Trollop's Ready To Go Back To Work" also went up yesterday and the following sites updated: