|
Posted on 04/19/2022 11:10:08 PM PDT by ransomnote
6:41 PM · Apr 19, 2022·Twitter Web App
Transcript of Riccardo Bosi's warning ["No consent. No consent. No consent"]
Ricardo Bosi explains what's really going on in the Ukraine (TRANSCRIPT and 3 minute video)
Q is the result of the sacrifices and commitment of countless patriots to win back our captured country from the Deep State and achieve the transformation President Trump promised in this campaign video. President Trump has said the awakening of the public is key to this transformation.
Q describes this awakening as follows:
"The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding 'mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment).When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable.
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone.
Trust and put faith in yourself.
You are not alone and you are not in the minority.
Difficult truths will soon see the light of day.
WWG1WGA!!!" ~ Q (#3038)
The video, Qanon is 100% coming from the Trump Administration, is just one of many excellent responses to the all-important question, "Whom does Q serve?"
Q Boot Camp is a quick, condensed way to learn the background and basics about the Q movement.
Q has reminded us repeatedly that together, we are strong. As the false "narrative" is destroyed and the divisive machinery put in place by the Deep State fails, the fact that patriotism has no skin color or political party is exposed for all to see.
In the battle between those who strip us our constitutional rights, we can't afford to let false divisions separate us any longer. We, and our country, will be forever made stronger by diligently seeking the truth, independence and freedom of thought.
Where We Go 1, We Go All
Truth Social is currently beating Twitter & TikTok on the Apple Store pic.twitter.com/RxawVUAYKH— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 27, 2022
Truth Social (terrible name) exists because Twitter censored free speech— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 27, 2022
Should be called Trumpet instead!— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 27, 2022
Pinging the Durham News ping list (freepmail to get on/off it). Hoping a legal mind will explain this in very simple layman-speak. I sort of get that it could be set-back, the judge is an Obola appointee which is not good.
Judge Says Parties Can Defend Shielding Documents During Sussmann Probe
United States District Judge Christopher “Casey” Cooper on April 26 granted five petitions seeking to intervene in former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann’s upcoming trial for allegedly making a false statement to the FBI.
Special Counsel John Durham, in April 6 court filings, sought to compel the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Hilary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, Fusion GPS, the Perkins Coie law firm, and former Neustar senior vice president Rodney Joffe to provide documents and communications they’ve refused to hand over, claiming attorney-client privilege.
Durham maintains there were 1,455 documents and communications between the parties that were withheld from federal prosecutors as “privileged” attorney-client communications even though only 18 involved what could be described as legal advice.
His motion seeks to have the five parties and Sussmann produce 38 “privileged” communications and email exchanges for Cooper to review.
Attorneys representing the DNC, Clinton campaign, Perkins Coie, Joffe, and Fusion GPS—the “opposition research” firm hired by Clinton’s campaign—filed petitions last week seeking to intervene and to argue against their clients’ communications being used as evidence in Sussmann’s trial, scheduled to begin on May 16.
Cooper, an Obama appointee, granted those petitions April 26 and gave attorneys until April 29 to “re-file their proposed oppositions” to Durham’s motion in anticipation of making their arguments in a May 4 hearing.
Despite Cooper’s rulings, the evidentiary hearing scheduled for April 27 at 2 p.m. in his Washington, D.C., courtroom “will go forward as scheduled,” US Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Wyn Hornbuckle confirmed in an email.
Durham alleges Sussmann knowingly lied in claiming to be acting as “a concerned citizen” on September 19, 2016, when he gave FBI General Counsel James Baker documents regarding alleged DNS (Domain Name System) traffic between Russia-based Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization.
What Sussmann allegedly failed to inform Baker, according to Durham, is that he had represented Joffe in the past, recently represented the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and that his Perkins Coie law firm was general counsel for Hilary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
Durham maintains that in August 2016, Sussmann and Clinton campaign lead counsel Marc Elias met with Joffe—whose company was contracted to monitor DNS traffic for the Executive Office—in their Perkins Coie offices and “encouraged” him to concoct a “narrative” tying the Trump Organization to the bank, the largest in Russia.
That concocted “narrative” was then circulated to the FBI a month later and to the CIA in February 2017, kicking off months of legal scrutiny and spurious high-profile media “Russiagate” speculation first about candidate Donald Trump and then President Donald Trump’s, connections with Russia.
April 27’s evidentiary hearing will be the second before Cooper regarding what will and won’t be heard in Sussmann’s trial.
During a 43-minute April 20 hearing, Cooper waded through the first set of petitions calling for restrictions on witness testimony filed by attorneys representing Sussmann.
Sean Berkowitz, Michael Bosworth, Natalie Hardwick Rao, and Catherine Yao of Latham & Watkins also argued that notes taken by two FBI officials after meeting with Baker not be entered as evidence in the case.
Former FBI General Counsel James Baker testified before the House judiciary and oversight committees on Oct. 3 and Oct. 18, 2018. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
Sussmann’s attorneys insist the veracity of the data is not relevant to the charge lodged against their client—lying to the FBI—especially since Durham had previously said it was not part of his investigation.
“The government [said] it did not intend to [address] the accuracy of the data” with “the caveat” it would do so if cross-examination made it relevant, argued Berkowitz, noting the defense “has no plans to offer evidence that there was a link between Trump servers and the Alfa Bank” because it has nothing to do with the false statement charge.
In response to the April 20 hearing, Cooper on April 25 barred Durham from introducing the CIA analysis or from making a” lengthy exploration” of data Sussmann turned over to Baker after his defense team said it “will not seek to affirmatively prove the existence of a link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign.”
The judge also denied Durham’s request to compel testimony from technicians who “maintained the servers that purportedly received communications from Alfa Bank servers to testify about their involvement in the FBI’s investigation.”
Cooper, however, also ruled he “will permit the government to put on evidence reflecting the FBI’s ultimate conclusions—which the court understands to be that the Alfa Bank allegations were unsubstantiated—as well as the ‘particular investigative and analytical steps’ the FBI took to reach them.’”
Cooper said the evidence “is relevant to the government’s theory of materiality: that Mr. Sussmann’s alleged statement that he was not representing a client caused the FBI to handle the subsequent investigation differently than it otherwise would have.”
During the April 20 hearing, Berkowitz also questioned the extent to what FBI Special Agent David Martin, the agency’s Cyber Technical Analysis Unit Chief, will testify about. He asked to restrict it to explaining “basic mechanics, architecture, and terminology of the DNS system and DNS data.”
Deadlines For New Arguments
By calling Martin as a witness, Berkowitz said, Durham was trying to imply that Sussmann, a specialist in cyberlaw, “could not have reasonably believed” the conclusions in the data he provided Baker.
Cooper, in his April 25 rulings, said he would “largely deny” the defense’s motion against allowing Martin to testify but agreed to limit the range of what can be asked.
The judge gave May 2 deadlines for filing new arguments regarding evidence to be heard during April 27’s hearing.
Sussmann’s attorneys raised four procedural issues with Durham’s April 6 motion to compel testimony.
First, they say, the motion is untimely because it was filed less than six weeks before the trial was set to begin and “long after court-ordered discovery deadlines had come and gone.”
They argue Durham’s motions should have been brought before the Chief Judge of the District Court first, that he is seeking information the Grand Jury investigation allowed to remain redacted, that the compelled documents “are irrelevant on their face” to the charge levied against their client, and that even if attorneys were not involved the requested communications involve “attorney work products” and, therefore, are “privileged.”
In their 20-page April 25 filing, prosecutors rebut those arguments, claiming the defense’s arguments about timeliness “distort reality. Indeed, the opposite is true: the primary reason the government waited until recently to bring these issues to the court’s attention was because it wanted to carefully pursue and exhaust all collaborative avenues of resolving these matters short of litigation.”
The fact that Sussmann and other parties want the 38 documents and email exchanges shielded as “privileged” attorney-client communications is ironic, prosecutors note, because “the government acknowledges—and indeed, the indictment alleges —that the defendant maintained attorney-client relationships with the Clinton Campaign” and Joffe.
No Response to Requests
“Indeed, the purported privilege holders who have intervened do so in a case in which the defendant is alleged to have denied representing any client,” prosecutors write.
Durham’s team said, “over the course of months, and until recently, the government has been receiving voluminous rolling productions of documents and privilege logs from numerous parties” but, despite reaching “out to each of those parties’ counsel numerous times, directing their attention to specific documents where possible and communicating over email and phone in an effort to obtain non-privileged explanations for the relevant privilege determinations” but got no response until filing the motion to compel.
The claim that communications regarding “attorney work products” should remain under wraps should be rejected, they argue.
“These parties are advancing a highly novel and seemingly broad theory of attorney-client privilege, namely, that Fusion GPS’s political opposition research—which triggered a sizeable outflow of unverified derogatory information into the media, the government, and the public—was in reality confidential expert work intended to support legal advice regarding libel and defamation,” prosecutors maintain.
“Even more novel,” they continue, “the purported privilege holders here contend that they all maintained a common legal interest in that work, despite the fact that the group includes [Joffe], with whom none of the other purported privilege holders had any formal or informal legal relationship.”
Go to link to see the supporting twtts. Note the Ukraine connection...
AMERICAN NEWS Apr 27, 2022 11:50 AM EST
BREAKING: Biden administration creates ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ under DHS to fight ‘misinformation’
The Department of Homeland Security is setting up a new board designed to counter misinformation related to homeland security, with a focus specifically on Russia and irregular migration. The board will be called the “Disinformation Governance Board, and will be headed by executive director Nina Jankowicz.
Speaking with the House Appropriations DHS Subcommittee on Wednesday afternoon, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said, “Our Undersecretary for Policy, Rob Silvers is co-chair with our Principal Deputy General Counsel, Jennifer Gaskell, in leading a just recently constituted misinformation disinformation governance board. So we’re bringing — the goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat.”
Jankowicz was previously a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, and had advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry as part of the Fulbright Public Policy Fellowship, according to Politico.
Jankowicz also oversaw Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute. She announced the new Board via Twitter on Wednesday.
Jankowicz has previously said that she was concerned that Twitter had determined early in 2022 to stop limiting speech from users about the 2020 presidential election, saying that “considering the long-term damage these lies do to our democracy,” she was “dismayed about this decision.”
Her view about elections, whether foreign or domestic, are that they “aren’t an end point,” but are “an inflection point,” and that the policies of social media companies as regards free speech “need to reflect that.
Jankowicz was an advisor to the government of Ukraine. She also stated her opinion that Hunter Biden’s laptop, the contents of which were reported by the New York Post, was Russian disinformation. This was entirely false. Jankowicz will be leading the charge against misinformation, of which she believed the laptop actually was an example.
Jankowicz also does not appear to be a fan of free speech, saying that setting up free speech in opposition to censorship is “a false dichotomy.”
Sorry, the Politico link in article goes someplace else.
Elon Musk Will Not Save Us
Some conservatives who should know better have lost their minds over the Tesla CEO’s $44 billion purchase of Twitter. They will pay a heavy price.
Excerpt:
Breaking news: Elon Musk is not a deity here to save the Right from its own shortcomings. Sorry to burst 2022’s weirdest bubble. We’ve now crossed firmly into outright hysteria, but at what cost?
Because congressional Republicans failed to focus on election integrity and reining in Big Tech tyranny when in power (sadly, lobbying money won), desperate conservatives are now latching onto perceived “saviors” who are instead false idols.
In 2020, we had attorney Lin Wood marching in to rectify a stolen election, until he switched gears and encouraged Republicans to stay home for the critical U.S. Senate runoff election in Georgia last year. That gave us two new Democrats and an extremist Supreme Court justice.
Working with Wood was Sidney Powell, who promised daily to release a “Kraken” that never appeared. And earlier this year, podcast host Joe Rogan promised in vague terms to do something for us beyond promoting his own career. We’ve gained nothing from any of these people.
Now, with a religious fervor normally reserved for revival tents, the Right has grabbed onto billionaire Silicon Valley tech oligarch Elon Musk. This erratic, eccentric CEO promises an unending reign of “free speech absolutism” with his pending $44 billion purchase of Twitter. (The deal is not final.)
Unfortunately, it’s a mass delusion, one that will blow up in the faces of conservatives, potentially cost Republicans seats, and set the movement back many years. And incredibly, almost no one on the Right (with rare exceptions, such as Steve Bannon) considers this likely outcome.
Of course, for appearances, Elon will restore the accounts of some who were previously banned, but this is to mask a new regime where our words are subject to his personal whims and notoriously thin skin.
What are Musk’s true aims? He craves unending public adulation and a limitless public forum to spout off as he pleases. Purchasing the rest of Twitter isn’t necessary, as his close friendship with cofounder, current board member, and former CEO Jack Dorsey has always given him carte blanche there. Elon is always among the first suggested follows for new sign-ups and there’s no evidence he’s ever been censored personally.
The impulsive need to shut down Jack Sweeney, an enterprising 19-year-old running automated trackers of Musk family private jets (Elon’s own and his brother Kimbal’s) is the best current theory behind what caused him to pull the trigger on the initial 9 percent Twitter stake in early April. Sweeney turned down a $5,000 offer to shut down his accounts. Musk’s late disclosure of this purchase has brought additional scrutiny from federal officials who’ve already been investigating him since the Trump Administration in 2018.
So why bother buying the remainder of the company? It serves as both a distraction from bad news emanating from the many federal agencies up to their eyeballs investigating his business practices and a limitless method of firing back.
Although it is painful to concede a point to the Left, the Washington-based nonprofit Revolving Door Project nailed it in an April 25 press release that calls Musk’s Twitter takeover a backdoor capture of the Securities and Exchange Commission through fraud and intimidation: “By buying Twitter and taking it private, Musk is seemingly trying to ensure he’ll have the full force of the company behind him the next time the SEC questions him about using the platform to commit fraud. And we know that any SEC attorneys who ask questions about any of this should expect reprisal years later.”
.....It’s not speculation. He’s done it before. “In 2018, both Musk and his car company Tesla had to pay a $20 million fine related to Musk’s false claims on Twitter about a buyout manipulating Tesla’s stock price. Four years later, in January 2022, Tesla demanded that the law firm Cooley fire an attorney on its staff who once worked on the SEC investigation which led to the fine,” the Revolving Door Project adds.
Who is this man to which the Right has suddenly sworn total allegiance? Certainly not on our side, unless you consider any of the following “conservative”:
In 2018, Musk proclaimed himself “a socialist.” “True socialism seeks greatest good for all,” he tweeted.
Past political support for the Clintons, Obama, California Governor Gavin Newsom and other Democrats has been public and followed up with monetary contributions. Yes, he also gave to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), if that counts as “conservative.”
Musk’s disturbingly close ties with the tyrannical Chinese Communist Party have been thoroughly documented and require a separate piece to describe in detail, but many examples were spelled out in a 2021 Breitbart story.
Musk’s drug use has long been out in the open, with no attempt to disguise it. In recent public appearances, his personal health appears to be in decline. If you’ve ever known an addict, the similarities are uncanny.
In early April, Musk spent an entire weekend at extreme underground sex clubs in Berlin that specialize in fetishes and BDSM. This was widely reported worldwide but barely made a ripple in the U.S. media.
Though he denies it vehemently, Musk has documented connections to notorious convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and perpetual sidekick Ghislaine Maxwell. It’s more than the photo of Musk with Maxwell that has circulated wildly on social media again this week. He’s been caught outright lying on this question, claiming in a 2020 tweet that he didn’t know her.
“She photobombed me once at a Vanity Fair party several years ago. Real question is why VF invited her in the first place,” Musk tweeted at the time. But a 2016 email that surfaced during her 2021 criminal trial indicated that both met up for “kung fu practice.”
Before his death, Epstein himself acknowledged in a 2018 New York Times interview (published posthumously in 2019) that he had served as an “advisor” to Musk and Tesla with a vague job description.
According to the story by James B. Stewart, “Mr. Epstein avoided specifics about his work for Tesla. He told me that he had good reason to be cryptic: Once it became public that he was advising the company, he’d have to stop doing so, because he was ‘radioactive.’ He predicted that everyone at Tesla would deny talking to him or being his friend.”
Conservatives have rightly condemned fellow billionaire Bill Gates over his connections to Epstein, but want to give Musk a free pass? We look like hypocrites and are handing the left an easy talking point.
At this point, large swaths of the Right have dived straight into Musk’s personality cult, and few are going to consider the many obvious red flags. Yet the danger to congressional Republicans tweeting support for Musk and running for re-election this November is extreme. Are you begging for these to be used in campaign ads by opponents?
Hundreds of other examples of Musk’s erratic behavior—enough to fill a book—should send the Right running for cover. Consider yourselves warned: Musk is as toxic as the worst of Silicon Valley’s tech oligarchs. Supporting him will come at a great cost to conservatives.
*****
I’ll stick with Truth Social. I know what I am getting it’s a new product/service with a clean slate. Musk is a cult of personality IMO.
I thought I saw a celebrity “tested positive” decode that explains
what the twitter announcement actually means such as:
-tested positive = received subpoena
-following CDC guidelines = cooperating witness
7
Its services are held on Government servers. During the skirmish, Musk threatened to move Twitter to another country. They countered his bluff by showing their hand that he couldn’t because of the Government servers, losing the round by the revelation.
Not aware of this? Perhaps you need better news sources. If they ARE government servers, then who is it that banned Trump? How is this NOT a coup attempt when the government resources are used in an attempt to unseat a president?
This is a bombshell. I would like sauce with that tidbit.
Nancy’s original network sign-up in Congress:
IT: Your password MUST be a minimum of six characters, alphanumeric, contain at least ONE capital letter, and ONE special character [!@#$%^&*].
Nancy: OK, “Stoli!”
It’s official!
Twitter is a sh!t-show.
So far today, 7 musicians of the 60s/70s folks and rock scene has been announced as dead.
Keith Richards lights a fag and gives everyone the finger.
While I have stated my dissatisfaction with Real Raw News satire reporting,
it IS interesting when they seem to get one right... Like here:
~Easy
CDC and FDA ‘altered’ Covid guidance and even ‘suppressed’ findings while
under political pressure, bombshell report suggests: Whistle-blower employees
say they feared ‘retaliation’ if they spoke up
“Why would the Governor of Calif flush fresh water into the sea? Under the guise of protecting an endangered fish, he gets to cause a water shortage in drought years.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is straight out of Chinatown.
Jeez! Can you take your crush on Depp elsewhere? Celebscum — who cares?
Wow what a hit piece. I wonder what drugs Musk is supposedly into? I’m just enjoying the melt down on the left and hope it continues.
I feel ya. My latest girlfriend of 10 years is a bi-polar Italian. No longer together, but good friends.
Interesting times. The Chinese kind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
