
It’s not censorship if…







CANARD–a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report. That’s how Merriam Dictionary defines the term and it certainly seems to be a dandy word to describe the claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election and that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agree.
As John Durham’s investigation of the origins of Russia gate continues to chug along, I thought it would be helpful to revisit the huge canard–i.e., that Russia tried to tip the 2016 election to Trump.
I nominate Hillary Clinton as The Queen of the Canard. We now know, thanks to John Durham’s indictment of Hillary’s lawyer, Michael Sussmann, that Hillary and her campaign adopted and implemented a political smear in the summer of 2016 to portray Donald Trump as a proxy of Russia’s Vladimir Putin. This lie did not stop with the election of Trump in November 2016. In May 2017, during an interview by Walt Mossberg at the CODE conference, Hillary still was eager to feed the lie that Russia ensured Donald Trump’s victory and cited “17” U.S. intelligence agencies as her evidence:
Hillary: Now, the question is, where and how did the Russians get into this? And I think it’s a very important question. So, I assume that a lot of people here may have — and if you haven’t, I hope you will — read the declassified report by the Intelligence community that came out in early January.
TRENDING: EXCLUSIVE: Coomer Deposition Released! Verifies Antifa Facebook Posts, Extreme Left Bias
Mossberg: This is 17 agencies …
Hillary: Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election. They did it through paid advertising we think, they did it through false news sites, they did it through these thousand agents, they did it through machine learning, which you know, kept spewing out this stuff over and over again. The algorithms that they developed. So that was the conclusion. And I think it’s fair to ask, how did that actually influence the campaign? And how did they know what messages to deliver?
Hillary was knowingly liying, but she could feign fconfusion about this supposed fact given by pointing to the joint statement issued 7 October 2016 by the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of Homeland Security:
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
But this was a lie. It was not a legitimate judgement of the U.S. intelligence community and did not reflect the views of 17 separate U.S. intelligence agencies. Why?
Merrick Garland’s son-in-law is in the CRT business, as has been widely reported in the press. This is a direct conflict of interest with DOJ’s recent instruction to the FBI to intimidate parents getting involved in their child’s education by showing up at school board meetings to prevent CRT instruction.
We now have discovered evidence that AG Garland’s wife, Lynn Garland is highly involved at an executive level advising on ‘election audits’. Garland’s DOJ infamously threatened auditors in Maricopa County, Arizona with criminal charges for participation in a planned ‘canvass’ which eventually discovered massive fraud when conducted by private citizens.
During our research, interestingly enough, we were unable to find these search results on Google, but they did come up using another search engine.
We’d like to know if Lynn Garland was paid for any of this work, and whom she was paid by if so. Also, we’d like to know if this information was disclosed in Garland’s confirmation process.
Over the last few months, as COVID brought classrooms into American homes, parents learned that their children are being taught Critical Race Theory (i.e., Whites are evil; Blacks are pathetic) and magical thinking about gender, as well as being forced to wear masks that don’t protect against disease, but do interfere with children’s health, learning, and socialization. Their vigorous complaints saw the National School Board Association suggest they’re “domestic terrorists” and Merrick Garland answer the call. We learned, too, that Merrick Garland’s son-in-law, through his company, Panorama Education, sells CRT materials to public schools. And yesterday, it turned out that Panorama is also spreading material calling Trump and his supporters “white supremacists.”
Alexander “Xan” Tanner, a very White man, is married to Merrick Garland’s daughter. Tanner co-founded Panorama Education, which purports to provide a data platform that delves into students’ psychosocial issues in order to help schools intervene in problems and improve the school climate. In a word, it’s creepy. The company, of course, insists that it’s all about diversity:
We believe Panorama is strongest when our team reflects the tremendous diversity of the students, families, and educators we serve. We aim for Panorama to be a place where team members from a wide range of identities and experiences are valued, included, and able to thrive. In our partnership with clients, we work to increase equitable access to education, especially for students from communities that have been historically underserved by America’s schools.
Yeah, right…. Go to the linked webpage and look at the employee picture. It’s a sea of White faces with a small number of racial minorities among them. All these people, obviously, have used their White privilege to deprive BIPOCS of career opportunities and, according to their own values, should be ashamed of themselves. Still, these privileged White employees feel competent to assure school districts that they’ll help fix racial inequities on campus.
Ohio Republican Senate candidate Josh Mandel paid tens of thousands of dollars to a woman he was dating during his 2018 Senate campaign, while married to another woman.
FEC reports show that Rachel Wilson, Mandel’s finance director and mistress, was paid more than $100,000 between his 2018 campaign and a PAC supporting his candidacy.
It’s widely known that Mandel was in an affair with Wilson at the time. He ended his campaign citing his wife’s health, later divorcing her in 2020 to continue his affair with Wilson.
Three dozen Republican women, including three women who left Mandel’s campaign citing a toxic work environment created by Wilson in her continuing duties with Mandel’s 2020 campaign, have urged Ohio Republicans to reject Mandel, warning he’ll “embarrass” the party if nominated as a candidate for the US Senate. Mandel has run for statewide office five times in the past 12 years, with some Ohio Republicans criticizing Mandel, who has served in elected office since 2003, as a career politician who’ll put on the act he needs to in pursuit of the next political gig.
Sources familiar with Mandel’s 2018 campaign also describe the career politician as accepting donations from high-level Republican fundraisers, who expected the Ohio state treasurer to become the presumptive Republican nominee for the Senate. After Mandel dropped out, citing concerns with his wife’s health, he did nothing to spend the money to support Jim Renacci, a Republican Congressman who was nominated by Ohio Republicans for the Senate. Renacci lost to Sherrod Brown. It appears that Mandel kept the money to support his current 2022 Senate campaign.
You must be logged in to post a comment.