‘Our Kids Carpooled Together’: How Old Friends In High Places Assembled The Russia Collusion Hoax

The indictment of Washington attorney Michael Sussman — accused of lying to the FBI in order to smear Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign — reveals the ace up the sleeve of high-powered Democrats. It’s a card they played time and again to advance the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory: friends in high places.

They used friends in law enforcement to launch secret investigations; they used friends in the federal government to broaden those investigations; and they used friends in the media to spread the word about Trump and his organization being under investigation.The Russia fiasco metastasized in large part because those involved in advancing the false allegations had important connections. They used friendships with powerful federal officials to encourage investigations against team Trump. Those targeted by Sussmann and others were unabashed outsiders, and as such lacked the sort of connections the insiders exploited so adroitly.

Sussmann was a partner at the Washington law firm Perkins Coie in 2016, which represented the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president. But, according to the indictment handed down by Special Counsel John Durham last week, when he met with the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, to allege that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians, Sussmann claimed he was representing another client. The indictment alleges this was false.

Securing a meeting with the FBI’s top lawyer can’t have been easy. But for Sussmann it was.

Keep reading

Democrats block amendment mandating vaccines for immigrants flooding America’s borders

House Democrats blocked an amendment put forth by Republicans to mandate vaccines for immigrants trying to remain inside the United States, while tens of millions of Americans must comply with President Biden’s mandate.

During a hearing Tuesday scheduled for the Democrats’ 3.5 trillion budget reconciliation, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) proposed an amendment to the package that would require vaccines for foreign nationals in the U.S. who are seeking to adjust their immigration status to remain in the U.S.

The amendment was voted down by a party-line vote. Every Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee voted against the amendment. Every Republican member voted for the bill.

Rep. Issa said the Democratic “hypocrisy” must end:

“The American people are more than aware that President Biden is mandating vaccines for Americans while exempting those illegally flooding our borders and being released into our communities without notice.

“And they want the hypocrisy to end.”

Keep reading

The Left Discovers It Loves Evictions as Florida Landlord Challenges DeSantis by Evicting Unvaccinated Tenants

A major Florida landlord has announced it will evict current tenants who do not have proof of vaccination and will refuse to lease to new tenants who have not vaccinated.

If you’re not vaccinated for COVID-19, you can forget about moving into any of eight apartment complexes in Broward and Miami-Dade counties owned by Santiago A. Alvarez and his family.

And if you’re still unvaccinated when it comes time to renew your lease, you’ll have to find someplace else to live.

Alvarez, who controls 1,200 units in the two counties, is the first large-scale landlord known to national housing experts to impose a vaccine requirement not only for employees, but also for tenants. They’ll be required to produce documentation that they’ve received at least an initial vaccine dose.

The policy, which took effect Aug. 15, could set Alvarez’s company on a collision course with Gov. Ron DeSantis’ vaccine passport ban, which prohibits businesses from requiring that customers be vaccinated.

And yet the landlord might have exposed a loophole in the governor’s ban, forcing courts to decide whether a tenant is equivalent to a customer.

Alvarez says he’s not backing down. Signs posted at the leasing offices of his apartment complexes spell out the policy along with the words “Zero Tolerance.”

“We have to be concerned about our tenants and our employees,” Alvarez said in an interview. “All of these are private properties. We’re just trying to keep people safe and healthy. It’s going to cost us money, but we’re very firm on that.”

There is a lot going on here.

First up, the reaction by the left shows that they are immoral and slavishly devoted to polishing Biden’s shoes or whatever. In August, you’ll recall, the Supreme Court shut down the illegal “eviction moratorium” imposed by the CDC. This, we were told, was Armageddon.

Keep reading

The Left’s Stubborn Refusal To Listen To The Other Side Is Anti-Intellectualism

Many mainstream outlets recently ran a fake news story about hospitals in rural Oklahoma being overrun by people overdosing on Ivermectin. The hospitals were indeed crowded, but there was no evidence, beyond the twisted testimony of one doctor, suggesting it was because of ignorant bumpkins ingesting horse dewormer.

Commenting on this story in The Federalist, Rachel Bovard points out how these journalistic mistakes consistently fall in one direction — against conservatives —and how the correction so many days or weeks later is buried behind other headlines. Also, as Bovard notes, it is clear that corporate media are “using their platform[s] as an advocacy tool for their ideological goals.” Even if the instance in question isn’t factually true, it is “morally right,” as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez notoriously said.

So what’s the narrative in this case? That conservatives are dumb and oppose science. They would rather take a drug intended for horses or cleaning aquariums than the vaccines developed by America’s greatest pharmaceutical experts.

But why perpetuate this narrative? What’s the goal? Even if it might be true (it isn’t), how does it benefit anyone to call half the country a bunch of morons? Will this really change their ways and help them become more progressive (as it’s satirically depicted in the show “South Park,” where the residents are shamed into building a Whole Foods in their small town), or will it simply push so many Americans away from public discourse? Do the people who push these narratives even care one way or the other how people respond?

Obviously, there’s tribalism at work in which one group vilifies and ridicules the rival to dominate them. There’s a great deal of satisfaction in “owning” or “dunking on” the other side. It makes for good entertainment and it creates a sense of belonging. Life may be bad, but it could be worse: you could be one of the idiots in Oklahoma overdosing on Ivermectin.

However, underneath this tribalism, there seems to be some genuine insecurity. In most cases, bullies resort to this kind of name-calling, scapegoating, and false narratives to make up for something lacking in themselves. After all, if they were confident in their ideas and in their ability to carry out those ideas, they would simply speak the truth and not feel the need to mock their rivals.

Keep reading

Top Democrat Lawyer Uses Dark Money Network to Fund Progressive Lawsuits

Top Democratic attorney Marc Elias has been using a dark money network to fund lawsuits geared toward advancing progressive causes, from fighting voter ID laws to enshrining universal mail-in voting, according to the watchdog group Americans for Public Trust.

Elias, who previously helped push the “Russia collusion” hoax after serving as Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer, recently parted ways from the Perkins Coie law firm to start the Elias Law Group – a firm dedicated to advancing the Democratic Party’s agenda in the name of “voting rights.”

“Elias Law Group is a new law firm headquartered in Washington, D.C., with an office in Seattle, WA, focused on helping Democrats win, citizens vote, and progressives make change. Central to the firm’s mission will be its own diversity and inclusion,” exclaimed a Perkins Coie press release.

Prior to the formation of his new firm, Elias formed extensive ties with a dark money network headed by Arabella Advisors, a company that manages several non-profits: Hopewell Fund, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the New Venture Fund, and the Windward Fund. According to Fox News, in July 2020, Elias created the Democracy Docket Legal Fund, which was a “fiscally sponsored project of the Hopewell Fund,” one of the non-profits managed by Arabella Advisors:

Wealthy Democratic donors use these funds to pour cash into dozens of initiatives that fall under Arabella’s umbrella.

According to the network’s most recent tax forms, the four funds combined to haul in $715 million in cash from secret donors in 2019 alone. The group also pushes money to outside organizations that do not fall under its auspices.

In addition to Democracy Docket LLC, Elias created the Democracy Docket Action Fund to raise money for voting rights lawsuits, The New York Times reported last year. According to an ActBlue donation page, the action fund is a project of the North Fund, which also boasts connections to Arabella Advisors.

The North Fund reported $9.3 million in donations in 2019, according to its tax forms. Its sole donor was the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the Arabella-managed-group’s tax forms show.

Saurabh Gupta, who is listed in North Fund’s tax forms as general counsel, is also general counsel for Arabella Advisors, according to the consulting firm’s website.

Since the Democracy Docket legal and action funds “are fiscally sponsored by other nonprofits, they are not required to file individual tax forms to the IRS that would shed light on their financials,” noted Fox News.

Keep reading

Leftists: Health Care Is A Human Right, Unless You’re Unvaccinated

The same people who spent the last decade telling you health care is a human right now want to be able to deny it to you.

As if it wasn’t enough to hound people without the COVID-19 shot out of their jobs, schools, and even effectively whole cities, pundits and even some doctors are now floating the idea of denying medical care to people based on COVID-19 vaccination status.

“Is it time to put those who are endangering public health by refusing vaccines on notice that if they need care they will go to the end of the line, behind the patients who acted responsibly?” asks the Washington Post in a totally-not-loaded-at-all question.

While the Post article doesn’t endorse refusing treatment to the unvaccinated as punishment per se, it leaves the door wide open for denial of health care in certain instances. “Patients should expect to be told that being tested and wearing a mask are conditions of receiving care,” it notes. “For non-urgent care in which sufficient advance notice is given, requiring vaccination as a condition of continued service might also be defensible.”

The author makes no secret of his bias either, proudly admitting, “It’s easy to feel anger — as I do — toward those who perversely promote unwarranted skepticism about the seriousness of coronavirus infection, as well as the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.”

“Taking vaccination status into account when deciding whether to treat a patient can be acceptable — sometimes,” waxes an NBC thinkpiece.

Alabama doctor Jason Valentine posted a photo of himself next to a sign bragging he would “no longer see patients that are not vaccinated against COVID-19.” To patients questioning the motive for his decision, Valentine says “I told them COVID is a miserable way to die and I can’t watch them die like that.”

Dr. Linda Marraccini of Miami took similar steps, informing her thousands of patients their patronage would be terminated if they failed to vaccinate against COVID-19 and blaming them for a “lack of selflessness.” Becker’s Hospital Review published her story under the conspicuous headline “One physician’s case for refusing to treat unvaccinated patients in person.”

An internal memo circulated to a group of Texas doctors acknowledged, “Many are understandably angry and frustrated with the unvaccinated” and instructed “Vaccine status … may be considered when making triage decisions as part of the physician’s assessment of each individual’s likelihood of survival.” After the news leaked, one of the doctors involved backtracked his story and insisted the memo was a “homework assignment.”

These commentators and physicians know they can’t (yet) make blanket assertions that those who haven’t received the COVID-19 shot should be flatly turned away from critical care, but they are nonetheless stealthily planting the conversation in the public mind.

Meanwhile, people like Jimmy Kimmel are getting away with it, as the late-night host mocked the unvaccinated and suggested they should be denied lifesaving treatment. “Vaccinated person having a heart attack? Yes, come right in, we’ll take care of you. Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo? Rest in peace, wheezy,” Kimmel needled, taking a dig at Ivermectin, a Nobel Prize-winning drug which has been misleadingly mocked as a horse dewormer, despite the fact that it has been used as an antiparasitic for human patients for decades.

Others are “merely” suggesting the unvaccinated should pay more for their healthcare. “Americans have just about had it up to here with people who refuse COVID-19 vaccinations,” begins a Los Angeles Times column from Michael Hiltzik entitled “Should the unvaccinated pay more for healthcare? That’s an easy call.”

“Unvaccinated people could be held civilly or even criminally liable if it can be shown that their behavior brought harm to others” — i.e., infected them — reads one of Hiltzik’s suggestions. As an example, he cites the possibility of nursing home employees who aren’t vaccinated (but curiously doesn’t mention the policies of Democrat governors like New York’s Andrew Cuomo, who condemned thousands of residents to their deaths by forcing nursing homes to take infected COVID-19 patients).

In another suggestion, he cites economist Jonathan Meer’s take in MarketWatch: “Insurers, led by government programs, should declare that medically-able, eligible people who choose not to be vaccinated are responsible for the full financial cost of COVID-related hospitalizations.”

Keep reading