Auburnfan91

You know who else isn't on the list? Obama

It's sad that Durham is having to tread so carefully in order to try and convict Sussman. This would be a slam dunk if this was Meuller trying to convict a Trump associate with all the evidence and testimony going in the prosecution's favor. But that's not surprising when the judge in the Sussman case isn't impartial:

Hillary Clinton OK’d sharing Trump-Russia ‘data,’ campaign manager says By Ben Feuerherd and Bruce Golding May 20, 2022 12:49pm Updated WASHINGTON, DC — Hillary Clinton personally authorized her campaign to share since-debunked computer data linking Donald Trump with a Russian bank, according to bombshell testimony from her 2016 campaign manager Friday. Robby Mook, testifying as a witness in defense of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, told jurors that he discussed the matter with the Democratic nominee shortly before the that year’s presidential election. Mook described his end of the conversation with Clinton as him telling her, “Hey, we have this and we want to share it with a reporter.” “She agreed to that,” he said. The stunning disclosures are the first evidence showing Clinton was aware of allegations of a purported secret back channel between a Trump Organization server and Russia’s Alfa Bank — before the theory emerged publicly eight days before the election. Mook also acknowledged that the campaign hadn’t verified the accuracy of the data at the time. “Part of the point of giving it to a reporter was they could run it down further,” he said. “A reporter could vet the information and then decide to print it.” Mook testified that he was first told about information purportedly showing a secret back channel between a Trump Organization server and Russia’s Alfa Bank by campaign general counsel Marc Elias. Mook added that he didn’t recall where the data came from. The campaign manager also said he discussed the matter with top aides John Podesta, Jake Sullivan and Jennifer Palmeri, apparently before going to Clinton. Special counsel John Durham has alleged that Sussmann, the Clinton campaign and former tech executive Rodney Joffe took part in a “joint venture” to gather and spread the Alfa Bank data to smear Trump. But in a pretrial ruling earlier this month, Washington, DC, federal Judge Christopher Cooper limited the amount of evidence Durham can present “with respect to an uncharged and unlawful joint venture,” saying it could “confuse the jury and distract from the issues at hand.” Sussmann, 57, is on trial on a single charge of lying to the FBI in September 2016 by denying that he was working on behalf of the campaign and Joffe when he turned over data and three “white papers” pitching the Trump-Alfa Bank claims to the bureau’s then-general counsel. Mook’s testimony came during cross-examination by a member of special counsel Durham’s team and prompted Cooper to order the jury out of the courtroom so he could hold a sidebar discussion with both sides. After the sidebar, Cooper announced that he might allow prosecutor Andrew DeFilippis to introduce into evidence a tweet posted by Clinton on Oct. 31, 2016, shortly after the left-wing Slate website published a report about the Alfa-Bank data. “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank,” Clinton wrote. She also attached a statement from Sullivan — now President Biden’s national security adviser — who said, “This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia.” “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank,” wrote Clinton, who attached a statement from Jake Sullivan — now President Biden’s national security adviser — who said, “This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia.” Last month, Cooper ruled that the tweet was inadmissible “hearsay” evidence and “likely duplicative of other evidence” that Durham would use against Sussmann. But in the wake of Mook’s testimony, the judge said he’d reconsider that decision if the prosecution established a proper foundation to introduce the tweet. When Mook resumed testifying, he tried to walk back his earlier remarks about Clinton, saying he wasn’t sure if they spoke before or after the information was shared. “All I remember is that she agreed with the decision,” he said. “I can’t recall the exact sequence of events.” A short time later, Cooper allowed the prosecution to introduce Clinton’s tweet, except for the last sentence of Sullivan’s statement, which read: “We can only assume that federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia as part of their existing probe into Russia’s meddling in our elections.” At the time, the FBI already had the Alfa Bank data, which was quickly dismissed by the agent who initially examined it, according to the G-man’s own testimony Tuesday. But Cooper said the jury hadn’t yet been presented with evidence the Clinton campaign knew Sussmann gave the material to the feds, and he ruled Sullivan’s assertion would “unfairly suggest to the jury that that was the case.” Mook said he didn’t know the identity of the reporter who received the Alfa Bank data but assumed it was Franklin Foer, who wrote the Slate article. On Wednesday, Laura Seago, a former analyst at the Fusion GPS firm — which commissioned the infamous “Steele dossier” of scurrilous allegations against Trump — testified that she was tasked with “translating” the information so it could be understood by “a lay audience.” Seago recalled that she, Fusion co-founder Peter Fritsch and another Fusion worker went to Foer’s house to pitch the data, telling him it had been vetted by “highly credible computer scientists” who “seemed to think these allegations were credible.” https://nypost.com/2022/05/20/hillary-clinton-okd-sharing-trump-russia-data-campaign-manager/

Tale of two trials: How Sussmann is receiving every consideration denied to Flynn by Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor - 05/18/22 10:45 AM ET The criminal trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann began this week with a telling warning from prosecutors to the D.C. jury: “Whatever your political views might be, they cannot be brought to your decisions.” The opening statement by Deborah Brittain Shaw reflected the curious profile of the Sussmann case. Prosecutors ordinarily have a massive advantage with juries despite the presumption of innocence. When pleas are counted, federal prosecutors can report as high as 95 percent conviction rates. However, with Sussmann, prosecutors clearly have concerns over whether they, rather than the defendant, will get a fair trial. Sussman’s trial for allegedly lying to the FBI is being heard in the same District of Columbia federal courthouse where former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and others faced the very same charge brought by another special counsel. The cases, however, could not be more different. Whereas Flynn’s prosecution was a no-holds-barred affair, Sussmann’s prosecution has been undermined by a series of unfavorable rulings by the court. Special prosecutor John Durham still may be able to eke out a conviction, but the difference in the treatment of Trump and Clinton associates is striking. Sussmann is charged under 18 U.S.C. 1001 with lying to the FBI during a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker when he came forward with what he claimed was evidence of possible covert communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa, a Russian bank. Sussmann allegedly concealed that he was representing the Clinton campaign, which he billed for his efforts. Shaw told the jury that the FBI “should not be used as a political tool for anyone — not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not anyone.” She then added that the jurors themselves should not use this trial for their own political judgments. Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them. In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial. Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded. To be sure, D.C. voters chose Clinton over Trump in 2016 by a breathtaking margin: 90.9 percent to 4.1 percent. While liberal and Democratic jurors still can be fair and impartial, Judge Cooper has seated a couple jurors who seemed to struggle with the concept of impartiality. The most notable aspect of the trial is what will be missing: context. Durham contends that Sussmann was no rogue lawyer. After the Mueller investigation, Durham’s team revealed information about how people affiliated with the Clinton campaign allegedly funded, developed and spread the false collusion claim. On July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged plan to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Obama reportedly was told how Clinton allegedly approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” That was three days before the FBI’s collusion investigation was initiated. This appears to have been an all-Washington effort assisted by key figures associated with a liberal think tank, Democratic members of Congress and allies in the media. However, it was the role of lawyers like Sussmann that attracted Durham’s interest. Durham contends that, in addition to allegedly lying to Baker during their meeting, Sussmann sent a text message to Baker the night before the meeting, reading: “Jim — it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau. Thanks.” Notably, the campaign’s law firm was accused by some journalists of hiding the campaign’s role in financing the infamous Steele dossier, which provided the basis for the collusion story. (The Federal Election Commission recently fined the campaign for using the firm to hide those payments.) The Durham team argued that Sussmann’s alleged lying to the FBI was not just some passing omission but a knowing pattern of deceit. That is why one of the first witnesses expected to be called by the prosecution was Marc Elias, Sussmann’s former law partner and the Clinton campaign’s general counsel. Elias is not charged with any crime, but at least one reporter has claimed Elias denied the campaign’s connection to the Steele dossier. Judge Cooper has stressed that this trial cannot be about the Clinton campaign per se, but the specific lie that was told. He specifically barred Durham from arguing that there was a “joint venture” in deception with the Clinton campaign. The judge sharply limited the evidence that Durham can present which, in the words of Politico, “spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.” Without the broader context, the prosecution could sound like a play without a plot — just characters and insular acts. The first witnesses included FBI agents who told the jury that the claims passed along by Sussmann “didn’t make sense” and that the collusion theory was rejected within days of looking at the underlying data. However, Cooper warned that he will keep a tight rein on prosecutors delving into how the underlying data was produced or managed through the campaign. That is not the only blow delivered to the prosecution by the court. The judge refused prosecution access to some evidence and, while allowing access to some emails between the campaign and an opposition-research firm, he barred their introduction at trial due to the late request from the prosecutors. The treatment given to Sussmann is in stark contrast to how Trump associates were treated in this same court. In the Flynn trial, Judge Cooper’s colleague, Judge Emmet Sullivan, conducted a series of bizarre hearings, including one in which he used the courtroom flag as a prop to accuse Flynn of being an “unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser” and to suggest that Flynn could be charged with treason — crimes not brought against him. Sullivan then declared: “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.” Likewise, another judicial colleague, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, refused to grant Trump associate Roger Stone a new trial despite disturbing reports of juror bias. While the judge in Flynn’s case was eager to remove obstacles from the prosecution’s path, the judge in Sussmann’s case seems to have created a virtual obstacle course for Durham. Durham may be able to jump the legal hurdles, but he will do so without much of his evidence. To paraphrase Charles Dickens in “A Tale of Two Cities,” for a prosecutor D.C. can be the best of venues or it can be the worst of venues. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3492664-tale-of-two-trials-how-sussmann-is-receiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/

I'm voting for Mo Brooks in the Senate race. He's anti-establishment. Both Katie Britt or Mike Durant will support Mitch McConnell and are basically running to be Richard Shelby 2.0. https://thehill.com/news/campaign/3486706-top-senate-gop-pac-spent-millions-against-mo-brooks/

Does that show call for violence? Does that show say that black people are 'invaders' like the Buffalo shooter believes?

The Demented - and Selective - Game of Instantly Blaming Political Opponents For Mass Shootings All ideologies spawn psychopaths who kill innocents in its name. Yet only some are blamed for their violent adherents: by opportunists cravenly exploiting corpses while they still lie on the ground. At a softball field in a Washington, DC suburb on June 14, 2017, a lone gunman used a rifle to indiscriminately spray bullets at members of the House GOP who had gathered for their usual Saturday morning practice for an upcoming charity game. The then-House Majority Whip, Rep. Steven Scalise (R-LA), was shot in the hip while standing on second base and almost died, spending six weeks in the hospital and undergoing multiple surgeries. Four other people were shot, including two members of the Capitol Police who were part of Scalise's security detail, a GOP staffer, and a Tyson Foods lobbyist. “He was hunting us at that point,” Rep. Mike Bishop (R-MI) said of the shooter, who attempted to murder as many people as he could while standing with his rifle behind the dugout. The shooter died after engaging the police in a shootout. He was James T. Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old hard-core Democrat who — less than six months into the Trump presidency — had sought to kill GOP lawmakers based on his belief that Republicans were corrupt traitors, fascists, and Kremlin agents. The writings he left behind permitted little doubt that he was driven to kill by the relentless messaging he heard from his favorite cable host, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, and other virulently anti-Trump pundits, about the evils of the GOP. Indeed, immediately after arriving at the softball field, he asked several witnesses whether the people gathered "were Republicans or Democrats.” A CNN examination of his life revealed that “Hodgkinson's online presence was largely defined by his politics.” In particular, “his public Facebook posts date back to 2012 and are nearly all about his support for liberal politics.” He was particularly "passionate about tax hikes on the rich and universal health care.” NBC News explained that “when he got angry about politics, it was often directed against Republicans,” and acknowledged that “Hodgkinson said his favorite TV program was 'The Rachel Maddow Show' on MSNBC.” Indeed, his media diet was a non-stop barrage of vehement animosity toward Republicans: "His favorite television shows were listed as 'Real Time with Bill Maher;' 'The Rachel Maddow Show;' 'Democracy Now!’ and other left-leaning programs.” On the Senate floor, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) divulged that Hodgkinson was an ardent supporter of his and had even “apparently volunteered” for his campaign. A Sanders supporter told The Washington Post that “he campaigned for Bernie Sanders with Hodgkinson in Iowa.” The mass-shooter had a particular fondness for Maddow's nightly MSNBC show. In his many Letters to the Editor sent to the Belleville News-Democrat, reported New York Magazine, he “expressed support for President Obama, and declared his love for The Rachel Maddow Show". In one letter he heralded Maddow's nightly program as "one of my favorite TV shows.” While consuming this strident and increasingly rage-driven Trump-era, anti-GOP media diet, Hodgkinson “joined several anti-GOP Facebook groups, including ‘Terminate The Republican Party’; 'The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans’;, and 'Join The Resistance Worldwide!!'" Two of his consuming beliefs were that Trump-era Republicans were traitors to the United States and fascist white nationalists. In 2015, he had posted a cartoon depicting Scalise — the man he came very close to murdering — as speaking at a gathering of the KKK. Once Trump was inaugurated in early 2017, the mass shooter's online messaging began increasingly mirroring the more extreme anti-Trump and anti-GOP voices that did not just condemn the GOP's ideology but depicted them as grave threats to the Republic. In a March 22 Facebook post, Hodgkinson wrote: “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co." In February, he posted: “Republicans are the Taliban of the USA.” In one Facebook post just days before his shooting spree, Hodgkinson wrote: “I Want to Say Mr. President, for being an ass hole you are Truly the Biggest Ass Hole We Have Ever Had in the Oval Office.” As NBC News put it: “Hodgkinson’s Facebook postings portray him as stridently anti-Republican and anti-Trump.” Despite the fact that Hodgkinson was a fanatical fan of Maddow, Democracy Now host Amy Goodman, and Sanders, that the ideas and ideology motivating his shooting spree perfectly matched — and were likely shaped by — liberals of that cohort, and that the enemies whom he sought to kill were also the enemies of Maddow and her liberal comrades, nobody rational or decent sought to blame the MSNBC host, the Vermont Senator or anyone else whose political views matched Hodgkinson's for the grotesque violence he unleashed. The reason for that is clear and indisputable: as strident and extremist as she is, Maddow has never once encouraged any of her followers to engage in violence to advance her ideology, nor has she even hinted that a mass murder of the Republican traitors, fascists and Kremlin agents about whom she rants on a nightly basis to millions of people is a just solution. It would be madness to try to assign moral or political blame to them. If we were to create a framework in which prominent people were held responsible for any violence carried out in the name of an ideology they advocate, then nobody would be safe, given that all ideologies have their misfits, psychopaths, unhinged personality types, and extremists. And thus there was little to no attempt to hold Maddow or Sanders responsible for the violent acts of one of their most loyal adherents. The same is true of the spate of mass shootings and killings by self-described black nationalists over the last several years. Back in 2017, the left-wing group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) warned of the “Return of the Violent Black Nationalist.” In one incident, “Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed Dallas police officers during a peaceful protest against police brutality, killing five officers and wounding nine others.” Then, “ten days later, Gavin Eugene Long shot six officers, killing three, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.” They shared the same ideology, one which drove their murderous spree: Both Johnson and Long were reportedly motivated by their strong dislike of law enforcement, grievances against perceived white dominance, and the recent fatal police shootings of unarmed black men under questionable circumstances, specifically the shooting deaths of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota . . . Needless to say, the ideas that motivated these two black nationalists to murder multiple people, including police officers, is part of a core ideology that is commonly heard in mainstream media venues, expressed by many if not most of the nation's most prominent liberals. Depicting the police as a white supremacist force eager to kill black people, “grievances against perceived white dominance,” and anger over “the white supremacism endemic in America’s system of governance from the country’s founding” are views that one routinely hears on MSNBC, CNN, from Democratic Party politicians, and in the op-ed pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Yet virtually nobody sought to blame Chris Hayes, Joy Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jamelle Bouie or New York Times op-ed writers for these shooting sprees. Indeed, no blame was assigned to anti-police liberal pundits whose view of American history is exactly the same as that of these two killers — even though they purposely sought to murder the same enemies whom those prominent liberals target. Nobody blamed those anti-police liberals for the same reason they did not blame Maddow and Sanders for Hodgkinson's shooting spree: there is a fundamental and necessary distinction between people who use words to express ideas and demonize perceived enemies, and those who decide to go randomly and indiscriminately murder in the name of that ideology. Since that 2017 warning from the SPLC, there have been many more murders in the name of this anti-police and anti-white-supremacist ideology of black nationalism. In June of last year, the ADL said it had “linked Othal Toreyanne Resheen Wallace, the man arrested and accused of fatally shooting Daytona Beach Officer Jason Raynor on June 23, to several extremist groups preaching Black nationalism." He had “participated in several events organized by the NFAC…best known for holding armed marches protesting racial inequality and police brutality.” He had a long history of citing and following prominent radical Black anti-police and anti-White ideologues." Also in June of last year, a 25-year-old man named Noah Green drove a car into a Capitol Hill Police Officer, killing him instantly. The New York Times reported that he follows black nationalist groups, while a former college teammate “recalled that Mr. Green would often talk to fellow players about strategies to save and invest, emphasizing the need to close the wealth gap between white and Black America.” Just last month, a self-identified black nationalist named Frank James went on a terrifying shooting spree in the New York City subway system that injured dozens. He had “posted material on social media linked to black identity extremist ideologies, including the Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, BLM and an image of black nationalist cop-killer Micah Johnson.” Angie Speaks, the brilliant writer who voices the audio version of the articles for this Substack, reported in Newsweek that James had “posted prolifically on social media and hosted a YouTube channel where he expressed Black Nationalist leanings and racial grievances." In 2019, The New York Times reported that “an assailant involved in the prolonged firefight in Jersey City, N.J., that left six people dead, including one police officer, was linked on Wednesday to the Black Hebrew Israelite movement,” and had written “anti-police posts.” Most media outlets and liberal politicians correctly refused to assign blame to pundits and politicians who spew anti-police rhetoric, or who insist that the U.S. is a nation of white supremacy: the animating ideas of these murders. Yet in these cases, they go much further with their denialism: many deny that this ideology even exists at all. “The made-up 'Black Identity Extremist' label is the latest example in a history of harassing and discrediting Black activists who dare to use their voices to call out white supremacy,” claimed the ACLU in 2019. PBS quoted a lawyer for an advocacy group as saying: “We're deeply concerned about the FBI's 'black identity extremist' designation. This is mere distraction from the very real threat of white supremacy...There is no such thing as black identity extremism.” The same year, The Intercept published an article headlined “The Strange Tale of the FBI’s Fictional ‘Black Identity Extremism' Movement,” which claimed over and over that there is no such thing as black extremism and that any attempt to ascribe violence to this ideology is a lie invented by those seeking to hide the dangers of white supremacy. It is virtually impossible to find any ideology on any part of the political spectrum that has not spawned senseless violence and mass murder by adherents. “The suspected killer of Dutch maverick politician Pim Fortuyn had environmentalist propaganda and ammunition at his home,” reported CBS News about the assassin, Volkert van der Graaf. Van der Graaf was a passionate animal rights and environmental activist who admitted “he killed the controversial right-wing leader because he considered him a danger to society.” Van der Graaf was particularly angry about what he believed was Fortuyn's anti-Muslim rhetoric. As a result, “some supporters of Fortuyn had blamed Green party leader Paul Rosenmoeller for "demonizing Fortuyn before he was gunned down in May just before general elections.” In other words, simply because the Green Party leader was highly critical of Fortuyn's ideology, some opportunistic Dutch politicians sought absurdly to blame him for Fortuyn's murder by Van der Graaf. Sound familiar? During the BLM and Antifa protests and riots of 2020, an Antifa supporter, Michael Reinoehl, was the leading suspect in the murder of a Trump supporter, Aaron J. Danielson, as he rode in a truck (Reinoehl himself was then killed by federal agents before being arrested in what appeared to be a deliberate extra-judicial execution, though an investigation cleared them of wrongdoing, as typically happens when federal agents are involved). In 2016, The New York Times reported that “the heavily armed sniper who gunned down police officers in downtown Dallas, leaving five of them dead, specifically set out to kill as many white officers as he could, officials said Friday.” The Paper of Record noted that many believed that anti-police protests would eventually lead to violent attacks on police officers: it “was the kind of retaliatory violence that people have feared through two years of protests around the country against deaths in police custody.” Then there are the murders carried out in the name of various religions. For the last three decades at least, debates have been raging about what level of responsibility, if any, should be assigned to radical Muslim preachers or Muslim politicians when individuals carry out atrocities and murders in the name of Islam. Liberals insist — correctly, in my view — that it is irresponsible and unfair to blame non-violent Muslims who preach radical versions of religious or political Islam for those who carry out violence in the name of those doctrines. Similar debates are heard with regard to Jewish extremists, such as the Israeli-American doctor Baruch Goldstein who “opened fire in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, killing 29 Muslim worshippers.” Many insist that the radical anti-Muslim speech of Israeli extremists is to blame, while others deny that there is any such thing as “Jewish terrorism” and that all blames lies solely with the individual who decided to resort to violence. To be sure, there have been a large number of murders and other atrocities carried out in U.S. and the West generally in the name of right-wing ideologies, in the name of white supremacy, in the name of white nationalism. The difference, though, is glaring: when murders are carried out in the name of liberal ideology, there is a rational and restrained refusal to blame liberal pundits and politicians who advocate the ideology that animated those killings. Yet when killings are carried out in the name of right-wing ideologies despised by the corporate press and mainstream pundits (or ideologies that they falsely associate with conservatism), they instantly leap to lay blame at the feet of their conservative political opponents who, despite never having advocated or even implied the need for violence, are nonetheless accused of bearing guilt for the violence — often before anything is known about the killers or their motives. In general, it is widely understood that liberal pundits and politicians are not to blame, at all, when murders are carried out in the name of the causes they support or against the enemies they routinely condemn. That is because, in such cases, we apply the rational framework that someone who does not advocate violence is not responsible for the violent acts of one's followers and fans who kill in the name of that person's ideas. Indeed, this perfectly sensible principle was enshrined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1982 unanimous free speech ruling in Claiborne v. NAACP. That case arose out of efforts by the State of Mississippi to hold leaders of the local NAACP chapter legally liable for violence carried out by NAACP members on the ground that the leaders’ inflammatory and rage-driven speeches had “incited” and “provoked” their followers to burn white-owned stores and other stores ignoring their boycott to the ground. In ruling in favor of the NAACP, the Court stressed the crucial difference between those who peacefully advocate ideas and ideologies, even if they do so with virulence and anger (such as NAACP leaders), and those who are “inspired” by those speeches to commit violence to advance that cause. “To impose liability without a finding that the NAACP authorized — either actually or apparently — or ratified unlawful conduct would impermissibly burden the rights of political association that are protected by the First Amendment,” ruled the Court. This principle is not only a jurisprudential or constitutional one. It is also a rational one. Those who express ideas without advocating violence are not and cannot fairly be held responsible for those who decide to pick up arms in the name of those ideas, even if — as in the case of James Hodgkinson — we know for certain that the murderer listened closely to and was influenced by people like Rachel Maddow and Bernie Sanders. In such cases, we understand that it is madness, and deeply unfair, to exploit heinous murders to lay blame for the violence and killings on the doorsteps of our political adversaries. But when a revolting murder spree is carried out in the name of right-wing ideas (or ideas perceived by the corporate press to be right-wing), everything changes — instantly and completely. In such cases, often before anything is known about the murderer — indeed, literally before the corpses are even removed from the ground where they lie — there is a coordinated effort to declare that anyone who holds any views in common with the murderer has “blood on their hands” and is essentially a co-conspirator in the massacre. A very vivid and particularly gruesome display of this demented game was on display on Saturday night after a white 18-year-old, Payton Gendron, purposely targeted a part of Buffalo with a substantial black population. He entered a supermarket he knew was frequented largely by black customers and shot everyone he found, killing 10 people, most of them black. A lengthy, 180-page manifesto he left behind was filled with a wide variety of eclectic political views and ideologies. In that manifesto, Gendron described himself as a "left-wing authoritarian” and “populist” (“On the political compass I fall in the mild-moderate authoritarian left category, and I would prefer to be called a populist”). He heaped praise on an article in the socialist magazine Jacobin for its view that cryptocurrency and Bitcoin are fraudulent scams. He spoke passionately of the centrality and necessity of environmentalism, and lamented that “the state [has] long since heavily lost to its corporate backers.” He ranted against “corporate profits and the ever increasing wealth of the 1% that exploit the people for their own benefit.” And he not only vehemently rejected any admiration for political conservatism but made clear that he viewed it as an enemy to his agenda: “conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.” But by far the overarching and dominant theme of his worldview — the ideology that he repeatedly emphasized was the animating cause of his murder spree — was his anger and fear that white people, which he defines as those of European descent, were being eradicated by a combination of low birth rates and mass immigration. He repeatedly self-identified as a "racist” and expressed admiration for fascism as a solution. His treatise borrowed heavily from, and at times outright plagiarized, large sections of the manifesto left behind by Brenton Tarrant, the 29-year-old Australian who in 2019 murdered 51 people, mostly Muslims, at two mosques in New Zealand. Gendron's manifesto included a long list of websites and individuals who influenced his thinking, but made clear that it was Tarrant who was his primary inspiration. Other than extensive anti-Semitic sections which insisted that Jews are behind most of the world's powerful institutions and accompanying problems, it was Tarrant's deep concern about what he perceived is the disappearance of white people that was also Gendron's principal cause: If there’s one thing I want you to get from these writings, it’s that White birth rates must change. Everyday the White population becomes fewer in number. To maintain a population the people must achieve a birth rate that reaches replacement fertility levels, in the western world that is about 2.06 births per woman…. In 2050, despite the ongoing effect of sub-replacement fertility, the population figures show that the population does not decrease inline with the sub-replacement fertility levels, but actually maintains and, even in many White nations, rapidly increases. All through immigration. This is ethnic replacement. This is cultural replacement. This is racial replacement. This is WHITE GENOCIDE. Within literally an hour of the news of this murder spree in Buffalo — far too little time for anyone to have even carefully read all or most of Gendron's manifesto, and with very little known about his life or activities — much of the corporate press and liberal pundit class united to reveal the real culprit, the actual guilty party, behind this murder spree: Fox News host Tucker Carlson. So immediate and unified was this guilty verdict of mob justice that Carlson's name trended all night on Twitter along with Buffalo and Gendron. The examples of liberal pundits instantly blaming Carlson for this murder are far too numerous to comprehensively cite. “Literally everyone warned Fox News and Tucker Carlson that this would happen and they ******* laughed and went harder,” decreed Andrew Lawrence of the incomparably sleazy and dishonest group Media Matters, spawned by ultimate sleaze-merchant David Brock. “The Buffalo shooter… subscribed to the Great Replacement theory touted by conservative elites like Tucker Carlson and believed by nearly half of GOP voters,” claimed The Washington Post's Emmanuel Felton. “See if you can tell the difference between [Gerdon's manifesto on 'white Replacement’] and standard fare on the Tucker Carlson show,” said Georgetown Professor Don Moynihan. “The racist massacre in Buffalo rest [sic] at the feet of Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and the GOP,” decreed Hollywood's nepotism prince Rob Reiner. The shooter was inspired by “a white nationalist conspiracy theory that Tucker Carlson has defended on his show,” was the verdict of The Huffington Post's Philip Lewis less than six hours after the shooting spree began. And on and on. That Carlson was primarily responsible for the ten dead people in Buffalo was asserted despite the fact that there was no indication that Gendron even knew who Carlson was, that he had ever watched his show, that he was influenced by him in any way, or that he admired or even liked the Fox host. Indeed, in the long list of people and places which Gendron cited as important influences on him — “Brenton Tarrant, [El Paso shooter] Patrick Crusius, [California Jewish community center killer], John Earnest, [Norwegian mass murderer] Anders Breivik, [Charleston black church murderer] Dylann Roof, etc.” — nowhere does he even allude to let alone mention any Fox News host or Carlson. To the contrary, Gendron explicitly describes his contempt for political conservatism. In a section entitled “CONSERVATISM IS DEAD, THANK GOD,” he wrote: "Not a thing has been conserved other than corporate profits and the ever increasing wealth of the 1% that exploit the people for their own benefit. Conservatism is dead. Thank god. Now let us bury it and move on to something of worth.” In this hated of conservatism, he copied his hero Brenton Tarrant, who also wrote that “conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it,” adding about conservatives: They don’t even BELIEVE in the race, they don’t even have the gall to say race exists. And above all they don’t even care if it does. It’s profit, and profit alone that drives them, all else is secondary. The notion of a racial future or destiny is as foreign to them as social responsibilities. So desperate and uncontrolled was this ghoulish attempt to blame Carlson for the Buffalo shootings that my email inbox and social media feeds were festering with various liberal pundits demanding to know why I had not yet manifested my views of this shooting — as though it is advisable or even possible to formulate definitive opinions about a complex mass murder spree that had just taken place less than five hours before. “Still working on your talking points to defend your buddy Tucker or are you holding off on trying out your deflections until the bodies get cold?,” wrote a pundit named Jonathan Katz at 6:46 pm ET on Saturday night in a highly representative demand — just four hours after the shooter fired his first shot. Demands to assert definitive opinions about who — other than the killer — is to blame for a mass murder spree just hours after it happened can be called many things; "journalistic” and "responsible” are not among them. As it happened, I was on an overnight international flight on Saturday and into Sunday morning; I deeply apologize for my failure to monitor and speak on Twitter twenty-four hours a day. But even if I had not been 40,000 feet in the air, what kind of primitive and despicably opportunistic mindset is required not only to opine so definitively about how your political opponents are guilty of a heinous crime before the corpses are even taken away, but to demand that everyone else do so as well? In fact, Katz was particularly adamant that I opine not just on the killings but on the list of pundits I thought should be declared guilty before, in his soulless words, “the bodies get cold” — meaning that I must speak out without bothering to take the time to try to understand the basic facts about the killer and the shootings before heaping blame on a wide range of people who had no apparent involvement. But this is exactly the morally sick and exploitative liberal mentality that drives the discourse each time one of these shooting sprees happen. Rachel Maddow had far more known connections to Scalise's shooter James Hodgkinson than Carlson has to Gendron. After all, as Maddow herself acknowledged, Hodgkinson was a fan of her show and had expressed his love and admiration for her. His animating views and ideology tracked hers perfectly, with essentially no deviation. And yet — despite this ample evidence that he was influenced by her — it would never occur to me to blame Maddow for Hodgkinson's shooting spree because doing so would be completely demented, since Maddow never told or suggested to anyone that they go out and shoot the political enemies she was depicting as traitors, Kremlin agents, plotters to overthrow American democracy and replace it with a fascist dictatorship, and grave menaces to civil rights and basic freedom. The attempt to blame Carlson for the Buffalo shootings depended entirely on one claim: Carlson has previously talked about and defended the view that immigration is a scheme to “replace” Americans, and this same view was central to Gendron's ideology. Again, even if this were true, it would amount to nothing more than a claim than the shooter shared key views with Carlson and other conservative pundits — exactly as Hodgkinson shared core views with Maddow and Sanders, or the numerous murderers who killed in the name of black nationalism shared the same views on the police and American history as any number of MSNBC hosts and Democratic Party politicians, or as Pim Fortuyn's killer shared core views with animal rights activists and defenders of Muslim equality (including me). But nobody is willing to apply such a framework consistently because it converts everyone with strong political views into murderers, or at least being guilty of inciting murder. But all bets are off — all such principles or moral and logical reasoning are dispensed with — when an act of violence can be pinned on the political enemies of liberals. If a homicidal maniac kills an abortion doctor, then all peaceful pro-life activists are blamed. If an LGBT citizen is killed, then anyone who shares the views that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had until 2012 about marriage equality is blamed. If a police officer unjustifiably kills a black citizen, all police supporters or those who dissent from liberal orthodoxy on racial politics are decreed guilty. But liberals are never at fault when right-wing politicians are murdered, or police officers are hunted and gunned down by police opponents, or an anti-abortion group is targeted with firebombing and arson, as just happened in Wisconsin, or radical Muslims engage in random acts of violence. By definition, "moral reasoning" that is applied only in one direction has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with crass, exploitative opportunism. Though it does not actually matter for purposes of assigning blame, it is utterly false to claim that Carlson's ideology — including on “replacement” — is the same as or even related to the views expressed by the killers in Buffalo or New Zealand. Indeed, in key respects, they are opposites. Both Tarrant and Gendron targeted citizens of the countries in which they carried out their murder spree. They justified doing so on the ground that any non-white citizen is automatically an "invader," regardless of how long they have been in the country or how much legal status they have. “It would have eased me if I knew all the blacks I would be killing were criminals or future criminals, but then I realized all black people are replacers just by existing in White countries,” Gendron wrote. To claim that Carlson ever said anything remotely like this or believes it is just an outright lie. Indeed, with great frequency, Carlson says that the priority of the U.S. Government should be protection of and concern for American citizens of all races. Tarrant and Gendron believe and explicitly say that any non-white citizen of a European country is automatically an “invader” who must be killed and/or deported to turn the country all-white. Carlson believes the exact opposite: that the proper citizenry of the United States is multi-racial and that Black Americans and Latin Americans and Asian-Americans are every bit as much U.S. citizens, with all of the same claims to rights and protections, as every other American citizen. His anti-immigration and "replacement” argument is aimed at the idea — one that had been long mainstream on the left until about a decade ago — that large, uncontrolled immigration harms American citizens who are already here. There is no racial hierarchy in Carlson's view of American citizenship and to claim that there is is nothing short of a defamatory lie. But even if these liberal smear artists were telling the truth, and Carlson's view of immigration and “replacement” were similar or even precisely identical to Gendron's, one could certainly say that Carlson holds immoral and despicable views. But he would still no more carry blame for the Buffalo murders than liberal pundits have blood on their hands for countless massacres carried out in the name of political causes they support and theories they espouse, whether it be animus toward the police or anti-imperialism or opposition to Israeli occupation of the West Bank or the belief that the United States is a fundamentally racist country or the view that the GOP is a fascist menace to all things decent. The distinction between peaceful advocacy even of noxious ideas and those who engage in violence in the name of such ideas is fundamental to notions of fairness, justice and the ability to speak freely. But if you really want to claim that a public figure has "blood on their hands" every time someone murders in the name of ideas and ideologies they support, then the list of people you should be accusing of murder is a very, very long one indeed. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-demented-and-selective-game-of?s=w

https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/new-yorker-staffer-resigns-after-falsely-accusing-ice-agent-of-having-nazi-tattoo/ She tried to get an ICE agent, who is a disabled veteran, fired over a tattoo.

How many other countries are facing shortages but don't have shortages for immigrants at their borders? Correct me if I'm wrong but Mexico doesn't have a formula shortage right now. Liberals: Americans are uniquely racist. No other country prioritizes their own citizens over immigrants. Only racist America!

The government should invoke the defense production act to produce more formula and help with the shortages if they're not going to reopen the formula plant soon.

I don't want to ever see you complain about income inequality ever again.

Why is biggest baby formula plant in US STILL shut down after three months? Abbott says plant is safe and was not responsible for bacteria that killed two kids - but FDA refuses to reopen it as parents across US struggle to feed their babies By Natasha Anderson For Dailymail.Com Published: 13:54 EDT, 10 May 2022 | Updated: 17:07 EDT, 10 May 2022 The biggest baby formula supplier in the U.S. has denied its Michigan plant is responsible for the deaths of two children despite the FDA closing it down. The plant was shutdown nearly three months ago after a bacterial infection caused the deaths and other serious illnesses. In mid-February Abbott Laboratories issued a nationwide baby formula recall and ceased operations at its plant in Sturgis, Michigan amid reports of babies contracting bacterial infections from its products. An Abbott spokesperson told DailyMail.com Tuesday that 'thorough investigation' by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Abbott revealed 'infant formula produced at our Sturgis facility is not the likely source of infection in the reported cases and that there was not an outbreak caused by products from the facility'. However, despite the findings of the investigation, the plant remains shuttered nearly three months later, fueling the nationwide baby formula shortage. The FDA - which said it found food safety violations at the plant, as well as five strains of Cronobacter, a bacteria that can cause blood infections and meningitis - has refused to say when the plant can resume operations. Abbott claims they are 'working closely with the FDA to restart operations' at the plant, with the spokesperson noting: 'We continue to make progress on corrective actions and will be implementing additional actions as we work toward addressing items related to the recent recall'. The FDA told DailyMail.com it was holding discussions with 'Abbott and other manufacturers to increase production of different specialty and metabolic products' but refused to say when the Sturgis plant could reopen. The formula shortage, which has become a national crisis, was triggered by supply chain issues, but spiked with the closure of the Abbott plant. Abbott alleges that none of the formula distributed to consumers tested positive for Cronobacter or Salmonella. The manufacturer claims the FDA and Abbott officials both tested retained products for the bacterias and yielded negative results. Abbott notes no trace of Salmonella was found at the Sturgis plant and the Cronobacter that was found in environmental testing during the investigation was in non-product contact areas of the facility. The company alleged the traces of Cronobacter at their plant have 'not been linked to the two available patient samples or any other known infant illness.' February's recall, which is isolated to powder formulas, including Similac, Alimentum and EleCare, manufactured only at the Sturgis plant has significantly disrupted the supply chain. The nationwide share of out-of-stock baby formula hit 40 percent in April. Texas, Tennessee, Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota, seemingly hardest hit by the shortages, reported out-of-stock rates of about 50 percent. As shelves across the country meant to carry baby formula remain largely barren, retailers including Target, CVS and Walgreens are limiting the amount of formula consumers can purchase. Concerned parents, especially those whose children have unique medical and dietary needs, have expressed feelings of hopelessness and are calling on the government to take action to 'ensure critical, life-sustaining supply chains don’t break down.' However, an Abbott spokesperson alleged the recall 'does not include any metabolic deficiency nutrition formulas, Abbott’s liquid formulas or other Abbott nutrition powders or brands.' The company is reportedly 'doing everything it can to address the infant formula supply shortage across the U.S.' This includes 'prioritizing production of infant formula products to help replenish the supply in the market' and shipping products in from overseas. Last month, the FDA announced it had 'no objection' to Abbott releasing limited quantities of nutrition products 'to individuals needing urgent, life-sustaining supplies of the specialty and metabolic formulas'. The manufacturer, which was permitted to supply consumers with the speciality formulas on a 'case-by-case basis,' claims no formula being distributed has tested positive for bacteria. Abbott phone representatives have also been telling parents the FDA is 'holding back' metabolic formula made during the recall period, which is why the current supply hasn't gone out, Politico reported. The FDA, disputing the company's allegations, issued a statement to the newspaper on Saturday reading: 'The FDA has not delayed the release of any specialty and metabolic infant formula products and the agency strongly disagrees with this characterization of events. 'The agency has been working with Abbott since the Feb. 17 recall on ways to resume production. These are complex discussions, but from the beginning the agency has been committed to making these infant formula products, including specialty and metabolic products, available again as quickly as possible.' Despite the Abbott's efforts, Americans are still struggling to feed their children. The Similac maker is the leading supplier of milk formula in the U.S. with a market share of about 42 percent in 2021, followed by British consumer goods firm Reckitt Benckiser with a nearly 38 percent share, according to Euromonitor data. About 40 percent of baby formula products were out of stock across the the nation last month. While all parents are feeling the impacts of the disruptive supply chain, those whose children have special medical needs say they are worried about sustaining their kid's nutrition. 'If this doesn’t get fixed soon, I don’t know how my son will survive,' Phoebe Carter, whose five-year-old son has a rare digestive and immune system disease and relies on formula for all of his nutrition, told Politico. 'I just can’t stress that enough.' Carter is rallying concerned parents and caregivers in an effort to put pressure on Congressional leadership to address the shortage by facilitating formula production at other plants. The outraged mother, who has created a website to organize caretakers, slammed national leadership, claiming they would take action if America's upper echelon were being directly impacted by the formula shortage. 'If, God forbid, a family member of President Joe Biden or Jeff Bezos or someone influential had one of these diseases, this crisis wouldn’t have made it to Day Two,' she argued. 'Because no one understands this issue and knows it’s happening, there’s no hope for us — that’s how it feels.' Due to his condition, an allergic exposure causes Carter's son debilitating pain that can last anywhere from a few days to weeks. He was placed on an amino acid formula, which provides 100 percent of his nutrition, after all other treatments failed. Carter said the formula, which breaks proteins down to their most basic form, put his disease into remission within two months. Unfortunately, Abbott's Sturgis plant is responsible for the manufacturing of 75 percent of all amino acid formulas in the U.S. Although her son's formula, prescription brand Neocate, is produced by Nutricia, she is unable to get the product for her child. Carter claims the recall and shutdown has forced an increase demand of other brands and there 'just isn’t enough overall supply to keep up.' Neocate, issuing a statement on its website, confirmed the company's supply is very strained, alleging the Abbott recall and the search for replacement formulas has 'created unprecedented demand for amino acid-based formula products.' 'While we are taking urgent measures to get more products into the market, current product availability is low and, in some cases, you will see that our products are out of stock,' the statement said. Experts allege the shortage is greatly impacting patients with metabolic, gastrointestinal and allergic disorders. The most common metabolic disorder, Phenylketonuria, approximately affects 17,000 people nationwide. Another disorder, MSUD, is estimated to impact 2,000 Americans and is 'so severe' that amino acid formula is the 'only means of survival' for those with the condition. 'Children, babies and adults throughout the world are suffering because of this,' Columbia University faculty member and dietician Karen Reznik Dolins argued. 'I’ve never seen anything like this ever in my career,” echoed dietitian Leah McGrath. 'If babies are not getting what they’re supposed to be getting, or they’re getting less than, or there’s just the trauma of switching back and forth to different formulas, this has really long term implications in terms of their health and their growth and development, as the first 1,000 days of life are known to be the most crucial.' A coalition of metabolic patient organizations recently probed its communities about the impacts of the formula shortage and claims it received more than 50 alarming messages. 'Please help us. We are in a place of desperation,' one parent reportedly wrote. 'I cannot begin to explain the stress that accompanies the fear of running out of a product that is essential for the brain health of my children. 'I have been in a panic over this shortage.' Abbott, in response to the crisis, told Politico it opened a special phone line last Friday to 'field requests from patients for the metabolic nutrition formulas.' 'We’ve also been engaging with doctor groups and health care professionals. We’ve received dozens of inquiries and are coordinating with metabolic centers and healthcare professionals to fulfill requests based on need and on a case-by-case basis,' a spokesperson said. 'We understand that every patient who relies on these important products has critical needs and we are working diligently to provide product as needed.' Brian Dittmeier, Senior Director of Public Policy at the National Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Association told DailyMail.com in a statement Tuesday that the 'unprecedented scope of this infant formula recall has serious consequences for babies and new parents.' 'Assurances from manufacturers that production has ramped up have not yet translated to new product on the shelf. Each day that this crisis continues, parents grow more anxious and desperate to find what they need to feed their infants,' the statement said. 'Unlike other food recalls, shortages in the infant formula supply affects a major – or even exclusive – source of nutrition for babies. Inadequate nutrition could have long-term health implications for babies. Supply shortages are particularly acute for infants who require specialty formulas to address allergies, gastrointestinal issues, or metabolic disorders; adequate substitutes with other brands may not be easily identifiable. 'Every day, we hear from parents who are hurt, angry, anxious, and scared. The lives of their infants are on the line. It is time for answers and accountability as we all work to improve the supply and ease the worries of parents enduring this national crisis.' The FDA told DailyMail.com its priority was to ensure recalled products remained off shelves while they worked with manufacturers to find alternative baby formulas. 'Following the Feb. 17 FDA warning, Abbott’s voluntary recall and decision to voluntarily cease production to address significant issues that could impact the quality of the product, the FDA has been working with Abbott Nutrition to better assess the impacts of the recall and understand production capacity at other Abbott facilities that produce some of the impacted brands,' a spokesperson said. The authority, in a recent budget document, asked Congress to give the agency new authorities to prevent a critical shortage from occurring in the future. 'No law requires manufacturers of infant formulas or essential medical foods to notify FDA when they become aware of a circumstance that could lead to a shortage of these products,' the agency penned, noting it would like to see new protocols requiring companies to notify the FDA of anticipated supply chain interruptions. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday the Biden administration is working with manufacturers to ensure baby formula makes it back on empty shelves as frantic parents work to ensure their children are fed. 'Ensuring the availability of these products' is a 'priority' for the FDA, Psaki said at her daily press briefing, noting 'they're working around the clock to address any possible shortage.' It is unclear if the administration's response will include need requirements for manufacturers, as the FDA requested. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10801581/FDA-refuses-say-baby-formula-plant-reopen-despite-companys-claims-facility-safe.html This has been brewing for months. The fact that the government had no plan B in place and have just allowed the shortages to get worse tells you all you need to know.

When mayors, governors, a former president, and celebrities broke pandemic ordinances/edicts like going on vacations, going to large gatherings without masking, etc.... while they mandated the little people to mask anytime they left the house and closed non-essential businesses, if you complained about that then meant you were anti-science and just wanted to kill people by spreading the virus because you didn't like the rules not applying to everyone. If you complain about one group being exempt from things or getting preferential treatment then that makes you full of hate. You're not a true Christian if you complain about another group getting special treatment. If you complain about the border not having a formula shortage while a lot of other places in the country having shortages, that means you hate illegal immigrants and want babies at the border to starve.