Better in their words…

I wasn’t sure if the day would come, but the truth is coming out more quickly each day. But unless individuals (and Govt Departments, Agencies) are made to pay a price (jail time? Dismantled?) not sure how effective long-term this will be. Too many people have very short memories.

m. rossol

Source: ONE YEAR ☙ Monday, November 6, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS

WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY

💉 Well, who could possibly have seen this coming? The Cincinnati Enquirer ran a story late yesterday headlined, “Damar Hamlin not active for Buffalo-Cincinnati Sunday night game.”

Commotio-cordis survivor Damar Hamlin participated in practice this week and was not on the Buffalo Bills’ injured list. But he still didn’t play. When asked, head coach Sean McDermott said something complicated about Hamlin having flu symptoms, so there you go. I am not making up that lame excuse.

Hamlin has not played in seven of the Bills’ eight games this season. Because … no reason. He’s just a bench decoration now.

🔥 In a breathtaking story much more remarkable for where it was published than what it said, although that was pretty remarkable too, Politico ran a high-profile “Special Report” this weekend headlined, “Fresh revelations contradict Joe Biden’s sweeping denials on Hunter. Uh-oh! Not only that, but Politico’s “Special Report” about Biden’s lies published yesterday, Sunday, November 5th, 2023 — precisely one year to the day before next year’s Presidential election.

The sub-headline jammed the assassin’s dagger even deeper into Biden’s waning political fortunes: “The president hasn’t been shown to have committed wrongdoing, but a POLITICO review of recent developments casts doubts on several statements.”

The story was a big deal for Politico — a rare, ranging, long-form, magazine-style piece including dramatic non-stock photos, infographics, and custom artwork. Politico took its time recapping all the fundamentals of the Biden corruption story, slowly and carefully walking its audience through the unfamiliar details, and even slipping in a few brand-new arguments of its own.

Politico was not saying Joe Biden is corrupt. It was just saying.

The story’s first target was one of the best-documented of Joe’s lies, the one about not being involved in Hunter business deals. Politico began with a now-infamous April 2015 dinner meeting between Hunter’s group and some shady Ukrainian oligarchs. House Republicans found an email on Hunter’s laptop from one of the thuggish ‘executives’ who attended the dinner politely thanking Hunter “for introducing me to your father.”

It’s embarrassing that oligarchical Ukrainian thugs are more polite and use better-formed English than the chief executive’s own children. Hunter usually emails in all-caps and normally forgets to use punctuation. But I digress.

Anyway, Biden has consistently and vehemently denied attending any of Hunter’s business meetings. He’s protested that point a LOT. But his denials are usually cuddled in complicated locutions, liberally sprinkled with lawyer weasel words and conditional qualifications. So in October 2021, key White House ally Politico emailed its insider source and directly posed the question: was Biden there at the Cafe Milano dinner or not? Even if just informally?

POLITICO: “Does this rule out any informal encounter with Pozharskyi in April 2015?”

WHITE HOUSE: “Yes.”

Politico said it was revealing that now-obvious lie for the first time. Two years later. Shoring up the point, Politico then described Devon Archer’s testimony to Congress, where Devon swore under oath that Joe Biden did in fact chow down personally, himself, in the flesh, with the oligarchs that night at Cafe Milano, and Devon provided plenty of supporting background detail.

In other words, Politico volunteered its own internal, behind-the-scenes communications to help pile on the narrative that Biden and his whole crooked White House team are liars.

That seems pretty remarkable.

Politico’s extended-form article seemed like a solid reply to hapless, low-information democrat voters relying on Biden’s current stupid excuse, yeah, yeah, but they never proved Joe did anything wrong and Hunter’s not running for president.

Read these four sentences from the story and you’ll see what I mean:

The explicit White House denial of even an informal encounter, reported here for the first time, was not the only time that statements made by Biden and his camp about Hunter Biden’s dealings have been contradicted by others.  Joe Biden and his representatives have repeatedly defended him from criticism related to his relatives, his son in particular, by issuing blanket denials of misconduct and disclaiming contact with their business affairs.

But, in recent months, as congressional Republicans have opened an impeachment inquiry and controversies related to Hunter Biden continue to be litigated in the courts and in the public square, a steady trickle of revelations have contradicted the president’s denials.  A POLITICO review of recent congressional testimony and exhibits, along with court filings and media reports, casts doubt on several statements made by Biden and his representatives.

That right there is a meticulously-careful way of saying Joe lied about not doing anything wrong.  The article briefly receded from this high accusatory point, back down into the “no evidence” briar patch, suggesting nobody’s claimed Joe Biden ever  “took official action” to help his relatives’ “businesses.”

Later, the article reversed itself, and give several examples of exactly such evidence, although labeled as “uncorroborated” and other words like that, to help the red pills go down easier. Here was Politico’s first example of direct evidence of Biden corruption:

The (FBI’s) informant claimed that Burisma’s owner said privately that he was pressured by Joe and Hunter Biden into bribing them for help resolving Burisma’s legal issues, including Shokin’s firing. The informant first mentioned Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma in a 2017 conversation with the FBI, according to an agency form recording his allegations, which was obtained by congressional Republicans and made public in July. The bureau re-interviewed the informant, whose identity remains secret, in 2020, after the Trump Justice Department began scrutinizing claims about Shokin’s ouster.

Next, Politico shockingly but accurately recited the whole disgraceful timeline of drug-addled Hunter’s abandoned Macbook, and the FBI’s and the intelligence community’s subsequent outrageous lies about it being “Russian disinformation.” Then Politico informed its probably-astounded readers that it (Politico), The New York Times, and The Washington Post — the core corporate media team — had each independently verified thousands of Hunter emails from the so-called “fabricated” laptop.

Without drawing attention to the fact’s significance, Politico also deliberately referred to Hunter’s lawsuit against the Mac Shop’s owner for “violation of privacy.” The lawsuit itself confirms the laptop’s authenticity. Obviously, Hunter wouldn’t sue over a fake laptop with fake emails on it. Not for “violation of privacy,” anyway.

Next up was Tony Bobulinski, another long-overlooked former Hunter business partner (overlooked by Establishment Media). In what constitutes even more “evidence” — at least by any legal definition of the word “evidence” — Bobulinski testified under oath and to the FBI that he personally had discussed Hunter’s Chinese business ventures with Joe Biden. For its readers’ benefit, Politico carefully noted that Bobulinski has always made political donations to democrats.

But that wasn’t the only way Politico shored up Bobolinski’s testimony. It fastidiously pointed out that Bobulinski has never been arrested for lying to the FBI:

In September, House Republicans released an FBI summary of an interview agents conducted with Bobulinski in the fall of 2020, showing that Bobulinski told investigators the same basic story: that he had discussed the China venture with Joe Biden. The summary gives extra heft to Boublinski’s public claims because lying to the FBI in order to influence an investigation can lead to criminal charges.

Well my goodness. At this point in the article, democrat readers with any remaining capacity for independent thought must have been wondering, what exactly is the standard for “no evidence”?

This is just the tip of the story’s corruption iceberg. The story goes on and on.It was a methodical tour de force of Biden family corruption, and completely reversed the normal course, taking the opposite approach from what Establishment Media has always taken to these facts. Normally, Establishment Media assiduously undermined witnesses like Devon Archer, Tony Bobulinski, and the unidentified FBI informants.

But in this article, Politico painstakingly boosted the anti-Biden witnesses’ credibility.

Conservative media is mainly designed to provide its readers with information. But liberal media is designed to give its readers permission to think certain thoughts. It’s not so much that the Politico article was informingdemocrats about certain uncomfortable Biden facts for the first time, although that is certainly true.

The article was more significant because it signaled to democrats that now acceptable to talk about Biden lying and about his being mixed up with all these sketchy characters.

If this Politico article wasn’t an outright hit piece aimed squarely at Joe’s key demographic, it was at least a barely-concealed political torpedo jetting directly towards the S.S. Bob Peters’ exposed port side. Friendly fire!

Do you think it was coincidental this carefully-written article published exactly one year before the election?

📉 It wasn’t just Politico, either. Guess what The New York Times ran yesterday on the one-year election pre-versary? Never mind about guessing, I’ll just tell you. It ran a story headlined, “Trump Leads in 5 Critical States as Voters Blast Biden, Times/Siena Poll Finds.” Yikes.

That already sounded bad for Biden, but believe me, the New York Times wasn’t even getting warmed up yet. It continued by blowing its ‘racist!’ dog whistle on Biden in the article’s sub-headline: “Voters in battleground states said they trusted Donald J. Trump over President Biden on the economy, foreign policy and immigration, as Mr. Biden’s multiracial base shows signs of fraying.”

In other words, diverse people don’t like Biden. The combined Times-Politico attack was a brutal one-two sucker punch. What the Times is really telling its readers was Biden is a loser. And the one thing democrats hate even worse than Republicans is a loser:

If the results in the poll were the same next November, Mr. Trump would be poised to win more than 300 Electoral College votes, far above the 270 needed to take the White House. Another ominous sign for Democrats is that voters across all income levels felt that Mr. Biden’s policies had hurt them personally, while they credited Mr. Trump’s policies for helping them. The results were mirror opposites: Voters gave Mr. Trump a 17-point advantage for having helped them and Mr. Biden an 18-point disadvantage for having hurt them.

An overwhelming 71 percent said (Biden) was “too old” to be an effective president — an opinion shared across every demographic and geographic group in the poll, including a remarkable 54 percent of Mr. Biden’s own supporters.

Haha, I would have loved to be in President Peters’ situation room when his team opened the New York Times yesterday. The Times’ article was not short. It was one damned thing after another: Joe’s age problem, his lack of mental acuity, voters’s lack of trust in Biden on literally ever single issue, and on top of all that, snarky comments like this one:

The findings come after … the president continues to tour the country to brag about the state of the economy. “Folks, Bidenomics is just another way of saying the American dream!” Mr. Biden declared on Wednesday on a trip to Minnesota.

Voters clearly disagree. Only 2 percent of voters said the economy was excellent.

Ouch!

You’re not going to believe this — I had to read it several times to make sure — the very first personal interest interview in the article was of a never-Trump democrat (“you can’t be worse than Trump”) who now says … he’s planning to vote for Donald J. Trump:

“I actually had high hopes for Biden,” said Jahmerry Henry, a 25-year-old who packages liquor in Albany, Ga. “You can’t be worse than Trump. But then as the years go by, things happen with inflation, the war going on in Ukraine, recently Israel and I guess our borders are not secure at all.”

Now Mr. Henry plans to back Mr. Trump.

Mr. Henry was wrong that nobody could be worse than Trump, but he’s back on track now. The lifelong democrat learned that in fact, someone can be worse than Trump. And that someone is Joseph Robinette Biden. Mr. Henry even had the issues listed right.

Henry wasn’t the only example in the story. Travis Waterman, 33, was quoted saying that other world leaders “don’t respect” Biden.  The article also quoted Spencer Weiss, democrat, 53, who now, reluctantly plans to cast his vote for Trump.

“The world is falling apart under Biden,” said Spencer Weiss, a 53-year-old electrical substation specialist in Bloomsburg, Pa., who supported Mr. Biden in 2020 but is now backing Mr. Trump, albeit with some reservations. “I would much rather see somebody that I feel can be a positive role-model leader for the country. But at least I think Trump has his wits about him.”

Biden is making the world fall apart! They unironically printed that in the New York Times. Even worse for Biden, the Grey Lady surgically dissected any polling figures showing any promise for Joe. For example, Biden is ahead in at least one swing state, but the Times’ editors slyly attributed that to racism— tying it back to the same odious hint from the story’s sub-headline:

In a remarkable sign of a gradual racial realignment between the two parties, the more diverse the swing state, the farther Mr. Biden was behind, and he led only in the whitest of the six.

In other words, only white people like the old white guy. You might think I’m stretching by assuming the Times intentionally injected race into their analysis, but you must remember that democrats are highly-attuned to racial talk. The slightest suggestion of a white preference puts them on red alert.

Last week, Time Magazine and NBC both launched stories resembling SCUD missiles right into the heart of Biden’s Ukraine Proxy War. Then a few days later, and exactly one year before the elections, both Politico and The New York Times launched deeply-cutting political assassination drones against Biden.

With Biden’s campaign blimp going down in flames, oh! the humanity, what do you think will happen next? Here’s a hint: last week Gavin Newsom went to China and — surprise! — met with President Xi. An October 26th Associated Press headline:

What other surprises might be right around the corner as we head straight into primary season?

📉 Um. It wasn’t just Politico and The New York Times, either. Pretty much the entire Establishment Media leaped on the dump-Biden pig pile. Here’s yesterday’s headline from The Hill:

And so, it begins. Here was CBS’s headline:

I guess democrats should only vote for Trump if they want to stay out of war and have better finances.  Thanks, CBS!

* EDITOR’S NOTE: By reporting these stories, I am not campaigning for Trump. I don’t believe anything Establishment Media reports and neither should you. What I’m showing you is the media’s new narrative, one you should be highly suspicious of, but a narrative that does not bode well for the nation’s oldest resident.

 

🔥 Where in the world is Antony Blinken? Say what you want about him, but Secretary of State Blinking, I mean Blinken, does not seem to need much sleep. Or he’s taking amphetamines. Weekend headlines:

What on Earth? Where hasn’t Antony been in the last two days? Somethingis going on. And apparently, Antony Blinken is the only guy President Peters trusts to do it.

What do you guys think the Biden Administration is scrambling to cobble together?

🔥 Finally, I saved the biggest and best story for last. This weekend on CNBC’s show Delivering Alpha (‘alpha’ in this context means ‘excess returns over baseline’), the financial network held a long-form interview with Bill Ackman, philanthropist and ‘activist’ billionaire CEO of hedge fund giant Pershing Capital.

CLIP: Bill Ackman reverses course on vaccines on CNBC (5:50).

Before I start transcribing the best parts, there are two things to know. First, CNBC is a financially conservative network and doesn’t normally take political risks in its programming. To say the least, it is an unlikely spot for a substantive discussion of the merits of vaccines. Second, Ackman was an early and enthusiastic covid vaccine advocate. But not anymore.

Here are the key parts. You’re going to love it. The interviewer began by remarking on the unlikely fact that Ackman was supporting RFK, Jr., a known anti-vaccine nut job:

INTERVIEWER: How could somebody who was so emotional about covid — you came on my program, we all remember that — as committed as you were to the vaccines, to getting as many people vaccinated as possible, given (RFK’s) stance on vaccines in general, some might wonder how you can be supportive (of his campaign)?

ACKMAN: So actually I think Kennedy raises a LOT of important questions that need to be asked and answered about vaccines. And uh, that’s something we are doing a deep dive on. Just today, I was on the phone with a scientist, and we want to put together … (trails off). What I, what I think needs to be done, is a very detailed, deep dive into all of the research on vaccines, on vaccine safety, uh, and then … Among the things we have not done a lot of work on, is the cumulative impact on a child, for example.

When I was a child, I got THREE shots. I have a four year old; he’s scheduled to get SEVENTY-THREE shots. You know… And it may not be the, you know, the virus, if you will, designed to make you immune to the disease, the dead virus, or the mRNA technology. It may be, you know, aluminum, or preservatives they use in the vaccines, which create risks and challenges.

By the way, as the parent of a four-year-old, where the four-year-old has no ability to consent to something you’re injecting into them; I feel a moral and other paternal obligation to get to the bottom of this issue. I think, Mike, I just spoke to a scientist today, a top scientist at UCSF, who said to me, you know, Kennedy is right on 75-80% of what he says about vaccines.

The unfortunate thing is the 20-25% where unfortunately there’s just not enough data to support the stuff he says convincingly. And uh, I think it’s time for us … this whole vaccine thing became a political issue. Where if you got a shot and wore a mask you were in one party. If you refused to get a shot and didn’t wear a mask you were in another political party. (But) it’s just not a political issue.

There is real reason to … look. We have a generation of kids who have a lot more asthma, a lot more excema, a lot more autism. And we don’t yet understand the reason for that. Is it some adjuvant in the vaccine? Is it something about vaccines? Is it some other toxin in the environment? I think we have an obligation — as parents — to figure this out.

INTERVIEWER: Is that where this newfound curiosity came from? From you becoming a parent?

ACKMAN: No, from actually listening to what Kennedy had to say, as opposed to… look. The biggest, I would say interesting… I give a lot of credit to Elon, and Twitter or X (or whatever you want to call it). This, you know, talking to a scientist again today, who is a brilliant epidemiologist (among other areas). And he was one of the scientists-slash-doctors that raised early questions about the covid vaccine.

And he was demoted on Twitter. One of the papers he put up on a preprint site was taken down as ‘misinformation.’ And, you know, you look at this guy Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, his recommendations for how we should have managed covid turned out to be pretty much spot-on accurate.  But he was basically just taken off Twitter as misinformation.

And now Twitter has become a place where people can express their views. I’m a huge free-speech advocate. I use Twitter — one of the most profitable investments I ever made, I made because of what I learned on Twitter.

Listen to the whole thing and appreciate how far we have come. Allow me to number just a few of the massively-winning points demonstrated by this short, five-minute clip:

1. CNBC aired an “anti-vaccine” segment — without labeling or undermining it.
2. Ackman is a respected member of the financial community.
3. He fundamentally and publicly changed positions on the covid vaccines.
4. He is now publicly skeptical of all vaccines, not just mRNA jabs.
5. He is listening to RFK and Elon Musk.
6. He is putting his own money into it, both in supporting RFK (getting the word out) and funding scientific research against vaccines.
7. Ackman labeled the issue a moral imperative.

Only one thing can beat the self-interested lure of money: parental love. What the Ackman clip showed most is how the vaccine issue has now transcended even self-interest, which is the spell the vaccine industry has used to hold things together since the 1980’s when this vaccine madness originally began.  Now, a lot of people — including smart, successful, well-connected people — are starting to take a very hard look at jabs in general.

The vaccine lie will unravel faster than you ever thought possible. Watch and see.

Have a magnificent Monday! Coffee & Covid shall return tomorrow for another warm and energizing roundup. See you then.

Share

We can’t do it without you. Consider joining with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds.  I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can:  ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.