Hedge Fund Giant Warns: Looming Hyperinflation Could Lead To “Global Societal Collapse”

ORIGINAL LINK
Executives at leading hedge-fund firm Elliott Management Corporation are warning that the world is heading toward the worst financial crisis since World War II. The looming hyperinflation could lead the world into a global societal collapse scenario.

'How Do People Know the Truth?': Biden Unleashes Tirade Over Musk Restoring Free Speech Protections on Twitter

ORIGINAL LINK


Elon Musk has not actually changed the “content moderation” policies at Twitter yet, but President Joe Biden went on a virtual rave on Friday over the prospect of free speech breaking out on a single social media site. As a type of censor-in-chief, Biden has led calls for censorship on social media, which have been largely heeded by companies like Facebook and Twitter. Now Biden is accusing Twitter of “spewing lies all across the world” by seeking to reduce one of the largest censorship systems in history. The President lamented that the influence of the media will be “de minimus.” He is a bit late on that front.

President Biden has previously accused social media companies of “killing people” by refusing to impose robust censorship over a wide range of subjects. Many of those banned or censored were doctors with opposing views on the data and the science related to the pandemic.

Some of those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.

The Great Barrington Declaration was not the only viewpoint deemed dangerous. Those who alleged that the virus may have begun in a lab in China were widely denounced and the views barred from being uttered on social media platforms. It was later learned that a number of leading experts raised this theory with Fauci and others early in the pandemic.

We are now seeing increasing evidence of back channels used by government and political figures to maintain a censorship system by surrogate in the social media companies and foreign allies.

The President, however, was in full censor-in-chief mode this week, referring to censors as “editors.” He denounced Musk who “goes out and buys an outfit that spews lies all across the world.” He then claimed “There are no editors anymore. There are no editors anymore.”

The President added “the ability of newspapers to have much impact is de minimis.” That last statement seemed to lament the loss of a close and active ally for the Democrats. Neutrality is anathema if you have largely been able to control political and social exchanges on social media.

What the President said next, however, was particularly telling and chilling:

“How do people know the truth? What do they — how do they make — make a distinction between fact and fiction? There’s so much — so much going on. And we’re in the middle of this.”

Indeed, perish the thought that citizens might be left to pursue the truth on their own without the government or surrogates in the media framing it for them. How could we possibly “know the truth” without our social media overlords?

This view of citizens are gullible dupes needing to be lead to the truth is a recurring theme among Democrats and media allies. It was the theme of a “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy” conference at the University of Chicago with the leading Democratic leaders and media leaders in Chicago last year, including former President Barack Obama. The conference discussed how the views of the public could be shaped if government and media figures worked together to frame what is true and what is not.

Former President Barack Obama flogged this false line at Stanford in April 2022. He started by declaring himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He then called for the censorship of anything he considered “disinformation,” including “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.”

President Biden lamented the loss of a Twitter management that was openly antagonistic to traditional free speech values. Soon after he took over, former CEO Parag Agrawal pledged to regulate content and said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the Internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”

Like Biden, many are moving to try to deter Musk from allowing greater free speech by getting companies like General Motors to pull advertising revenue. It is part of the reason that some of us would support monthly fees if it meant the support of a true free speech alternative to other companies like Facebook.

Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Greek Soccer Star Gets 10-Month Prison Sentence for Calling Child Sex Changes ‘An Abomination’

ORIGINAL LINK

Last Updated on November 7, 2022

Greek soccer legend Vassilis Tsiartas has been given a 10-month suspended jail sentence after speaking out against child gender reassignment surgeries.

Tsiartas, who was a key part of the Greek national team’s underdog victory at the UEFA European Football Championship in 2004, was prosecuted under an “anti-racism” law. The soccer star became the first person to be sentenced under law, which was amended in 2014. The Transgender Support Association had filed a lawsuit against him, through its president, Marina Galanos.

The “transphobic” posts that landed Tsiartas came in 2017, when Greece was passing a bill that, among other things, redefined gender identity. In one post, the soccer star wrote that he wished wished “the first gender changes will be made to the children of those who voted for this disgrace [bill]. Let’s see how prideful they feel when their kids are marching down the streets. P.S Legalise pedophiles and complete the crimes.”

He was ultimately sentenced to 10 months in prison and has been ordered to pay a fine of 5,000 euros. The conviction against Vassilis Tsiartas decision to implement the anti-racist law 927/1979 for public incitement to violence or hatred due to gender identity, Greek outlet Prothema News reported.

The Transgender Support Association enthusiastically endorsed the sentence, calling it “particularly important for the transgender community,” Breitbart News reported. Tsiartas has vowed to file an appeal.

Nicknamed “El Mago,” Tsiartas is considered one of the best Greek soccer players of all time. In addition to domestic and continental cup wins, he went his entire career without receiving a single red card.

RELATED: Turkish Soccer Star Refuses Rainbow-Colored Armband 

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Corporatocracy: New Study From Harvard Ph.D. Finds Google “Shifting Votes On a Massive Scale!”

ORIGINAL LINK

It’s no secret that Google is the world’s largest search engine with more 9 billion searches daily.  YouTube is arguably the second largest search engine (although it’s not technically a “search engine”) with 81% of U.S. adults using it.  Because of this extensive reach, it was reassuring that the company included the term “Don’t be Evil” in its “Code of Conduct” since its inception in 2000.  However, in 2018, that phrase was quietly removed and things have turned ugly.

Enter Dr. Robert Epstein.

Dr. Epstein supported Joe Biden in the 2020 election.  But, with a welcomed non-partisan mindset, he also has found that world’s leading search engine may have deliberately shifted as many as six million votes for “Basement Biden” on November 3rd.

The Gateway Pundit has previously reported on some of Dr. Epstein’s work on Google’s censorship, and manipulation of information, especially regarding elections.  But now, Dr. Epstein is tracking Google’s activities using what he calls “ephemeral experiences”, which are exposures to short-lived content that impacts people and then disappears, leaving no trace.  In other words, something like a YouTube video that pops up under “Suggested videos” (never, ever click those!) or changing the top ranked results on a Google search (compared to, say, Bing.)

Dr. Epstein shared this incredible story through the Daily Caller on Sunday and cited an email leak story published by the Wall Street Journal.  This story exposed Google’s attempts to manipulate public perception regarding Donald Trump’s “Muslim Ban”:

The email chain, while sprinkled with cautionary notes about engaging in political activity, suggests employees considered ways to harness the company’s vast influence on the internet in response to the travel ban. Google said none of the ideas discussed were implemented.

“These emails were just a brainstorm of ideas, none of which were ever implemented,” a company spokeswoman said in a statement. “Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology—not in the current campaign season, not during the 2016 election, and not in the aftermath of President Trump’s executive order on immigration. Our processes and policies would not have allowed for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”

That was 2018.

Fast forward to today:

Dr. Epstein’s team is “is currently monitoring online political content being sent to voters in swing states through more than 2,500 computers owned by a politically-diverse group of registered voters (our “field agents”)…We have so far preserved more than 1.9 million ‘ephemeral experiences’ – exposure to short-lived content that impacts people and then disappears, leaving no trace – that Google and other companies are able to use to shift opinions and voting preferences, and we expect to have captured more than 2.5 million by Election Day.”

Thus far, he has identified “about a dozen new forms of online manipulation” that use the ephemeral experiences controlled primarily by Google.  Dr. Epstein has determined this manipulation can swing votes of undecided voters by up to 80% in certain demographics and turn a 50/50 split into a 90/10 without anyone knowing they are being manipulated.

The Daily Caller writes:

In 2020, the 1.5 million ephemeral experiences we aggregated from the computers of our 1,735 field agents showed us manipulations that were sufficient, in theory, to have shifted more than six million votes to Joe Biden (whom I supported) – again, without people knowing they were being manipulated. Among other findings: Google was sending more go-vote reminders to liberals and moderates than to conservatives; that’s a brazen and powerful manipulation that would go completely undetected unless someone was monitoring.

Our preliminary analyses of the data we have collected so far in 2022 are equally disturbing. In swing states, and especially in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Florida, we are finding a high level of liberal bias in Google search results, but not in search results on Bing (the same pattern we have found in every election since 2016). In several swing states, 92 percent of the autoplay videos being fed to YouTube users are coming from liberal news sources (YouTube is owned by Google). Unless Google backs down, it will shift hundreds of thousands of votes on Election Day itself with those brazen targeted go-vote reminders – and we will catch them doing so.

According to the article, a NY Post writer, Ebony Bowden, wrote an exposé to be published on October 30, 2020.  However, it was pulled after a phone call with the editor and a Google official.  As if the Biden Laptop censorship and COVID “misinformation” bans weren’t already enough.  Strike 3.

On November 5th, however, three US Senators sent a letter to Google regarding this manipulation.   According to Dr. Epstein, it was immediately turned off as a result:  there were no “Go Vote” ads sent out and political bias in the search engines dropped to “zero.”  One of the whistleblowers in this case said that Google can turn that feature off “like flipping a light switch.”

Thankfully, Dr. Epstein is continuing his extensive work on monitoring and exposing the manipulation:

Will the article you are now reading change the course of history? Will it cause Google to take its digital thumb off the scales in our midterm elections? Whatever Mr. Pichai, its CEO, decides to do, we will know, and we will preserve the evidence.

And this time, we will continue to expand the monitoring system, and we will be monitoring content going not just to voters but also to America’s children. By late 2023, we will have a digital shield in place – a panel of more than 20,000 field agents in all 50 states – and we will shame Big Tech into staying clear of our elections and our kids for many years to come.

The censorship and manipulation must stop.  A population of voters, who will never see a story like this, continue to be pitted against their fellow man simply over differing opinions.  When one side is being supported by the primary disseminator of information, the other side is quickly villainized for their beliefs and ideals because its not “mainstream.”  Now, the “Corporatocracy” is going a step further by using their dissemination ability to influence those who are “on the fence”  regarding elections to the side that they, admittedly, support.

People’s own sovereign thought is under attack and they don’t even know it.

 

The post Corporatocracy: New Study From Harvard Ph.D. Finds Google “Shifting Votes On a Massive Scale!” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Board-Certified Obstetrician cries "STOP"

Dr. Thorp is a Board-Certified Obstetrician Gynecologist and Maternal Fetal Medicine Physician with over 43 years of obstetrical experience. While serving as a very busy clinician his entire career he has also been very active in clinical research with about 200 publications. Dr.

ORIGINAL LINK

BREAKING: Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips RELEASED From Prison – Here’s The Latest…

ORIGINAL LINK

100 Percent Fed Up reports- On Monday, Federal Judge Kenneth Hoyt held True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht and True the Vote investigator Gregg Phillips in contempt of court over their refusal to identify a confidential informant who helped them obtain information that led to the discovery and, later, evidence that the E. Lansing, MI based election software company Konnech was storing election-related data on servers in China.

(Click HERE to donate). These two American heroes and warriors who are bravely fighting to ensure our elections are free and fair and unable to be stolen are in the midst of fighting six lawsuits related to their work to expose voter fraud in America.

Earlier today, Gregg Phillips posted a photo of himself wearing an orange jumpsuit in a federal prison on Truth Social.

He also posted an update:

5th Circuit still considering emergency release.

This may be the first time in U.S. history that Americans have been jailed in a federal civil defamation suit.

Tonight, Catherine Engelbrecht announced that they have been released from federal prison, and for now, they are free!

Praise the Lord!!!!

Catherine released the following statement upon their release:

Those who thought that imprisoning Gregg and I would weaken our resolve have gravely miscalculated. It is stronger than ever.

The right to free and fair elections without interference is more important than our own discomforts and even this detention, now reversed by a higher court.

We are profoundly grateful for that. We will continue to protect and defend those who do the vital work of election integrity, and we will make sure that their findings become a matter of public record.

– Catherine Engelbrecht, True the Vote

Here is a portion of their appeal:

This contempt proceeding is founded on Defendants1 grossly misunderstood public statements by Plaintiff and the district court, having to do with both (1) Chinese Server Data – sensitive data one defendant, Gregg Phillips, witnessed on a TV monitor in a Dallas hotel room in late January 2021 – which data is the sole subject of Plaintiff’s claims of computer fraud – and (2) Election Breach Information – summary information about the resulting election system vulnerabilities, all publicly available, which Defendants wished to convey to the public as a warning.

As a result of its misunderstanding of Defendants’ modestly technical descriptions, Plaintiff has misunderstood this case to be in some way about hacking, or the Computer Abuse and Fraud Act, or about disclosure of sensitive data (whether of Plaintiff or individuals). All of these assumptions are incorrect. But the district court perpetuated that misunderstanding in ordering Defendants to make disclosures to Plaintiff that were alternatively impossible, inappropriate, or legally irrelevant.

Based entirely on its demonstrably flawed assumptions, Plaintiff inappropriately ex parte obtained a TRO seeking discovery outside standard civil procedure.2 Perhaps goaded by Plaintiff’s characterizations of this case as being about “election denialism”, the Court took the unusual step of issuing a TRO that compelled affirmative relief from Defendants (1) in the absence of any evidence from Plaintiff, (2) based on demonstrable mischaracterizations of Defendants’ public statements, (3) without permitting Defendants to proffer all relevant evidence, and (4) based on the incorrect conclusion that a person who witnessed Chinese Server Data not shown to belong to Plaintiff somehow “accessed” a “protected computer” of Plaintiff. Highlighting the hazards of ex parte hearings, the district court uncritically accepted Plaintiff’s counsel’s incorrect statement that Defendants “admitted hacking and theft of financial and other sensitive personal data of purportedly 1.8 million U.S. poll workers allegedly from a Konnech protected computer.”

Following the ex parte appearance by counsel for Konnech on the same day it filed its Complaint and motion for injunctive relief, whose merits and supposed urgency were both based on Plaintiff’s grave misconceptions about the types of information Defendants had spoken of, this Court issued the TRO, which holds, in pertinent part, that the defendants are enjoined from:
– “accessing”, “using”, or “disclosing” “Konnech’s protected computers” and data; or
– deleting or destroying same,
Defendants pledged to comply with this portion of the order soon after. But
the TRO also compels Defendants to disclose:
– the identity of any individual involved in “accessing Konnech’s
protected computers”, – the manner, means and time of “accessing” such computers, and
– the identity of any individual to have received said data.

In a hearing on October 6, the court forced Defendants’ prior counsel to reveal to Plaintiff, in open court and against their protests, the name of one of the confidential informants to the FBI who happened to be in the Dallas hotel room. Defendants subsequently disclosed information responding to the remainder of the court’s order, substantially complying with the order and omitting only to publicly name a second confidential informant (“the Second Informant”) (1) who was not alleged to have “accessed” any computers in this case, let alone Konnech’s, (2) whom Plaintiff had failed to establish had relevant evidence, and (3) whose personal safety the district court said it did not care about.

On October 27, 2022, at a show cause hearing the Court held Defendants in civil contempt for failing to identify the third of three individuals. Aside from the fact that the individual in question had not “accessed” a “protected computer” known to belong to Konnech, Defendants’ hesitation in disclosing another confidential informant was due, in part, to their attempts to grapple with the nature of Plaintiff’s and the court’s misunderstandings, in part because Defendants were concerned about blowing the cover of confidential informants to the FBI and putting them at personal risk, and in part because their original counsel. But their hesitation was not, as Plaintiff and the court characterized it, contemptuous.

Crucially, in the October 6 hearing, Plaintiff misrepresented the disputed nature of their conclusions about Defendants’ statements, saying, “[T]here is Fifth Circuit precedent that says that the Court can consider a preliminary injunction without live testimony so long as there is no genuine issue of material fact.” DOC 30 TR at 9 (emphasis added). But there is a genuine issue of material fact here — consistent mischaracterizations by Plaintiff’s counsel about the nature of what Phillips saw (American poll worker data on a server located in China) and what Defendants have said they would do (report the fact of such data being breached and available in China – not the data itself).

1. Defendant Phillips Witnessed a Portion of the Chinese Server Data

Defendant Phillips witnessed, on a TV monitor in a Dallas hotel room, enormous amounts of data (he was told 350TB) on a server located in China, some of it including sensitive data on American poll workers.3 Also present were the person who accessed the data, Michael Hasson, whose name was revealed during the hearing of October 6, and the third individual. Some of the data appeared to have come from, or been taken from, Plaintiff Konnech.

But while the court’s order to show cause is entirely about this data, unrebutted testimony shows that Defendants did not themselves access the Chinese Server Data, did not download or copy it, do not otherwise possess it, and have never stated they would reveal it to anyone.

a. Defendants Did Not Download the Chinese Server Data
Q. Did any — forgive me if I get the terminology — but did any downloading occur in your presence in that hotel room when the — whatever was up on the TV screen was up on the TV screen — was any access happening?
A. No.
Doc 47 TR, p.32 (Phillips answering).
b. No Defendant Has a Copy of the Chinese Server Data
Q. Do you have, in your possession, a copy of this electronic information that was displayed on that screen in the hotel room in Dallas?
A. No, sir.
Q. Does Ms. Engelbrecht have a copy?
A. No.
Q. Does True The Vote have a copy?
A. No, sir.
Q. Does anybody associated with True The Vote have a copy?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever have a copy of the electronic data on your computer or otherwise in your individual possession?
A. No.
Doc 47 TR, pp. 33-34 (Phillips answering).
On October 6, Defendants’ prior counsel had already informed the court that the Chinese Server Data was something Phillips had only seen, and did not possess:
MR. BREWER: Your Honor, seeing it [data] and possessing it [data] are two different things.

THE COURT: Well, it may not be and it may be.
c. DefendantsDidNotWitnessHackingorMeansof“Access”
In unrebutted testimony, Defendant Phillips also made clear that what he saw
in the hotel room was not “accessed” at that time. Rather, he was shown the results of the access on the TV monitor:
Q. What, if anything, was your impression on the temporal relationship — that is the time relationship between when you walked into the hotel room and whenever whoever it was downloaded the information or data that appeared on the TV monitor that you saw?

A. It took about 20 minutes to get his computer hooked to the television screen. He had a problem with the cord that needed to hook into the hotel screen. Once he pulled it up, he went straight to his files that he was showing me.
Q. Was it your impression that information was actively being retrieved at that moment in the hotel room, or was it your impression that that had already been done, and he was showing you something that had been done in the past?
A. I think it was being done in the past. He certainly wouldn’t have been — there wouldn’t have been enough bandwidth at the hotel to download that kind [350TB] of data.

Defendants have also made clear exactly why they could not help Plaintiff –
as it demanded in its supposedly urgent motion for a Temporary Restraining Order – with its serious security problems. Because the uncontroverted testimony is that Phillips did not know how the Chinese Server Data had been accessed:

THE WITNESS: I don’t know how it was accessed. I know it was accessed because I saw it, and I subsequently learned that the information had become important to the FBI. [As to] when, given the size of the data that I understand was downloaded, it was somewhere in the 350-terabyte range, and was downloaded over approximately three months in the first quarter of 2021.

Defendants Did Not Provide the Chinese Server Data to Anyone
In unrebutted testimony, Defendants also made clear who gave the Chinese
Server Data to the FBI – and it was not Defendants:
Q. And so how was the data sent from Mr. Hasson to the FBI?

A. They have a method to transmit large chunks of data directly to them. Q. What’s that method?
A. I didn’t do it. You’d have to ask Mike.
Q. Were you involved in it being done?
A. No.
Q. Did you see it being done? A. No.
Q. Who told you it was done? A. The FBI.
Doc 47 TR at 54-55 (statement of Gregg Phillips).
In the same podcasts Plaintiff has cited without understanding, Phillips has
also explained unrefuted information about the China-based server that should have prevented the district court from attempting to make Defendants responsible for Plaintiff’s own security problems in China: “Important keynote here, guys, for everyone … We didn’t steal anything. They left it open. The database was a MongoDB database that they left open. … There were no tools used to break in.”

The second type of information, or data, in this case is about the basic fact of the breach of American poll workers’ data, which we will call Data Breach Information. This is the only information or data that Defendants “accessed”, possessed, or wanted to disclose.

2. Data Breach Information

The Data Breach Information includes the general fact that sensitive data on American poll workers was being stored on a computer server located in China. The Data Breach Information consists of the publicly available fact that election-related domain names hosted by Konnech on behalf of American cities were being hosted on the same China-based server as its American poll worker data, as was Konnech’s URL app.konnech.com (meaning that any data that ran through its apps ran through the insecure server in China), and, apparently, what appeared to be websites for the Chinese election system (e.g., 2dmeeting.com and 2dmeeting.cn).
Exhibit 1 shows a screenshot from the publicly available website Binary Edge, which provides information on computer servers around the world. It shows the server information for Konnech-owned domain name Vote4Fairfax.com, a website run on behalf of Plaintiff’s client Fairfax County, Virginia, which Defendants confirmed was registered to Konnech before the domain name’s ownership information (aka WHOIS information) was recently concealed. The Binary Edge screenshot, taken before someone changed the server to one located in the U.S, reveals several key facts:
• The screenshot was taken sometime shortly after December 29, 2020.
• The domain name Vote4Fairfax.com was hosted in China, specifically, on Unicom, one of three “backbones” of the Chinese Internet, which is owned
by the Chinese government.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Unicom
• The computer server has IP address 101.66.244.52.
• The same server hosted many other domain names – and their data –
operated by Konnech on behalf of its American clients, such as the city of Boston (Vote4Boston.com), the city of Hillsborough (Vote4Hillsborough.net), and others.
• Server 101.66.244.52 also hosted apps.konnech.com, as well as all the data on applications used by Konnech customers who access apps.konnech.com Exhibit 2 shows that the same domain names, as well as Konnech’s PollChief.com website and a few more domain names that Konnech operates on behalf of clients in Detroit and Lake County, have been belatedly moved to a server based in the United States. See Ex. 2 (accessed on November 1, 2022). It is this Data Breach Information that Defendants said, in their podcasts and The Pit event and other media, they wished to reveal to the public. This information does not belong to Plaintiff, was not accessed from them, is not defamatory, and is within Defendants’ First Amendment rights to speak about.

3. The Missed Opportunities in the Court Below

In fact, had the district court subjected Plaintiff’s testimony to cross-examination, consistent with due process, the court could have determined whether Plaintiff does indeed own the above-named domain names, and whether it was Plaintiff who moved the domain names from the server in China to the one in the United States. If Plaintiff does own the domain names or did move them from an insecure server in China to a server in the United States, then its entire motion for contempt, and its argument that it needs immediate injunctive relief in the form of Defendants helping it to understand its server’s “breach”, could have been denied. Why? Because Plaintiff knew its information was on a server in China, and Plaintiff did not require the names of private individuals in order to secure its data, as Plaintiff insisted in its overheated and ex parte Motion for TRO. Lacking such urgency, the court’s holding of the ex parte proceeding was itself inappropriate. And it made no sense for the court to order Defendants to tell Plaintiff what it already knew, nor to arbitrarily incarcerate them for a good-faith disinclination to disclose the names of confidential informants who could have told them what they already knew: that they were hosting their domain names and data on a server in China.
The court did not allow Defendants to explain the crucial distinctions at issue here. It did not appear to appreciate the distinctions – admittedly somewhat technical in nature – when Defendants offered them. Witness the court’s questioning of Phillips regarding the data – the Chinese Server Data – of American citizens he saw that night in the Dallas hotel room:
THE COURT: And you saw that there were bank accounts? THE WITNESS: There were bank accounts.
THE COURT: You saw the names of the individuals?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You saw their Social Security numbers? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you then said: We’re going to post this on a public domain?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. There is two different datasets.
THE COURT: Well, I’m not — I don’t care about the datasets. You know what I am describing.
14
“It’s unrelated,” Defendant Phillips began, because he did in fact know what the court was describing, but the court cut him off before he could explain the crucial distinction. See Doc 47 TR 5at 97, lines 3-17 (emphasis added).
This was not Defendants’ only attempt to ensure the court was informed about the fundamental issues — and what they had and had not said they witnessed, possessed, or would disclose – before it issued the contempt citation:
THE COURT: Okay. Do you recall making a statement on the podcast to the effect that you were going to create a website and would load the — this data that you saw onto the website for the people who would want to visit that site?
Note, again, that Defendants’ podcast and website both relate to the open- source, publicly available Election Breach Information, not the Chinese Server Data.
THE WITNESS: No, sir. That’s not true.
THE COURT: I’m asking you. This is what you said — or what your podcast said.
THE WITNESS: My podcast was referring to something we called the ripcord. The ripcord was related to an app called Open.INK, I-N-K. We were going to put the — we do all sorts of other research. We do a lot of open-source research, meaning Googling around and trying to find things. But we also do geospatial research.

The post BREAKING: Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips RELEASED From Prison – Here’s The Latest… appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Medical Board Moves To Strip Dr. Peter McCullough Of Certifications

ORIGINAL LINK
According to the American Board of Internal Medicine, the remarks made by Dr. Peter McCullough may breach the board’s guideline on false or incorrect medical information. Now, the very same medical board is moving to strip Dr. Peter McCullough of his certifications.

Study: MSM, Big Tech are censoring doctors who have the courage to challenge the COVID narrative

ORIGINAL LINK

(NaturalNews) (Natural News) A study has confirmed that the mainstream media (MSM) and Big Tech are censoring doctors who have the courage to challenge the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) narrative.The paper published Nov. 2 in Minerva was written by a team of researchers from universities in Israel and Australia. It detailed the experiences of medical … [Read More...]

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal

ORIGINAL LINK

Seven years after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the mass surveillance of Americans’ telephone records, an appeals court has found the program was unlawful – and that the U.S. intelligence leaders who publicly defended it were not telling the truth.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

What we might learn about this next election from what happened on November 22, 1963

Here’s Dan Rather, on November 25, 1963, solemnly telling the American people what he had just seen (or so he claimed) in the Zapruder film.

ORIGINAL LINK