Political Corruption (2024)

Staff

From: WALTER784

Aug-9

CDC, Facebook colluded to CENSOR COVID-19 vaccine safety FAQs, emails reveal

08/01/2024
By Ava Grace

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collaborated with Facebook to censor questions about the safety of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) injections, according to emails recently made public.

The emails were part of the latest set of documents obtained by America First Legal (AFL) via litigation against the public health agency. These documents reveal further evidence of collusion between the CDC and social media companies to stiffen free speech under the government’s label of “misinformation” and twist and shape the public narratives.

The documents released by AFL shows how the CDC worked with the social media platform, referencing in particular an email chain between the agency and Facebook. The platform owned by Mark Zuckerberg sent draft content to the CDC for approval. (Related: The censorship boomerang.)

In the exchange, Facebook’s Genelle Adrien emailed CDC Digital Media Director Carol Crawford asking for approval of an “FAQ Content” section on Facebook’s “COVID-19 Information Center. The information centered on the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.

“Of concern to Adrien was particularly what the platform’s users should be allowed to say about the vaccine’s side effects. And CDC provided that guidance – some words were replaced, and other sentences were removed,” LifeSiteNews wrote.

Crawford responded by making a few changes to the content. The “joint pain” originally listed as a side effect was gone, replaced with “nausea.”

She also asked to remove a line that stated, “More serious side effects are extremely rare. A person is far more likely to be seriously harmed by a disease than by its vaccine.” According to the CDC official, the public health agency didn’t have “any cleared language to support” the statements.

Biden admin still encouraging people to get injected

According to the pro-life news outlet, “trying to refute collusive practices involving major social media companies is probably not high on the agenda of the U.S. government right this moment. Nevertheless, the evidence of the highly controversial practice keeps rolling in.”

The CDC thereby appears to have admitted that in May 2021, months after the vaccine had already been rolled out, they could not confirm that the vaccine was safer than contracting COVID-19 itself and developing natural immunity. Nonetheless, the CDC continued to push the American people to take the vaccine.

There are various ways to interpret this decision, but one is that the CDC by proxy, as Facebook’s guidance adviser, may have wished to avoid the risk of getting sued. Alas, it did get sued by AFL – but for colluding with Facebook.

Even though the original language was fairly “soft” – if anything, the social platform looked keen to minimize any serious side effects, and promote the vaccines – it was too much for CDC to stand behind.

Despite this admission, the Biden administration continued to urge people to get injected with the COVID-19 vaccine throughout the year. Even President Joe Biden himself joined in the calls, warning that unvaccinated people would “soon overwhelm hospitals” with “a winter of severe illness and death” up ahead.

“For [the] unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death – if you’re unvaccinated – for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm,” the chief executive said at the time.

Check out Censorship.news for more similar stories.

Watch Dr. David Martin explaining why the COVID-19 lab leak at China’s Wuhan province was a cover for an intentional release of the pathogen.

CDC, Facebook colluded to CENSOR COVID-19 vaccine safety FAQs, emails reveal

FWIW

ReplyToggle Dropdown

Staff

From: WALTER784

Aug-9

Federal Appeals Court Hands Texas a Major Border Win Over the Biden Administration

by Michael Schwarz, The Western Journal
Jul. 31, 2024 4:20 pm

Biden administration officials have fought tooth and nail for every measure that would destroy the United States of America. So it is worth celebrating when they fail.

On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas in a case involving Abbott’s July 2023 decision to install a floating barrier in the Rio Grande River near Eagle Pass, Texas, as part of an effort to stem the influx of immigrants crossing illegally into the United States.

The Biden administration, desperate to keep the border open, immediately sued Abbott. Citing the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, federal officials demanded removal of the floating barrier.

A district court then granted a preliminary injunction against Texas, which the full appeals court stayed pending appeal.

In other words, the question of whether Texas violated the RHA by illegally obstructing navigable waters has remained in the courts for the past year.

Gun Laws Have Changed – Do You Have The Updated Reciprocity Map?

The entire case, in fact, involves a degree of obvious diabolical deception.

After all, the Biden administration does not give two hoots about the RHA, and everyone knows it. Federal officials sued Abbott not to protect river navigation, but to keep the border open.

Still, the appeals court had to proceed as if RHA and not open borders constituted the real issue.

“We ask: Can the United States likely prove during trial that Texas violated the RHA? That question turns on another: Can the United States likely prove that the barrier is located within a navigable stretch of the Rio Grande? Because the RHA extends only to navigable waters, our answer to this question may — and in our view does — dispose of the first,” the appeals court wrote.

In other words, the Biden administration could not even prove the river’s navigability in that relevant stretch.

It appears, therefore, that the federal government intended primarily to keep Texas tied up in court over something palpably absurd.

“Accordingly, we now DISSOLVE the stay pending appeal, REVERSE the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction, and REMAND with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the appeals court wrote.

Thus, the barrier remains.

On the social media platform X, Abbott celebrated.

“The Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just ruled that Texas can KEEP these buoys in the water securing our border. Biden tried to remove them. I fought to keep them in the water. That is exactly where they will stay. JUSTICE!!!!” the governor posted.

In short, by resorting to a 19th-century river navigation law, Biden administration officials exposed both their brazenness and their desperation to keep the border open.

But, as it sometimes does, the American judiciary acted to protect the interests of the sovereign people.

Federal Appeals Court Hands Texas a Major Border Win Over the Biden Administration | The Gateway Pundit | by Michael Schwarz, The Western Journal

FWIW

ReplyToggle Dropdown

Host

From: Showtalk

Aug-9

ReplyToggle Dropdown

Host

From: Showtalk

Aug-9

ReplyToggle Dropdown

Staff

From: WALTER784

Aug-9

Showtalksaid...

It would not surprise me if the polls are wrong, too.

Well, if they're using Google to step in and tip the scales... you know she's in trouble.

FWIW

ReplyToggle Dropdown

Staff

From: WALTER784

Aug-9

Supreme Court denies request to move Trump sentencing in hush money case until after election

Former President Donald Trump steps out of court during a afternoon break on the third day of his civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court on October 4, 2023, in New York City

Calvin Freiburger
Tue Aug 6, 2024 - 5:16 pm EDT

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Monday a request by Missouri Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey to delay sentencing of former president and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s conviction in New York over past payments to p*rn star Stephanie “Stormy Daniels” Clifford, setting the stage for legal penalties to potentially complicate Trump’s intended return to the White House.

In May, a New York jury convicted Trump on 34 counts of allegedly falsifying business records pertaining to a $130,000 payment to Daniels arranged by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen in October 2016, ostensibly for her to keep quiet about an extramarital affair Trump contends never happened, as well as a related $420,000 Trump paid to Cohen.

Left-wing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicted Trump over that payment in March 2023, claiming the $130,000 was a campaign expenditure not recorded as such in payments to Cohen listed as “legal expenses” in 2017. Many observers have faulted the prosecution and conviction as politically motivated contortions of both the law and the facts of the case.

Originally slated for July, sentencing was delayed until September 18 to give Trump more time to appeal the conviction. In the meantime, Bailey’s office filed a motion to have the date moved again to after the election, arguing the case interfered with Trump’s ability to campaign, such as his ability to present his side of the story to voters.

The Supreme Court rejected Bailey’s bid without elaboration, USA Today reported. The order noted that conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have at least permitted Missouri’s lawsuit to be filed, but did not confirm whether they would have ultimately ruled in its favor.

Bailey expressed disappointment that the nation’s highest court “refused to exercise its constitutional responsibility to resolve state v. state disputes,” arguing that Missouri had a legitimate interest in ensuring that another state cannot “hijack our national election.” He vowed that his office’s legal challenges to the federal government’s prosecutions of Trump were not over.

In the New York case, Trump could theoretically face fines, probation, or potentially up to four years in prison, although many consider jail time unlikely due to the politically explosive nature of such a move in the final months of an election.

National polling aggregations by RealClearPolitics and RaceToTheWH currently indicate that Vice President Kamala Harris has narrowly overtaken Trump in both national polling and Electoral College projections since replacing incumbent President Joe Biden as Democrats’ presumptive nominee, although her Tuesday selection of far-left Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate could swing the race back in Trump’s favor.

Supreme Court denies request to move Trump sentencing in hush money case until after election - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

FWIW

ReplyToggle Dropdown

Staff

From: WALTER784

Aug-9

Congress to Consider Blocking Democrat Election-Interference Cases Against Trump

by Bob Unruh, WND
July 26, 2024

(WND News Center)—President Trump long has described the various civil and criminal cases launched by Democrats against him just as he campaigns as the Republican nominee for the White House this year as election interference.

Those multiple cases now are on appeal, or have been delayed by the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents have much immunity for their actions in office, with lower courts now trying to sort out the details.

Needless to say, a local judge’s demand that Trump spend weeks sitting in his courtroom to hear wild claims about old misdemeanors that now are felonies because the prosecutor said so interfered significantly with Trump’s ability to campaign as he would choose.

Further, another judge demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties from Trump in a “fraud” case in which there were no victims, nobody lost money, there were no unpaid loans and indeed the banks involved wanted to do more business with Trump.

Prosecutors in other cases repeatedly have demanded to go to trial before the election, as that would further impede Trump’s campaign, and might even see him sentenced before the vote.

But now Congress will be taking a look at a plan to block such election interference.

It is U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., who has proposed legislation that would put a halt to election interference schemes by state officials and bureaucrats who launch politicized civil or criminal cases.

The Florida Capitol Star said, “The Prevention of Election Interference Act of 2024 would bar the sentencing of presidential candidates in court 120 days before a presidential election. It also would prevent the candidate from being sentenced 60 days after a presidential election.”

Gaetz said, “Presidential candidates should have the right to campaign without interference, regardless of their party affiliation! Over the past two years, state officials and unelected bureaucrats have been keeping President Trump tied up in court with dubious charges, hindering his ability to campaign nationwide.”

His succinct plan says, “No State, or any officer or instrumentality thereof, may impose or carry out a sentence for a State criminal offense committed by a major party candidate during the covered time period.

“During the covered time period, a major party candidate may submit an application to a State or Federal court of jurisdiction demonstrating that such sentence described under subsection (a) may interfere with the campaign activities of the major party candidate. Upon receipt of an application under subsection (a), the State or Federal court of jurisdiction shall amend a sentence relating to the major party candidate, including by staying the sentence for the duration of the covered period or vacating such sentence.”

Congress to Consider Blocking Democrat Election-Interference Cases Against Trump – America First Report

FWIW

ReplyToggle Dropdown

Host

From: Showtalk

Aug-9

ReplyToggle Dropdown

Host

From: Showtalk

Aug-9

ReplyToggle Dropdown

Host

From: Showtalk

Aug-9

ReplyToggle Dropdown