You might think that Democrats calling to strip Andrew Cuomo of his emergency powers is a sign that they want him gone, but you would be wrong. The truth is, they would rather strip his emergency powers than have him resign or be impeached.
If he resigns, the Lt Governor would take over and the Democrats would remain in power. But if he is impeached, he may not be the only one.
The Lt governor could possibly be removed as well if he was involved.
It has come to light recently that Cuomo covered up the number of cases and deaths in nursing homes across the state and people are beginning to take notice.
This could be bad news for the Democrats as they could be tarred with the same brush. And besides the people who died needlessly, the lockdowns have taken a mighty toll on their economy.
This could weigh heavy on them in the next election, so they want to pretend they are doing something when in reality Cuomo is done with using his emergency powers now anyway.
More than a dozen Democrats are calling for the repeal and probably every Republican will join them as well as more Democrats. But at the same time, many Republicans are calling for his resignation. They would never have enough votes to impeach him.
Many media people as well as Hollywood nimrods are probably kicking themselves for singing his praises. This makes them look very bad not to mention the Emmy people who gave him an Emmy.
“Today, February 12, 2021 , New York State Senators Alessandra Biaggi, Jabari Brisport, Samra Brouk, Jeremy Cooney, Andrew Gounardes, Robert Jackson, John C. Liu, John Mannion, Rachel May, Elijah Reichlin-Melnick, Gustavo Rivera, Julia Salazar, James Sanders, and James Skoufis issued a joint statement calling for a repeal of the Governor’s authority to issue unilateral directives,” the statement said. “On March 3rd, 2020, legislation was passed to significantly expand the Governor’s executive powers under an emergency declaration, including giving him the ability to issue directives, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“Without exception, the New York State Constitution calls for the Legislature to govern as a co-equal branch of government,” the senators said. “While COVID-19 has tested the limits of our people and state – and, early during the pandemic, required the government to restructure decision making to render rapid, necessary public health judgments – it is clear that the expanded emergency powers granted to the Governor are no longer appropriate. While the executive’s authority to issue directives is due to expire on April 30, we urge the Senate to advance and adopt a repeal as expeditiously as possible.”
To quote The Lord of the Rings, “It’s gone. It’s done… It’s over now.” A year that will live long in our memories (for mostly the wrong reasons), 2020, is drawing to a close. We’ve had 15-day lockdowns to stop COVID from spreading now stretching into nearly a year, wreaking havoc on Americans’ health, sanity, and economy, while also empowering petty tyrants across the country. Let’s just say 1968, the benchmark for a news-heavy and chaotic year, got serious competition from 2020.
While that was happening, Congress spent as never before, doing so ostensibly without a care. The Congressional Budget Office says the Fiscal Year 2020 deficit was an eye-watering $3.1 trillion, with a “T.” Some of that is traceable to COVID-related spending, but a lot of it was not. For example, perhaps somebody can explain to me why the Kennedy Center needed $25 million for salaries? Or why Congress reimbursed some agencies for money they had spent in late 2019 and early 2020, before COVID hit, on efforts unrelated to COVID? Maybe, just maybe, cutting agencies blank checks is why the debt skyrocketed from $23 trillion to more than $27 trillion. Spending was about 50% higher than last year, and payments of interest on the public debt remained extremely high at $387 billion.
If you laid out that many $1 bills end to end, it’d be enough to wrap around the earth 1,506 times. And that’s money the government spends that doesn’t help anybody — doesn’t even buy a pen or a paper clip.
It is more important than ever for Congress to find its fiscal backbone. Our debt puts at risk the long-term solvency of major programs such as Social Security. And why? To pay for test tubes for COVID tests that turn out to be soda bottles? To see if hot tubbing a few times a week eases stress.
Or is the risk worth it so we can literally lose drones over Afghanistan?!? You’ll find all that, and more, in this year’s edition of my Festivus Report, highlighting $54,746,524,5\05.37 of totally wasted money.
So, before we get to the Feats of Strength, it’s time for my Airing of (Spending) Grievances!
I got a lotta problems with federal spending, and now you’re gonna hear about it!
Please visit the link for his full report. And check out his Twitter Time line:
Fifteen popular YouTube content creators filed a federal lawsuit today against Google and YouTube, alleging that Google and YouTube have breached the Terms of Service those creators had agreed to when they signed on and violated their First Amendment rights.
What started as a rumor of a ‘coming widespread purge” of conservative content producers right before midterm elections in 2018, quickly turned into reality as just weeks before votes were to be cast Facebook disabled 559 pages and 251 accounts. YouTube and Twitter were matching Facebook’s attacks during that time with the beginning of what we have seen come to pass in the last few weeks. Facebook claims they were not censoring anyone when they deleted these profiles and pages.
According to the press release the Plaintiffs are these popular creators of YouTube channels, with collectively lay claim to over 800 million views: JustInformed Talk, SGT Report, X22 Report, SpaceShot 76, TruReporting, RedPill78, Edge of Wonder, Praying Medic, Amazing Polly, Woke Societies, Daniel Lee, Deception Byes, InTheMatrixxx, Destroying the Illusion, and Sarah Westall.
The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys M. Cris Armenta and Credence Sol. Both are former federal law clerks; Ms. Armenta in the Central District of California, and Ms. Sol in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ms. Armenta has been named one of the top 100 female attorneys in California and is on the peer‐reviewed SuperLawyers list for civil litigation who fully expect YouTube and Google defend the case and claim that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides them immunity for the actions taken against conservative YouTube commentators and content creators.
The lawsuit also alleges that YouTube acted at the behest, was encouraged by and coerced by Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Representative Adam Schiff who published a complaint on Congressional letterhead that urged content be removed and replaced.
The press release goes further to explain: The Plaintiffs allege that under Supreme Court precedent, if a private party acts when it is encouraged or coerced by the government or its agents, then the state action theory applies and the First Amendment rights should be protected, particularly from viewpoint discrimination.
Since Adam Schiff, a sitting representative, personally and publicly in his official capacity asked for social media platforms to begin censoring conservative content providers and YouTube thereafter responded and complied to that request, the door was opened for this lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs expect that they will either receive or be denied an emergency injunction, or a restraining order upon Youtube, requiring that their accounts be reinstated. If the lawsuit proceeds as expected, it is anticipated that the legal issues raised in the complaint may finally settle the issues relating to Big Tech’s immunity from lawsuits under the protection of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The implications are immense, and the public deserves to be well informed on the progress of this landmark case.
We will continue to provide updates as litigation proceeds.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA – On October 26, 2020, fifteen YouTube content creators filed a federal lawsuit against Google and YouTube, alleging in seventeen claims for relief, that Google and YouTube breached the Terms of Service and violated their First Amendment rights, when they summarily deplatformed the Plaintiffs’ channels and removed their content from YouTube without advance notice.
The Plaintiffs are the creators of YouTube channels, including: JustInformed Talk, SGT Report, X22 Report, SpaceShot 76, TruReporting, RedPill78, Edge of Wonder, Praying Medic, Amazing Polly, Woke Societies, Daniel Lee, Deception Byes, InTheMatrixxx, Destroying the Illusion and Sarah Westall. Together, their news and social commentary channels have reached more than 800 million views and together they had more YouTube subscribers than many legacy news channels, such as C‐SPAN, The New York Times, and NBC News. Plaintiffs cite a recent study by the Pew Research Center that concludes that many Americans get their news from independent YouTube channels along the same metrics as legacy or traditional news sources.
YouTube and Google are expected to defend the case and claim that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides them immunity for the actions they took against conservative commentators, just 19 days before the November 3 Presidential Election. However, the Ninth Circuit has recently issued an opinion, retreating from the broad interpretation of the immunity that social media has used for years to defend lawsuits from its contract partners and users. The Section 230 immunities were provided by Congress as a means to give internet providers an ability to remove content that was considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” Enigma Software Group USA LLC. V. Malwarebytes, Inc., No. 17‐17351 (Opinion filed September 12, 2019). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found persuasive the notion that the “unbounded reading” of Section 230 previously employed by social media giants such as YouTube would allow a content provider to “block content for anticompetitive purposes or merely at its malicious whim.”
The Plaintiffs allege that YouTube removed their channels without giving them notice or without cause under the Terms of Service that YouTube itself drafted and imposed on the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that YouTube also violated the First Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs, and the public they serve through their social commentary, news and information channels. Although many courts have rejected the notion that YouTube is subject to the First Amendment, concluding that YouTube is a private party, the Complaint alleges that YouTube acted at the behest, was encouraged by and coerced by Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Representative Adam Schiff. The Plaintiffs attach to the Complaint letters that Representative Schiff published on Congressional letterhead that urged that content be removed and replaced. The Plaintiffs also reference the House’s recent action by the House, in passing House Resolution 1154, which condemned certain content and specifically mentioned social media. In direct response to Representative Schiff’s published letter demanding censorship, YouTube Chief Executive Officer Susan Wojcicki responded by Tweet: “Thanks for reaching out, we’re working every day to protect people from misinformation and help them find authoritative information. We appreciate your partnership and will continue to consult with Members of Congress as we address ARMENTA & SOL PC, 114400 WEST BERNARDO COURT, SUITE 300, SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 the evolving issues around #COVID19.” The Plaintiffs allege that under Supreme Court precedent, if a private party acts when it is encouraged or coerced by the government or its agents, then the state action theory applies and the First Amendment rights should be protected, particularly from viewpoint discrimination.
This lawsuit follows the filing of a massive antitrust action against Google by the Department of Justice and eleven states.
The “state action” theory was previously raised in by Armenta & Sol, on behalf of an African‐ American conservative commentator, Young Pharaoh, in July 2020 also against Google and YouTube. Although the Defendants in that case filed a Motion to Dismiss and oral argument was held, Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi has not yet issued a decision.
The lawsuit will be served on Google and YouTube today. * * * The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys M. Cris Armenta and Credence Sol. Both were previously affiliated with Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP. Both are former federal law clerks; Ms. Armenta in the Central District of California, and Ms. Sol in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Armenta has been named one of the top 100 female attorneys in California and is on the peer‐reviewed SuperLawyers list for civil litigation. Ms. Armenta is a former member of the Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles. Ms. Armenta’s law practice focuses on civil litigation, entertainment, real estate, and the recovery of abducted children. Ms. Sol’s practice focuses on civil litigation and intellectual property, in which she has a Ph.D; she has published several articles on Internet law and international freedom of speech issues. Both Ms. Armenta and Ms. Sol have previously litigated against Google.
Hi, my name is Zach Vorhies and I’m known as the Google Whistleblower. I’m working with Ryan Hartwig, Facebook Whistleblower on this campaign.
I worked at Google for 8.5 years as a senior software engineer. The last three years of which was spent at Google-owned YouTube.
With much regret, my former employer YouTube has now become a direct threat to the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands. YouTube is engaging in reckless censorship by doing a mass purge of content creators it deems “brand unsafe.”
Why would Google take actions that seemingly squash the clear exchange of ideas and differing points of view? Doesn’t that seem to interfere with free speech? The election? In fact, this is EXACTLY the case. Google is deliberately attempting to influence the election by preventing certain opinions from being shared.
Here are just a few of the Youtube channels that were deleted last week by Google/Youtube:
This behavior is nothing short of an election coup!
People may think that the phrase “election coup” is too strong, maybe even hyperbole. Google wouldn’t ACTUALLY want to do a coup… would they?
As someone who saw the inside of Google, my answer to this is: “Yes, without ANY doubt”.
I know because I saw it with my own eyes. It took me several years of watching Google build this election-rigging machine before I came to the conclusion that Google would certainly try to steal the 2020 election. This was not something they tried to hide. Instead, they carefully documented as a huge project named “Machine Learning Fairness” – which I downloaded and disclosed to the public in August of 2019. The disclosure is 950 pages and can be seen here.
Don’t just take my word for it, Jen Gennai, a current high level Google director, admitted last year to an undercover journalist that only something the size of Google could “prevent the next Trump situation”.
As a former employee, I understand the scale of Google. I am terrified about what could happen to me for fighting the biggest election rigging machine the world has ever known.
What is one small individual like myself compared to this GIANT? If I were Google I would have this company whistleblower killed. Does this sound outlandish? Here is what Google did to me when I sent that 950 pages to the DOJ in August of 2019:
What you see here is a wellness check that included the San Francisco Police department, the FBI and the Bomb squad. I wish I was making this up but it actually happened.
This is a David VS Goliath moment
The only thing that terrifies me more than dying and my family being targeted is the world that Google is building for all of us. This is really our last stand. This is more than a coup on the US election, if Google wins it will be a coup on humanity. Why? Because Google see’s YOU as a programmable unit; programmable via its control of the information they return to you when you use Google search, Google news and YouTube. For example, this Google slide details how the company manipulates you.
This intention to program YOU (the American Public) is also found in other documents from the company:
This is not a “Left vs Right” or “Conservative vs Liberal” issue
This fight has nothing to do with politics. It is a fight for the future of humanity. I do this not just for you, but also for your children, your children’s children and for generations to come. They deserve the free world that we inherited. The torch of freedom must be passed on.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to stand together and fight against Google. As a single person I mean nothing. It has always been YOU, the American people that has made this fight possible. Together Google CAN and WILL be stopped!
Stand with me and FIGHT NOW! I am putting $5k of my own money into this to say “no more”. Others have done the same. Stand with us with a donation of $5, $10 or $15 dollars which together will fund this emergency injunction.
Amplify, share and like this story as much as Big Tech will allow. Time is of the essence. We are being censored. Go NOW to all social media platforms and SHARE punchgoogle.com. Share it with your friends, your family and your co-workers.
Regardless of your political affiliation, together we can TOPPLE Google and restore freedom of speech to our land. Pledge now. And make sure you tell your friends about this campaign found at punchgoogle DOT com (which will redirect to this gofundme).
About the Attorney Cris Armenta
I want to mention that I (Zach Vorhies) did an extensive vetting of many attorneys across the country. Cris Armenta was the one with the strongest knowledge about how to defeat Google.
The necessary criteria for selection includes:
1. The attorney practices in California. 2. The attorney has specific knowledge and strategy on how to attack YouTube/Google. 3. The attorney are prepared to file the suit immediately.
It turns out the Google/YouTube terms of service requires that the person sue Google in California. Although the venue could possibly be challenged in court, doing so adds additional risk.
What sealed the deal beyond the conversation about legal strategy was also the coincidence that Cris Armenta was also selected by my friend and YouTube content creator “Young Pharaoh” (500k subs on YouTube) to represent him in his case against YouTube. Cris Armenta’s case history against Google means she has a well thought out strategy. After going in depth and playing a bunch of angles with Cris Armenta during the vetting process it was clear why “Young Pharaoh” chose Cris Armenta to represent him.
This is essentially a breach of contract lawsuit against Google.
Here’s the brief summary of our strategy:
1. Case to be filed by the top conservative accounts that were purged on October 15, 2020.
2. Google/YouTube violated its own Terms of Service by shutting down the accounts because they can only do so when 3 conditions existed by their own TOS.
3. They claim they were shut down for repeated violations and harassment.
4. But, the channels were not repeaters nor did they harass, and the new harassment policy was enacted in a way to complete decimate these channels specifically.
5. The Plaintiffs will be seeking a TRO or emergency injunction to put the channels back up.
6. The Plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to speak, large reach, and there is “state action” in so far as Representative Schiff demanded that “conspiracy” channels come down and HR 1154 condemned the type of speech up on these channels.
7. This is a First Amendment case, but it will be simplified by holding YouTube accountable to the very TOS it itself imposed.
8. The attorneys involved have extensive experience in litigating with Google and are shaping up the case to either win at the Ninth Circuit (President flipped the circuit) or to create clear path for the amendment of Section 230.
9. Last week, SCOTUS declined to hear the case where the Ninth Circuit said that 230 immunity is NOT “boundless.”
10. We have a good chance of success and paring back the Section 230 immunity and getting the conservative pro-Trump content back up before the election, just in time, if we are funded adequately.
An in-depth discussion about the legal strategy can be viewed in the following video (around 45 minutes).https://www.youtube.com/embed/BLrzP2rBgDw/?rel=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gofundme.com
Q: When will the injunction be filed?
A: Assuming this crowdfunding reaches the funding goal, the injunction will be filed by the end of the week. Around the 26th or sooner.
Q: Can I be a party to the suit?
A: Yes, we have an open call for those that have been wrongly terminated by YouTube for political reasons. If this sounds like you, please fill out this form.
Q: Who is Ryan Hartwig and why is he connected to this campaign?
A: Ryan Hartwig is a Facebook whistleblower that I have been working with for a number of months. Ryan has an Arizona non-profit. All funds will be donated to legal fees and costs.
The donations will be used to fund a lawsuit against Google, YouTube and Alphabet directed to speech that is protected by the First Amendment and that was purged from YouTube through demonetizations, terminations or suspensions in violation of the YouTube Terms of Service. The donations will be used to fund attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the named Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and any Plaintiffs thereafter added. All donations of any amount are welcome, but only funds from U.S. citizens and permanent residents will be accepted. All donated funds will be used solely to defray attorneys’ fees and other costs related to this legal representation. By donating, the donors agree that they understand that they have no authority to direct the representation or have access to confidential client or privileged communications. Any unused funds at the conclusion of the representation will be returned to The Hartwig Foundation for Free Speech.about:blankEmbed URLPaste a link to the content you want to display on your site.EmbedLearn more about embeds(opens in a new tab)Sorry, this content could not be embedded.Try again Convert to link
According to a press release on Monday, President Donald J. Trump’s campaign manager Bill Stepien is really to push back on the already humiliated Commission on Presidential Debate, over their blunders and obvious bias in numerous national debates.
“President Trump is committed to debating Joe Biden regardless of last minute rule changes from the biased commission in their latest attempt to provide advantage to their favored candidate. This was supposed to be the foreign policy debate, so the President still looks forward to forcing Biden to answer the number one relevant question of whether he’s been compromised by the Communist Party of China. Why did Biden allow his son Hunter to sell access to him while he was vice president, and why were there Chinese payment arrangements for Joe himself worked out by Hunter and his sketchy partners? If the media won’t ask Joe Biden these questions, the President will, and there will be no escape for Biden.”
– Bill Stepien, Trump 2020 campaign manager
Trump is scheduled to square off against Biden on Thursday for their third and final debate.
“We understand that Joe Biden is desperate to avoid conversations about his own foreign policy record, especially since President Trump has secured historic peace agreements among Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain,” Stepien wrote in a letter to the group.
Below is the unedited press release from the campaign:
October 19, 2020
The Commission on Presidential Debates Attn: Co-Chairs Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr., Dorothy S. Ridings, Kenneth Wollack; Executive Director Janet H. Brown P.O. Box 58247 Washington, D.C. 20037
Bill Stepien Campaign Manager Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. 725 5th Avenue New York, NY 10022
Dear Members of the Commission:
We write with great concern over the announced topics for what was always billed as the “Foreign Policy Debate” in the series of events agreed to by both the Trump campaign and Biden campaign many months ago. The topics announced by moderator Kristen Welker (Fighting COVID-19, American Families, Race in America, Climate Change, National Security, and Leadership) are serious and worthy of discussion, but only a few of them even touch on foreign policy. Indeed, almost all of them were discussed at length during the first debate won by President Trump over moderator Chris Wallace and candidate Joe Biden. As is the long-standing custom, and as had been promised by the Commission on Presidential Debates, we had expected that foreign policy would be the central focus of the October 22 debate. We urge you to recalibrate the topics and return to subjects which had already been confirmed.
We understand that Joe Biden is desperate to avoid conversations about his own foreign policy record, especially since President Trump has secured historic peace agreements among Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. We recall that Biden’s former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, maintains that Biden has been “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Biden has supported endless wars and given aid and comfort to our adversaries, including Iran, which was delivered pallets loaded with mountains of cash just as four Americans were released from captivity in Tehran. Biden also has advanced the interests of China over his 47 years as a Washington politician, putting their concerns ahead of those of America workers. New information recently revealed indicates that Biden himself was mentioned as a financial beneficiary of a deal arranged by his son Hunter and a communist Chinese-related energy company. If a major party candidate for President of the United States is compromised by the Communist Party of China, this is something Americans deserve to hear about, but it is not surprising the Biden would want to avoid it. It is completely irresponsible for the Commission to alter the focus of this final debate just days before the event, solely to insulate Biden from his own history.
Sadly, this is not the first time the Commission has ceded to the wishes of the Biden campaign. Despite the obvious fact that millions of Americans began casting votes early this year, the Commission steadfastly refused to move the debate schedule earlier or add another event, simply because the Biden campaign objected. In this example, the Commission hid behind Biden’s unwillingness to be flexible with the schedule but has not hesitated to act unilaterally in other cases. As the most egregious example, the abrupt decision to switch the scheduled second debate on October 15 in Miami to a virtual setting was done without consultation with our campaign at all. Though the supposed reason for the change was public safety because of the coronavirus, the decision was made well before President Trump’s medical condition became apparent and well before the President was medically cleared as having tested negative for the virus. Proof of the illogic of the Commission’s decision is the fact that this action resulted in both Biden and President Trump holding their own, separate in-person events on the same night. If the Commission’s action was intended to prevent one in-person event, creating two such events as a result revealed the pointlessness of the decision.
The Commission’s pro-Biden antics have turned the entire debate season into a fiasco and it is little wonder why the public has lost faith in its objectivity. The moderator for the first debate styled himself as a third combatant on stage, with almost all of his venom directed at President Trump. The moderator of the second debate, which was cancelled, revealed his anti-Trump bias by accidentally tweeting what was intended to be a direct message to a well-known Trump critic, and then lying that his Twitter account had been “hacked.” Incredibly, the Commission has yet to retract its public statement of support for the moderator’s bogus hacking cover story, which resulted in the moderator’s indefinite suspension from his place of employment. Finally, the moderator of the third debate now has decided to pursue topics almost wholly unrelated to the purpose of the event, which was to be focused on foreign policy.
It is our understanding from media reports that you will soon be holding an internal meeting to discuss other possible rule changes, such as granting an unnamed person the ability to shut off a candidate’s microphone. It is completely unacceptable for anyone to wield such power, and a decision to proceed with that change amounts to turning further editorial control of the debate over to the Commission which has already demonstrated its partiality to Biden. This is reminiscent of the first debate in 2016, when the President’s microphone was oscillated, and it is not acceptable.
For the good of campaign integrity, and for the benefit of the American people, we urge you to rethink and reissue a set of topics for the October 22 debate, with an emphasis on foreign policy. This is what the campaigns had agreed to and it has been the tradition in past campaigns. We await your immediate reply to these concerns. We further advise you that there is no reason to consult with the Biden campaign before replying because we all know what they think.
Bill Stepien Donald J. Trump for President campaign manager
After being hit with a third accusation of sexual harassment in under two weeks, Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) has hired a high-powered criminal defense lawyer who once defended sexual predator Harvey Weinstein and alleged pervert Woody Allen against allegations of sexual assault, which is a sure sign that Cuomo believes that his female accusers have him by the short hairs wherever they may be.
A former federal prosecutor, Elkan Abramowitz, who has ties to Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, who refused to prosecute Weinstein and it was discovered that Weinstein’s legal team funded Vance’s campaign, will serve as legal counsel to the embattled governor and his top aides, according to The Wall Street Journal who reported on it on Monday.
Letitia James, the radical Soros-funded New York Attorney General (AG) is investigating the Cuomo administration, though she hasn’t yet appointed anyone to look into the accusations made by three women who say that Cuomo sexually harassed them, which includes inappropriate kissing and touching without consent and making lewd comments like asking a 25-year-old aide is she had ever had sex with older men and the 63-year-old governor letting her know that “he’s fine with anyone above the age of 22”
“To be clear I never inappropriately touched anybody and I never propositioned anybody and I never intended to make anyone feel uncomfortable, but these are allegations that New Yorkers deserve answers to,” Cuomo said in a statement giving a non-apology apology for the things the women have accused him of doing. He tried to blow it off as “being playful and making jokes that I think are funny.”
So what was the punchline of that joke where he kissed Lindsey Boylan on the lips without consent? Can you imagine? “Two guys walk into a bar and MWUAH! In your face!”
Cuomo asked New Yorkers to hold off judgment until the findings come from an independent investigation – note: there are no independent investigations when Democrats are involved, only rigged circus acts – when he at long last referred the matter to James’ office on Sunday, but that was only after he caught a lot of backlash for first picking former US District Judge Barbara Jones, a former law partner with Steve Cohen, one of Cuomo’s closest advisors. He tried to rig the investigation.
AG James is already looking into the Cuomo administration’s mishandling and possible criminal activities with regard to the nursing home scandal where top Cuomo aide told state Democrats on a conference call that the administration hid the nursing home COVID death numbers because they were afraid that the Trump administration’s Department of Justice would find out the real number of deaths that they lied about after forcing coronavirus patients into nursing homes that killed over 10 thousand seniors. Apparently, the Cuomo administration undercut the death count by over 40 percent.
This isn’t the first time Abramowitz had to get Cuomo out of a mess as he represented the horny old man once for a federal investigation over the governor’s stupid decision to dismantle an anti-corruption panel he created in 2013.
Abramowitz donated $2,100 to DA Vance’s campaign after the DA dropped charges against his client, the infamous sexual predator Harvey Weinstein, even though police provided a recording of the former Hollywood mogul apologizing to his alleged victim and on tape it has him apologizing to her and he promised he wouldn’t do it again.
The attorney also once represented actor Woody Allen on sexual abuse charges that involved his daughter, Dylan Farrow. Abramowitz accused Dylan’s mother, actress Mia Farrow, of planting the idea that Woody molested his own daughter. “The idea that Dylan was molested was implanted by her mother, and that memory is never going to go away,” he said in 2014.
As the bogus impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump begins this week, New York legislators are pushing to pass the “No Citizen is Above the Law” bill that is aimed at making it easy for Trump or any future president to avoid state prosecution if accused of a crime.
Of course, it all depends on an accuser’s definition of “wrongdoing” because that definition could change more often than your underwear in the Wokety Woke Woke world we now live in.
The bill was proposed by state Senator Michael Gianaris (D-Queens) and Assemblyman Nick Perry (D-Brooklyn) and it is determined to stop the statute of limitations so that an angry mob can go after a former president because the statute of limitations clock will be frozen in time during the years a president sits in office. Is it Constitutional? Probably not, but since when has that ever stopped a partisan Democrat?
During a president’s term, he is immune from arrest or prosecution no different from members of Congress when Congress is in session. This is based on a couple of Department of Justice (DOJ) memos from 1973 and 2000, both of which interpret the US Constitution, but both of which also have never been tested in the US Supreme Court.
Perry and Gianaris both argue that a president should not use the time they are in office to avoid prosecution because the statute of limitations expires. In other words, a rule that has been around since time began but is not appreciated for one man, in particular, shall not continue to stand.
“Any president who breaks the law should be held accountable without regard to the time they spend in office. As our nation prepares for an unprecedented second impeachment trial, we must close the loophole that allows Presidents to escape culpability by exploiting statutes of limitations due to Presidential immunity,” Gianaris said.
The New York Attorney General Letitia James, known for going after the NRA, because, well, obviously, and Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. are looking into Trump’s businesses.
James not only $750,000 in public money that she didn’t need for her campaign back in 2017, but she spent $500,000 of it on Election Day itself when she dumped money she would otherwise have been obligated to return. James called the National Rifle Association a terrorist organization even though there is not an ounce of proof to say that.
In 2015 Vance refused to prosecute Harvey Weinstein despite having an audio file of the former Hollywood mogul admitting to sexual assault, but suddenly he became woke enough to want to go after Donald Trump for business dealings that if it goes the way everything else that’s been thrown at the man does will end up being absolutely nothing to the charges.
District attorneys in the United States have become corrupted by progressive politics. DAs like Kim Jong Foxx in Chicago who suddenly dropped all charges against hate crime hoaxer Jussie Smollett, Kim Jong Gardner who failed to go after the rioters who broke through a locked gate onto private property but went after the McCluskeys who defended themselves instead, and Larry Krasner who is a disaster in Philadelphia, most of them funded by George Soros who is hell-bent on having American laws relaxed or even thrown by the wayside by prosecutors no longer prosecuting for certain types of crimes but going after innocent people like the Mclusky’s in Missouri.
The bill is expected to pass the New York Senate this week and will be voted on in the Assembly at any time.
Alan Dershowitz, Constitutional law professor, and Trump legal advisor said that the law is more-than-likely legal, so long as they don’t freeze the statute of limitations on a criminal prosecution, which is precisely what the bill is designed to do.
Republican lawmakers have stood up and accused Perry and Gianaris of political showboating.
“This is just a pointless political headline-grab that’s out of their jurisdiction and ignores more pressing concerns happening right in front of their faces,” said Assemblyman Will Barclay (R-Syracuse).
“It’s unfortunate they’ve spent far less energy reining-in executive powers or issuing a subpoena to the sitting governor,” added Barclay, referring to Cuomo’s terrible job at handling the coronavirus on top of what many consider murder in the nursing home death scandal where the governor forced COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes that caused a lot of deaths.
Parkland shooting survivor (who wasn’t actually at the school when the shooting started but rode his bicycle to the school as fast as he could when he heard about it and started filming coverage of it as if he was there all along) David Hogg, who must have slept on it, now says he will be giving up his role in the new pillow company he launched to compete with conservative MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell so that he can go back to his activism. Hogg learned a valuable lesson that anyone can be an activist, but it takes business acumen, brains, and a drive to help your fellow man to build a successful pillow company.
On Saturday, the twenty-year-old Hogg took to social media to announce he has “resigned and released all shares, any ownership and any control of Good Pillow LLC” effective immediately.
A company that was started based on hatred for another man wasn’t a real business venture. We call it Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Showing that Hogg has no real business sense at all, he announced that he and his co-founder William LeGate came up with the name “Good Pillow” without checking first to make sure it wasn’t trademarked or patented. That’s when a Trump-supporting firearms patent and trademark attorney Ben Langlotz saw the tweet and scooped the snot-nosed attention-grabbing Hogg and filed for a trademark on the name Good Pillow. Langlotz later said the name was “a good brand to put on pillows with a pro-gun civil rights message.” That was probably the most valuable business lesson Hogg will ever get because it was given in the real world.
“1: A couple weeks ago, a very spontaneous interaction over Twitter between me and William LeGate led to us trying to start a progressive pillow company.”
1: A couple weeks ago, a very spontaneous interaction over Twitter between me and William LeGate led to us trying to start a progressive pillow company.
“2: The goal was and still is to create a great pillow that is sustainably produced in domestic unionized factories and have a percentage of those profits benefit progressive social causes.”
“3: We were met with immediate and overwhelming support. But I soon realized that given my activism, schoolwork, and family commitments, I could not give 100% to being a full time co-founder at Good Pillow”
3: We were met with immediate and overwhelming support. But I soon realized that given my activism, schoolwork, and family commitments, I could not give 100% to being a full time co-founder at Good Pillow
Hogg, a former Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student during the 2018 shooting massacre that took place there, said back in early February that he was going to start a new pillow company with LeGate, a tech entrepreneur, and his purpose was to rival MyPillow.
He claimed the “progressive competition” could put Lindell, who sells patented foam pillows on TV commercials, out of business.
Once Lindell stopped laughing and was able to get control of himself, he said of Hogg’s pillow fight that there is “nothing wrong with competition that does not infringe on someone’s patent.”
A week later Hogg made an announcement that he was taking some off from his position as a board member for March For Our Lives.
Hogg said he will leave it up to LeGate to fulfill their vision of building “an ethical company that produces products that people need while creating good union paying jobs and supporting social causes at the same time.” See? Hogg knows activism and not much else.
<h4>When guerilla warfare tactics of leftist Marxist Community Organizers intersect with the powerful mind control tactics of the Chinese Communist Party and are applied, unopposed, in a free and open society, then citizens are in danger of finding themselves in the middle of a violent revolution.</h4>
Enter George Floyd trial. Floyd is the latest unfortunate death by a police officer during an arrest to be exploited by a Marxist Defund the Police movement. Exploited is the correct term to use because a well-organized political movement has been on the lookout and ready to spring into action, over such a death, for a long time.
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT ‘DEFUNDING THE POLICE’ WAS A PLAN, NOT A REACTION
Found, written by Maya Harris, the sister of Kamala Harris, is a wealth of Marxist tactics to use political theater, media, messaging, and branding to defund local police departments, by force to achieve certain goals that they can not bring about at the ballot box.
From page 8, the author describes the tactics she will teach activists and community organizers to take in order to bring about their desired collective changes to police departments:
“Fundamentally, police reform advocacy aims to redefine the relationship of police departments to
the communities they serve—a relationship defined over decades of interaction and laden with all the
complexities of race and class. This is no small feat. Advocates usually face a well-funded, politically
Progress takes persistence, and change takes time. Advocacy efforts typically focus
on changing specific policies and practices that are incremental steps toward the much larger goal.
For all the challenges that exist, advocates in cities across the nation have achieved great successes in
securing improved police policies and practices and in moving their police departments closer to a vision
of community-centered policing. Some advocates have been doing this work for years; others have only
recently begun. All have relied on one or more of the advocacy strategies discussed in this manual as a
vehicle for change. Examples of their accomplishments and many lessons learned are described in this
manual,” Harris writes.
According to the defunding the policy manual:
Organized for Change is divided into five main sections:
Seizing the Moment: Urgent, Unified Community Response recognizes that police reform
advocacy often arises in the context of crisis—a high-profile instance of police misconduct that
focuses public attention for a moment in time on the need for positive change within the police
department. The chapter provides tips for resolving the circumstances at hand, while leveraging
the situation to advance a broader advocacy agenda.
Getting Specific: Know Your Police Department starts from the premise that an effective
strategy for change requires a firm understanding of what you currently have in place so that
you can develop a roadmap from where you are starting to where you want to go. The chapter
provides a range of topics and policies to consider.
Getting People Together and Making Your Case groups together four advocacy strategies:
organizing and coalition building; conducting research; working with the media; and harnessing
the power of the Internet. Each of these strategies is about building support for your advocacy
agenda. More often than not, one—if not all—of these strategies is invoked in any police
reform advocacy effort, regardless of the forum in which change is pursued.
Getting What You Want and Changing the Rules describes the four traditional forums in
which advocates pursue their agendas for change: the courts, the legislature, the ballot, and
administrative agencies. Sometimes these strategies are used in isolation; other times in
combination or succession. This section concludes with a reminder to think outside the box
and includes examples of tools and tactics that go beyond the traditional steps discussed
in the preceding chapters.
Getting Started: Tips to Consider in Moving an Agenda provides several nuts-and-bolts
issues to consider as you launch your advocacy effort—and get organized for change.
The manual is very specific in teaching activists how to train others for a full political movement. Along with Grassroots marketing platforms, and taxpayer-funded non-government organizations (NGO), activism like this has been a lucrative business for decades.
BRING IN NEW ALLIES AND NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR A POWERFUL CHANGE AGENT IN AMERICA
Along with a well-established path of distribution for the messaging about Floyd, and a built-in powerhouse PR movement, the left is able to use Floyd as an icon of dissent and organization with new technology.
According to CCP expert, Gordon Chang, there is a good reason to understand the influence of TikTok on American culture.
“Chairman Xi destroyed the lives of George Floyd and a further 1/4 million Americans with fentanyl. Intentionally. Then he used AI and social media to turn us against each other over it. And it worked. I testified before the senate to explain how he did it,” Paul Dabrowa posted.
Chairman Xi destroyed the lives of George Floyd and a further 1/4 million Americans with fentanyl. Intentionally. Then he used AI and social media to turn us against each other over it. And it worked. I testified before the senate to explain how he did it: https://t.co/HGNHHW5yxBpic.twitter.com/RfIlQVzVth
In his paper, <em><a href=”https://t.co/HGNHHW5yxB?amp=1″ target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>Cognitive Hacking as the New Disinformation Frontier</a>, </em>Dabrowa discussed how The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses “Artificial Intelligence Algorithms” which are designed to repress the Chinese population. The paper is based on his testimony that was presented before the Commonwealth of Australia Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media on September 22, 2020.
“The risk in the new propaganda war The science and practice of persuasion has gotten drastically more sophisticated in recent years, thanks in large part to technology. Today, digitally-crafted propaganda can trigger wars, economic collapse, riots, and protests of all kinds. It can also destroy the credibility of
government institutions and turn a population against itself,” Dabrowa wrote.
In his testimony, at the link, Dabrowa lays out the numerous ways that TikTok uses to control and propagandize the population, and ends in concludes:
In recent times, the Australian public has started to realise that the Chinese Communist Party is systematically working to undermine Australian national security. One method is via social media applications such as TikTok; which currently remains a platform for censorship and propaganda while gathering an extraordinary amount of data on Australian users. The CCP uses similar platforms domestically to control and persecute its population.
The regime understands the enormous influence social media exerts in manipulating politics and national
elections. It seeks to exercise some of this same influence, and same power, more directly here in Australia, in an effort to control what Australians see, hear, and ultimately think.
TikTok poses a clear national security risk to the Australian population and should be banned.
I urge the Australian Government to take all measured actions necessary to protect Australians and our national interest: insisting on an outright sale of TikTok or, if necessary, ban the application to protect Australian national security.”
One has to wonder, if these dangers to national security are unfolding for Australia, are they unfolding here as well. Could this be what President Donald J. Trump had been warning us about?