Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Guy defends sister against bully do you think this was justified 🤔? #explore #follow #like #followforfollowback #trendingnow #schoolfights #bullybeatdown #worldstar #trendingtopic #trend #followme #repost #viralposts #schoolfight #fights #Girfight #SendTips #famous #Israel

KenyHarris's profile picture

randomcontent

47,967 subscribers

91,273 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#explore#follow#like#followforfollowback#trendingnow#schoolfights#bullybeatdown#worldstar#trendingtopic#trend#followme#repost#viralposts#schoolfight#fights#Girfight#SendTips#famous#Israel
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Blonde girl was apparently talking shit Who do y’all think won 😳 #explore #follow #like #followforfollowback #trendingnow #schoolfights #bullybeatdown #worldstar #trendingtopic #trend #followme #repost #viralposts #schoolfight #fights #Girfight #SendTips #famous #Israel
0:32

Blonde girl was apparently talking shit Who do y’all think won 😳 #explore #follow #like #followforfollowback #trendingnow #schoolfights #bullybeatdown #worldstar #trendingtopic #trend #followme #repost #viralposts #schoolfight #fights #Girfight #SendTips #famous #Israel

randomcontent

41,381 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Was he in the right yes or no? #explorepage #viralvideos #explore #follow #like #followforfollowback #trendingnow #schoolfights #bullybeatdown #worldstar #trendingtopic #trend #followme #repost #viralposts #schoolfight #fights #Girfight #SendTips #famous
0:25

Was he in the right yes or no? #explorepage #viralvideos #explore #follow #like #followforfollowback #trendingnow #schoolfights #bullybeatdown #worldstar #trendingtopic #trend #followme #repost #viralposts #schoolfight #fights #Girfight #SendTips #famous

randomcontent

77,343 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

me playing GTA on PlayStation #trending #explorepage #viralvideos #explore #follow #likeforlikes #like #followforfollowback #trendingnow #schoolfights #bullybeatdown #worldstar #trendingtopic #trend #followme #repost #viralposts #schoolfight #fights #Girfight #SendTips
1:18

me playing GTA on PlayStation #trending #explorepage #viralvideos #explore #follow #likeforlikes #like #followforfollowback #trendingnow #schoolfights #bullybeatdown #worldstar #trendingtopic #trend #followme #repost #viralposts #schoolfight #fights #Girfight #SendTips

randomcontent

50,101 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Naval Ravikant reveals Elon Musk cut off Bill Gates after he placed a roughly $1 billion short bet against tesla. "Elon was like, why would you do that? How would you short Tesla?" "Bill goes, well, my financial advisors looked at the math, and there's no way it's overvalued, so I'm going to make money on the short." "Elon goes, what do you care about making money? I thought you were into electric cars and climate change and saving the world. What are you doing trying to save a few bucks betting against it?" "I think he never talked to Bill Gates after that." "That's when I realized Elon's a purist. He means what he says. The money is a tool for him to get what he's trying to do." "There's a lot of people who set these audacious goals to inspire people, but you kind of know they don't really need it. Elon, I take at face value. I really do think he intends to get to Mars within a defined window of time. He doesn't want to go down in history as the electric car guy. He wants to go down as the guy who got humanity to the stars." PS. We post daily content strictly for dedicated entrepreneurs, so if you’re one of them, make sure to follow us Entrepreneurs on X for more. Like and repost if you found value in this post:
1:16

Naval Ravikant reveals Elon Musk cut off Bill Gates after he placed a roughly $1 billion short bet against tesla. "Elon was like, why would you do that? How would you short Tesla?" "Bill goes, well, my financial advisors looked at the math, and there's no way it's overvalued, so I'm going to make money on the short." "Elon goes, what do you care about making money? I thought you were into electric cars and climate change and saving the world. What are you doing trying to save a few bucks betting against it?" "I think he never talked to Bill Gates after that." "That's when I realized Elon's a purist. He means what he says. The money is a tool for him to get what he's trying to do." "There's a lot of people who set these audacious goals to inspire people, but you kind of know they don't really need it. Elon, I take at face value. I really do think he intends to get to Mars within a defined window of time. He doesn't want to go down in history as the electric car guy. He wants to go down as the guy who got humanity to the stars." PS. We post daily content strictly for dedicated entrepreneurs, so if you’re one of them, make sure to follow us Entrepreneurs on X for more. Like and repost if you found value in this post:

Entrepreneurs on X

416,502 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Tucker Carlson used to say everything leads back to Israel. In a conversation with Dave Smith about the Epstein files, he said “it’s way bigger than Israel” “What’s really going on through a stained-glass window? You don’t get a clear picture but you see the shapes and you realize this is not what I thought it was.” “The people in political power have committed profound crimes against the American people.” “It’s looking a lot more like the Mossad worked for Jeffrey Epstein I mean I did not think he was the Rothschild’s guy…it’s an interesting limited look into how power really works” “I mean yes 100% it’s way bigger than Israel. Israel’s just like a place to you know hide out if you’ve been accused of a crime get a passport do some money laundering you know whatever it’s a lot of things but it’s not Israel’s not running the world.” “It’s not all being run from the Levant by Netanyahu who’s probably got IQ of 110”
5:00

Tucker Carlson used to say everything leads back to Israel. In a conversation with Dave Smith about the Epstein files, he said “it’s way bigger than Israel” “What’s really going on through a stained-glass window? You don’t get a clear picture but you see the shapes and you realize this is not what I thought it was.” “The people in political power have committed profound crimes against the American people.” “It’s looking a lot more like the Mossad worked for Jeffrey Epstein I mean I did not think he was the Rothschild’s guy…it’s an interesting limited look into how power really works” “I mean yes 100% it’s way bigger than Israel. Israel’s just like a place to you know hide out if you’ve been accused of a crime get a passport do some money laundering you know whatever it’s a lot of things but it’s not Israel’s not running the world.” “It’s not all being run from the Levant by Netanyahu who’s probably got IQ of 110”

Fractured Light

194,360 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Hasan calls out Ethan Klein and everyone else (Asmongold, xQc, etc) who championed against Denims in his lawsuit, hopes MoistCr1TiKaL and Philip DeFranco cover the situation "This is Israeli mindset..not shocking to me his lawyer is a West Bank settler, not shocking that Ethan Klein loves Israel..u think u get to have a say in how ppl transform ur content, are u f'in stupid?" "A lot of our opposition are unbelievably stupid or just horrible monsters, sometimes both..every single major content creator on this platform was championing this lawsuit..it would have gutted react content..they should be kissing Denims feet..screeching at Ethan..but no they were too h-ny to bully a bunch of pro Palestine women that they don't like..they didn't even think about the consequences" "The work was transformative..Ethan was simply trying to sue ppl into submission bc he didn't like what they had to say, how's that for f'in free speech..at some point we finally got to say, this was a ridiculous process..Philip DeFranco MoistCr1TiKaL there's gonna be a point where ppl actually cover this stuff..I hope" "U don't seem to understand a lot my friend..ya Asmongold famous at conducting research..what he means by that is groking it..was it (Frogan defaulting)..or are u just as stupid and don't know what happened..the answer will shock u..u were just wrong on that too..and all the other lawyers" "I saw a clip of Asmongold crying and complaining that I was being as being soft as baby sh*t against this MorePegasus situation..what's really funny..Asmongold has actively demanded the federal government take care of me" "This guy covers lawsuits all the time..unless it's one of his best friends and it's a R suit..he loves lawsuits..for him to turn around cry foul in this moment is very funny, he's celebrated Ethan's lawsuits..he's even actively told his audience that R-Tone was k*lling it, same xQc*ck"
8:09

Hasan calls out Ethan Klein and everyone else (Asmongold, xQc, etc) who championed against Denims in his lawsuit, hopes MoistCr1TiKaL and Philip DeFranco cover the situation "This is Israeli mindset..not shocking to me his lawyer is a West Bank settler, not shocking that Ethan Klein loves Israel..u think u get to have a say in how ppl transform ur content, are u f'in stupid?" "A lot of our opposition are unbelievably stupid or just horrible monsters, sometimes both..every single major content creator on this platform was championing this lawsuit..it would have gutted react content..they should be kissing Denims feet..screeching at Ethan..but no they were too h-ny to bully a bunch of pro Palestine women that they don't like..they didn't even think about the consequences" "The work was transformative..Ethan was simply trying to sue ppl into submission bc he didn't like what they had to say, how's that for f'in free speech..at some point we finally got to say, this was a ridiculous process..Philip DeFranco MoistCr1TiKaL there's gonna be a point where ppl actually cover this stuff..I hope" "U don't seem to understand a lot my friend..ya Asmongold famous at conducting research..what he means by that is groking it..was it (Frogan defaulting)..or are u just as stupid and don't know what happened..the answer will shock u..u were just wrong on that too..and all the other lawyers" "I saw a clip of Asmongold crying and complaining that I was being as being soft as baby sh*t against this MorePegasus situation..what's really funny..Asmongold has actively demanded the federal government take care of me" "This guy covers lawsuits all the time..unless it's one of his best friends and it's a R suit..he loves lawsuits..for him to turn around cry foul in this moment is very funny, he's celebrated Ethan's lawsuits..he's even actively told his audience that R-Tone was k*lling it, same xQc*ck"

yeet

79,929 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Must listen. Tucker just went off on the Jeffrey Epstein cover-up and his connection to Israel on Turning Point. Absolute fire. No one is allowed to say the foreign government Epstein was connected to was Israel because we have been cowed into thinking that that's naughty. There is nothing wrong with saying that... "And I think the real answer is Jeffrey Epstein was working on behalf of intel services, probably not American. And we have every right to ask on whose behalf was he working? How does a guy go from being a math teacher at the Dalton School in the late seventies with no college degree to having multiple airplanes, a private island and the largest residential…house in Manhattan? Where did all the money come from? And, no one has ever gotten to the bottom of that because no one has ever tried. And moreover, it's extremely obvious to anyone who watches that this guy had direct connections to a foreign government. Now, no one's allowed to say that that foreign government is Israel because we have been… somehow cowed… into…thinking that that's naughty. There is nothing wrong with saying that. There is nothing hateful about saying that. There's nothing antisemitic about saying that. There's nothing even antisemitic about saying that. There's nothing even antisemitic about saying that. I've spent my entire life pretty much in Washington where I knew and loved a number of people including one very close person who worked at CIA. That has never…prohibited me from saying, I think the CIA has done some horrible things. Murdered a bunch of people, participated in the murder of a sitting US president. It's got a whole trail of crimes. That doesn't make me a disloyal American. It doesn't make me anti American in any sense. I was born here, my family's been here for hundreds of years. I love this country, that's why I live here. So, criticizing the behavior of a government agency does not make you a hater, it makes you a free person. It makes you a citizen. You're allowed to do that…because you're not a slave, you're a citizen. And you have a right to expect that your government will not act against your interests and you have a right to demand that foreign governments not be allowed to act against your interests. That's not creepy. It shouldn't be forbidden. And yet, all of us have trained ourselves to believe that you can't say that somehow. That that's like too naughty and forbidden. And, the effect… of making that off limits has been to create a lot of resentment and I'll say it, hate online. Where people feel like they can't just say, like, what the hell is this? You have the former Israeli prime minister living in your house… You have had all this contact with the foreign government. Were you working on behalf of Mossad? Were you running a blackmail operation on behalf of foreign government? By the way, every single person in Washington DC thinks that. I've never met anyone who doesn't think that. I don't know any of them that hate Israel, but no one feels they can say that. Why? And I think the longer that we play along with it, the more subterranean and creepy and hateful the conversation actually becomes. So, I think it's better just to say it right out loud. Did this happen? And of course that question has been asked to the government of Israel and their answer is, we're not going to tell you. And I think our answer should be, no no As long as we're sending you money, if you were committing crimes on our soil, we have an absolute right to know, did you do this or not?"
3:34

Must listen. Tucker just went off on the Jeffrey Epstein cover-up and his connection to Israel on Turning Point. Absolute fire. No one is allowed to say the foreign government Epstein was connected to was Israel because we have been cowed into thinking that that's naughty. There is nothing wrong with saying that... "And I think the real answer is Jeffrey Epstein was working on behalf of intel services, probably not American. And we have every right to ask on whose behalf was he working? How does a guy go from being a math teacher at the Dalton School in the late seventies with no college degree to having multiple airplanes, a private island and the largest residential…house in Manhattan? Where did all the money come from? And, no one has ever gotten to the bottom of that because no one has ever tried. And moreover, it's extremely obvious to anyone who watches that this guy had direct connections to a foreign government. Now, no one's allowed to say that that foreign government is Israel because we have been… somehow cowed… into…thinking that that's naughty. There is nothing wrong with saying that. There is nothing hateful about saying that. There's nothing antisemitic about saying that. There's nothing even antisemitic about saying that. There's nothing even antisemitic about saying that. I've spent my entire life pretty much in Washington where I knew and loved a number of people including one very close person who worked at CIA. That has never…prohibited me from saying, I think the CIA has done some horrible things. Murdered a bunch of people, participated in the murder of a sitting US president. It's got a whole trail of crimes. That doesn't make me a disloyal American. It doesn't make me anti American in any sense. I was born here, my family's been here for hundreds of years. I love this country, that's why I live here. So, criticizing the behavior of a government agency does not make you a hater, it makes you a free person. It makes you a citizen. You're allowed to do that…because you're not a slave, you're a citizen. And you have a right to expect that your government will not act against your interests and you have a right to demand that foreign governments not be allowed to act against your interests. That's not creepy. It shouldn't be forbidden. And yet, all of us have trained ourselves to believe that you can't say that somehow. That that's like too naughty and forbidden. And, the effect… of making that off limits has been to create a lot of resentment and I'll say it, hate online. Where people feel like they can't just say, like, what the hell is this? You have the former Israeli prime minister living in your house… You have had all this contact with the foreign government. Were you working on behalf of Mossad? Were you running a blackmail operation on behalf of foreign government? By the way, every single person in Washington DC thinks that. I've never met anyone who doesn't think that. I don't know any of them that hate Israel, but no one feels they can say that. Why? And I think the longer that we play along with it, the more subterranean and creepy and hateful the conversation actually becomes. So, I think it's better just to say it right out loud. Did this happen? And of course that question has been asked to the government of Israel and their answer is, we're not going to tell you. And I think our answer should be, no no As long as we're sending you money, if you were committing crimes on our soil, we have an absolute right to know, did you do this or not?"

Green Lives Matter

1,251,427 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

“Dave Smith; the Pennywise of Pacifism” “Comic” Dave Smith is currently in an X spat with Dan Crenshaw over the perils of war. Yes, Dave Smith is staring at Crenshaw with two good eyes and telling Crenshaw’s eye patch about war. Hubris, thy name be “Comic” Dave Smith. Dave Smith presents himself as the anti-war guy despite LOVING and INCENTIVIZING all the worst actors in history: The terrorists who committed genocide against Israel and Israelis on October 7th? According to Dave Smith, “well, what do you think happens when you occupy somebody for 60 (sic) years?” Want to ensure more wars? Excuse the people who commit genocide and complain about the people who sacrifice their own soldiers so as to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible. EVERY war starting entity should be so lucky as to go to war against Israel. Don’t believe me? Ask the Ukrainians. Dave Smith’s current favorite current historian? Martyr Made, AKA “the Churchill was the main villain of World War II guy.” Boo the world savers? Yay the Hitler stans? What’s next, “why Mao was the greatest hop scotch player of all-time?” If you think that’s a leap, you don’t know what I’m talking about. And that’s Dave Smith. He’s loud. He’s confident. And he doesn’t have a fucking clue what he’s talking about. His morality doesn’t belong in the United States of American. Every debate with him should never move past this one issue: Why do you defend the war starters? Why do YOU—the anti-war guy—incentivize wars? Because you, Dave, are why many young men are dead in Israel AND Gaza. You, Dave, are why many young men and women in Israel don’t have limbs. Because you and your rhetoric incentivize wars. You incentivize death. Dave, you’re morally angry in the way a college freshman is morally angry after reading half a Chomsky essay. I’m morally angry because I’ve seen what your worldview does to actual families, actual children, and actual warriors. You get applause for your anger… I can’t get Arnon Zamora out of my head. I can’t get Sabine Taasa crumbling to the ground out of my head. Your rhetoric JUSTIFIES the terrorists to murder her husband. Your worldview made that possible. Your morality helped usher in the inevitable deaths of tens of thousands of Gazans… But you’re too much of an unserious, unfunny clown to see it. You’re not the Clown of Peace. You’re the Pennywise of Pacifism; waving people toward a moral sewer you’ll never have to drown in. And nobody who’s lived through real violence finds any of this funny. Nobody is laughing, Dave… Just like at your standup sets.
3:00

“Dave Smith; the Pennywise of Pacifism” “Comic” Dave Smith is currently in an X spat with Dan Crenshaw over the perils of war. Yes, Dave Smith is staring at Crenshaw with two good eyes and telling Crenshaw’s eye patch about war. Hubris, thy name be “Comic” Dave Smith. Dave Smith presents himself as the anti-war guy despite LOVING and INCENTIVIZING all the worst actors in history: The terrorists who committed genocide against Israel and Israelis on October 7th? According to Dave Smith, “well, what do you think happens when you occupy somebody for 60 (sic) years?” Want to ensure more wars? Excuse the people who commit genocide and complain about the people who sacrifice their own soldiers so as to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible. EVERY war starting entity should be so lucky as to go to war against Israel. Don’t believe me? Ask the Ukrainians. Dave Smith’s current favorite current historian? Martyr Made, AKA “the Churchill was the main villain of World War II guy.” Boo the world savers? Yay the Hitler stans? What’s next, “why Mao was the greatest hop scotch player of all-time?” If you think that’s a leap, you don’t know what I’m talking about. And that’s Dave Smith. He’s loud. He’s confident. And he doesn’t have a fucking clue what he’s talking about. His morality doesn’t belong in the United States of American. Every debate with him should never move past this one issue: Why do you defend the war starters? Why do YOU—the anti-war guy—incentivize wars? Because you, Dave, are why many young men are dead in Israel AND Gaza. You, Dave, are why many young men and women in Israel don’t have limbs. Because you and your rhetoric incentivize wars. You incentivize death. Dave, you’re morally angry in the way a college freshman is morally angry after reading half a Chomsky essay. I’m morally angry because I’ve seen what your worldview does to actual families, actual children, and actual warriors. You get applause for your anger… I can’t get Arnon Zamora out of my head. I can’t get Sabine Taasa crumbling to the ground out of my head. Your rhetoric JUSTIFIES the terrorists to murder her husband. Your worldview made that possible. Your morality helped usher in the inevitable deaths of tens of thousands of Gazans… But you’re too much of an unserious, unfunny clown to see it. You’re not the Clown of Peace. You’re the Pennywise of Pacifism; waving people toward a moral sewer you’ll never have to drown in. And nobody who’s lived through real violence finds any of this funny. Nobody is laughing, Dave… Just like at your standup sets.

Jake Donnelly

274,734 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

“Is JD Vance a Political Coward, a Personal Coward, or Both?” JD Vance said this in a recent interview with UnHerd: “99% of Republicans, and I think probably 97% of Democrats, do not hate Jewish people for being Jewish… there is a real backlash to a consensus view in American foreign policy… we should be able to say ‘we agree with Israel on that issue, and we disagree with Israel on this other issue.’” Fine. Name the issue. Go ahead. Say it clearly. Is it Jewish communities in Judea & Samaria? Is it taking the gloves off against Iran—America’s enemy? Is it military cooperation that strengthens America and creates American jobs? Be precise. Be specific. Name the policy you’re “disagreeing” with. Because here’s the problem: you and people like you keep downplaying the massive rise in antisemitism on both the Left and the Right, as if it’s fringe or imaginary. It isn’t. And a huge portion of it is laundered through Israel. “I’m not an antisemite, I’m just anti-Zionist.” Okay… then what’s your criticism of Israel that doesn’t collapse into the same old ignorant, obsessive, conspiratorial Jew-hatred the moment anyone asks a follow-up? Because most of the “criticism” from the right-wing influencer class doesn’t hold water. It doesn’t survive scrutiny. It’s not “policy disagreement.” It’s fixation. It’s resentment. It’s a vibe! One that always seems to end at “Jews.” And you can’t pretend you don’t know who you’re standing next to. Tucker Carlson—who elevated you and pushed you into national Republican stardom—has mainstreamed this genre of “anti-Zionism” that constantly bleeds into antisemitic insinuation: loyalty tests, dual-loyalty smears, Talmud hysteria, and endless “Israel controls America” signaling. And that’s why it stood out that one of your strongest condemnations lately was aimed at Sloan Rachmuth; who asked a question you should be able to answer in public without melting down: How much influence does Tucker Carlson’s orbit—including his son Buckley, and the broader network around them—have on your thinking and staffing? It’s easy to dismiss antisemitism on the Right when you just… don’t look at it. It’s easy to say “that’s not antisemitism, it’s just Israel,” when you use “Israel” as a rug to sweep it under. But we can see what’s under the rug. When every TPUSA-style event reliably produces yet another obsessive USS Liberty question, that isn’t “foreign policy nuance.” It’s a tell. When prominent right-wing personalities give an on-blowjob to figures like Nick Fuentes, that isn’t “edgy discourse.” It’s an ecosystem. When Candace Owens and other influencers rant about Jews, Israel, and the Talmud like it’s a civilizational panic button, that isn’t “criticism.” It’s antisemitism with a costume on. This exists on the Right. It’s not small. And it cannot be ignored… especially by someone auditioning to lead a country. So why are you ignoring it? Here’s my contention: because you’ll say or do anything for power. You’ll cozy up to Jew-haters because you want their votes… and because YOU think you NEED them. That’s not just cowardly. That’s dangerous. And it’s anti-American. So prove me wrong. If you’re “just anti-Zionist” and it’s “just about Israeli policy”: Name the policy. Be specific. Say it plainly. No winking. No fog. No dodge. Anything else is just cowardice.
5:52

“Is JD Vance a Political Coward, a Personal Coward, or Both?” JD Vance said this in a recent interview with UnHerd: “99% of Republicans, and I think probably 97% of Democrats, do not hate Jewish people for being Jewish… there is a real backlash to a consensus view in American foreign policy… we should be able to say ‘we agree with Israel on that issue, and we disagree with Israel on this other issue.’” Fine. Name the issue. Go ahead. Say it clearly. Is it Jewish communities in Judea & Samaria? Is it taking the gloves off against Iran—America’s enemy? Is it military cooperation that strengthens America and creates American jobs? Be precise. Be specific. Name the policy you’re “disagreeing” with. Because here’s the problem: you and people like you keep downplaying the massive rise in antisemitism on both the Left and the Right, as if it’s fringe or imaginary. It isn’t. And a huge portion of it is laundered through Israel. “I’m not an antisemite, I’m just anti-Zionist.” Okay… then what’s your criticism of Israel that doesn’t collapse into the same old ignorant, obsessive, conspiratorial Jew-hatred the moment anyone asks a follow-up? Because most of the “criticism” from the right-wing influencer class doesn’t hold water. It doesn’t survive scrutiny. It’s not “policy disagreement.” It’s fixation. It’s resentment. It’s a vibe! One that always seems to end at “Jews.” And you can’t pretend you don’t know who you’re standing next to. Tucker Carlson—who elevated you and pushed you into national Republican stardom—has mainstreamed this genre of “anti-Zionism” that constantly bleeds into antisemitic insinuation: loyalty tests, dual-loyalty smears, Talmud hysteria, and endless “Israel controls America” signaling. And that’s why it stood out that one of your strongest condemnations lately was aimed at Sloan Rachmuth; who asked a question you should be able to answer in public without melting down: How much influence does Tucker Carlson’s orbit—including his son Buckley, and the broader network around them—have on your thinking and staffing? It’s easy to dismiss antisemitism on the Right when you just… don’t look at it. It’s easy to say “that’s not antisemitism, it’s just Israel,” when you use “Israel” as a rug to sweep it under. But we can see what’s under the rug. When every TPUSA-style event reliably produces yet another obsessive USS Liberty question, that isn’t “foreign policy nuance.” It’s a tell. When prominent right-wing personalities give an on-blowjob to figures like Nick Fuentes, that isn’t “edgy discourse.” It’s an ecosystem. When Candace Owens and other influencers rant about Jews, Israel, and the Talmud like it’s a civilizational panic button, that isn’t “criticism.” It’s antisemitism with a costume on. This exists on the Right. It’s not small. And it cannot be ignored… especially by someone auditioning to lead a country. So why are you ignoring it? Here’s my contention: because you’ll say or do anything for power. You’ll cozy up to Jew-haters because you want their votes… and because YOU think you NEED them. That’s not just cowardly. That’s dangerous. And it’s anti-American. So prove me wrong. If you’re “just anti-Zionist” and it’s “just about Israeli policy”: Name the policy. Be specific. Say it plainly. No winking. No fog. No dodge. Anything else is just cowardice.

Jake Donnelly

22,716 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

James Woods & Oliver Stone explain how this scene criticising the American foreign policy was filmed, it's importance & how they fought to have it in the final cut of 'Salvador' (1986): "James Woods: The big final speech with Chester Colby, the CIA guy and the general; Oliver is famous for this, he comes up with that entire speech to me. I was just supposed to sit, to have like a couple of lines & give the the pictures [to them]. [Then] they go, "this stuff's sh!t". I [thought] okay fine [and] I leave. Oliver comes up with the entire history of the battle of El Salvador and American involvement, literally five pages. He asked "do you think you could throw some of this stuff in?" I said I don't know how to pronounce and I what the f**k. [Seeing] all these names I asked, "when do you want to shoot this?" he said, "now". I remember standing by a wall and somebody comes to me I said look, "I've got to learn this stuff" and literally five minutes later we shot it and it was the only time I think I'm really any good in the movie, because I'm really trying to make a point as I can't remember anything because he just gave it to me; so I felt more real there and the rest of time [I felt] like acting, trying to be an actor, but that was the one time that he actually came up and just threw the crap at me and I thought okay I guess I'll try to remember it. Oliver Stone: At that point we were so close to the edge. We were almost closed down several times. The movie was always financially in dire shape so I said, "I got to, this is probably the last movie I make". I really thought so. [I decided] to throw in everything I feel about this situation. I don't think it was last minute [speech] but I did hit him with the speech because [I felt] I this is our only chance [or else] the American people were never going to hear it. We fought for it all the way through. People wanted to cut it of course for various reasons talkie and all that but no we stuck with it and we said we're going to make this movie and we're going to say this, it's never been said before and I'm glad we did do it. I really am [glad] although it is a little bit static, but the argument remains a valid one. Although it might be a little bit stiff, it is valid and it's still an argument that exists to this day. Who thought in 1986 that this thing was going to get even worse? We thought the issue of Vietnam was behind us. I was shocked when I went to South Central America and saw American soldiers all over Honduras fighting the contras in Nicaragua against the the revolutionaries. It was all 'Deja Vu' and I was shocked and that's why this movie got made- because we didn't want another Vietnam but we didn't see what was coming." ("NYFF Q&A: Oliver Stone & James Woods, 'Salvador'", 2011)
3:51

James Woods & Oliver Stone explain how this scene criticising the American foreign policy was filmed, it's importance & how they fought to have it in the final cut of 'Salvador' (1986): "James Woods: The big final speech with Chester Colby, the CIA guy and the general; Oliver is famous for this, he comes up with that entire speech to me. I was just supposed to sit, to have like a couple of lines & give the the pictures [to them]. [Then] they go, "this stuff's sh!t". I [thought] okay fine [and] I leave. Oliver comes up with the entire history of the battle of El Salvador and American involvement, literally five pages. He asked "do you think you could throw some of this stuff in?" I said I don't know how to pronounce and I what the f**k. [Seeing] all these names I asked, "when do you want to shoot this?" he said, "now". I remember standing by a wall and somebody comes to me I said look, "I've got to learn this stuff" and literally five minutes later we shot it and it was the only time I think I'm really any good in the movie, because I'm really trying to make a point as I can't remember anything because he just gave it to me; so I felt more real there and the rest of time [I felt] like acting, trying to be an actor, but that was the one time that he actually came up and just threw the crap at me and I thought okay I guess I'll try to remember it. Oliver Stone: At that point we were so close to the edge. We were almost closed down several times. The movie was always financially in dire shape so I said, "I got to, this is probably the last movie I make". I really thought so. [I decided] to throw in everything I feel about this situation. I don't think it was last minute [speech] but I did hit him with the speech because [I felt] I this is our only chance [or else] the American people were never going to hear it. We fought for it all the way through. People wanted to cut it of course for various reasons talkie and all that but no we stuck with it and we said we're going to make this movie and we're going to say this, it's never been said before and I'm glad we did do it. I really am [glad] although it is a little bit static, but the argument remains a valid one. Although it might be a little bit stiff, it is valid and it's still an argument that exists to this day. Who thought in 1986 that this thing was going to get even worse? We thought the issue of Vietnam was behind us. I was shocked when I went to South Central America and saw American soldiers all over Honduras fighting the contras in Nicaragua against the the revolutionaries. It was all 'Deja Vu' and I was shocked and that's why this movie got made- because we didn't want another Vietnam but we didn't see what was coming." ("NYFF Q&A: Oliver Stone & James Woods, 'Salvador'", 2011)

DepressedBergman

124,334 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🇺🇳🇵🇸🇮🇱🇿🇦🚨‼️ ICJ EXPLANATION: Why is the South African case against Israel at The Hague important and historic! - Many people think that the ICJ case has no consequence and hence means nothing. This cannot be further from the truth❗️ 1) First you need to understand how these institutions are used. Previously such international institutions were used by western countries to exert pressure on the global south. The west always talks about morality and the need to abide by international law and The Hague’s decisions. - Reminder, last year a case in Hague’s ICC was opened against the Russian president. The G7 then exerted tremendous pressure on all countries to break ties with Russia and arrest the Russian president upon visit of their country. 🇿🇦 South Africa was hosting a BRICS summit and they could not invite the Russian president. There was a lot of controversy, but in the end the ICC triumphed. Now we have South Africa flipping the tables and essentially trapping the G7 in a situation where they either need to abide by the ICJ court and abandon Israel or they destroy the international institutions of The Hague. The global south is watching closely. If the case will be dropped now, it’s effectively a destruction of the institution as well. 2) What will happen if South Africa wins? Let’s say the court rules in South Africa’s favor. Now nothing happens, Israel ignores the decision. 🇺🇳 South Africa goes with this decision to the UN! Then the general assembly can decide on further proceedings and they will in Palestine’s favor. This likely would lead to UN mandated sanctions of Israel, like freezing assets, import limits and so on. Now this is essentially another problem for the west, since all countries around Israel would join the sanctions. The US cannot forbid countries to abide by UN decisions, also if the G7 countries do not follow the sanctions then they will be in blatant violation as well. 3)🧑‍⚖️ NEXT: ICC follow-up lawsuits! First the ICC would have to look at Netanyahu and co, since there’s a case confirming they’re doing gen**ide they cannot ignore it. And now we come back the big drama the G7 made about the Russian president. Now the same would apply to Netanyahu, for example. This means he can’t go to Europe and US anymore, just imagine this! 🚔 Netanyahu would be officially a criminal that has to be arrested upon arrival. That would be the self destruction of the west or the downfall of Israel, ending up as a pariah state. 4)🇮🇩 Indonesia lawsuits: Now Indonesia is filing a lawsuit at the ICJ against Israel for the 70 year occupation of Palestine. The decision is “moral binding” sure. BUT again, it’s a hypocrisy trap and Indonesia can take this decision to the UN general assembly and try to get all countries to act, i. E. sanctions. 5) 🇲🇽🇨🇱 Mexico and Chile sue Israel as well in the ICC. "The action by Mexico and Chile is due to growing worry over the latest escalation of violence, particularly against civilian targets Israel is not a member of the Hague-based court and does not recognize its jurisdiction. But the ICC's prosecutor has stressed his court has jurisdiction over potential crimes carried in Gaza and Israel.” ‼️ Another hypocrisy trap, Russia is also not a member of the ICC but G7 countries ignored that and demanded his arrest. Now this cannot be used as an excuse anymore, or Russia is off. 📝Summary: South Africa’s lawsuit at the international court of justice is a clever trap for the west. Either destroy all your institutions and be finally and fully exposed as a hypocrite or act against Israel. This is also why the western countries freak out so much about the ICJ, because they would have a big problem if Israel would be convicted. Just look at the UN voting for Palestine (pic), Israel has no chance if there’s a court decision. If South Africa wins, or any other lawsuit would win, Israel has a problem. More countries are joining the lawsuits or file their own! Let’s see!
1:26

🇺🇳🇵🇸🇮🇱🇿🇦🚨‼️ ICJ EXPLANATION: Why is the South African case against Israel at The Hague important and historic! - Many people think that the ICJ case has no consequence and hence means nothing. This cannot be further from the truth❗️ 1) First you need to understand how these institutions are used. Previously such international institutions were used by western countries to exert pressure on the global south. The west always talks about morality and the need to abide by international law and The Hague’s decisions. - Reminder, last year a case in Hague’s ICC was opened against the Russian president. The G7 then exerted tremendous pressure on all countries to break ties with Russia and arrest the Russian president upon visit of their country. 🇿🇦 South Africa was hosting a BRICS summit and they could not invite the Russian president. There was a lot of controversy, but in the end the ICC triumphed. Now we have South Africa flipping the tables and essentially trapping the G7 in a situation where they either need to abide by the ICJ court and abandon Israel or they destroy the international institutions of The Hague. The global south is watching closely. If the case will be dropped now, it’s effectively a destruction of the institution as well. 2) What will happen if South Africa wins? Let’s say the court rules in South Africa’s favor. Now nothing happens, Israel ignores the decision. 🇺🇳 South Africa goes with this decision to the UN! Then the general assembly can decide on further proceedings and they will in Palestine’s favor. This likely would lead to UN mandated sanctions of Israel, like freezing assets, import limits and so on. Now this is essentially another problem for the west, since all countries around Israel would join the sanctions. The US cannot forbid countries to abide by UN decisions, also if the G7 countries do not follow the sanctions then they will be in blatant violation as well. 3)🧑‍⚖️ NEXT: ICC follow-up lawsuits! First the ICC would have to look at Netanyahu and co, since there’s a case confirming they’re doing gen**ide they cannot ignore it. And now we come back the big drama the G7 made about the Russian president. Now the same would apply to Netanyahu, for example. This means he can’t go to Europe and US anymore, just imagine this! 🚔 Netanyahu would be officially a criminal that has to be arrested upon arrival. That would be the self destruction of the west or the downfall of Israel, ending up as a pariah state. 4)🇮🇩 Indonesia lawsuits: Now Indonesia is filing a lawsuit at the ICJ against Israel for the 70 year occupation of Palestine. The decision is “moral binding” sure. BUT again, it’s a hypocrisy trap and Indonesia can take this decision to the UN general assembly and try to get all countries to act, i. E. sanctions. 5) 🇲🇽🇨🇱 Mexico and Chile sue Israel as well in the ICC. "The action by Mexico and Chile is due to growing worry over the latest escalation of violence, particularly against civilian targets Israel is not a member of the Hague-based court and does not recognize its jurisdiction. But the ICC's prosecutor has stressed his court has jurisdiction over potential crimes carried in Gaza and Israel.” ‼️ Another hypocrisy trap, Russia is also not a member of the ICC but G7 countries ignored that and demanded his arrest. Now this cannot be used as an excuse anymore, or Russia is off. 📝Summary: South Africa’s lawsuit at the international court of justice is a clever trap for the west. Either destroy all your institutions and be finally and fully exposed as a hypocrite or act against Israel. This is also why the western countries freak out so much about the ICJ, because they would have a big problem if Israel would be convicted. Just look at the UN voting for Palestine (pic), Israel has no chance if there’s a court decision. If South Africa wins, or any other lawsuit would win, Israel has a problem. More countries are joining the lawsuits or file their own! Let’s see!

Lord Bebo

245,630 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Refresher On The Rules For Discussing Israeli Wars Okay it’s been a few months since the last war Israel started, so now that Iran’s on the chopping block let’s go over the rules once again. Rule 1: Israel is never the aggressor. If Israel attacks someone it’s either a response to an aggression that happened in the past, or a preemptive attack to thwart an imminent aggression in the future. Rule 2: History automatically restarts at the date of the last act of aggression against Israel. If someone attacks Israel it was completely unprovoked, because nothing happened before the attack on Israel. Rule 3: Anything bad that Israel does is justified by Rule 2. This is true even if it does things that would be considered completely unjustifiable if it were done by a nation like Russia or China. Rule 4: Israel has a right to defend itself, but nobody else does. Rule 5: Israel never bombs civilians, it bombs Bad Guys. If shocking numbers of civilians die it’s because they were actually Bad Guys, or because Bad Guys killed them, or because a Bad Guy stood too close to them. If none of those reasons apply then it’s for some other mysterious reason we are still waiting for the IDF to investigate. Rule 6: Criticizing anything Israel does means you hate Jewish people. There is no other possible reason for anyone to oppose acts of mass military slaughter besides a seething, obsessive hatred for a small Abrahamic faith. Rule 7: Nothing Israel does is ever as bad as the hateful criticisms described in Rule 6. Criticisms of Israel’s actions are always worse than Israel’s actions themselves, because those critics hate Jews and wish to commit another Holocaust. Preventing this must consume 100 percent of our political energy and attention. Rule 8: Israelis are only ever the victims and never the victimizers. If Israelis kill Iranians, it’s because the Iranians hate Jews. If Iranians kill Israelis, it’s because the Iranians hate Jews. Israel is an innocent little lamb that just wants to mind its own business in peace. Rule 9: The fact that Israel is literally always in a state of war with its neighbors and with displaced indigenous populations must be interpreted as proof that Rule 8 is true instead of proof that Rule 8 is ridiculous nonsense. Rule 10: The lives of people in Muslim nations are much, much less important to us than western lives or Israeli lives. Nobody is allowed to think too hard about why this might be. Rule 11: The media always tell the truth about Israel and its various conflicts. If you doubt this then you are likely in violation of Rule 6. Rule 12: Unsubstantiated claims which portray Israel’s enemies in a negative light may be reported as factual news stories without any fact checking or qualifications, while extensively evidenced records of Israeli criminality must be reported on with extreme skepticism and doubtful qualifiers like “Iran claims”, “Hezbollah says” or “according to the Hamas-run health ministry”. This is important to do because otherwise you might get accused of being a propagandist. Rule 13: Israel must continue to exist in its current iteration no matter what it costs or how many people need to die. There is no need to present any logically or morally grounded reasons why this is the case. If you dispute this then you are likely in violation of Rule 6. Rule 14: The US government has never lied about anything ever, and is always on the right side of every conflict. Rule 15: Israel is the last bastion of freedom and democracy in the middle east and therefore must be defended, no matter how many journalists it has to assassinate, no matter how many press institutions it needs to shut down, no matter how many protests its supporters need to dismantle, no matter how much free speech it needs to eliminate, no matter how many civil rights its western backers need to erase, and no matter how many elections its lobbyists need to buy. Reading by Tim Foley.
4:46

Refresher On The Rules For Discussing Israeli Wars Okay it’s been a few months since the last war Israel started, so now that Iran’s on the chopping block let’s go over the rules once again. Rule 1: Israel is never the aggressor. If Israel attacks someone it’s either a response to an aggression that happened in the past, or a preemptive attack to thwart an imminent aggression in the future. Rule 2: History automatically restarts at the date of the last act of aggression against Israel. If someone attacks Israel it was completely unprovoked, because nothing happened before the attack on Israel. Rule 3: Anything bad that Israel does is justified by Rule 2. This is true even if it does things that would be considered completely unjustifiable if it were done by a nation like Russia or China. Rule 4: Israel has a right to defend itself, but nobody else does. Rule 5: Israel never bombs civilians, it bombs Bad Guys. If shocking numbers of civilians die it’s because they were actually Bad Guys, or because Bad Guys killed them, or because a Bad Guy stood too close to them. If none of those reasons apply then it’s for some other mysterious reason we are still waiting for the IDF to investigate. Rule 6: Criticizing anything Israel does means you hate Jewish people. There is no other possible reason for anyone to oppose acts of mass military slaughter besides a seething, obsessive hatred for a small Abrahamic faith. Rule 7: Nothing Israel does is ever as bad as the hateful criticisms described in Rule 6. Criticisms of Israel’s actions are always worse than Israel’s actions themselves, because those critics hate Jews and wish to commit another Holocaust. Preventing this must consume 100 percent of our political energy and attention. Rule 8: Israelis are only ever the victims and never the victimizers. If Israelis kill Iranians, it’s because the Iranians hate Jews. If Iranians kill Israelis, it’s because the Iranians hate Jews. Israel is an innocent little lamb that just wants to mind its own business in peace. Rule 9: The fact that Israel is literally always in a state of war with its neighbors and with displaced indigenous populations must be interpreted as proof that Rule 8 is true instead of proof that Rule 8 is ridiculous nonsense. Rule 10: The lives of people in Muslim nations are much, much less important to us than western lives or Israeli lives. Nobody is allowed to think too hard about why this might be. Rule 11: The media always tell the truth about Israel and its various conflicts. If you doubt this then you are likely in violation of Rule 6. Rule 12: Unsubstantiated claims which portray Israel’s enemies in a negative light may be reported as factual news stories without any fact checking or qualifications, while extensively evidenced records of Israeli criminality must be reported on with extreme skepticism and doubtful qualifiers like “Iran claims”, “Hezbollah says” or “according to the Hamas-run health ministry”. This is important to do because otherwise you might get accused of being a propagandist. Rule 13: Israel must continue to exist in its current iteration no matter what it costs or how many people need to die. There is no need to present any logically or morally grounded reasons why this is the case. If you dispute this then you are likely in violation of Rule 6. Rule 14: The US government has never lied about anything ever, and is always on the right side of every conflict. Rule 15: Israel is the last bastion of freedom and democracy in the middle east and therefore must be defended, no matter how many journalists it has to assassinate, no matter how many press institutions it needs to shut down, no matter how many protests its supporters need to dismantle, no matter how much free speech it needs to eliminate, no matter how many civil rights its western backers need to erase, and no matter how many elections its lobbyists need to buy. Reading by Tim Foley.

Caitlin Johnstone

23,294 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"I've been trying to say this to Jewish people, and to Americans, and to everybody, there's an enemy within. I think we all know that and what are we going to do about it?" "The vaccines were tested on Jewish people in Israel. Is this a captive population that the owners of the world think they can use as lab rats? again and again and again, even in their own state? I mean is it that big? Is it that horrible? And I kinda think, yeah it is" - Roseanne Barr This is the entire perspective I've been trying to get across to everyone since the Hamas attack on Israel, and why I've been speaking so strongly against the people pounding on us for war and not questioning the government. Before the attacks, it felt like we were finally starting to see a movement of people who were unified against that enemy within. We didn't agree on everything and there was still discussion to be had on issues, but we largely shared the sentiment in that we knew basically every government across the world was captured and apart of the same anti-human agenda, we knew they were willfully harming and killing people with the vaccine and other measures, and we knew they were lying to us constantly throughout. After the attack, 9/11 brain has stricken many and we're back to arguing over what narratives we trust, what people we should listen to, which authority is the good guy and the bad guy, and who we should support in enacting revenge on the perpetrators of the Hamas attack, instead of asking the obvious questions like "How did Israel fail to protect it's people exactly?" "Who does this benefit in the end?" "What could this be distracting us from?" How was Hamas was able to ride into the country on bulldozers, boats, paragliders, and trucks, spend several hours killing civilians and capturing them as hostages, to then drive out of the country with said hostages with no contact from the Israeli military? Does no one notice how absurd this sounds? It's one of the best militaries in the world with the world super power of the United States behind it, and somehow they dropped the ball this badly and allowed their people to be killed? The exact same questions were asked on 9/11, and we were met with the same ridicule for asking them, to only find out years later they knew the attack was coming and let it happen for the war plans that made long in advance. Roseanne also brought up a very important point with the vaccine that it seems like everyone has already forgotten and completely removed from the context of the current situation with Israel, the US, or any other government saying "it's a tragedy" about Hamas murdering babies and civilians. News flash, governments have been experimenting on it's citizens and murdering babies with vaccines for decades. We have 6 month old infants getting the COVID vaccine as we speak, with every single death being attributed to something else to protect criminal pharma corporations. The governments know this, and yet they're not outraged. Why? Do you remember when the Israeli government used their own citizens as guinea pigs for the COVID vaccine? Remember when they forced them to get it to keep their jobs or exist in society? Remember when they were the first country to implement the WHO/WEF vaccine passport system? How can you possibly argue that the Israeli government actually cares about it's citizens with this reality in mind? It's absurd cognitive dissonance with gold medal tier mental gymnastics and hypocrisy. The enemy has always been within, and that enemy is now trying to push us to war with Iran for more death, destruction, and depopulation.
12:23

"I've been trying to say this to Jewish people, and to Americans, and to everybody, there's an enemy within. I think we all know that and what are we going to do about it?" "The vaccines were tested on Jewish people in Israel. Is this a captive population that the owners of the world think they can use as lab rats? again and again and again, even in their own state? I mean is it that big? Is it that horrible? And I kinda think, yeah it is" - Roseanne Barr This is the entire perspective I've been trying to get across to everyone since the Hamas attack on Israel, and why I've been speaking so strongly against the people pounding on us for war and not questioning the government. Before the attacks, it felt like we were finally starting to see a movement of people who were unified against that enemy within. We didn't agree on everything and there was still discussion to be had on issues, but we largely shared the sentiment in that we knew basically every government across the world was captured and apart of the same anti-human agenda, we knew they were willfully harming and killing people with the vaccine and other measures, and we knew they were lying to us constantly throughout. After the attack, 9/11 brain has stricken many and we're back to arguing over what narratives we trust, what people we should listen to, which authority is the good guy and the bad guy, and who we should support in enacting revenge on the perpetrators of the Hamas attack, instead of asking the obvious questions like "How did Israel fail to protect it's people exactly?" "Who does this benefit in the end?" "What could this be distracting us from?" How was Hamas was able to ride into the country on bulldozers, boats, paragliders, and trucks, spend several hours killing civilians and capturing them as hostages, to then drive out of the country with said hostages with no contact from the Israeli military? Does no one notice how absurd this sounds? It's one of the best militaries in the world with the world super power of the United States behind it, and somehow they dropped the ball this badly and allowed their people to be killed? The exact same questions were asked on 9/11, and we were met with the same ridicule for asking them, to only find out years later they knew the attack was coming and let it happen for the war plans that made long in advance. Roseanne also brought up a very important point with the vaccine that it seems like everyone has already forgotten and completely removed from the context of the current situation with Israel, the US, or any other government saying "it's a tragedy" about Hamas murdering babies and civilians. News flash, governments have been experimenting on it's citizens and murdering babies with vaccines for decades. We have 6 month old infants getting the COVID vaccine as we speak, with every single death being attributed to something else to protect criminal pharma corporations. The governments know this, and yet they're not outraged. Why? Do you remember when the Israeli government used their own citizens as guinea pigs for the COVID vaccine? Remember when they forced them to get it to keep their jobs or exist in society? Remember when they were the first country to implement the WHO/WEF vaccine passport system? How can you possibly argue that the Israeli government actually cares about it's citizens with this reality in mind? It's absurd cognitive dissonance with gold medal tier mental gymnastics and hypocrisy. The enemy has always been within, and that enemy is now trying to push us to war with Iran for more death, destruction, and depopulation.

Inversionism

1,679,874 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Alright, here's the epic towel rant from tonight; And so that's what kind of tipped me off in real time. I was like: wait a minute. Is Judge Doolin ruling from the bench right now? And then I was like: wait a minute. He's ruling from the bench and ordering them to appoint a new prosecutor and potentially the Attorney General. Oh my word. How—what is this? I—this wasn't on my bingo card. Even now I'm just like: Oh my God, I can't believe he did that. Judge Doolin—in a good way. I'm just like: Oh my God, there is hope. And then to follow it up with: "Oh yeah, I'm thinking about a hearing on the contempt." Oh my God—you're telegraphing. You're going to have a contempt hearing after the Attorney General is potentially on the case. The other witnesses, however, are left in this position where they have this kind of not really well-funded—like kind of spastic prosecution, like the special prosecutors on the Kearney cases. Then you got the December 23rd, 2023 criminal charges against Aidan that were charged in Dedham District Court, 23rd or 26th or so. And that was for illegally—allegedly—recording Lindsey Gaetani and then submitting an edited version of the recording into court for some reason. I don't know why Aidan did that, especially apparently when there's an original version of the recording pursuant to some of the statements in court. And then also for intimidating Lindsey—for allegedly going over there on December 23rd, 2023—against Karen Read's advice and against his lawyers' advice, apparently, according to a leaked group chat message from Facebook in 2024—in May of 2024—going over to Lindsey's apartment. And then according to the affidavit from the search warrant for Karen Read's cell phone—allegedly telling Lindsey that she shouldn't cooperate with the grand jury. She should—she could remove information from her phone or something—that Aidan would get her a lawyer, but only if she agreed to meet with a lawyer only with him present, because she had, quote, "broken his trust." It just like—wild stuff. And that new grand jury, by the way, was apparently—it did go forward. And then in time it came out that it—that was about Karen and Aidan and witness intimidation and conspiracy, because Aidan Kearney—between October and November—really August and November of 2023—it started telling Lindsey Gaetani about his communications with Karen Read that included—in writing—Exhibit O to Karen Read search warrant affidavit, which says that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that in November of 2023—November 28, 2023, to be specific—that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that Karen Read and her team at ex parte conversations with former U.S. Attorney Josh Levy—which was right in the window of time that Jessica Leslie, the grand juror leaker, was leaking information. Leslie started leaking in August of 2022—which is the same month that Alan Jackson joined Karen Read's legal team. And Josh Levy—who was one of the U.S. Attorneys in charge of that grand jury—Leslie was leaking about four different cases: probably the Birchmore case, definitely the Read and O'Keefe case, definitely the CDL case. One more case. We can't really—the group of us journalists involved in this—can't really figure out. So right in the middle of that—November of 2023—Josh Levy is leaking ex parte grand jury information to Karen Read, which she's putting—she's telling Aidan Kearney about; he's putting it in writing. He just was trying to just show off for Lindsey, but you don't like—come on—like what is it? First day in the IC, bro? I'm not in the IC. I'm not part of the government. I'm a towel. But anyway—so Aidan's bragging to Lindsey, and I don't think that was a very good idea. I mean, she's brilliant and stuff, but like—why would you ever say that to her? Don't say that stuff. But anyway—like, why would you say—even if it's your significant other—unless they are read-in on the intel that you are sharing—why would you ever, ever, ever share that with someone? It exposes them to an incredible liability—which, if you love them, don't do it. It also exposes your own credibility to an incredible risk of liability. You will never be trusted by the intelligence community again. Pillow talk and honeypots are how they trap operatives. If you chase sex, they will compromise you. How can you not understand that? So if you get compromised by someone who's not an agent—just someone who's your partner and you're just telling them stuff about protected federal investigations—what do you think your reputation is going to be like among the intelligence community when you're doing that and they haven't even honeypotted you? You just voluntarily started putting this shit in writing. They're going to look at you like you are out of your mind. So anyway—Karen Read apparently is telling Aidan Kearney that she's having ex parte conversations with Josh Levy. Now, the grand jury that Leslie was leaking from was impaneled in May of 2022 when Rachael Rollins used to be U.S. Attorney in Boston. Now think about this. In 2020, Rachael Rollins and Aidan Kearney—Rachael Rollins, a hyper-liberal known for her soft-on-crime stance. We'll also hear Rollins hated Michael Morrissey. Anyway, Rollins worked with Turtle Boy to send a Republican operative named Rayla Campbell to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events in the Senate race against Ed Markey so that Ed Markey could win the Senate seat. Now, interestingly enough, Rachael Rollins then got appointed to the position of U.S. Attorney right after that. And you might say: well, Grant, that's a stretch. No, no—because then within a few months, Rachael Rollins—part of the reason she gets thrown out of office by the DOJ OIG—is because she attends an event in Andover with—guess who?—Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of the then-president who appointed her. Now, what does that mean? Well, if you really think about the geopolitical implications of the 2020 Senate race between Ed Markey in Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy Jr.—well, one of the things you're going to realize is that—think about 2020. The leadership around Biden did not know that the chaos of 2024 was going to happen with Kamala and Biden not really being up to it. You're thinking ahead to 2024. Why? Who's your biggest target if you are a sitting Democrat and you're worried about a primary challenge four years from now? Well, what if JFK's—what is it—nephew or whatever it is—is in the House of Representatives? And what if JFK started his career in the House of Representatives? And what if that new young Kennedy with red hair and sort of a photogenic face? What if he is running for JFK's old Senate seat? What if he's on the same exact trajectory as JFK? Oh, we can't have that. We—as the Biden White House—cannot have Joe Kennedy Jr. beating Ed Markey for Senate. And how it got to the point that somebody talked to Rachael Rollins and she came up with the brilliant idea to reach out to Turtle Boy so that Turtle Boy would talk to Rayla Campbell to send her to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events to help Markey—I don't know. But that's why I think Rachael Rollins became U.S. Attorney—someone who, in my opinion, was uniquely unqualified and fundamentally unethically un-predisposed to being able to run that office. Who then in turn immediately tried to interfere in the 2022 Suffolk DA primary between Kevin Hayden and Ricardo O'Rourke—because Rollins wanted to see her progressive vision continue through O'Rourke—so she worked with Daniel Medwed—the same professor who was involved with advocating the media on behalf of Karen Read's team. She worked with Daniel Medwed to get a story leaked about how a non-existent federal probe into Kevin Hayden—to increase Ricardo O'Rourke's chances in the Suffolk DA primary. Sound familiar? Oh, hell yeah. So anyway—between November of 2022 and May of 2023—you got this weird situation where Rollins knows she's getting forced out; Levy's going to take over the office. The people who take Rollins out are Josh Levy, Bill Abley, and still head of the criminal division—Dustin Chao, I think—still head of the public integrity unit, and then executive officer who is also the press secretary or the communications director of the office. Those four people—without being named; they're named by title—were the people who cooperated with the DOJ to take Rollins out—DOJ-OIG to take Rollins out. Now, why is that interesting? Well, one—because it shows that people in that office knew that Rachael Rollins had a proclivity for weaponizing leaks about non-existent federal probes to interfere in particular district attorney races and matters. Second—Rachael Rollins and Michael Morrissey had a bifurcated history of ten years. One: Rachael Rollins had this list of 25 crimes she wouldn't prosecute, and other DAs critiqued her—not just Michael Morrissey but others. Rollins—I'm pretty sure—was the one who first called Morrissey a "meatball," in fact, because of his criticism of Rollins over that issue. Rachael Rollins—I think—has a proclivity, in my opinion, to hold a bit of a grudge. When she became U.S. Attorney and she realized she was on the way out—well, maybe the Sandra Birchmore probe started back in May of 2022 because former chief of the Canton police—Ken Berkowitz—went to the FBI and told them that the FBI covered up—the MSP unit detailed to the Norfolk DA covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder—potentially because Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning used to work in Stoughton with Matt Farwell and Robert Devine and Billy Farwell—I think they all worked there. And furthermore—that Brian Tully, the unit commander, was partners with John Fanning for 20 years. All right, and in that regard—it is very interesting, I think—that Chief Berkowitz—who may have been very offended that his unit... So Sandra Birchmore was murdered on February 1st, 2021, at 9:23 p.m. in her apartment in Canton. Okay—on February 4th, Monday in the morning—the Canton police do a wellness check after they get a call from her—Sandra's—colleagues at the school where she worked as an administrative assistant. Now the Canton police respond—on Monday, February 4th—by Wednesday, February 6th. The Canton police have collected the following evidence in order. And if you don't believe me, you can read pages—I think 97 through 101—of the Canton Police Department audit report released in April of 2025. Point by point. Number one: the Canton police confirm—via a witness who was the maintenance worker at Sandra's apartment building—that Matt Farwell was the man on camera outside Sandra's apartment in the elevator at 9:23 p.m. on February 1st—which is exactly when Sandra died. Two: that the man was Matt Farwell, and he was the same man who helped Sandra move into her apartment. Three: that when the Canton PD went to Sandra's school, they got information that Farwell was telling people that Sandra was pregnant with his child—that he had abused her since she was a child—and that he was going to quote "take care of the problem himself" if Sandra decided to carry the baby to term. All right. All of that information—by February 6th of 2021—was passed over to the MSP. John Fanning and this whole unit—I think—really then facilitate a report sometime over the next six to 12 months that exonerates Farwell and says Sandra dies from self-harm. Well, I think that's why Ken Berkowitz blew the whistle before he died of cancer—and that's why there was a grand jury impaneled in May of 2022—and it was really about the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. Well—one—it was about Sandra Birchmore's murder. Why does that make everything so interesting? Because I think that the investigation wasn't just about who killed Sandra and why—but how was it ruled a—the result of self-harm—instead of the very obvious murder that it was. Well—that starts—2022, I think—May of 2022—the grand jury. Jessica Leslie was on the grand jury—leaker—who's going to be sentenced on October 4th of 2025. I think Jessica Leslie—ladies and gentlemen—in August of 2022 somehow leaked to Karen Read—Alan Jackson—that the Norfolk DA was dirty because they covered up—and that MSP unit—because they covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder. All right—so therefore, Alan Jackson—that's the skeleton in the closet. It wasn't what the people in the house were doing. I'm still a little suspect of who they know—but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares—nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. The big issue is that Jen was friends with Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And they—I think—they brought on the PI—Marty Kraft—and Kate Peter—to insulate their exposure from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. And so they were worried. And who would you bring in if you had covered up a murder? If you were a MSP unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids—and I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck's the perfect person be like: "Bruh, if that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these like different people that get too close to this—or we're going to be exposed for Birchmore." But let me bring it back to the point here—which is in 2022, the feds clearly were starting to poke around. And come 2023—I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept up—even in light of the national spotlight? When you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement—but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation of Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her—but if you think about it in the context of: Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore—then you understand: Karen—that's why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them—the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did—to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway—and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA—destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly—and she's a tactical fucking genius. I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely—in my opinion—bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. If you don't know what a backhand is, folks—a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface because you're dealing with a very high-level operation like the state police—who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death. But really—you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out—from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together—and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got indicted. Now—it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: this is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power and who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said: Nope—it's out of your hands. And that's what Judge Doolin did today. Someone just needed to not either be involved with Karen Read, Aidan Kearney, or the Norfolk DA—or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft—and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses—I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there. But at least for Lindsey—Judge Doolin was like: enough of this nonsense. And that's why today was such a big deal in light of that historical context—because just tracing that very insidious pattern of events over the past 18 months—you can see this became a proxy war. It was Michael Morrissey on one side with his marching soldiers: Brian Tully, Kate Peter, Marty Kraft. And then it was Karen Read and the DOJ on the other side. Okay. And their soldiers were like the Free Karen Read movement and Turtle Boy and Natalie and all these other people. This was an intelligence community proxy war. And that's why I've been trying to tell people for so long: Lindsey Gaetani was not involved. She was an unwitting pawn. These two factions both took advantage of her—including Brian Tully—who was more interested in preserving his unit's reputation than actually defending the interest of the vulnerable. In my opinion, I think Brian Tully is a terrible person. Does that mean that he's a bad person for trying to hold Karen Read accountable for John O'Keefe's death? No, of course not. He's a bad person because in what fucking world do you—as a fucking state police officer—who you—you are entrusted—not just to get the bad guys—but to protect the most fucking vulnerable? One: how do you justify what happened with Sandra Birchmore? Two: how the fuck do you get it in your fucking mind that you're going to take a 15-year unredacted extraction of a fucking vulnerable victim's cell phone and release it to a fucking defendant known for promulgating exactly that material? What fucking headspace? What satanic fucking chamber do you and Kate Peter have to be drinking blood from fucking cups in to think that that's fucking okay? Fuck you. How do you even get in the headspace where doing something like that to a fucking victim becomes acceptable. The rot in that unit—whether enabled by Morrissey or whether he didn't know about it—I don't fucking know. But the point is: the rot in that unit was so deep that they lost their fucking souls. They didn't think of victims as victims. They re-victimized victims because it was a political fucking war—and these people are so hardened, I guess, that they don't understand what it means to be vulnerable. And these were police officers—detectives—people entrusted to uphold and protect the dignity of the most vulnerable—and they fucking used victims to advance some political agenda—to deal with the fact that they covered up a fucking murder. I'm done being gentle about this. Fuck these people. And I'm not saying that it was wrong for them to investigate Karen Read. I am pleased someone tried to prosecute her. I'm pissed at them because they were thinking about it from the perspective of their own liability for an unrelated case—and they fucked everything up—and introducing Kate Peter to this shit. Oh my God. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace to the people who were hurt. It's a disgrace to the vulnerable. I frankly do not understand how Jen McCabe, Brian Tully, and Kate Peter go to bed each night. I don't get it. I don't know. Maybe there's something that shuts off the GABA-1 receptor or something and just makes you go to bed. I don't know. Never heard of such a thing. But I'm just saying: I don't know how you do it. How do you do it? But anyway—Judge Doolin—without giving a... extemporaneous, uh, bloviating cuss-based rant like I just did—instead, in my opinion, is like: fuck all of you! You're not being involved in this prosecution anymore. Someone's gonna protect this fucking woman—Lindsey Gaetani. I'm making you appoint someone! I love that man. Good for Judge Doolin. But still—we never should have gone to this point. This is incredible. With the... the... the MSP. The fact that they had a unit operating like this for so long. This is worse than what John Connolly and Whitey Bulger did. This is institutional rot that is so pervasive that it requires fundamental reform of the MSP. They're not incapable of—um, uh—solving crimes. I'm sure most of the MSP are wonderful. Anyway—my point is: I don't think the state police officers that I generally run into—or troopers—are bad people. I think most of them are wonderful. They've never been really mean to me. They do good work. They're out there protecting our roads. They stop people from speeding. They—what else do they do? They go after commercial truck violations. They investigate homicides—like, on the whole. And this is why I think we have to be careful about how we talk about this. I am not saying that the entire MSP is just rotten. I'm saying that when you have factions or sections within the institution that understand its machinations and are able to thus manipulate the bureaucratic structure and avoid accountability—you lose the confidence of everyone. And how do you think some of those good troopers feel when they have to go out there? Yes—people like me are going to smile at them and bless them and whatever—because I know they're not part of the problem. But most people look at them and they think that they're fucking hated. They don't deserve that. They literally put their lives on the line for us every day. And if we're going to give them the respect they deserve—if we're going to make the profession have the respect that it deserves—then this kind of institutional rot can't be looked at as just an embarrassment. And it can't be looked at as something that—oh, we just wish didn't happen. Maybe some guys are going to go away. No—you point at it. You scream it from the rooftops and you say: if this happens even once—then we have so failed as an institution; we must fundamentally reform from the ground up. And this wasn't just once. It was Birchmore. It was the phone extraction. It was the SA report leak over and over and over and over again. They knew the law. They were an old boys' club. They abused it. They had cover—and it was systemically enabled. And that's why I think—to save the profession of policing in Massachusetts—there needs to be a full-on unbridled discussion about how this happened—how the personalities involved were able to do what they did. And we can't be so tribalistic that because someone we support as to their views on one case, right? We cannot be so tribalistic that we just block out everything bad that they do. Or this rot will continue. And it is pernicious. It is insidious. It is invidious. It undermines the faith that citizens completely removed from this situation have in our system of government. It undermines victims' confidence in the ability to seek redress in the face of serious fucking harm—because they think the system doesn't actually care about them. It's just using them to get someone bigger. We cannot allow this to perpetuate. And the only way to fix it is to hold up situations like what happened to Birchmore—Sandra Birchmore—and what happened to Lindsey Gaetani—hold them up in the national spotlight—and say: we—the MSP—have failed you. Brian Tully failed these people. John Fanning failed these people. Nick Guarino failed these people. Yuri Bukhenik failed these people. We need to say that. We need to highlight it. We need to say: this happened even once. Therefore, we are not good enough. Not only are we not good enough—the very fact that either of these things were able to happen—the Birchmore cover-up, the phone extraction leak—is such a pervasive, systemic degradation of the faith that victims and the public have in the justice system—that our only option is to talk about this—congressional hearings. We need the State House to have congressional hearings. We need these people to answer for what they did. And we need to make sure it never happens again. And the only way you do that is by finding out what aspects of the bureaucratic structure allowed this to happen. And it's not going to be comfortable. I don't think it's going to be comfortable for anyone to talk about the fallout of any of this—but that's exactly what happened at the CCC on a smaller scale. And if this country matters—if this form of government matters—if this republic matters—then we will fix this. We will fix it together. We will address the hard questions. We will address the uncomfortable questions. We will shed our prejudices and polemical biases at the door. We will engage in no fear, no favoritism—and we will look only for the truth and nothing but it. And if you are incapable of doing that—you're contributing—either consciously or subconsciously—to the problem. It's our only option. And you can't just say: because they prosecuted Karen Read, we can't talk about anything bad that they did. That's tribalism. That's polemical. That's what drove us to this point.
1:17:36

Alright, here's the epic towel rant from tonight; And so that's what kind of tipped me off in real time. I was like: wait a minute. Is Judge Doolin ruling from the bench right now? And then I was like: wait a minute. He's ruling from the bench and ordering them to appoint a new prosecutor and potentially the Attorney General. Oh my word. How—what is this? I—this wasn't on my bingo card. Even now I'm just like: Oh my God, I can't believe he did that. Judge Doolin—in a good way. I'm just like: Oh my God, there is hope. And then to follow it up with: "Oh yeah, I'm thinking about a hearing on the contempt." Oh my God—you're telegraphing. You're going to have a contempt hearing after the Attorney General is potentially on the case. The other witnesses, however, are left in this position where they have this kind of not really well-funded—like kind of spastic prosecution, like the special prosecutors on the Kearney cases. Then you got the December 23rd, 2023 criminal charges against Aidan that were charged in Dedham District Court, 23rd or 26th or so. And that was for illegally—allegedly—recording Lindsey Gaetani and then submitting an edited version of the recording into court for some reason. I don't know why Aidan did that, especially apparently when there's an original version of the recording pursuant to some of the statements in court. And then also for intimidating Lindsey—for allegedly going over there on December 23rd, 2023—against Karen Read's advice and against his lawyers' advice, apparently, according to a leaked group chat message from Facebook in 2024—in May of 2024—going over to Lindsey's apartment. And then according to the affidavit from the search warrant for Karen Read's cell phone—allegedly telling Lindsey that she shouldn't cooperate with the grand jury. She should—she could remove information from her phone or something—that Aidan would get her a lawyer, but only if she agreed to meet with a lawyer only with him present, because she had, quote, "broken his trust." It just like—wild stuff. And that new grand jury, by the way, was apparently—it did go forward. And then in time it came out that it—that was about Karen and Aidan and witness intimidation and conspiracy, because Aidan Kearney—between October and November—really August and November of 2023—it started telling Lindsey Gaetani about his communications with Karen Read that included—in writing—Exhibit O to Karen Read search warrant affidavit, which says that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that in November of 2023—November 28, 2023, to be specific—that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that Karen Read and her team at ex parte conversations with former U.S. Attorney Josh Levy—which was right in the window of time that Jessica Leslie, the grand juror leaker, was leaking information. Leslie started leaking in August of 2022—which is the same month that Alan Jackson joined Karen Read's legal team. And Josh Levy—who was one of the U.S. Attorneys in charge of that grand jury—Leslie was leaking about four different cases: probably the Birchmore case, definitely the Read and O'Keefe case, definitely the CDL case. One more case. We can't really—the group of us journalists involved in this—can't really figure out. So right in the middle of that—November of 2023—Josh Levy is leaking ex parte grand jury information to Karen Read, which she's putting—she's telling Aidan Kearney about; he's putting it in writing. He just was trying to just show off for Lindsey, but you don't like—come on—like what is it? First day in the IC, bro? I'm not in the IC. I'm not part of the government. I'm a towel. But anyway—so Aidan's bragging to Lindsey, and I don't think that was a very good idea. I mean, she's brilliant and stuff, but like—why would you ever say that to her? Don't say that stuff. But anyway—like, why would you say—even if it's your significant other—unless they are read-in on the intel that you are sharing—why would you ever, ever, ever share that with someone? It exposes them to an incredible liability—which, if you love them, don't do it. It also exposes your own credibility to an incredible risk of liability. You will never be trusted by the intelligence community again. Pillow talk and honeypots are how they trap operatives. If you chase sex, they will compromise you. How can you not understand that? So if you get compromised by someone who's not an agent—just someone who's your partner and you're just telling them stuff about protected federal investigations—what do you think your reputation is going to be like among the intelligence community when you're doing that and they haven't even honeypotted you? You just voluntarily started putting this shit in writing. They're going to look at you like you are out of your mind. So anyway—Karen Read apparently is telling Aidan Kearney that she's having ex parte conversations with Josh Levy. Now, the grand jury that Leslie was leaking from was impaneled in May of 2022 when Rachael Rollins used to be U.S. Attorney in Boston. Now think about this. In 2020, Rachael Rollins and Aidan Kearney—Rachael Rollins, a hyper-liberal known for her soft-on-crime stance. We'll also hear Rollins hated Michael Morrissey. Anyway, Rollins worked with Turtle Boy to send a Republican operative named Rayla Campbell to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events in the Senate race against Ed Markey so that Ed Markey could win the Senate seat. Now, interestingly enough, Rachael Rollins then got appointed to the position of U.S. Attorney right after that. And you might say: well, Grant, that's a stretch. No, no—because then within a few months, Rachael Rollins—part of the reason she gets thrown out of office by the DOJ OIG—is because she attends an event in Andover with—guess who?—Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of the then-president who appointed her. Now, what does that mean? Well, if you really think about the geopolitical implications of the 2020 Senate race between Ed Markey in Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy Jr.—well, one of the things you're going to realize is that—think about 2020. The leadership around Biden did not know that the chaos of 2024 was going to happen with Kamala and Biden not really being up to it. You're thinking ahead to 2024. Why? Who's your biggest target if you are a sitting Democrat and you're worried about a primary challenge four years from now? Well, what if JFK's—what is it—nephew or whatever it is—is in the House of Representatives? And what if JFK started his career in the House of Representatives? And what if that new young Kennedy with red hair and sort of a photogenic face? What if he is running for JFK's old Senate seat? What if he's on the same exact trajectory as JFK? Oh, we can't have that. We—as the Biden White House—cannot have Joe Kennedy Jr. beating Ed Markey for Senate. And how it got to the point that somebody talked to Rachael Rollins and she came up with the brilliant idea to reach out to Turtle Boy so that Turtle Boy would talk to Rayla Campbell to send her to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events to help Markey—I don't know. But that's why I think Rachael Rollins became U.S. Attorney—someone who, in my opinion, was uniquely unqualified and fundamentally unethically un-predisposed to being able to run that office. Who then in turn immediately tried to interfere in the 2022 Suffolk DA primary between Kevin Hayden and Ricardo O'Rourke—because Rollins wanted to see her progressive vision continue through O'Rourke—so she worked with Daniel Medwed—the same professor who was involved with advocating the media on behalf of Karen Read's team. She worked with Daniel Medwed to get a story leaked about how a non-existent federal probe into Kevin Hayden—to increase Ricardo O'Rourke's chances in the Suffolk DA primary. Sound familiar? Oh, hell yeah. So anyway—between November of 2022 and May of 2023—you got this weird situation where Rollins knows she's getting forced out; Levy's going to take over the office. The people who take Rollins out are Josh Levy, Bill Abley, and still head of the criminal division—Dustin Chao, I think—still head of the public integrity unit, and then executive officer who is also the press secretary or the communications director of the office. Those four people—without being named; they're named by title—were the people who cooperated with the DOJ to take Rollins out—DOJ-OIG to take Rollins out. Now, why is that interesting? Well, one—because it shows that people in that office knew that Rachael Rollins had a proclivity for weaponizing leaks about non-existent federal probes to interfere in particular district attorney races and matters. Second—Rachael Rollins and Michael Morrissey had a bifurcated history of ten years. One: Rachael Rollins had this list of 25 crimes she wouldn't prosecute, and other DAs critiqued her—not just Michael Morrissey but others. Rollins—I'm pretty sure—was the one who first called Morrissey a "meatball," in fact, because of his criticism of Rollins over that issue. Rachael Rollins—I think—has a proclivity, in my opinion, to hold a bit of a grudge. When she became U.S. Attorney and she realized she was on the way out—well, maybe the Sandra Birchmore probe started back in May of 2022 because former chief of the Canton police—Ken Berkowitz—went to the FBI and told them that the FBI covered up—the MSP unit detailed to the Norfolk DA covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder—potentially because Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning used to work in Stoughton with Matt Farwell and Robert Devine and Billy Farwell—I think they all worked there. And furthermore—that Brian Tully, the unit commander, was partners with John Fanning for 20 years. All right, and in that regard—it is very interesting, I think—that Chief Berkowitz—who may have been very offended that his unit... So Sandra Birchmore was murdered on February 1st, 2021, at 9:23 p.m. in her apartment in Canton. Okay—on February 4th, Monday in the morning—the Canton police do a wellness check after they get a call from her—Sandra's—colleagues at the school where she worked as an administrative assistant. Now the Canton police respond—on Monday, February 4th—by Wednesday, February 6th. The Canton police have collected the following evidence in order. And if you don't believe me, you can read pages—I think 97 through 101—of the Canton Police Department audit report released in April of 2025. Point by point. Number one: the Canton police confirm—via a witness who was the maintenance worker at Sandra's apartment building—that Matt Farwell was the man on camera outside Sandra's apartment in the elevator at 9:23 p.m. on February 1st—which is exactly when Sandra died. Two: that the man was Matt Farwell, and he was the same man who helped Sandra move into her apartment. Three: that when the Canton PD went to Sandra's school, they got information that Farwell was telling people that Sandra was pregnant with his child—that he had abused her since she was a child—and that he was going to quote "take care of the problem himself" if Sandra decided to carry the baby to term. All right. All of that information—by February 6th of 2021—was passed over to the MSP. John Fanning and this whole unit—I think—really then facilitate a report sometime over the next six to 12 months that exonerates Farwell and says Sandra dies from self-harm. Well, I think that's why Ken Berkowitz blew the whistle before he died of cancer—and that's why there was a grand jury impaneled in May of 2022—and it was really about the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. Well—one—it was about Sandra Birchmore's murder. Why does that make everything so interesting? Because I think that the investigation wasn't just about who killed Sandra and why—but how was it ruled a—the result of self-harm—instead of the very obvious murder that it was. Well—that starts—2022, I think—May of 2022—the grand jury. Jessica Leslie was on the grand jury—leaker—who's going to be sentenced on October 4th of 2025. I think Jessica Leslie—ladies and gentlemen—in August of 2022 somehow leaked to Karen Read—Alan Jackson—that the Norfolk DA was dirty because they covered up—and that MSP unit—because they covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder. All right—so therefore, Alan Jackson—that's the skeleton in the closet. It wasn't what the people in the house were doing. I'm still a little suspect of who they know—but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares—nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. The big issue is that Jen was friends with Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And they—I think—they brought on the PI—Marty Kraft—and Kate Peter—to insulate their exposure from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. And so they were worried. And who would you bring in if you had covered up a murder? If you were a MSP unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids—and I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck's the perfect person be like: "Bruh, if that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these like different people that get too close to this—or we're going to be exposed for Birchmore." But let me bring it back to the point here—which is in 2022, the feds clearly were starting to poke around. And come 2023—I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept up—even in light of the national spotlight? When you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement—but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation of Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her—but if you think about it in the context of: Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore—then you understand: Karen—that's why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them—the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did—to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway—and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA—destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly—and she's a tactical fucking genius. I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely—in my opinion—bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. If you don't know what a backhand is, folks—a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface because you're dealing with a very high-level operation like the state police—who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death. But really—you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out—from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together—and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got indicted. Now—it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: this is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power and who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said: Nope—it's out of your hands. And that's what Judge Doolin did today. Someone just needed to not either be involved with Karen Read, Aidan Kearney, or the Norfolk DA—or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft—and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses—I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there. But at least for Lindsey—Judge Doolin was like: enough of this nonsense. And that's why today was such a big deal in light of that historical context—because just tracing that very insidious pattern of events over the past 18 months—you can see this became a proxy war. It was Michael Morrissey on one side with his marching soldiers: Brian Tully, Kate Peter, Marty Kraft. And then it was Karen Read and the DOJ on the other side. Okay. And their soldiers were like the Free Karen Read movement and Turtle Boy and Natalie and all these other people. This was an intelligence community proxy war. And that's why I've been trying to tell people for so long: Lindsey Gaetani was not involved. She was an unwitting pawn. These two factions both took advantage of her—including Brian Tully—who was more interested in preserving his unit's reputation than actually defending the interest of the vulnerable. In my opinion, I think Brian Tully is a terrible person. Does that mean that he's a bad person for trying to hold Karen Read accountable for John O'Keefe's death? No, of course not. He's a bad person because in what fucking world do you—as a fucking state police officer—who you—you are entrusted—not just to get the bad guys—but to protect the most fucking vulnerable? One: how do you justify what happened with Sandra Birchmore? Two: how the fuck do you get it in your fucking mind that you're going to take a 15-year unredacted extraction of a fucking vulnerable victim's cell phone and release it to a fucking defendant known for promulgating exactly that material? What fucking headspace? What satanic fucking chamber do you and Kate Peter have to be drinking blood from fucking cups in to think that that's fucking okay? Fuck you. How do you even get in the headspace where doing something like that to a fucking victim becomes acceptable. The rot in that unit—whether enabled by Morrissey or whether he didn't know about it—I don't fucking know. But the point is: the rot in that unit was so deep that they lost their fucking souls. They didn't think of victims as victims. They re-victimized victims because it was a political fucking war—and these people are so hardened, I guess, that they don't understand what it means to be vulnerable. And these were police officers—detectives—people entrusted to uphold and protect the dignity of the most vulnerable—and they fucking used victims to advance some political agenda—to deal with the fact that they covered up a fucking murder. I'm done being gentle about this. Fuck these people. And I'm not saying that it was wrong for them to investigate Karen Read. I am pleased someone tried to prosecute her. I'm pissed at them because they were thinking about it from the perspective of their own liability for an unrelated case—and they fucked everything up—and introducing Kate Peter to this shit. Oh my God. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace to the people who were hurt. It's a disgrace to the vulnerable. I frankly do not understand how Jen McCabe, Brian Tully, and Kate Peter go to bed each night. I don't get it. I don't know. Maybe there's something that shuts off the GABA-1 receptor or something and just makes you go to bed. I don't know. Never heard of such a thing. But I'm just saying: I don't know how you do it. How do you do it? But anyway—Judge Doolin—without giving a... extemporaneous, uh, bloviating cuss-based rant like I just did—instead, in my opinion, is like: fuck all of you! You're not being involved in this prosecution anymore. Someone's gonna protect this fucking woman—Lindsey Gaetani. I'm making you appoint someone! I love that man. Good for Judge Doolin. But still—we never should have gone to this point. This is incredible. With the... the... the MSP. The fact that they had a unit operating like this for so long. This is worse than what John Connolly and Whitey Bulger did. This is institutional rot that is so pervasive that it requires fundamental reform of the MSP. They're not incapable of—um, uh—solving crimes. I'm sure most of the MSP are wonderful. Anyway—my point is: I don't think the state police officers that I generally run into—or troopers—are bad people. I think most of them are wonderful. They've never been really mean to me. They do good work. They're out there protecting our roads. They stop people from speeding. They—what else do they do? They go after commercial truck violations. They investigate homicides—like, on the whole. And this is why I think we have to be careful about how we talk about this. I am not saying that the entire MSP is just rotten. I'm saying that when you have factions or sections within the institution that understand its machinations and are able to thus manipulate the bureaucratic structure and avoid accountability—you lose the confidence of everyone. And how do you think some of those good troopers feel when they have to go out there? Yes—people like me are going to smile at them and bless them and whatever—because I know they're not part of the problem. But most people look at them and they think that they're fucking hated. They don't deserve that. They literally put their lives on the line for us every day. And if we're going to give them the respect they deserve—if we're going to make the profession have the respect that it deserves—then this kind of institutional rot can't be looked at as just an embarrassment. And it can't be looked at as something that—oh, we just wish didn't happen. Maybe some guys are going to go away. No—you point at it. You scream it from the rooftops and you say: if this happens even once—then we have so failed as an institution; we must fundamentally reform from the ground up. And this wasn't just once. It was Birchmore. It was the phone extraction. It was the SA report leak over and over and over and over again. They knew the law. They were an old boys' club. They abused it. They had cover—and it was systemically enabled. And that's why I think—to save the profession of policing in Massachusetts—there needs to be a full-on unbridled discussion about how this happened—how the personalities involved were able to do what they did. And we can't be so tribalistic that because someone we support as to their views on one case, right? We cannot be so tribalistic that we just block out everything bad that they do. Or this rot will continue. And it is pernicious. It is insidious. It is invidious. It undermines the faith that citizens completely removed from this situation have in our system of government. It undermines victims' confidence in the ability to seek redress in the face of serious fucking harm—because they think the system doesn't actually care about them. It's just using them to get someone bigger. We cannot allow this to perpetuate. And the only way to fix it is to hold up situations like what happened to Birchmore—Sandra Birchmore—and what happened to Lindsey Gaetani—hold them up in the national spotlight—and say: we—the MSP—have failed you. Brian Tully failed these people. John Fanning failed these people. Nick Guarino failed these people. Yuri Bukhenik failed these people. We need to say that. We need to highlight it. We need to say: this happened even once. Therefore, we are not good enough. Not only are we not good enough—the very fact that either of these things were able to happen—the Birchmore cover-up, the phone extraction leak—is such a pervasive, systemic degradation of the faith that victims and the public have in the justice system—that our only option is to talk about this—congressional hearings. We need the State House to have congressional hearings. We need these people to answer for what they did. And we need to make sure it never happens again. And the only way you do that is by finding out what aspects of the bureaucratic structure allowed this to happen. And it's not going to be comfortable. I don't think it's going to be comfortable for anyone to talk about the fallout of any of this—but that's exactly what happened at the CCC on a smaller scale. And if this country matters—if this form of government matters—if this republic matters—then we will fix this. We will fix it together. We will address the hard questions. We will address the uncomfortable questions. We will shed our prejudices and polemical biases at the door. We will engage in no fear, no favoritism—and we will look only for the truth and nothing but it. And if you are incapable of doing that—you're contributing—either consciously or subconsciously—to the problem. It's our only option. And you can't just say: because they prosecuted Karen Read, we can't talk about anything bad that they did. That's tribalism. That's polemical. That's what drove us to this point.

Grant Smith Ellis

41,546 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Fascinating exchange: Jon Karl lightly confronts Zohran Mamdani with Darializa Avila-Chevalier's insane positions. Mamdani says DAC won because of affordability before tripling down on the virulent anti-semitism that undergirds DSA. Karl takes two passes at getting Mamdani to condemn the coffee shop that banned Rep. Dan Goldman, allows Mamdani to skate with a non-critical critique. JON KARL: Now, you know, there's been a lot of attention on one of the candidates you supported, one who knocked off an incumbent Democrat, is Darializa Avila Chevalier. She said some very controversial things, including calling for the abolition of prisons- couldn't say whether or not somebody who had committed murder should be in prison. Called for open borders. Against all deportations, including those of violent criminals. Are those positions that the Democratic Party could win on nationally? ZOHRAN MAMDANI: I think what the Democratic Party can win on nationally is a focus on working people, and I think that what I saw from Darializa when I would walk the streets of her district was a focus on what she describes as the politics of life. She would talk about how we have to invest in babies, not bombs. She's now going to represent what is one of the poorest districts in the United States of America. And what people in that district are exhausted by is a politics that has justified the spending of tens of billions of dollars in killing civilians overseas, while working people are struggling just to do the basics. KARL: But how does that -- how does abolishing prisons or having open borders fit into that? I mean, do you see how that's -- those are ideas that a lot of your Democrats that are warning about what happened here say are toxic, most of America won't go along with. They are bad ideas. They are dangerous ideas. MAMDANI: I think what the focus of her race was, what the focus of her candidacy was, was about the struggle that working people are facing. And I think that we can have disagreements on policy positions. What we have to agree on is what are we fighting for, and who are we fighting for? She showed that in her race, and I think that many people will come to appreciate that in her leadership to come. KARL: So we can disagree on something as basic as whether or not there should be prisons? MAMDANI: There -- KARL: That's not your position? MAMDANI: There are prisons. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: And what we're also showing in this city is that safety is not something that's up for debate. It’s something that we're actually delivering on. And I'm proud to be the mayor of a city that currently has the lowest recorded number of murders and shootings in recorded history in New York City. KARL: So there was also a take -- it's not just Democrats. You probably heard what President Trump had to say about you and about the candidates you supported. And he warned that if socialists win -- and he calls you communists but -- you will start living in squalor, there'll be no food, no housing, no military, no law and order. There'll be nothing, and he had a few other choice words. By the way, he also said he still likes you. (LAUGHTER) KARL: But what do you make of what he -- I mean, the Democrat -- Republicans are going to make you the poster child for the Democratic Party. MAMDANI: Let them. We don't have to ask ourselves what life looks like if a socialist wins. I won last November, and over the course of these last six months, what we've delivered for working people are the very things we were told were impossible. We've delivered free childcare for two-year-olds for the first time in New York City history. We've delivered tens of millions of dollars back to tenants who were taken advantage of by bad landlords. We've delivered 165,000 potholes being paved. And we've done all of these things while also delivering the lowest recorded crime in our city's history. That's what it looks like to have Democratic socialism. And what you're seeing is that New Yorkers experienced this for six months and made the decision that they wanted to see more of it on the national stage as well. KARL: Can a Democratic socialist get elected president? MAMDANI: I think a Democratic socialist can get elected anywhere across this country for any position. What I think we need to bring is a focus on working people. KARL: And that's the direction that the party should go in, in terms of selecting a candidate for 2028? MAMDANI: I think the direction that the party should go in is how best to fight for working people. I think we need to have a platform and a vision that doesn't sound as if it was cooked up by consultants, but instead one that you would say in response to someone who's asking, why can't I afford my rent, why can't I afford my groceries, why can't I afford my childcare? We need to make clear who we stand for, how we're going to stand for them, and that we're actually willing to fight for them when the going gets tough. KARL: Obviously, Israel was a big issue in these races. Not the only issue, but a big issue. Is there room in the Democratic Party for candidates, officials who support Israel, not just support Israel, but support military aid for Israel? This was a huge issue for you. MAMDANI: Well, I think what we've seen is that the time for us, as elected officials, to pronounce what the party should be is one that should come to an end, and we should let Democratic voters themselves take the lead. We've seen on Tuesday evening, we saw Democrats turn out in districts across the city to make clear that they were tired of tens of billions of dollars being spent in our taxpayer dollars to violate international law, to kill thousands of civilians. And you and I know that right now, the way that Palestine is described is as if there is a ceasefire. That's the language that's typically used. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: More than a thousand Palestinians have been killed in that ceasefire. And what New Yorkers want to see is a politics of conscience, a politics of clarity, a politics of conviction. And to follow international law, to believe in the humanity of all people, it shouldn't be a journey too far. And I think that our party needs to hear what Democrats are telling them. KARL: Democratic Socialists of America now says they no longer favor a two-state solution. Is that the way you see it as well, the idea of two states, Palestinian and Jewish states, side by side, living in peace? MAMDANI: The way I see it is, equal rights for all people. And I think that that's the truth for Israel. It's the truth for any country in the world. And frankly, as we're coming up close to the 250th anniversary of our nation, one of the things that makes me proudest to be an American is the belief that equal rights are at the bedrock of our notion of what it means to be an American. KARL: And the idea of a Jewish state, Israel as a Jewish state, that's in the charter, that's the way it is now. Do you support that? MAMDANI: I've said time and again that I support the state of Israel as a state with equal rights. I believe that any state that -- KARL: But as a Jewish state is the question. MAMDANI: I think any state that privileges one religion over the other is one that I can't tell you I support, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. And a lot of that comes back to a fundamental belief that we should all be considered equal, no matter what our faith is. KARL: How big a problem -- you've said it's rising -- is anti-Semitism in this city? MAMDANI: We've seen anti-Semitism rise in this city. We've seen the fact that Jewish New Yorkers comprise a minority of our city's population, and yet continue to constitute a majority of the hate crimes that have been purveyed in this city. And that's something that's unacceptable. It's something that we will never come to see as if it is a part of life. It's something that has to be fought and rooted out of every one of the five boroughs. KARL: What did you think when Dan Goldman -- that coffee shop in Brooklyn said that they didn't -- they wouldn't serve him because of his support for Israel. Do you have a problem with – I mean, the idea of, you know, of an establishment like that saying they're not going to serve somebody if they support Israel? MAMDANI: I've said that I have political disagreements with Congressmember Goldman. I do believe that that's a response that goes beyond that. KARL: So, that's not the right kind of thing? MAMDANI: No, I think -- I think it's much better to keep that critique in the way that we’ve done it.
7:04

Fascinating exchange: Jon Karl lightly confronts Zohran Mamdani with Darializa Avila-Chevalier's insane positions. Mamdani says DAC won because of affordability before tripling down on the virulent anti-semitism that undergirds DSA. Karl takes two passes at getting Mamdani to condemn the coffee shop that banned Rep. Dan Goldman, allows Mamdani to skate with a non-critical critique. JON KARL: Now, you know, there's been a lot of attention on one of the candidates you supported, one who knocked off an incumbent Democrat, is Darializa Avila Chevalier. She said some very controversial things, including calling for the abolition of prisons- couldn't say whether or not somebody who had committed murder should be in prison. Called for open borders. Against all deportations, including those of violent criminals. Are those positions that the Democratic Party could win on nationally? ZOHRAN MAMDANI: I think what the Democratic Party can win on nationally is a focus on working people, and I think that what I saw from Darializa when I would walk the streets of her district was a focus on what she describes as the politics of life. She would talk about how we have to invest in babies, not bombs. She's now going to represent what is one of the poorest districts in the United States of America. And what people in that district are exhausted by is a politics that has justified the spending of tens of billions of dollars in killing civilians overseas, while working people are struggling just to do the basics. KARL: But how does that -- how does abolishing prisons or having open borders fit into that? I mean, do you see how that's -- those are ideas that a lot of your Democrats that are warning about what happened here say are toxic, most of America won't go along with. They are bad ideas. They are dangerous ideas. MAMDANI: I think what the focus of her race was, what the focus of her candidacy was, was about the struggle that working people are facing. And I think that we can have disagreements on policy positions. What we have to agree on is what are we fighting for, and who are we fighting for? She showed that in her race, and I think that many people will come to appreciate that in her leadership to come. KARL: So we can disagree on something as basic as whether or not there should be prisons? MAMDANI: There -- KARL: That's not your position? MAMDANI: There are prisons. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: And what we're also showing in this city is that safety is not something that's up for debate. It’s something that we're actually delivering on. And I'm proud to be the mayor of a city that currently has the lowest recorded number of murders and shootings in recorded history in New York City. KARL: So there was also a take -- it's not just Democrats. You probably heard what President Trump had to say about you and about the candidates you supported. And he warned that if socialists win -- and he calls you communists but -- you will start living in squalor, there'll be no food, no housing, no military, no law and order. There'll be nothing, and he had a few other choice words. By the way, he also said he still likes you. (LAUGHTER) KARL: But what do you make of what he -- I mean, the Democrat -- Republicans are going to make you the poster child for the Democratic Party. MAMDANI: Let them. We don't have to ask ourselves what life looks like if a socialist wins. I won last November, and over the course of these last six months, what we've delivered for working people are the very things we were told were impossible. We've delivered free childcare for two-year-olds for the first time in New York City history. We've delivered tens of millions of dollars back to tenants who were taken advantage of by bad landlords. We've delivered 165,000 potholes being paved. And we've done all of these things while also delivering the lowest recorded crime in our city's history. That's what it looks like to have Democratic socialism. And what you're seeing is that New Yorkers experienced this for six months and made the decision that they wanted to see more of it on the national stage as well. KARL: Can a Democratic socialist get elected president? MAMDANI: I think a Democratic socialist can get elected anywhere across this country for any position. What I think we need to bring is a focus on working people. KARL: And that's the direction that the party should go in, in terms of selecting a candidate for 2028? MAMDANI: I think the direction that the party should go in is how best to fight for working people. I think we need to have a platform and a vision that doesn't sound as if it was cooked up by consultants, but instead one that you would say in response to someone who's asking, why can't I afford my rent, why can't I afford my groceries, why can't I afford my childcare? We need to make clear who we stand for, how we're going to stand for them, and that we're actually willing to fight for them when the going gets tough. KARL: Obviously, Israel was a big issue in these races. Not the only issue, but a big issue. Is there room in the Democratic Party for candidates, officials who support Israel, not just support Israel, but support military aid for Israel? This was a huge issue for you. MAMDANI: Well, I think what we've seen is that the time for us, as elected officials, to pronounce what the party should be is one that should come to an end, and we should let Democratic voters themselves take the lead. We've seen on Tuesday evening, we saw Democrats turn out in districts across the city to make clear that they were tired of tens of billions of dollars being spent in our taxpayer dollars to violate international law, to kill thousands of civilians. And you and I know that right now, the way that Palestine is described is as if there is a ceasefire. That's the language that's typically used. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: More than a thousand Palestinians have been killed in that ceasefire. And what New Yorkers want to see is a politics of conscience, a politics of clarity, a politics of conviction. And to follow international law, to believe in the humanity of all people, it shouldn't be a journey too far. And I think that our party needs to hear what Democrats are telling them. KARL: Democratic Socialists of America now says they no longer favor a two-state solution. Is that the way you see it as well, the idea of two states, Palestinian and Jewish states, side by side, living in peace? MAMDANI: The way I see it is, equal rights for all people. And I think that that's the truth for Israel. It's the truth for any country in the world. And frankly, as we're coming up close to the 250th anniversary of our nation, one of the things that makes me proudest to be an American is the belief that equal rights are at the bedrock of our notion of what it means to be an American. KARL: And the idea of a Jewish state, Israel as a Jewish state, that's in the charter, that's the way it is now. Do you support that? MAMDANI: I've said time and again that I support the state of Israel as a state with equal rights. I believe that any state that -- KARL: But as a Jewish state is the question. MAMDANI: I think any state that privileges one religion over the other is one that I can't tell you I support, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. And a lot of that comes back to a fundamental belief that we should all be considered equal, no matter what our faith is. KARL: How big a problem -- you've said it's rising -- is anti-Semitism in this city? MAMDANI: We've seen anti-Semitism rise in this city. We've seen the fact that Jewish New Yorkers comprise a minority of our city's population, and yet continue to constitute a majority of the hate crimes that have been purveyed in this city. And that's something that's unacceptable. It's something that we will never come to see as if it is a part of life. It's something that has to be fought and rooted out of every one of the five boroughs. KARL: What did you think when Dan Goldman -- that coffee shop in Brooklyn said that they didn't -- they wouldn't serve him because of his support for Israel. Do you have a problem with – I mean, the idea of, you know, of an establishment like that saying they're not going to serve somebody if they support Israel? MAMDANI: I've said that I have political disagreements with Congressmember Goldman. I do believe that that's a response that goes beyond that. KARL: So, that's not the right kind of thing? MAMDANI: No, I think -- I think it's much better to keep that critique in the way that we’ve done it.

Jorge Bonilla

43,262 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Trump has done a complete 180 on everything he claimed to stand for. It doesn’t matter whether he’s scared, manipulated, acting on his own, or all of the above the outcome is the same. He has betrayed every principle and every single person who helped put him in power. The very people who carried him to where he is. He turned on them. Not just domestically, but internationally, look at the way he treated Orban. He forgets that Viktor Orban was a lone voice in Europe supporting him when everyone else was laughing at him and calling him a crazy orange man. Europeans hated him. Orban was his main supporter in Europe and the way he has treated Orban is just ugly, nothing more. Now he’s cozy with people like Lindsey Graham to the point where Graham is arranging meetings between him and people like the President of Finland. Let that sink in. He can scream ''I’m MAGA they are not,'' like a five-year old, but the truth is MAGA was never built by him, it was built around him. And now he’s completely betrayed what it was supposed to stand for. He’s insulted allies, betrayed partners and escalated tensions with adversaries burning bridges in every direction. And now, here we are again, he’s starting to echo the same tired neocon narrative we've heard for years ''Russia, Russia, Russia.'' It may not be as blatant yet, but give it a few weeks and we’ll be right back to blaming Russia for everything. What makes it even more crazy is that he himself was once the target of the entire Russiagate saga. I’ve seen stupidity before but this is on another level. This isn’t just more of the same, it’s something entirely new. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again the government is a reflection of the people. And right now, we have a narcissism problem in this country. We rank at the top when it comes to that disorder. What’s the core trait of a narcissist? Look at Donald Trump a textbook case. No empathy. Someone dies, and there’s no weight to it. His comment after Charles' death was disgusting. He talks about bombing people with this disturbing sense of excitement ‘we bomb the hell out of them’ like it’s a performance. The worst part is how easily this situation could have been handled. Ayatollah was old and sick he only had a few years left. There was a real opportunity for a deal. Trump blew it when he started bombing Iran in the middle of the negotiations. Twice! We keep ignoring reality. Israel is one of the most cunning and deceptive countries in the world. This is a state that secretly developed nuclear weapons and hid them from its own so-called ‘closest ally,’ the United States. This is a country that has spied on U.S. offices, blamed others for its actions and has has killed American soldiers and journalists. If we were honest and actually calculated which country has caused more harm to U.S. interests Iran or Israel, Israel would likely be far ahead. That’s not opinion, that’s a fact. Iran didn’t just become an enemy out of nowhere. We played a major role in creating that hostility from overthrowing Mossadegh to installing the Shah, whose regime imprisoned and brutalized its own people and we supported and backed him knowing he was a dictator. Now we have the audacity to tell Iranian people that they should get rid of their dictator and we can help by bombing them. You can't make this shit up! Are you kidding me? And there are still idiots who actually buy this. Iran has largely operated from a defensive position ever since. We label them terrorists, but from their perspective, they’ve been preparing for survival building regional influence and proxy networks because they fear exactly what history suggests, that they could be targeted next with bombs or even a nuke! In 2007, Wesley Clark said that the Pentagon had a plan to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. We ended up doing much of that, one by one. Well, guess what, if I’m Iran, watching this and hearing a high-ranking Pentagon official say my country is on that list, and then I see each country on that list get taken down one by one, who here wouldn’t at least think about building a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes? When you know one of the biggest and strongest militaries in the world is planning to invade you someday, and they’re openly talking about it, what would you do? All of you geniuses who think Iran is the problem, honestly, which one of you wouldn’t consider building a bomb in that situation? And that’s without even getting into the role of countries like Israel and the influence they may have on pushing the United States toward these actions. If your argument is that Iran has a dictatorial regime, then you are a hypocritl. The United States installed a dictator in Iran themselves and overthrew a democratic leader and even after that the CIA said they had no problem with Ayatollah, in fact they said it would be 'good for us'.Then they got caught selling weapons to Iran. If the argument is - 'they’re building a nuclear weapon,' then the obvious question is: why? Why would they feel the need to? Maybe it has something to do with Wesley Clark, Iraq and many more?!.. So let’s be real, anyone who says Iran has no right to want a nuclear weapon is either being dishonest or just flat out stupid. Do I want them to have a nuke? No. But do they feel justified in wanting one? Absolutely! Put yourself in their position. You know the history you know what the CIA did to your country. Then you hear a high-level figure like Wesley Clark talk about a plan to take out seven countries in five years, including yours. You watch those countries get hit one after another and you are no position to stand against the US and actually win that war without taking great amount of casualties. What conclusion are you supposed to draw from that? At that point, it’s not crazy it's strategic! Any country in that situation would start thinking exactly about that, I know I would have if I was in that situation. Wouldn’t you? It’s not hard to understand why a country might see nuclear capability as a deterrent when it feels threatened by stronger military powers and some absolutely psychotic states like Israel. And let’s be realistic, Iran would never use a nuke against the United States, any use of nuclear weapons against us would mean their complete annihilation. Iran is many things but it’s not that suicidal, they don’t want to end their existence, they want their country to endure. The question is which country then would they use the nukes if they are ever put in that position? There’s only one country and that’s Israel not the US and Honestly I do not see how is that my problem at all? Do you? I mean it maybe Miriam Adelson's problem but it's not my problem. Most of Iran’s hostile actions came after the U.S. helped overthrow its government and backed a dictator for decades! So this narrative that Iran has been hostile to the us needs seriously clarification to why? Any regime would be hostile to you when you overthrow their democratic leader and instal a dictator that makes people miserable. After the revolution, Iran became openly hostile to the U.S for A REASON! The reason is the CIA and the corporate America nothing else.
1:00

Trump has done a complete 180 on everything he claimed to stand for. It doesn’t matter whether he’s scared, manipulated, acting on his own, or all of the above the outcome is the same. He has betrayed every principle and every single person who helped put him in power. The very people who carried him to where he is. He turned on them. Not just domestically, but internationally, look at the way he treated Orban. He forgets that Viktor Orban was a lone voice in Europe supporting him when everyone else was laughing at him and calling him a crazy orange man. Europeans hated him. Orban was his main supporter in Europe and the way he has treated Orban is just ugly, nothing more. Now he’s cozy with people like Lindsey Graham to the point where Graham is arranging meetings between him and people like the President of Finland. Let that sink in. He can scream ''I’m MAGA they are not,'' like a five-year old, but the truth is MAGA was never built by him, it was built around him. And now he’s completely betrayed what it was supposed to stand for. He’s insulted allies, betrayed partners and escalated tensions with adversaries burning bridges in every direction. And now, here we are again, he’s starting to echo the same tired neocon narrative we've heard for years ''Russia, Russia, Russia.'' It may not be as blatant yet, but give it a few weeks and we’ll be right back to blaming Russia for everything. What makes it even more crazy is that he himself was once the target of the entire Russiagate saga. I’ve seen stupidity before but this is on another level. This isn’t just more of the same, it’s something entirely new. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again the government is a reflection of the people. And right now, we have a narcissism problem in this country. We rank at the top when it comes to that disorder. What’s the core trait of a narcissist? Look at Donald Trump a textbook case. No empathy. Someone dies, and there’s no weight to it. His comment after Charles' death was disgusting. He talks about bombing people with this disturbing sense of excitement ‘we bomb the hell out of them’ like it’s a performance. The worst part is how easily this situation could have been handled. Ayatollah was old and sick he only had a few years left. There was a real opportunity for a deal. Trump blew it when he started bombing Iran in the middle of the negotiations. Twice! We keep ignoring reality. Israel is one of the most cunning and deceptive countries in the world. This is a state that secretly developed nuclear weapons and hid them from its own so-called ‘closest ally,’ the United States. This is a country that has spied on U.S. offices, blamed others for its actions and has has killed American soldiers and journalists. If we were honest and actually calculated which country has caused more harm to U.S. interests Iran or Israel, Israel would likely be far ahead. That’s not opinion, that’s a fact. Iran didn’t just become an enemy out of nowhere. We played a major role in creating that hostility from overthrowing Mossadegh to installing the Shah, whose regime imprisoned and brutalized its own people and we supported and backed him knowing he was a dictator. Now we have the audacity to tell Iranian people that they should get rid of their dictator and we can help by bombing them. You can't make this shit up! Are you kidding me? And there are still idiots who actually buy this. Iran has largely operated from a defensive position ever since. We label them terrorists, but from their perspective, they’ve been preparing for survival building regional influence and proxy networks because they fear exactly what history suggests, that they could be targeted next with bombs or even a nuke! In 2007, Wesley Clark said that the Pentagon had a plan to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. We ended up doing much of that, one by one. Well, guess what, if I’m Iran, watching this and hearing a high-ranking Pentagon official say my country is on that list, and then I see each country on that list get taken down one by one, who here wouldn’t at least think about building a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes? When you know one of the biggest and strongest militaries in the world is planning to invade you someday, and they’re openly talking about it, what would you do? All of you geniuses who think Iran is the problem, honestly, which one of you wouldn’t consider building a bomb in that situation? And that’s without even getting into the role of countries like Israel and the influence they may have on pushing the United States toward these actions. If your argument is that Iran has a dictatorial regime, then you are a hypocritl. The United States installed a dictator in Iran themselves and overthrew a democratic leader and even after that the CIA said they had no problem with Ayatollah, in fact they said it would be 'good for us'.Then they got caught selling weapons to Iran. If the argument is - 'they’re building a nuclear weapon,' then the obvious question is: why? Why would they feel the need to? Maybe it has something to do with Wesley Clark, Iraq and many more?!.. So let’s be real, anyone who says Iran has no right to want a nuclear weapon is either being dishonest or just flat out stupid. Do I want them to have a nuke? No. But do they feel justified in wanting one? Absolutely! Put yourself in their position. You know the history you know what the CIA did to your country. Then you hear a high-level figure like Wesley Clark talk about a plan to take out seven countries in five years, including yours. You watch those countries get hit one after another and you are no position to stand against the US and actually win that war without taking great amount of casualties. What conclusion are you supposed to draw from that? At that point, it’s not crazy it's strategic! Any country in that situation would start thinking exactly about that, I know I would have if I was in that situation. Wouldn’t you? It’s not hard to understand why a country might see nuclear capability as a deterrent when it feels threatened by stronger military powers and some absolutely psychotic states like Israel. And let’s be realistic, Iran would never use a nuke against the United States, any use of nuclear weapons against us would mean their complete annihilation. Iran is many things but it’s not that suicidal, they don’t want to end their existence, they want their country to endure. The question is which country then would they use the nukes if they are ever put in that position? There’s only one country and that’s Israel not the US and Honestly I do not see how is that my problem at all? Do you? I mean it maybe Miriam Adelson's problem but it's not my problem. Most of Iran’s hostile actions came after the U.S. helped overthrow its government and backed a dictator for decades! So this narrative that Iran has been hostile to the us needs seriously clarification to why? Any regime would be hostile to you when you overthrow their democratic leader and instal a dictator that makes people miserable. After the revolution, Iran became openly hostile to the U.S for A REASON! The reason is the CIA and the corporate America nothing else.

ELIZABETH LANE

34,350 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"
14:08

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Farrukh

24,754 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🤔WHO HAS HIJACKED TRUMP'S ACCOUNT? Candace Owens Exposes the Dark Reality Behind the Weekend Meltdowns 👀 If you saw the unhinged rants coming from Donald Trump’s accounts this weekend, you aren't alone in thinking something is deeply wrong. From Air Force One, Trump reportedly launched an attack on the biggest independent voices in the movement—calling Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly "fake MAGA" and claiming they are "dying fast." But on her podcast tonight, Candace dropped a massive reality check, and it changes how we have to look at the current administration. The Bombshell: "He's definitely not writing these... this is not how he speaks." So, if the President of the United States isn't the one drafting these multi-paragraph, rage-fueled posts against his own former allies... who has access to the feed? 🕵️‍♀️ Follow the Breadcrumbs: Candace points directly to the catastrophic shift in Trump's inner circle. The sane, rational advisors are gone. In their place? People like Laura Loomer, who now openly boasts that she is his "number one advisor" and speaks to him daily. Is Looney Laura Loomer the shadow-writer behind these posts? As Candace brilliantly pointed out: You eventually become the people you spend the most time with. If Trump is acting completely off the rails, it's because the people steering the ship right now are completely derailed. We used to look across the aisle and think the corruption and gaslighting was strictly a Democrat problem. Now, we are waking up to the reality that the establishment rot comes from both sides. The "America First" movement is being hijacked from the inside by deranged grifters, and they are using Trump's own megaphone to attack anyone who tells the truth. What do you think? Is Laura Loomer pulling the strings, or has Trump just lost the plot entirely? Let us know. FOLLOW Candace Owens, RT and watch her FULL episode linked below. 👇
3:13

🤔WHO HAS HIJACKED TRUMP'S ACCOUNT? Candace Owens Exposes the Dark Reality Behind the Weekend Meltdowns 👀 If you saw the unhinged rants coming from Donald Trump’s accounts this weekend, you aren't alone in thinking something is deeply wrong. From Air Force One, Trump reportedly launched an attack on the biggest independent voices in the movement—calling Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly "fake MAGA" and claiming they are "dying fast." But on her podcast tonight, Candace dropped a massive reality check, and it changes how we have to look at the current administration. The Bombshell: "He's definitely not writing these... this is not how he speaks." So, if the President of the United States isn't the one drafting these multi-paragraph, rage-fueled posts against his own former allies... who has access to the feed? 🕵️‍♀️ Follow the Breadcrumbs: Candace points directly to the catastrophic shift in Trump's inner circle. The sane, rational advisors are gone. In their place? People like Laura Loomer, who now openly boasts that she is his "number one advisor" and speaks to him daily. Is Looney Laura Loomer the shadow-writer behind these posts? As Candace brilliantly pointed out: You eventually become the people you spend the most time with. If Trump is acting completely off the rails, it's because the people steering the ship right now are completely derailed. We used to look across the aisle and think the corruption and gaslighting was strictly a Democrat problem. Now, we are waking up to the reality that the establishment rot comes from both sides. The "America First" movement is being hijacked from the inside by deranged grifters, and they are using Trump's own megaphone to attack anyone who tells the truth. What do you think? Is Laura Loomer pulling the strings, or has Trump just lost the plot entirely? Let us know. FOLLOW Candace Owens, RT and watch her FULL episode linked below. 👇

Project Constitution

37,836 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten