Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
UPDATED - ACTUALIZADO...!! TWO GIANTS FROM ANOTHER GALAXY IN ACTION. 💣💣 Modelos: Daniela Mendez & Estefania Duque. Mr Supremo Producciones 🎞 #plussize #bbw
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
![💣 FBI agents, Muslims blast Zohran Mamdani's embrace of radical imam as 'foolish' and 'dangerous' 🔗 Read my new Fox News article here: 💣 I don't know if you remember the first World Trade Center attack. I do. It was Feb. 26, 1993, and across from the offices of the Wall Street Journal, where I worked in the Washington, D.C., bureau, a man attempted to blow up the World Trade Center towers. 💣 Sound familiar? 💣 It was the same plot -- but by ground -- that was "successful" on Sept. 11, 2001. 💣 Why does it matter today? 🕌 Because New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani on Friday embraced an imam, Siraj Wahhaj, who served as a CHARACTER WITNESS for Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called "Blind Sheikh -- who lectured at Wahhaj's Brooklyn mosque, Masjid Al-Taqwa while plotting the 1993 scheme that murdered six innocents and injured 1,042 civilians at the World Trade Center. 🕌 On Friday, Mamdani walked into that same mosque in Brooklyn and embraced Wahhaj, posting a photo with both men's arms around each other, beaming, and he shared this message: "Today at Masjid At-Taqwa [sic], I had the pleasure of meeting with Imam Siraj Wahhaj, one of the nation’s foremost Muslim leaders and a pillar of the Bed-Stuy community." 🕶️ Two retired FBI agents who investigated the 1993 World Trade Center bombing are questioning Mamdani's embrace of Wahhaj, who has also raised legal defense funds for convicted terrorists. 🕶️ One of the retired FBI agents, Frank Pellegrino told me “Either he doesn’t know who Wahhaj is or he doesn’t care. Whichever it is, Mamdani looks foolish.” 🕶️ The other retired FBI agent, John Anticev, the FBI’s lead case agent on the 1993 attack, echoed the concern, telling me: “Everybody in politics should be aware of the people whose endorsement they’re getting. Imam Siraj Wahhaj has endorsed a radical agenda.” ❓Why should we pay attention to these retired agents? 💣 For decades, these agents have chased extremists around the world. I know Frank Pellegrino because he tried to arrest Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for his involvement in the 1993 WTC attack but Qatari officials tipped him off. It was KSM's NEPHEW, using the pseudonym "Ramzi Yousef," who blew up a rented car below Tower One. 💣 Here were the demands that Ramzi Yousef sent to the New York Times in a letter: 1 – "Stop all military, economical, and political aid to Israel." 2 – "All diplomatic relations with Israel must stop." 3 – "Not to interfere with any of the Middle East countries interior affairs." 💣 Sound familiar? They're the same demands of Mamdani's Students for Justice in Palestine National Students for Justice in Palestine and DSA. 💣 KSM escaped Qatar to be able to plot from Pakistan a second attack on the World Trade Center -- the 9/11 attack -- and then months later in 2002 behead my friend and Wall Street Journal colleague, Daniel Pearl. 💣 Frank Pelligrino interviewed KSM in Guantanamo where he confessed to murdering Danny with his "blessed right hand." ❓ Why does all this matter today? 💣 Let me say this point of fact again: Siraj Wahhaj served as a CHARACTER WITNESS for the Blind Sheikh. He has also raised funds for Aafia Siddiqui (“Lady Al Qaeda”), called America “a garbage can,” and once urged U.S. Muslims to “elect our own emir.” He’s preached that democracy can be used as “a weapon to use in the cause of Islam.” 📹 Watch the video I'm sharing see the ideology of islamism, or political Islam, that Siraj Wahhaj embraces -- and now hopes to see realized with his endorsement of Mamdani. ❓ What do Muslims who reject Wahhaj's interpretation of political Islam, or Islamism, say? In my article, I interview Muslims who reject this interpretation of Islam, and they, too, blast Mamdani for this alliance with an Islamist interpretation of their faith. This is what they say... 🔹 Dalia Ziada - داليا زيادة, Washington, D.C., coordinator and research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy ISGAP, says: “By embracing Wahhaj, Mamdani is sidelining moderate Muslims and normalizing extremist ideology.” 🔹 Soraya Deen Soraya M. Deen, MA, founder of the Muslim Women Speakers Movement and cofounder of CLARITyCoalition, says: “It’s dangerous for America and for Muslims.” 🔹 In the mosque photo, no women appear — because Wahhaj bans them from praying in the main hall, promoting an interpretation of Islam that women tempt men. “Despite the gender jihad women face worldwide, Mamdani poses with the men suppressing women’s rights,” said Deen. 🔹 M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, says: “There’s nothing more clarifying about Zohran Mamdani’s danger than his friendship with known anti-American jihadi Imam Siraj Wahhaj....It tells you everything you need to know.” 🔗to the 1993 bombing court case files, including Siraj Wahhaj's defense of the Blind Sheikh and his admission to raising legal defense money for another man involved in the 1993 bombing, El Sayyid Nosair. You'll see the prosecutor's letter that Siraj Wahhaj "may" be an unindicted coconspirator because of his ties to the men behind the WTC attack; he wasn't prosecuted but he was on the radar of law enforcement officials for his close ties to the "Blind Sheikh" and his coconspirators:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1980123051942453353/amplify_video_thumb/1980121775372382208/img/vZQbVnEJYemxz_wU.jpg)
![Pearson airport employee investigated over alleged genocidal social media posts Surely, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority knew about Adil Ali's vile rhetoric online. But only when a media outlet gets wind of the story do they suddenly spring into action. Another day, another Islamist bozo eruption online. It never ends. And it’s staggering. Not only are these Islamists hateful, but they are also downright idiotic, given that they spew their vile rhetoric for all to see, thinking there will be no consequences, even when there are consequences in terms of gainful employment. Indeed, as we have chronicled for the past several months, wannabe jihadis lurk amongst us. And they are (or were) employed by major corporations ranging from Air Canada and Telus to Scotiabank and the Royal Bank of Canada. They spout online hatred, typically against Jews — but not exclusively, mind you. Many of these Islamists also hate Iranians who are anti-regime. And Palestinians who are anti-Hamas. And for some odd reason, they hate Indians too. Weird… And they all cross that proverbial line in the sand when it comes to free speech. Which is to say, they advocate harm, murder, and even genocide against identifiable groups. Our most recent candidate for the title of Online Islamist Bozo of the Year is Adil Ali. Our information comes courtesy of our friends at Leviathan. Adil Ali is an analyst for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. This is the entity that operates Toronto Pearson International Airport, otherwise known as the world’s worst airport. We’re not exaggerating here. Pearson is the worst airport in the world, and yes, that includes airports that are in third-world countries. Ali called for the murder of nearly 10 million Israelis. He wants to see a nuclear weapon detonated in Israel. For what it’s worth, I don’t think he’s thought things through here. Dropping a nuke on Tel Aviv would result in radioactive fallout that would spread to several Islamic regimes in the Middle East. But never mind. The very idea of having nearly 10 million Israelis incinerated puts a smile on Ali’s face, and hey, as they say, if you want to make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs, right? Ali also believes Israeli Jews are “[the] chosen people of the devil." And he refers to their places of worship as “the synagogue of Satan.” Nice. He also believes that all those synagogues that were shot up in Toronto these past two and a half years were the handiwork of Jews themselves. Naturally, he doesn’t have a scintilla of evidence to support such an outrageous claim. But never mind. Referring to Indians, Ali believes they send their money home for the purpose of “feeding cows”, which is a dig at Hindu culture. So, the question is: Who among you wants such a psycho working in Canada’s largest airport? Who among you wants a hateful Islamist getting his hands on luggage or having access to jets? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? We reached out to the media relations department of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. Here were our questions: Is the GTAA aware of Mr. Ali’s hateful rants online? If so, why is this being tolerated? Does this behaviour violate the GTAA’s code of conduct guidelines? What does the GTAA have to say to those Canadians who are disturbed that someone calling for genocide via the nuking of other countries also happens to be working in a sensitive position at Canada’s largest airport? I am not sure if you are aware of this, but the GTAA automated phone system is a disaster. I called to speak with Mr. Ali and was transferred to Delta Airlines. Subsequent calls were fruitless. Therefore, can you kindly pass on my contact information to Mr. Ali so that I can get his side of the story? The GTAA did get back to us, and while they did not specifically answer our queries, the following statement was provided: Toronto Pearson’s security team is actively investigating allegations that an individual working for an airport employer made hateful and threatening comments on social media. The investigation is still ongoing, but the employer has been notified, and the individual’s security access has been suspended. Toronto Pearson takes these allegations very seriously and has zero tolerance for any behaviour that compromises safety or violates our standards of conduct. In the days ahead, we will follow up with the GTAA to find out how this investigation is proceeding. But seriously, if any entity should be sensitive to threats to public safety, you’d think it would be Toronto Pearson International Airport. After all, this was the airport where Air India 182 departed on June 23, 1985. Khalistani terrorists were able to embed a bomb in a piece of luggage. The plane blew up over the Atlantic Ocean near Ireland. All 329 on board died. It remains Canada’s worst act of terrorism. Right now, the GTAA is at least doing something right by removing Ali’s security clearance and conducting an investigation. But again, like all those aforementioned companies that were outed for having an Islamist bozo on the payroll, the GTAA appears to be doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Which is to say, surely they knew about Ali’s vile rhetoric online. But it was ignored. Why? Cultural sensitivity? Reasonable accommodation? But when a media outlet gets wind of the story, the GTAA suddenly springs into action. Not due to safety reasons, mind you, but to prevent the GTAA from receiving yet another public relations black eye.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2046230705533792689/media/HGWsxmoaoAAvMnP.jpg)
![👽 Minimal, Firsthand Legacy Witnesses? 👽 (Sorry for the Debbie Downer posts but I think most people wanna hear the truth and not have smoke blown up their ass. We're all aware of folks who do that. Maybe...in the Senate, "we have a problem that there's not been quite enough of what members in the Senate would say are firsthand sources with direct involvement in the Legacy program." ~Former Senate Staffer, Kirk McConnell (In August 2024, I was told the following by a contact: "I don’t think firsthand whistleblowers are on our horizon. Tons of credible sounding second hand, though. Some with decent credentials or rank, but none with particularly great (credentials or rank), however." I shared that on here but most people didn't wanna hear it. I'm lucky to have contacts who give it to me straight, with zero hype. Some hope? "I don't think that we have to be so discouraged by the defeat of the UAPDA for the third time." ~McConnell ~~~ Kirk McConnell: "First, let me say that I'm greatly encouraged by Mr. Rep. Eric Burlison comments. He's a he's a politician. He has a way better sense of, you know, having his finger on the pulse of the Congress and the nation than I do. "I will also say that I, respectfully, don't agree with my friend Karl Nell. I don't think that we have to be so discouraged by the defeat of the UAPDA for the third time. I think there's a lot of reasons for hope that this issue, is not gonna be in a significant down cycle. And that's what I certainly hope. As we've seen from Mr. Burlison, there is certainly a lot of energy in the house among members of the Oversight Committee, and that in itself is encouraging. "You know, I hope that what I'm about to say is not true, but I think it might be, and I definitely feel that this is maybe the case in the Senate: That maybe we have a problem that there's not been quite enough of what members in the Senate would say are firsthand sources with direct involvement in the Legacy program. Looking back on history, my sense is that Congress undertakes these really historically important investigations when it is broadly clear that there's a there there and they know kind of what the outcome [will] be, at least in its broad strokes. "You know, you think about Watergate, the Church/Pike committees, Iran Contra, all of these are examples where Congress was finally moved to not take no for an answer and to just go full-speed and full-depth into exhaustive investigations when they knew that it had to be done, and that there was a pony at the end, you know, there was something very significant at the end of the process. "So, I have been getting this feedback as well from folks I've worked with in the Senate, that there needs to be more firsthand witnesses. And how do you encourage that? I think we also hear that there's quite a number of other people out there that could come forward. Their concern, though, is, as we've seen, they feel that there's not, by any means, sufficient whistleblower protections, and that despite the existence of protections in the law on paper, that really doesn't get at the problem. And that they're fearful of losing their careers, their security clearances, which translates into their careers, and that they're gonna suffer immense, legal expenses and perhaps legal jeopardy. So I think whistleblower protection is extremely important. "That said, it's really hard to get whistleblower protections passed in Congress. And so you have a kind of Catch-22, and I think that's the kind of problem that needs to be overcome, incrementally. So, I also would say that it's obvious that Congress is heavily influenced by public opinion, of course, and it's really important to keep up the pressure. But that in turn, you know, the public is motivated by what they see in the news and what they hear about from from experts, and therefore, you know, that's another dependency here, "But on that score, you know one of our panelists here, Dr. Anna Brady-Estevez, I loved when she, with a bright smile on her face, has said repeatedly that, in a sense, disclosure has already happened, or is certainly happening. A significant fraction of the population believes that we are being visited by non-human intelligence and that this belief is only likely to grow. The scientific community is much more friendly to this issue than in the past. "I would also say that the NHI itself gets a vote here, and they drive a lot of this. How much interaction are they going to....how much are they going to expose what they're doing and what they're doing here? And yet, at the same time, we've got an awful lot of people out there now with the ability to, and the interest in, detecting and tracking and trying to document what is happening out there. You think about efforts like the Galileo Project, Garry P. Nolan at the The Sol Foundation and Stanford, Beatriz Villarroel and the astrophysics community, and many others are tracking fundamental aspects of this problem. And a number of scientists and engineers working on new physics concepts to explain UAP characteristics and behavior is unprecedented. You know, you think about Skywatcher as another example of a private initiative. "There's also the experiencer community, you know, the people who have had actual direct interactions, and certainly a large number of folks who report abduction experiences, who retain the ability to communicate with NHI. This can be used, and is very likely to be used or exploited to gain insight into physics and intentions and so forth. "So, I'm actually on the optimistic side. I think with work and perseverance of groups like this, we can continue to amp up the interest and the pressure on the part of the American people, and that will translate into action by the government."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1980025049777349118/amplify_video_thumb/1980011021243682817/img/yRuIlAW3fwiN2NSV.jpg)
![Trooper John Fanning, one of Michael Proctor’s supervisors at the NCDAO State Police Detective Unit (SPDU), reportedly “supervised” the jury at the #KarenReadTrial. As if this conflict alone wasn’t concerning, the fact that Fanning was later under an inconclusive internal investigation by the MSP for “whether [he] failed to adequately supervise by not taking appropriate action after Trooper Proctor sent inappropriate texts to a group of subordinate members, specifically, if he took any corrective action to address the unprofessionalism and inappropriateness of Trooper Proctor's texts”—thereby making him a potential witness & demonstrating his clear conflict, is incredibly concerning. In the full sit down interview w/ #KarenRead & Attorney Alan Jackson, Ted Daniel asks them about the potential jury tampering that occurred at the first trial—notably with the ultra curious last minute dismissal of 3 jurors, whose body language, reactions/expressions & outward demeanor appeared favorable to the defense, in addition to the “supervision” of the jury by one of Michael Proctor’s bosses, NCDAO SPDU Trooper John Fanning. It would be dishonest to try to claim that Trooper Fanning had no stake in the outcome of the Karen Read trial. Arguably, anyone with ties to the NCDAO, its SPDU or the Canton Police Department—and notably those with close ties to Michael Proctor, like his own supervisor, have clear conflicts of interest in this case. As you may recall, Trooper John Fanning was the lead investigator in the Sandra Birchmore case where he and his investigators concluded that Birchmore committed suicide while allegedly pregnant with a fellow Police Officer, Matthew Farwell’s baby, and wasn’t the obvious victim of murder by that same Officer who also raped and groomed her from a young age as revealed by 30k+ text messages inexplicably “overlooked” by Trooper Nicholas Guarino & Fanning. The Feds investigated that “investigation” too and have since indicted Matthew Farwell in Sandra Birchmore‘s murder. Additionally, Trooper Fanning was in one of Michael Proctor’s abhorrent group text message threads where he disparaged Karen Read. Fanning was subsequently internally investigated by MSP for this, and his failure to properly “supervise” Trooper Proctor—interesting that such a person would be chosen to “supervise” the jury. In a statement from the State Police, they said: “The Department’s internal affairs investigation determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation that Lieutenant Fanning violated rules and regulations by failing to uphold the responsibilities of a supervisory member. This allegation has been classified as unfounded.” Frankly, given the circumstances of this case, it would be concerning if any member of the State Police oversaw and supervised the jury. Why was ANY member of the State Police supervising the jury? Has anyone ever heard of this before—Police Officers from the same agency that investigated, testified against & was a part of the prosecution against a defendant having one of their personnel in charge of and in direct control of the jury? This can’t possibly be a standard practice due to the obvious existing conflict, no? Plus, were it standard protocol, then why wasn’t the defense made aware of this fact until 10 minutes before making closing argument, after a nearly 10 week long trial? ——— Something majorly stinks about this, and perhaps it sheds some light on something peculiar that one of the deliberating jurors, who was recently interviewed by Aidan Kearney, kept saying in regard to the jury’s deliberative process. Specifically, something that stood out to me from juror Ron’s interview was his repeated use and references of the other jurors’ use of the term “distractors” to qualify or describe the abundant evidence representing “reasonable doubt” brought out by the defense at trial. “Distractors.” It’s somewhat of a novel term, especially in this context, and is obviously antithetical to a jury’s duty to assess a case based on the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is inherently intertwined with an assessment of the existence of, or lack thereof, reasonable doubt. There was no evidence or instructions from the court that came out at trial directing jurors to view defense evidence or ARCCA experts, for instance, as “distractors,” and the jury is very specifically instructed not to view/consume/bring any outside information into their deliberations. In other words, if they’re unsure who the ARCCA experts were there on behalf of (the Feds), they’re specifically told not to “fill in the blank” with information that’s not there, or evidence that didn’t come in at trial. So where did the information—this use of the term “distractors” come from? Who fed this term and this concept to the jury? The reason why it seems like it was “fed” to the jury is because it goes against everything the court, Judge Beverly Cannone, instructed them on. So, what prompted the whole “distractors” concept to taint the jurors’ minds and deliberations? ——— What immediately came to mind was the jury tampering by court clerk Becky Hill in the Alex Murdaugh murder trial. In that case, according to Murdaugh’s attorneys, Ms. Hill “invented a story about a Facebook post to remove a juror she believed might not vote guilty”. Judge Clifton Newman, who oversaw the murder trial, removed the female juror from the panel. According to the Murdaugh defense motion, Ms. Hill had gone to Judge Newman – the day after Murdaugh testified, not long before closing arguments – claiming that she had seen a post in the local Facebook group ‘Walterboro Word of Mouth’ from the juror’s former husband, Tim Stone. The post purportedly claimed that the juror was drinking with her ex-husband and, when she became drunk, she expressed her views on whether Murdaugh was innocent or guilty. A follow-up post from an account called Timothy Stone apologised for the post saying that he was driven by “Satan”. Murdaugh’s attorneys claimed that the Mr. Stone behind the Facebook posts was actually a random Georgia man who was ranting about his wife’s aunt – and has no connection to the case. Additionally, information from jurors had come to the defense’s attention about inappropriate comments supposedly made to them by Ms. Hill while she was “supervising” them—the same role as “supervisor” that Trooper John Fanning allegedly played in the Karen Read trial. In Murdaugh’s case, the jurors were *actually* brought back into the court and were called to the stand one by one and questioned about potential comments that may have tainted their verdict. A female juror, identified only as juror Z, said that Ms. Hill had told some of the jurors to “watch [Murdaugh] closely.” “To me, it felt like ... she made it feel like he was already guilty,” juror Z said. A separate juror, Juror E, said that he heard Ms. Hill say “watch [Murdaugh’s] body language”, but claimed that this did not affect his decision. ——— There were reports, at the time of the dismissal of the 3 defense-favorable jurors at Karen Read’s trial, that right before closing arguments, Trooper Fanning had reported the information responsible for dismissing these jurors to Judge Cannone. Among that information was reportedly a story about one of those jurors, claiming they’d been overheard discussing the case while drinking at a bar (or something to that effect)—a story that sounded highly suspicious at the time, particularly given the fact that Trooper Fanning had allegedly had that information weeks before, but never reported it to the court. The similarity in Becky Hill and John Fanning’s “stories” leading to the dismissal of defense-favorable jurors is rather uncanny. ——— Is it not problematic to have individuals—with conflicts of interest, who are also potential witnesses, and who seemingly have a vested interest in the outcome of the trial—be in charge of overseeing and supervising the jury? I’ve attached the referenced MSP Internal Investigative Report for Trooper Fanning to this post (attached in the comments below). What’s troubling is that, despite acknowledging in their report that “these allegations came to light on June 10, 2024, during the trial,” they didn’t immediately initiate an internal investigation, but instead waited until AFTER the trial ended, July 3, 2024, to launch their internal investigation, almost as if they were planning on not initiating an investigation had Karen Read been convicted, because apparently in that case the misconduct would’ve been justified… or something? It should also be noted that this same practice was employed for most, if not all, of the other Police Officers in this case, whose misconduct was exposed by the defense throughout the prosecution’s case at trial—whereby, despite admissions and the existence of evidence of their misconduct, the MSP, NCDAO and Canton PD seemingly did everything they could to avoid initiating any investigations or holding their officers accountable for their misconduct until after the trial ended—when they could no longer justify not doing anything. It makes you wonder: Had Karen Read been convicted, do you think they’d (the MSP, NCDAO or CPD) ever launch any internal investigations into the misconduct of their officers, as evidenced at trial, weeks before? ——— It should be mentioned that in the Sandra Birchmore case, which Trooper Fanning led the investigation of, despite the Feds spoon feeding the State Police & NCDAO (DA Michael Morrissey’s Office) overwhelming evidence + probable cause, in addition to punting the ball back to the state to do the right thing and charge Farwell with murder—a state level charge, they’ve refused to take any action to this day. In fact, not only has it now been nearly 6 months since the Feds apprehended & indicted Farwell, but the NCDAO, Fanning and the State Police, aside from taking no action, have made no statements and are still of the official position that Sandra Birchmore killed herself. To try to save face, the NCDAO, through its former spokesperson David Traub, tried to create the impression that the DA’s Office had been long working in collaboration with the Feds to secure an arrest in the Sandra Birchmore case, claiming that “two of [the NCDAO SPDU’s] detectives were present at the command post ... while federal authorities were attempting to take Matthew Farwell into custody”—whatever that means. This, of course, is patently absurd because the DA’s Office and State Police could’ve “secured an arrest” years ago—nobody was stopping them, but instead they framed Sandra Birchmore for her own murder. Spokesperson Traub then had the gall to say that “much of the information that they [federal authorities] built on originated with our investigation, including the collection of thousands of text messages.” (See a collection of statements from the NCDAO on the Birchmore case from reporting over the years, attached in comments below). While the Feds might be somewhat playing along with this narrative, don’t be fooled. Perhaps it’s to appease the very individuals who they’re investigating for the supposed coverup of Sandra Birchmore’s murder. Why? If the Feds had actually been collaborating with the State Police investigators from the NCDAO who investigated Sandra’s death, then at the Feds’ press conference announcing Farewell’s indictment, U.S. Attorney (at the time) Joshua Levy wouldn’t have feigned ignorance when asked who the lead investigator was on the case before his agency got involved (see clip 3 attached). Had the Feds actually been *collaborating* with the State Police & the DA’s Office, John Fanning’s name would’ve been the first thing uttered out of Josh Levy’s mouth. On a side note: I think this is very telling. Does it mean the U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating Fanning? Who knows. But one thing’s for sure: Josh Levy 100% knew who the State Police lead investigator was and he deliberately avoided saying it. This observation is reflected in FBI Special Agent Chenee Castruita’s 45-page long probable cause affidavit for the arrest of Matthew Farwell, which notably contains ZERO references whatsoever to John Fanning, or any of the other involved State Police investigators for that matter. That’s telling. If there was so much “collaboration,” like DA Michael Morrissey’s Office wants the public to think, then not only would USA Josh Levy have had, at the very least, Trooper Fanning up there side-by-side with him at that press conference, but he would’ve acknowledged him by name in his press conference. Why hasn’t the NCDAO charged disgraced former Stoughton cop Matthew Farwell with murder? Is it yet another case of “pinning it on the girl” to cover up for fellow Police Officers’ crimes? ——— Of note, Trooper Fanning grew up in Stoughton, graduating from Stoughton High School in 1998, the same year that Matthew and his twin brother William—who also grew up in Stoughton—then 12 years old, became participants in the Stoughton police youth program. As Karen Read points out in the interview with Ted Daniels: “There were familiarities among players that never should’ve happened. There’s a sleeve of homicide in the Norfolk DA’s office, as there is in the other counties of Massachusetts. And yet, the person assigned to investigate this case—ostensibly investigate this case—lives a mile down the street from the crime scene.” (See clip 4 attached). Why is it that when there’s seemingly crimes—in this case murders, involving cops, that the NCDAO SPDU appears to send the most conflicted Trooper with the closest ties to that cop/those cops? In Officer John O’Keefe’s murder, the Trooper that lives down the street from 34 Fairview and is “second family” with the Alberts is obviously the last person who should’ve ever responded to that case, yet he was the lead investigator. Given Trooper John Fanning’s close ties to Stoughton, isn’t it interesting that he’s the one who was the lead investigator of Sandra Birchmore‘s death—a murder that allegedly involved a former Stoughton cop? What say you?](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1891692661267939807/ext_tw_video_thumb/1891692119082913792/pu/img/XXG39DUZUjLDvF8S.jpg)
![It’s outrageous that President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), say many in the media. “You have to admire the chutzpah,” wrote one columnist. “Donald Trump describing the BBC as ‘corrupt’ while threatening to take legal action….The man has never been known for his self-awareness, so it’s safe to say the irony has almost certainly passed him by.” But there is no question that BBC employees deliberately manipulated Trump’s remarks on January 6, 2021, to make it sound like he had encouraged violence. An independent outside auditor, Michael Prescott, wrote a major report on the BBC’s bias, which concluded that the BBC had “spliced together two clips” to create “the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.” Americans might think this story doesn’t concern them because it’s about a British media company. Few Americans listen to the BBC. But the story is highly relevant to Americans because US news media companies are guilty of manipulating their coverage of Trump, transgenderism, and race in nearly identical ways as the BBC. And given the BBC’s longstanding reputation as one of the most credible news organizations in the world, Prescott’s independent report has rightly sparked a major international media discussion. Over the weekend, the BBC’s CEO and its Director-General both stepped down. “The Future of the BBC is Now in Doubt,” writes Tim Stanley, an influential columnist, in the Daily Telegraph. Prescott’s report should inspire reform-minded owners of US news media companies to clean up their act. For example, CNN falsely claimed that January 6 was an “insurrection” that resulted in the deaths of five people and did a similarly manipulative edit of Trump’s speech, noted an investigator on X, MAZE. “It may not be technically as bad as what the BBC did,” he noted, “because there was a quick flash transition, but the goal was the same. Make the speech sound worse than it was. Take everything out of context and put it together in an order that makes it sound as bad as possible.” Last year, we criticized CNN and other news media for deliberately twisting the meaning of Trump’s remarks about Liz Cheney for being a war hawk, and Prescott makes the same observation. “Mr. Trump was clearly criticising politicians who readily send US troops to war without thinking about the human cost,” he notes. And yet “the BBC repeatedly pushed this inaccurate version of what Trump said.” Readers of Public are aware that we have been critical of the BBC’s fact-checking program, “BBC Verify.” One purpose of BBC Verify appears to be to label stories with which the BBC disagrees as “misinformation” and thus as something that social media platforms should censor. Last year, the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, said, “Disinformation, propaganda, and partial news is [sic] weakening our shared understanding of the world, undermining trust in our institutions and our democratic process,” shortly after the BBC had buried a large package of investigative stories on the problems with giving children and adolescents puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. BBC’s first “disinformation” reporter, Mariana Spring, apologized in 2023 after she was caught lying on her resume. Spring remains employed at BBC as its “Social Media Investigations Senior Correspondent.” Prescott described how BBC Verify spread misinformation. “BBC audiences were being encouraged to believe Britain’s major insurers were, intentionally or unintentionally, racist and charging high prices to customers based on their ethnicity,” notes Prescott. “The central claim implied causation, (that being an ethnic minority resulted in you being charged more), but the reporting and commentary did not consider other issues that can affect insurance charges.” Adds Prescott, “the entire report was taken down, which I understand is very rare. It had taken six months for the BBC to take decisive action about a story that was not fit for purpose and spread damaging misinformation. As far as I know, no one has ever been disciplined for this hugely embarrassing episode and worrying questions remain.” Another example of the BBC’s bias concerned a major story about doctors causing serious harm to children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. Readers of Public will recall that in the Spring of last year, we released documents, The WPATH Files, which a whistleblower had given to us. “In March 2024,” writes Prescott, “there was widespread media coverage of leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health [WPATH] which raised concerns about the quality of care given to gender-distressed children. It was picked up by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, the Times, and others, but not the BBC.” Prescott points out other examples of the BBC's censorship and bias on transgenderism. It refused to cover detransitioners, people who regretted taking hormones or receiving surgeries in an attempt to change their sex or gender. It didn’t cover a major lawsuit by a group of nurses after their hospital allowed a man to use their changing room. And, beyond WPATH, the BBC gave little to no coverage of the trans medical scandal, even though the UK government has banned puberty blockers. By contrast, the BBC produced “a surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens,” celebrated a male wrestler who competed in the women’s category, and published an article last year headlined, “Transgender woman guilty of rape after night out.” Wrote the reporter, “Lexi Secker, 35, of Lowbourne, near Melksham, was living as a man when she attacked a woman in Blunsdon, Wiltshire, on 23 April 2023.” More information about the scandal may come out. Just today, Cath Leng, BBC’s former chief writer, says she was “forced out” in 2023 after 25 years because she was critical of transgender ideology. Prescott identified other areas of bias, including on race and the war in Gaza, all of which pointed to a single significant underlying problem. “My view is that the Executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all,” he writes. “Indeed, I would argue that the Executive’s attitude when confronted with evidence of serious and systemic problems is now a systemic problem in itself - meaning the last recourse for action is the Board.” All of this is deeply damaging to the BBC, regardless of whether Trump decides to sue it. “BBC staff have destroyed their own trump card in future negotiations over the licence fee,” writes Stanley at the Daily Telegraph. “The problem is this: in the modern, post-TV world, the licence fee is entirely unjustifiable. The BBC has to explain why, when there’s so much else available, it should be allowed to compel us to pay for it – just when tastes are diverging, national identity is fractured and the quality of the BBC’s output is in doubt…” What, then, explains the BBC’s fall from grace? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1988024092369580483/amplify_video_thumb/1988021879752585217/img/pOLnED3lYtZKTBP9.jpg)