bylm1-Bernie

Frosty, you are so blind that it's astonishing. Of course you've been listening only to CNN and MSNBC. Google Tony Bobulinski and read all you can. Soiled Oval Office? Are you referring to the Clinton-Lewinsky saga?

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Open your eyes and your mind. The only way you can be unaware of incidents like these is by listening to l*****t media that never reports on them.

POLITICSReport: Naked 80-Year-Old Protests a B********l M**e in Her YMCA Shower, Gets Banned for Bigotry
ByAdminPublished on August 7, 2022
Shower rooms have changed a bit. So have Christian associations.

In Port Townsend, Washington recently, Julie Jaman finished a swim at the Mountain View pool. While soaped up in the shower, she heard the voice of a man. She looked out and was surprised by what she saw — allegedly (apply that word to everything below).

From the Port Townsend Free Press:

[O]n Tuesday, July 26, 2022, [Julie] was swimming when the…aquatics manager, Rowen DeLuna, told her that a group of children were going to use her lane. [She]…went to the women’s showers. There are no private showers. They are all clustered in a common area that requires users to step into and out of the showers in the view of others. The light curtains on each shower stall do not provide much of a shield from the eyes of others. One can see out as well as in.

While lathered up in the shower, [Julie] heard a…low male voice. She saw a male in a woman’s swimsuit very close… Julie says he was “looking at the little girls as they were taking off their suits.” She remembers about four little girls being in the room.

[She] says she was shocked. “There were gaps in the curtain, and there I was — naked, with soap and water on me — and this guy, right there very close to me.”

She called out a question: “Do you have a penis?”

“He said, ‘That’s none of your business.’ That’s when I told him, ‘Get out of here, right now.’”

Julie then noticed Aquatics Manager Rowen just outside her stall. Julie insisted, “Get him out of here.”

That didn’t go as she’d hoped:

[Rowen] responded…”You’re discriminating, and you can’t use the pool anymore. And I’m calling the police.”

[Julie] remembers standing there stunned, naked and wet.

Curiously, the pool is run by the Young Men’s Christian Association. And as it turns out, the shower-room male — named Clementine — was a Y worker.

[Clementine] did not display anything identifying him as a YMCA employee. [Julie] does not remember getting dry and dressed. She exited the showers and entered the foyer to leave the building.

From the door, Rowen declared, “You have not abided by our principles and values.”

[Julie] said she raised concerns about her loss of dignity and being stripped of her sense of safety when she was in a vulnerable state. She raised concerns about the little girls being naked in front of [Clementine]. [Rowen] dismissed her concerns by sharing a past trauma of her own.

Another Y staffer appeared and informed Julie that she couldn’t leave. Rowen said the same.

Julie had a different idea, which she concisely communicated:

“Bulls**t!”

She announced she was going to the cops, and she did just that. At the station, she filed a report with Officer Titterness.

Additionally, she called Olympic Peninsula YMCA CEO Wendy Bart. According to Wendy, a Y staffer claimed Julie had said to Clementine, “You’re going to stick your [flipping] penis in those little girls” (Julie denies the charge).

Furthermore, Wendy explained that the posted “P***e” signs should’ve notified everyone that males could enjoy time in the women’s shower.

On August 1st, Julie — who is 80 years old and a 35-year Y member — appeared before the Port Townsend City Council (see the video here):

She had a lot to say:

“In an effort by the city and the YMCA to apply the neocultural g****r rules at Mountain View pool dressing/room shower facilities, women and children are being put at risk.

“My experience while showering after my swim was…seeing a man in a women’s swimsuit watching little girls pull down their bathing suits in order to use the toilets… I reacted by telling him to leave. And the consequence is that I have been banned from the pool.

“There is no signage informing women the shower room is now all-g****r… Nor have parents been informed of what they can expect… The Y has not provided any dressing/shower room options for women who do not want to be exposed to men who identify as women.

“It is unconscionable that the YMCA would instigate these new policies without clearly informing pool patrons and parents. … [T]hey’ve usurped the binary designations…with no choices. The staff seems to have received little professional training on how to handle reactions to such a radical culture change — particularly for the most vulnerable, older female patrons, and children who may be exposed to inappropriate behavior, (which violates) the dignity and safety of unsuspecting women who have trusted…these facilities for many years. This is not right. The YMCA, the city, the police and sheriffs, the parents, the professionals who assist victims of voyeurism, peeping toms, p********a and assault need to come together to figure out how to make the new policies work for all pool patrons, not just one group.”

“It is ironic,” she added, “that women who discriminate when a situation threatens their safety or their children — a message from our ancestors — are now accused of discrimination as if they have made someone else a victim.”

She told the council that intelligence and wisdom should be employed when “applying the rules,” and that policies must be “respectful and inclusive.”

It seems to me that Julie’s expectations are ill-conceived. Society is going to necessarily pick a side, and it appears our institutions already have. It is unrealistic to think that all facilities will construct a third shower/locker room. If males can be women and females are maybe men — and if “inclusion” means agreeing to such — there cannot exist a world in which both soapy Julie showers exclusively with people with vulvas, and societal showering policies are “inclusive.”


We have reached a fork in the road. If Americans allow for the revolutionary turn, women like Julie will have to get used to showering with penises and a mutual plain view — provided their initial resistance doesn’t get them banned.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Grassley’s Questioning Of Wray Suggests Biden Scandal Is The Tip Of The Deep-State Iceberg
BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND
AUGUST 05, 2022
8 MIN READ
Chuck Grassley

In questioning Wray during Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, four exchanges proved intriguing — and potentially insightful.

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s questioning of FBI Director Christopher Wray during Thursday’s Judiciary Committee hearing, when considered in conjunction with the details provided by FBI whistleblowers, is suggestive of an even bigger H****r B***n scandal.

Last week, Grassley revealed that “multiple FBI whistleblowers, including those in senior positions,” claimed the “Washington Field Office assistant special agent in charge Timothy Thibault and other FBI officials … ‘falsely portray[ed] as disinformation evidence acquired from multiple sources that provided the FBI derogatory information related to H****r B***n’s financial and foreign business activities, even though some of that information had already been or could be verified.’” The whistleblowers also told the Iowa Republican senator that “in August of 2020, FBI supervisory intelligence analyst Brian Auten opened an assessment, which was used by a team of agents at FBI headquarters to improperly discredit and falsely claim that derogatory information about Biden’s activities was disinformation, causing investigative activity and sourcing to be shut down.”

Grassley further revealed that “the FBI headquarters team allegedly placed their assessment findings in a restricted access subfolder, effectively f**gging sources and derogatory evidence related to H****r B***n as disinformation while shielding the justification for such findings from scrutiny.”

In revealing news of the whistleblowers’ claims, Grassley did not further detail the sources of the derogatory information. However, in questioning Wray during Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, four exchanges proved intriguing — and potentially insightful.

1. Was a Second U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Evidence Buried?
After using his opening statement to review the whistleblowers’ allegations, Grassley asked Wray whether “when the FBI receives a potential criminal investigation relating to a matter subject to information and prosecution by a U.S. attorney, is it the FBI’s standard practice to share that information with the relevant U.S. attorney’s office?”

Wray replied in the affirmative, noting that it is his expectation that when a particular U.S. attorney’s office and the related relevant FBI field office have the lead on an investigation, if other U.S. attorneys’ offices come across information that is relevant to that investigation, those tips and leads will be passed on to the lead office.

This line of questioning ran parallel to The Federalist’s reporting last week that noted that while the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware pursued its investigation of H****r B***n’s foreign business dealings, then-Attorney General William Barr had directed the Pittsburgh U.S. attorney to review material purporting to show H****r B***n’s involvement in criminal business dealings in Ukraine.

While little is publicly known about the work of the Pittsburgh U.S. attorney’s office, shortly after Biden’s e******n, the New York Times ran a hit piece on former Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Scott Brady, presenting him as a Trump partisan, purportedly based “on interviews with five current and former law enforcement officials and others with knowledge of F.B.I. interactions with the Justice Department.” Among other things, the Times reported that Brady sought “to take aggressive steps,” including having the FBI interview a list of potential witnesses. The Times’ unnamed sources claimed that in response to the Pittsburgh U.S. attorney’s investigation, FBI agents “found ways to ostensibly satisfy Mr. Brady.”

Revisiting the Times article and the claims of these unnamed sources in light of the whistleblowers’ claims suggests FBI headquarters either improperly withheld information or presented inaccurate information to the U.S. attorney’s office in Pittsburgh and possibly also Delaware. And now, Grassley is questioning the FBI director on how evidence from one U.S. attorney’s office should be handled when another office is running lead. That question seems suggestive of the possibility that the evidence buried by FBI headquarters came from the Pittsburgh U.S. attorney’s office or the related FBI field office and was never shared with the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office.

Brady declined to comment to The Federalist and Grassley’s office has not yet responded to a request for comment as of publication time.

2. Was There a Foreign Human Source?
A second line of Grassley’s inquiry during Thursday’s hearing raises further questions about the type of evidence purportedly buried by FBI headquarters.

“I would like to know if the FBI received information that foreign persons had evidence of improper or unlawful financial payments paid to elected officials or other politically exposed persons would that pose a nation security concern?” Grassley asked the FBI director. And what steps should the FBI take “to vet or more fully investigate improper or unlawful money paid to elected officials and other politically exposed persons?” Grassley inquired.

Given Grassley’s focus on the whistleblower information during the hearing and the similarity between the hypothetical posed and the allegations swirling around H****r B***n, this line of inquiry suggests FBI headquarters may have wrongly classified a foreign human source with evidence about H****r B***n as disinformation and did so without any vetting or investigation. And having Wray state for the record, as he did, that the FBI would look at such information “very closely” and “very seriously” through the FBI’s maligned foreign influence teams, and with the potential involvement of public corruption resources, seems a purposeful tact for Grassley to make as he moves the whistleblowers’ claims move forward, especially if the evidence shows that the agents presented with the derogatory information about H****r did not properly address the evidence.

3. How Was the Derogatory Information on H****r B***n Branded Disinformation?
Grassley also pushed Wray on the question of disinformation. Again, while his questions were posed generically, the whistleblowers’ claims provide an interesting context to the discussion.

What criteria does the FBI use to evaluate whether evidence “is or isn’t disinformation”? the Iowa senator asked.

Here, Wray responded that “when it comes to disinformation, we’re not out there investigating whether or not information we see floating around is t***hful or false in the first instance.” Rather, the FBI’s focus is on whether “there’s a foreign adversary trying to push information and from there we look into,” Wray explained. “When it comes to disinformation and defensive briefing, for example,” Wray continued, “there is an inter-agency process, that is [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] coordinated because a lot of this information comes not from the FBI but from other intelligence agencies, or in some cases from foreign allies,” the FBI director explained.

That testimony raises numerous red f**gs when considered against the whistleblowers’ claims that evidence about H****r B***n was wrongly labeled disinformation by FBI headquarters. First, just from Wray’s testimony, it appears that the FBI agents would not be the appropriate ones to deem evidence “disinformation.”

Second, given the “inter-agency process” mentioned, one wonders if FBI headquarters reached out to any of the other intelligence agencies to discuss the derogatory information about H****r B***n and if so, did another intelligence agency brand it disinformation? Third, was this derogatory evidence ever shared with the head of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, or if not, why not?

The whistleblowers’ allegations were bad enough before, but now that Wray has explained the inter-agency involvement in assessing disinformation and in providing defensive briefings, the scandal could be even worse, if, for instance, FBI headquarters marked the sources as disinformation without sharing the intel with the other agencies as seems the proper protocol from Wray’s testimony.

4. Does the FBI Have a Culture of Retaliation?
A final line of questioning of interest focused on ensuring the whistleblowers would not be retaliated against. Here, it is interesting to note that Grassley stated that during his June telephone conversation with the FBI director they had “discussed the need to protect whistleblowers that had approached my office.” Grassley then thanked Wray for his commitment to preventing retaliatory conduct against whistleblowers, before asking two follow-up questions.

“Do you agree any retaliatory conduct against whistleblowers must be disciplined?” Grassley asked first.

Wray agreed that any conduct against whistleblowers was “unacceptable” and that the department had a “number of mechanisms” in place to protect whistleblowers.

Grassley then asked for Wray to commit “that the FBI won’t take any action to determine who the whistleblowers are.” Wray again confirmed the bureau would “be scrupulous in our rules” and condemned “in the strongest possible terms any prospect of retaliation against whistleblowers.”

That Grassley had Wray publicly reaffirm his commitment to protect the whistleblowers and condemn any possible retaliation raises the question of whether the FBI has a culture of retaliation. That might explain why the agents who came forward to Grassley about the alleged burying of evidence against H****r B***n did so only within the last two months, when the charged misconduct occurred back in 2020. Grassley may also be seeking to assure other would-be whistleblowers that he will safeguard their identity and hold the FBI director responsible for guaranteeing they are not retaliated against.

With this guarantee now public, the question for the “patriots working their tails off,” as Sen. John Kennedy called the FBI agents not implicated in wrongdoing during yesterday’s hearing, is whether they will come forward to out the bad apples. If not, are they really patriots working their tails off? Or are they really just trying to save their hides.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

EXCLUSIVE: Report Shows Biden Admin Run By Former Registered Foreign Agents
BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE
AUGUST 05, 2022
5 MIN READ

PBS NEWSHOUR
More than a dozen high-ranking members of the Biden administration were previously registered foreign agents.

More than a dozen high-ranking members of the Biden administration previously worked as registered foreign agents, according to a new report obtained exclusively by The Federalist. The report was published by the Biden administration watchdog “Inside Biden’s Basement,” itself a project of the nonprofit T***sparency Action Fund.

Titled, “Foreign Agents Lurking Inside Biden’s Basement,” the group’s new report outlines the networks of at least 13 officials under President Joe Biden who were once paid to represent foreign interests and registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Their prior clients range from Iran and Kazakhstan to Canada and Mexico.

FARA records show White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su’s law firm paid out $30,000 a month to Mercury Public Affairs on behalf of the government of Kazakhstan in 2018. Biden Special Assistant Erin Pelton was employed with Mercury in the same year and worked on behalf of both Kazakhstan and Qatar, according to public government documents.

In 2006, Biden’s U.S. Ambassador to Poland Mark Brzezinski’s public affairs firm, McGuireWoods Consulting, was paid nearly $140,000 over a six-month period by the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO).

“As Americans experience one Biden-era crisis pile on top of another, the President’s Cabinet, spokesmen, and aides behind the scenes seem to put America last,” said Derrick Hollie, the communications director for Inside Biden’s Basement. “It is instructive for Americans watching their needs take a back seat to know which of those officials Inside Biden’s Basement have represented nations other than our own yet now have tremendous power over their lives.” Hollie worked previously in Trump’s Department of T***sportation.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires that anyone lobbying on behalf of a foreign client disclose their business to the Department of Justice. Filings regularly demonstrate the extent of bipartisan corruption in Washington. As the Washington establishment sought to undercut former President Donald Trump, FARA enforcement kicked into high gear amid investigations into Trump officials such as Paul Manafort.

Those efforts, however, highlighted how deeply entrenched foreign interests are in Washington, D.C., also ensnaring Tony Podesta, a top Democrat lobbyist and the brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Manafort, Tony Podesta, and Rick Gates failed to disclose their lobbying efforts on behalf of interests connected to former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. While the media focuses heavily on the very real problems of foreign influence among certain Trump associates, far less attention is paid to the damning connections shared by Biden officials.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, the most senior of those listed, represented five international clients including the Union Nacional de Productores de Hortalizas in Mexico; the Government of Brazil; VIASA, previously known as Venezuelan International Airways; the International Commodities Clearing House, Ltd. in the United Kingdom; and the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT).

Biden adviser Anita Dunn, another senior official highlighted who returned to the West Wing in May, previously served the government of Ontario. Dunn had also voluntarily coordinated public relations strategy for disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. While not an international client, the ex-movie mogul was convicted of rape in 2020 and was sentenced to 23 years in prison at 67 following testimonies from six women against him. Dunn was also reported by the Wall Street Journal to admire former Chinese dictator Mao Zedong as a favorite political philosopher.

Other officials named in the report include U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Jeff Flake and U.S. Representative to the European Union Mark Gitenstein. Flake, who served a single term in the Senate from Arizona, previously represented Rossing Uranium Ltd., a Nambian mining operation with connections to the government of Iran. Gitenstein worked for the Swiss-headquartered food giant Nestle.

Six other administration officials who were registered foreign agents include Robert Bauer, the co-chair of the P**********l Commission on the Supreme Court; Melissa Schwartz, the communications director for the Department of the Interior; Natalie Wyeth Earnest, counselor to the Treasury secretary; Maria Fabiana Jorge, alternate executive director of the Inter-American Development Bank; Zev Karlin-Neumann, a communications adviser for the Domestic Policy Council, and Steven Ricchetti, counselor to Biden.

While the report names 13 officials who were registered foreign agents before their tenure in the administration, the report is not exhaustive. The administration is actively working to conceal the identities of p**********l appointees more than 18 months into Biden’s first term.

Last month, a separate conservative legal group, America First Legal (AFL), launched a litigation blitz to unearth the names, titles, positions, resumes, salaries, ethics pledges, waivers, and agreements of all appointees under Biden.

In an interview with The Federalist at the time, AFL Vice President and General Counsel Gene Hamilton compared the effort to compile records of administration officials to ProPublica’s “Trump Town” database, which made the same information of nearly 4,000 p**********l appointees publicly accessible.

“People, you know, highlighted it and used it to try to write stuff up about people who were trying earnestly to execute President Trump’s agenda,” Hamilton said. “Well, the same has not really been true for the Biden administration. And so this is about t***sparency.”

AFL’s efforts are not connected to the database being compiled by Inside Biden’s Basement.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

L*****ts Dominate FBI Top 10 Domestic Terror List, Despite Warnings About Far Right
By Pamela Geller - on August 5, 2022

Photo credit: Shutterstock
Share on Parler
Of course they do. But the Democrats are as disconnected from reality as Biden is from a functioning brain.

Under Democrat rule, a complete break in reality is required, imposed actually. The good are evil and the evil are good.

L*****ts Dominate FBI Top 10 Domestic Terror List, Despite Warnings About Far Right
Many on list are associated with a l*****t group that bombed the Capitol in 1983. Democrats pardoned or commuted the sentences of non-fugitives tied to that group.

By Luke Rosiak • Daily Wire • Aug 4, 2022:

The FBI has sounded the alarm about w***e s*********ts and far-right extremists, but the bureau’s own Top 10 “most wanted d******c t*******ts” list includes at least two C*******ts, three black nationalists, one anti-war activist, and a vegan eco-terrorist.

While the diverse roster doesn’t purport to capture the breadth of domestic terror, it seems at odds with federal law enforcement’s claims that w***e s*********ts pose the biggest threat facing the nation. Some skeptics are accusing the bureau of exaggerating the threat by adopting a misleading definition of such ideologies.

“In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violence extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocated for the superiority of the White race,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said last year.

A top Department of Justice official doubled down on the claim during a Congressional hearing last week. But Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said a whistleblower has come forward to cast doubt on the data.

“These whistleblower allegations that the FBI is padding its domestic violent extremist data cheapens actual examples of violent extremism,” Jordan wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

EmilyD

That post there just shows how out of it you are.

All those "g****rs" come from gays and t******s! They want to "identify" as other "g****rs" and if you get it wrong, you will be charged with a h**e crime. And it is most definitely NOT from the right wing. Those on the right are mostly Christians and believe that God created two g****rs only: Man and Woman.

EmilyD

Well... the Y is now on my list of woke places to avoid! The "Young Men's Christian Association" is not acting very Christian!

bylm1-Bernie