That's the recipe for Chicken Kiev. As with the earlier book, the authors serve up recipes. The difference?
So you have recipes for main dishes and for sides and desserts and breads. You could do that as a meal for one person or as a meal for two or for a dinner party.
It's a treat to read. Kevin's married in this book and they have a bigger apartment than he had in the first book when he lived by himself. And Nancy supplies tips and warnings for the recipes.
A long with some great recipes, they share stories that make tehe book a pleasure to read and one that I highly recommend.
Here's one more recipe from the book, this is to make a 1/3 cup of Ginger Soy Sauce:
Friday, January 31, 2025. Patel, Gabbard and Junior lie to Senate
committees, Donald Chump wants to dismantle the US government, why we
need to all have a working knowledge of Socialism before the 2028
election, and much more.
Let's be clear up front: Donald Trump doesn't care one iota about the Constitution.
I wrote about it for Rolling Stone before
the 2016 election, laying out how he had already demonstrated during
his first real campaign that he didn't believe "core principles and
values" of the nation's founding document. , But I think what we've seen
in his first week-plus in office this time around is that he is
completely apathetic about it, giving it no thought whatsoever. And
that's a scary thing to say about a president. What we've seen in this short period of time is an unprecedented grab of power in almost every area of law:
Despite
the Constitution and federal statute requiring birthright citizenship -
people born on American soil are American citizens even if their
parents are not - the Trump Administration issued an executive order
declaring that it will end on February 19. The order has been met with
multiple legal challenges, leading a federal judge to temporarily block it.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who was appointed by Ronald
Reagan, wrote in his decision that the order "blatantly
unconstitutional."
Despite
the Constitution and federal statute prohibiting the president from
refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for a particular
purpose, the Trump administration issued an order doing just that,
ostensibly so that federal agencies can investigate whether these
programs are imbued with, among other things, "DEI" and "woke gender
ideology." This order, too, has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. Despite
Congress putting a firm date on the start of the ban on TikTok, Trump
said he was giving the company 75 additional days to comply, a power
that finds no basis in the statute. Despite the Constitution and federal
statute prohibiting the president from firing people in offices such as
the Inspector General office, Trump has fired people in those roles.
Despite federal courts having previously declared that a ban on trans
people in the military is unconstitutional sex discrimination, Trump
reinstated that policy.
President
Trump has said that he wants to withhold federal funds from California
in the wake of the devastating wildfires until California complies with
Trump's wishes about voter ID, despite the Constitution requiring that
conditions on federal funds be connected to the purpose of the funds and
Congress not placing any condition on federal disaster relief.
He
doesn't abide by the Constitution and he doesn't like the people -- why
in the world would he want to be president? To dismantle the
government. That is what he's doing. Dismantle the government. We're
going to come back to that point much later in the snapshot
For now, let's note The Three Great Liars -- Junior, Trashy Garbage and Patel.
Let's
start with Junior who we all know is disgusting, not suited for the job
and a disaster in every way a human can be. He did his hearings
(plural) with pop-eyed Cheryl Hines behind him. Some say her career is
behind her but she would have to have a career for that to be the case.
And she doesn't. And hasn't. So with Cheryl, what Americans have to
look forward to is her trying to not look humiliated as this or that
affair emerges. And she can never be anything humiliated. She can't be
surprised because not only did the thing with the reporter emerge
during his failed campaign for president -- and rumors of other real
affairs in 2024 get alluded to -- Cheryl's a cheater too. She caught
him and roped him in after entering a side piece. And the fact that he
was cheating on his wife just made it all the sexier to trashy Cheryl
who apparently climaxed when Junior's wife took her own life. For more
on that,
David Corn (MOTHER JONES):
In the early 2010s, Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. went through a contentious divorce with his second wife,
Mary Richardson Kennedy. It was ugly. Richardson had found a diary
RFK Jr. kept that chronicled multiple extramarital affairs he had
engaged in—possibly numbering in the dozens—and she was enraged and
tormented by his infidelity. She was drinking and racked up two DUIs.
The two fought for years over the custody of their four children. The
battle ended on May 16, 2012, with her suicide at their home in Bedford,
New York.
During that stretch, RFK Jr., who has been nominated by President
Donald Trump to lead the Department of Health and Human
Services, secretly recorded telephone and in-person conversations he had
with Richardson, and in at least one instance he may have violated
state law in doing so.
Mother Jones has obtained a cache of these audio recordings
that include more than 60 conversations that occurred in 2011 and early
2012. In many of the recordings, Richardson was distraught over the end
of her marriage to Kennedy. Sometimes she bitterly lashed out at him,
cursing and yelling; occasionally she asked for reconciliation. Knowing
he was recording, Kennedy was decidedly more circumspect than was she.
He often pressed her to complete the divorce and blamed her behavior for
their breakup and his affairs. In none of the recordings did Kennedy
inform Richardson that she was being recorded or ask for her consent to
be recorded.
In one angry conversation on June 4, 2011, Kennedy, who had married
Richardson in 1994 after his first divorce, said to her, “I want to be
in a monogamous relationship. I don’t want to be in a polygamous
relationship. I think that’s wrong.” Richardson then asked, “But then
why have you done it for 10 years?” Kennedy replied, “I did it because I
was being abused at home.” (Mother Jones is
not publishing the recordings because they contain allegations we have
not confirmed and information about third parties that raises privacy
concerns.)
Kennedy did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding the recordings.
Most of the recordings were apparently made while both Kennedy and
Richardson were in New York state, which is a one-party consent state
when it comes to recording a conversation. That means under New York
state law only one person in the conversation needs to be aware of the
recording for it to be a legal act.
But in one instance, Kennedy recorded a phone conversation with
Richardson when he was apparently in California, which is a two-party
consent state. Under California law,
a person needs the agreement of all parties to a conversation to record
a private call. Violating this law is punishable by a fine up to $2,500
and a prison sentence of up to one year.
This call occurred on June 14, 2011. That week, Kennedy was in Los Angeles for the premiere of The Last Mountain,
a documentary on mountaintop removal mining based partly on a 2005 book
by Kennedy. During that eight-minute-long call, the two argued, as
Kennedy pleaded with her to sign a custody agreement, and Richardson
aired her grievances about him and asked him to avoid having their
16-year-old son, Conor, publicly photographed with actor Cheryl Hines,
Kennedy’s girlfriend whom he later married. On the audio file of this
call, Kennedy did not inform Richardson the conversation was being
recorded.
There
she is at the premiere, just as sad looking then as she is now. That's
the face of a catalog model -- if she's lucky -- not a TV or film
star. She and Junior go way back. And we've told you that here and
explained that's why no one should ever feel sorry when Junior publicly
humiliates her. After all, as we've noted here, he's complained about
her breasts -- well, the dangling one that's "like an empty sock" -- to
any male friend who will listen. With Cheryl and Junior, you're
reminded of a remark Frank Sinatra once made, "I've finally found a
woman I can cheat on."
Junior's trash and unfit
and we've got other things to focus on, however, since David Corn did a
deep dive on just how hideous Junior truly is, we need to note it.
Now let's turn to Tulsi Gabbard. Trashy Garbage as
Trina's
long dubbed her. What is it with MAGA women and their eyes this week?
Cheryl couldn't stop blinking at Junior's hearings and Tulsi showed with
the largest fake eyelashes she's yet to wear in public. Maybe she
thought they'd act as awnings and shield or shadow her face to conceal
those ugly pockmarks?
Well.
She was wrong.
This is from Senator Patty Murray's office:
Murray: “There are political realities, we all get
that—but there is also right and wrong, fact and fiction. And there’s
also people staying healthy, or people dying pointlessly from diseases
we can prevent because they thought Congress took its job vetting our
health care secretary seriously.”
Murray, a longtime congressional leader on health care who has led hearings on addressing vaccine hesitancy, has been a leading vocal opponent of RFK Jr.’s nomination—speaking out on the Senate floor, holding events, raising the alarm after meeting with him
*** VIDEO of Senator Murray’s FULL questioning with RFK Jr. HERE***
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray
(D-WA), a senior member and former Chair of the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, questioned RFK Jr. at
the Senate HELP Committee hearing
on his nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS)—pressing him forcefully on whether he stands by false statements
he made about the HPV vaccine and asking about credible accusations of
sexual harassment and assault against him.
RFK Jr. has long been one of the anti-vaccine movement’s loudest, proudest champions—peddling dangerous, debunked views and funding anti-vaccine causes—and there is much he could do as HHS Secretary to cause chaos and real harm to families, from firing top scientists and researchers, to ripping away the approval or insurance coverage of all kinds of vaccines and medicines, to ending our focus on infectious disease research, as he has threatened to do.
Murray began her questioning at today’s hearing by reiterating that
HHS has broad and critical responsibilities to protect and preserve
health care and social services, from advancing women’s health, to
improving child care, to bolstering biomedical research—all priorities
of hers—but she would use her limited time for questioning to ask about
vaccines. Also noting the tragic plane crash last night in DC, Murray
called it “a painful reminder that we need competent people running our federal agencies to respond when a crisis strikes.”
“I think we can agree that cancer is particularly a nefarious
chronic disease. And the American Cancer Society reported earlier this
month that women under 50 are experiencing a dramatic increase in
incidence of the disease. Fortunately, there is clear data showing that
the HPV vaccine has saved lives and cut cervical cancer rates
dramatically. You have called the HPV vaccine ‘dangerous and defective’ and said it ‘actually increases the risk of cervical cancer.’ Do you stand by those statements? Yes or no?”
Kennedy filibustered, refusing to answer directly—Murray pressed him to answer the question, then continued, “You
said that: ‘no loving parents would allow their daughter to receive
this vaccine.’ If confirmed as HHS Secretary, would you recommend that
parents get their children vaccinated against HPV? Yes or no?”
“I’ll just remind everybody—parents look to our health leaders for
advice on these decisions; you would be a health leader,” Murray
said, asking unanimous consent to enter Mr. Kennedy’s numerous
statements disparaging the HPV vaccine and others into the record.
Murray continued by asking Mr. Kennedy about accusations
of sexual harassment and assault by Eliza Cooney, who was hired as a
part-time babysitter by his family. “When you were confronted about this
accusation, you said you were ‘not a church boy’ and that you ‘have so many skeletons in my closet,’ Murray said. “You
then texted Miss Cooney an apology and indicated you had no memory of
what she described. Mr. Kennedy, I’m asking you to respond to those
accusations seriously in front of this committee. Did you make sexual
advances towards Miss Cooney without her consent?”
Kennedy denied the allegations, calling them “debunked,” despite
credible reporting to the contrary, when pressed on why he apologized,
Kennedy claimed he texted Cooney an apology for a separate reason—in
contrast to the published texts.
Mr. Kennedy then told the full committee that he had never made any
unwanted sexual advances towards any individual without their consent.
“My time is almost up, but having read a lot and listened a
lot, I just want to remind all my colleagues that by voting to confirm
Mr. Kennedy, we would be telling our constituents he is worth listening
to,” Murray said. “That alone will get people
killed—before he even lifts a finger. Because he does not even need the
levers of power to influence people, as we saw in Samoa—all he needs is a
megaphone.
“To affirm his views by voting to confirm him as our highest
health official—we should not mince words about what that will mean.
When babies die from whooping cough because parents weren’t sure if the
vaccine was safe, we will have to look them in the eye. When measles
sweeps through schools, hospitals, nursing wards—will this be worth it?”
“There are political realities, we all get that—but there is
also right and wrong, fact and fiction. And there’s also people staying
healthy, or people dying pointlessly from diseases we can prevent
because they thought Congress took its job vetting our health care
secretary seriously,” Murray concluded.
When President-elect Donald J. Trump first announced his intention to select Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of HHS, Murray immediately and forcefully condemned
the move—and she has consistently spoken out and laid out for her
colleagues the case against his nomination since, including in a lengthy
Senate floor speech earlier this month—VIDEO HERE. Murray met with RFK Jr. on January 15th and released a statement afterward reiterating her opposition to his nomination and urging her colleagues, “to
be honest with themselves about the stakes of putting one of the
anti-vaccine movement’s loudest, proudest champions in charge of HHS and
join me in opposing RFK Jr.’s nomination.” In December, Murray held a roundtable discussion
at UW Medicine on the importance of scientific research and
vaccines—especially for children—and spoke about how having RFK Jr. lead
HHS would threaten Americans’ health and safety.
As a longtime appropriator and former Chair of the Senate HELP
Committee, Murray has long fought to boost biomedical research,
strengthen public health infrastructure, and make health care more
affordable and accessible. Over her years as a senior member of the
Appropriations Committee, she has secured billions of dollars in
increases for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health,
and during her time as Chair of the HELP Committee she established the new ARPA-H research agency as part of her PREVENT Pandemics Act to
advance some of the most cutting-edge research in the field. As Chair
of the HELP Committee, Murray was also instrumental in crafting the American Rescue Plan Act, including its landmark investments in public health and health care. Senator Murray was also the lead Democratic negotiator of the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, which
delivered a major federal investment to boost NIH research, among many
other investments. Murray is also the lead sponsor of the Public Health Infrastructure Saves Lives Act
(PHISLA), legislation to establish $4.5 billion in dedicated, annual
funding for a grant program to build up and maintain the nation’s public
health system across the board.
In 2019, Senator Murray co-led a bipartisan hearing
in the HELP Committee on vaccine hesitancy and spoke about the
importance of addressing vaccine skepticism and getting people the facts
they need to keep their families and communities safe and healthy.
Ahead of the hearing, as multiple states were facing measles outbreaks
in under-vaccinated areas, Murray sent a bipartisan letter
with former HELP Committee Chair Lamar Alexander (R-TN) pressing the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director and HHS
Assistant Secretary for Health on their efforts to promote vaccination
and vaccine confidence.
###
Gabbard is one of handful of US politicians that has condemned the
treatment of Snowden. In 2013, the former government contractor exposed
the illegal surveillance operations of the NSA, CIA and other US spy
agencies which target millions in the US and around the world. For over a
decade, Snowden has remained exiled in Russia after the US government
revoked his passport.
Ranking member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee Mark Warner (Virginia), speaking for the intelligence
apparatus, said, “I have serious doubts about your judgment... You
consistently praised the actions of Edward Snowden. Someone who I
believe jeopardized the security of our nation and then, to flaunt that,
fled to Russia.
“You’ve called Edward Snowden, and I’ll quote here, ‘A brave whistleblower’.”
Warner
claimed that Snowden “wasn’t a whistleblower and in this case, I’m a
lot closer to the chairman’s words, where he said Snowden is quote, ‘an
egotistical serial liar and traitor’ who quote, ‘deserves to rot in jail
for the rest of his life.’”
Warner asked Gabbard if she still
thought Snowden was “brave.” Gabbard did not directly answer the
question, stating instead that Snowden, “broke the law” and that she did
not agree with how he acted, or everything he released to journalists
but that, “the fact is, he also, even as he broke the law, released
information that exposed egregious, illegal, and unconstitutional
programs that are happening within our government that led to serious
reforms that Congress undertook.”
Warner repeatedly asked Gabbard
to denounce Snowden or recant her previous characterization of him as
“brave.” Gabbard declined but promised to “protect our nation’s secrets”
and “prevent another Snowden-like leak.”
This was not enough for Warner who replied, “I don’t think you are the answer. I agree with Tom Cotton, he’s a traitor.”
We're in need of remedials -- I've grasped that fact thanks to the mushy minded we've talked about earlier this week.
So let me explain that's a critique.
It's
not a critique that amounts to much -- it's neither factual or informed
(uninformed as in Jacob pretends not to understand what's going on).
But it's a critique and I'm sure many Socialists will applaud it.
It's not.
And.
Let's go slow. Democrats. And. Socialists. Can. Agree. And.
Overlap. On. Some. Things. But. They. Are. Not. The. Same.
What
the Dems were doing was focusing on one issue in most of their
exchanges and they were focusing on one issue as a group because the
media's incapable of telling multiple stories. Their point was to get
across that cult member Tulsi Gabbard cannot be trusted.
And she can't be.
Now WSWS doesn't care for reform or what they'd see a bandaids. So they applaud Ed Snowden. They applaud him wrongly.
He is a traitor.
To some, he's a traitor because of what he did back in 2013.
And that's fine, that's a matter of opinion.
I don't see him as a traitor for 2013.
I see him as a traitor for all the years that followed.
What did he expose?
He and Glenneth were going to expose so much.
Remember?
Remember how Glenny was publishing at THE GUARDIAN and left in a huff and went to THE INTERCEPT to let freedom ring!
Well how long does it take for hunchback Glenneth to go into the belfry and ring the damn bell?
He
stormed out of THE INTERCEPT -- stupidly, as we've noted, if he did in
fact have a contract guaranteeing him that whatever he wrote would be
published --and where's all that information?
You know the fifty-five percent or so never released information that 'whistleblower' Ed liberated or 'liberated'?
Glenneth
and THE INTERCEPT were too busy outing Reality Winner and other
whistleblowers at that time to apparently cover the bulk of the
information -- because the bulk of what Ed walked away with has still
not been published.
Ed's a traitor.
To be a whistle-blower, he would have had to have released the information still hidden.
He's hiding in Russia.
I love that, by the way.
Remember
how he and Glenneth slammed Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning --
Chelsea/Julian wasn't careful and Julian/Chelsea didn't do this or that
and blah blah blah.
Chelsea didn't run to Russia.
The little coward did.
And
I defended Ed. We always used "Ed" -- rule number one when someone's
being demonized, humanize them by using the name they go by -- and he
went by Ed.
He's been in Russia for over a decade.
Nothing's prevented him from sharing all that didn't get released.
'I don't have a copy!'
He may not.
I
don't think most people would ignore an assertion from him because he
no longer had access to the documents he stole because he turned them
over to Glenn who -- needing a big money pay day -- turned them over to
THE INTERCEPT.
He has internet access -- or did you miss his work cheering on Donald Chump in the 2024 election cycle?
He's happy to post this and that. And scat.
But he's not posting what the American people, he said, needed to know.
He's moved on.
And that's not a whistleblower.
That's a traitor.
He
tried to damage the system. He didn't want to reform it, for example.
Now the WSWS and Socialism is not about reforming the system. But he
did want to damage the system of government here in the US which is why
he's so comfortable now in Russia.
He's a
traitor and he will always be one because he presented himself as
someone exposing hidding details that he felt the American people had
the right to know!
And when that was his position, I defended him.
But
again, a whistleblower blows the whistle. They don't start to whistle
and then say, "You know what, THE INTERCEPT now owns the documents I
stole so I'm not going to provide anymore details."
Again, that's a traitor.
If it was so important that we know, you provide what we needed to know. Not a partial version of it.
He's a traitor -- which means Donald Chump will probably pardon him at some point -- and he's in Russia now.
And Glenny's in Brazil. He's the Queen of Brazil. So why's Glenny so obsessed with our country?
He's
chosen not to live here. I guess trying to grift off Brazil doesn't
pay as much and we all know the whore is always about the dollar.
Tulsi's been nominated for Director of National Intelligence.
In
that post, most believe you need someone who values intelligence which
would mean that they oppose the unauthorized release of it.
A yes or a no.
That's how you respond to questions about Ed.
She couldn't do that.
Now
if this was 2014 or 2015, I could sit before a Senate committee and
make an argument defending Ed. And it might be persuasive or it might
not be.
But the American people would have seen me answer the question, not dodge it.
She can't even answer that question.
Because she's a coward.
So she lies and redirects and tries to hide behind military service.
No, dear, you devalue whatever you think you did when you try to use it as a shield to hide behind.
She wouldn't answer questions about Ed or any questions.
Because she's a liar and a coward.
She
will not answer the questions because she doesn't believe in democracy,
she doesn't believe in consent, she doesn't believe in an informed
society. She doesn't want to tell the truth to the committee because
she's a coward who won't fight for what she believes and because she
doesn't feel the American people have the right to know who she is.
Let's note this from Senator Mark Kelly's office:
Today, during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing
to consider the nomination of Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard to be the
next Director of National Intelligence, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly
questioned Gabbard on her decision-making and her record of disputing
U.S. intelligence assessments.
During the hearing, Kelly pressed Gabbard on instances where she
expressed public skepticism about Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical
weapons in Syria. He questioned why she disputed U.S. assessments on two
attacks for which public, declassified analysis had been provided,
while embracing, without corroboration, the views of a discredited
professor and a chemistry student—neither with expertise in chemical
weapons. Gabbard admitted in the hearing she was unaware at the time
that the student had a record of defending the Assad regime, and that
she was unaware until today that the professor had appeared on Russian
state media.
“When we began this, you described a thoughtful approach to analyzing
intelligence and reaching conclusions—this is what we expect of our
professionals, said Kelly. “[…] But what I have seen
makes it clear that at the same time you were skeptical of our
intelligence community’s assessments, you would not apply the same
skepticism to information that came from sympathizers of Russia and
Assad. And I think that’s something that we should all be concerned
about.”
Click here to download a video of Kelly’s exchange. Click here to watch the full hearing.
See the transcript below:
Sen. Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Colonel Gabbard, I want to first say thank you for your service to
this country—in Congress and in the Army. Thank you for meeting with me a
couple weeks ago and thank you for being here today.
You’re nominated to lead and coordinate across the intelligence
community’s numerous sources of collection and analytic capabilities. In
a few sentences, can you describe how you make assessments and how
you’re going to sift through all this intelligence and make careful and
thoughtful conclusions?
Ms. Gabbard: Yes, Senator, there are great
professionals who work within the intelligence community. I will build a
strong team around me as they present the intelligence reporting to
provide to the President through the President ‘s daily brief, and to
respond to issues and concerns that this body has. I will welcome
dissenting voices to be able to make sure that this information and
intelligence is thoroughly vetted prior to presenting it, and make sure
that the truth is reported whether that truth is convenient or not.
Sen. Kelly. Thank you, Colonel Gabbard, and I appreciate that. The President and others are going to rely on that.
I want to discuss such an assessment made by the IC. For years, the
U.S. analyzed evidence of numerous chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
Eventually we were able to assess that Bashar al-Assad was responsible
for a number of these attacks that slaughtered his own civilians. Do you
accept the conclusion broadly, that Assad used chemical weapons against
Syrians?
Ms. Gabbard: Yes, and I’m on the record for years of agreeing with that broad assessment.
Sen. Kelly: Thank you. Among the attacks, the U.S.
assessed Assad was responsible for two that occurred in Douma, in Khan
Shaykhun, in Syria. As a member of Congress, and as a presidential
candidate, and as recently as this month, in your written responses to
this committee, you have cast doubt on the assessment that Assad is
culpable. In these two attacks, is that still your position?
Ms. Gabbard: Senator, I raised those questions, given conflicting information and evidence that was presented at that time.
Sen. Kelly: Well, thank you. So, to help inform the
public, the Trump administration released declassified intelligence in
2017 and again in 2018, showing how experts analyze multiple types of
evidence: satellite imagery, medical experts, witnesses, describing
sources and showing the reasoning used to determine Assad ‘s culpability
in using these chemical weapons, including in Douma and Khan Shaykhun
in these attacks. The ones that you question. I have two documents I
want to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Were you aware of the declassified assessments, the one I reference?
Ms. Gabbard: Yes, I was.
Sen. Kelly: And as a member of the House Armed Services Committee
in the Foreign Affairs Committee, did you take time to review these?
Ms. Gabbard: Yes.
Sen. Kelly: OK, thank you. And can you explain to me
then why you doubted the intelligence community’s conclusions in these
two cases? Douma, and Khan Shaykhun, but not the others. Please be
specific.
Ms. Gabbard: These two cases were being looked at to
be used as a pretext for a major military movement and my fear was a
repeat of the deployment of another half a million soldiers like we saw
in Iraq towards what was the Obama administration’s goal, which was
regime change in Syria. The question specifically that I raised around
these two came about because there were two reasons. One, that
assessment was made with high confidence and low information. The
information that they had come from those on the ground in an Al-Qaeda
controlled area and therefore were Al-Qaeda linked sources, and there
was conflicting information that came from the UN’s office on the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Inspectors, as well as an MIT professor,
Ted Postol, who looked at these extensively.
Sen. Kelly: So, I want to talk about him for a second. So, did you look into his credentials? Yes or no?
Ms. Gabbard: Yes.
Sen. Kelly: And were you aware of his appearances on
Russia Today, which is used by the Russians to disseminate
government-approved messages?
Ms. Gabbard: No.
Sen. Kelly: Were you aware Postol relied on a chemistry student with a record of defending the Assad regime?
Ms. Gabbard: At that time, I was not. I have been made aware since.
Sen. Kelly: Do you consider this person or these two
individuals now, do you consider them a better source for the chemistry
of sarin gas in the US intelligence community?
Ms. Gabbard: I assess that at the time, the
information, I don’t know the second person you’re referring to, but MIT
professor Ted Postol and the inspectors of the OPCW provided some
credible questions that deserved examination.
Sen. Kelly: Thank you. Did you attempt to weigh
Postol’s claims against the significant evidence and assessments already
conducted by the IC?
Ms. Gabbard: Yes, I did.
Sen. Kelly: OK, thank you. So, here’s my concern
here, Colonel. When we began this, you described a thoughtful approach
to analyzing intelligence and reaching conclusions. This is what we
expect from our professionals.
But we just kind of walked through how you came to question Assad ‘s
use of chemical weapons in these two cases with a different approach,
and I don’t reject seeking out differing viewpoints, we need to do
that. But you started from a place of doubting the conclusions of the US
intelligence community and then you sought out information that
confirmed your viewpoint.
That led you to embrace the opinions of two individuals that I think
we disagree on this, you think they had expertise, I do not, and others
do not. But these individuals were sympathetic to Russia and the Assad
regime. It also led you to minimize or discount the overwhelmingly
information that contradicted your viewpoint, including the expert
assessments of our own intelligence community. And they don’t get it
right a hundred percent of the time, I get that, but what I have seen
makes it clear that at the same time that you were skeptical of our
intelligence community ‘s assessments, you would not apply the same
skepticism to information that came from sympathizers of Russia and
Assad.
And I think that’s something that we should all be concerned about.
Thank you.
Speaking to Raw Story, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said that one of the most
disturbing answers Patel gave was when he asked who the FBI works for.
"I think I asked this two or three different ways," the senator
recalled. "And he said, 'Well, we report to,' — and I said, 'Okay you're
part of the Department of Justice. I agree with that, but I asked
Attorney General [Pam] Bondi this question. Who do you work for? And
[Patel] said basically, the White House."
Coons said Bondi cited the American people and the Constitution.
The
second question he took issue with was Patel's response to questions
about how he would respond if Trump asked him to do something illegal,
unethical, or unconstitutional.
Coons took issue with Patel's answer: "If directed to do — I would never break the law."
"He
just wouldn't..." Coons said, trailing off. "It gives me real pause
because he's not — Bill Barr answered easily. Pam Bondi answered easily.
Merrick Garland answered easily. I do that with every nominee."
Chump wants to dismantle the government. We're back to that. Typical
e-mail to the public e-mail account (common_ills@yahoo.com) these days:
'You are so mean and so unfair to Socialists and blah blah blah.'
Ja'han Jones (MSNBC) reports:
[. . .]
But one reprehensible figure — OPM’s new general counsel, Andrew Kloster, who in 2023 described himself as a “raging misogynist” in a since-deleted tweet — is starting to garner some attention as well.
On Tuesday, the Project on Government Oversight published a report on Kloster, sounding the alarm on the potential dangers he poses as he offers legal guidance to the federal government.
As the nonpartisan watchdog’s Nick Schwellenbach reports:
But wait, there’s more:
“Kloster is a fierce partisan. While he was working as deputy general counsel at OPM in 2020, the Associated Press reported that
‘Kloster worked as an observer for the Wisconsin Republican Party on
election night and was accused of yelling at election workers and police
in Green Bay, a claim he disputes.’ He was directly involved in efforts
to legally challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election by
working for a controversial, taxpayer-funded effort in
Wisconsin that ultimately found no widespread fraud. Days after the
January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, he responded to a tweet raising a
scenario that could spark a ‘civil war’ with hand clap emojis between the words ‘Do it.’”
I
never heard of Kloster until Tuesday night. I was watching Rachel
Maddow's MSNBC program for the first time. I had unblocked MSNBC and
had meant to do that for a bit because Chump is attacking Rachel and
others -- and then you get non-Democrats like Krystal Ball attacking
Rachel and others. I'm not a Rachel fanatic.
So
I'm watching Rachel on Tuesday on TV for the first time and that's when
I hear of Andrew Kloster for the first time. And as she's reporting on
him, I am thinking "Socialist or Communist."
And that, kids, is why it matters.
A
few phone calls later, I had the information I needed. He was raised
in a Communist family and was that way in his early adulthood before
switching over.
Democrats and Socialists can overlap. They can share agreement on certain things.
But Democrats aren't calling for the government to be dismantled.
If
you'll think back to the 2016, Susan Sarandon argued for her vote
choice by stating Chump might be the easiest way to take the whole
system down.
That's her opinion, I'm not going to attack her for it
But that is the difference and it's not aa mild one.
Most Socialists are not in favor of the democratic system that we have in place.
And
the ones we need to watch are the vile and disgusting ones who creep
you out because that's your clue that you're looking at an eventual
turncoat.
Socialists were there creating neoconservatism.
This comes from believing the system needs to be taken down.
Over
and over, you can see this take place. Look at hideous people --
usually men, but we'll name a woman in just a second -- writing their
angry garbage pieces at JACOBIN. And grasp that the Socialist outlet
platformed Ana Kasparian.
Out of the kindness of their hearts?
No, because she was a Socialist.
She hid in a closet.
She's
now a grifter and a right winger and people will lie -- even when
calling her out -- and bill her as a Democrat She's not. She's the
type of Socialist that really gives Socialism a bad name. And JACOBIN
stood by her. Even let her attack Katie Halper on the magazine's
podcaat.
She did it using "Nando" -- Villa. I won't forgive him. Maybe Katie can
find her way back to the left, maybe she can't. But there was no
excuse for Nando to join Ana in her attack on Katie. And there's no
excuse for the fact that the left looked the other way when it went
down. Let someone say a mean word about whatever male YOUTUBER and
you've got THE VANGUARD and everyone else calling them out. But when
Katie was unfairly trashed, I think I was the only one online who noted
it and called it out.
You
need to very wary. Democrats cross over to Republicans all the time.
Not pretending they don't. But a radical Socialist or Communist who
goes over to the right is much more destructive. And that has to do
with the different end games. Democrats -- liberals -- are ridiculed
for wanting reform. Fine. Ridicule us. But let's not overlook the end
game of Socialism in most cases and for most Socialists which is to
dismantle the system -- that can make them as dangerous as Donald Chump.
And
that's why when you're critiquing a candidate, the audience has a right
to know where you're coming from -- are you a Republican calling out a
Democrat? We all seem to agree that requires a disclosure. But some of
us on the left can't seem to grasp that a Socialist calling out a
Democrat -- or vice versa -- also requires a disclosure.
If
all the Socialists attacking Kamala Harris had been identified as such,
DEMOCRACY NOW! viewers would have been able to factor that into the
opinions they were hearing and to ponder what Amy Goodman has against
Democrats since she couldn't seem to find more than a handful in the
three month lead up to the general election.
This also matters because of 2028.
I
don't dislike Socialists. I often disagree with them. AOC is DSA. I
would vote for her for president. But I'm fully aware that the GOP
really wanted Bernie to get the nomination in 2020 because they planned
to 'educate' America on Socialism. And that's why you better get
informed now. Because should AOC be the nominee in 2028, we're all
going to have to run interference. Better now to educate and better now
for her to be clear on where she stands on what issues.
The following sites updated:
