Could you please give me more details on what you meant about the Conservative Treehouse chasing people away because someone didn't see the 2020 steal?
Did you mean that the Conservative Treehouse didn't see the steal, or that the people they chased away didn't see it?
How much do we really know about Pam Bondi, though? According to Sundance at the Conservative Treehouse, she's a deeply-corrupted swamp creature who was behind the malicious prosecution of George Zimmerman.
An unidentified person appears to have accessed documents shared among lawyers in a lawsuit that concerns allegations against former congressman Matt Gaetz (R-Florida), according to a person who received an email notifying them of the breach. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
The file contains unredacted sworn testimony from a woman who said Gaetz paid her for sex when she was 17, along with other depositions from witnesses involved in the case, said a person who was notified of the hack, which was first reported by the New York Times. Gaetz has denied having sex with anyone underage or paying for sex.
A person named “Altam Beezley” downloaded the exhibits, according to a confirmation email received from a shared file database.
“I have not been able to identify the person who downloaded the files, but I have contacted the email address provided, asking the person to identify him or herself, instructing that their access is not authorized, and telling them that they should destroy the materials they downloaded,” wrote the lawyer who discovered the breach. “My email was returned because the email address was not found.”
The material is part of a civil defamation suit brought by a friend of Gaetz’s against third parties, including the woman who alleged she had sex with Gaetz when she was a minor. Prominent Florida lobbyist Chris Dorworth claimed that the woman and Joel Greenberg, a tax collector who pleaded guilty in 2021 to sex trafficking with a minor and other crimes, defamed him during the sex-trafficking investigation into Gaetz.
As a part of their defense against Dorworth’s suit, lawyers representing Greenberg and the woman collected 24 exhibits of sworn statements, depositions and supporting materials.
If the files are released publicly, they could identify the women who have testified against Gaetz.
Gaetz, who resigned from Congress last week after being tapped by Trump to run the Justice Department, has been trying to shore up his shaky support among a faction of Republican senators, making calls to Judiciary Committee members and saying he would be able to clear his name at a confirmation hearing.
The GOP will have a 53-seat majority next year and could not lose four or more votes on his nomination, given that it is unlikely any Democrat would vote for Gaetz. More than four Republican senators have already raised questions about his path forward.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Judiciary Committee’s incoming chairman, has spoken to Gaetz and urged him to talk to both Democratic and Republican members of the committee, according to a person familiar with the conversation.
Grassley and some other Republicans have said they want to see the House Ethics Committee’s findings regarding Gaetz. Others have said the committee could call the women to testify at a confirmation hearing even if members don’t have access to the report.
“The truth is, the information is going to come out one way or the other,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Monday. “So I guess the more I thought about it, it’s not critical that they release a report, because we know roughly who the witnesses are” and will call them in front of the Judiciary Committee, he said.
Florida attorney Joel Leppard said in an interview with The Washington Post last weekend that one of his clients witnessed Gaetz having sex with the minor at a drug-fueled party in July 2017 — and that Gaetz was unaware of her age at the time but subsequently was told she was underage.
This woman and a second woman, also represented by Leppard, testified that they were paid by Gaetz to have sex with him and other individuals who attended these “sex parties.” They were paid through Venmo or other conduits — including the PayPal of Nestor Galban, whom Gaetz has referred to as his “adopted son.”
Leppard said his clients do not want to testify in front of the Senate committee.
“They’ve already been through so much — and each time it happens, it kind of rips apart an old wound,” Leppard said. “They really don’t want to be called in to testify. There’s a lot of facts out there, they’ve given a lot of testimony, provided countless hours and documents to the House, and they don’t want to see it go to waste.”
"Dr." Eric Berg's only medical degree is in chiropractic medicine. He uses the "Dr." title to create the illusion that he knows more about medicine than he really does. He has been caught peddling fake information many times.
He's a Scientologist who pretends to be Christian in order to appeal to viewers of his YouTube channel. Privately, he believes himself to be the reincarnation of one of the original designers of the human body.
There are many videos of his son Ian Rafalko exposing him (his Scientology connections, his bragging about selling supplements at overcharged prices to bilk money out of his viewers, etc).
Here are a couple of Rafalco's short videos (the second one even has leaked audio of "Dr." Berg using Scientology terminology):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWnMaLCl-4U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mqoFwz1wI0
And a long interview with a wealth of information:
Orson Welles' "The War of the Worlds" was aired in 1938. The OSS wasn't formed until 1942.
Also, the claims of mass panic resulting from the "War of the Worlds' broadcast are greatly exaggerated. The majority of people knew it was a fictional radio show, and even most of those who were momentarily fooled immediately called CBS or their local police and quickly found out it wasn't real, or found out within half an hour from Orson Welles' narration itself.
The only 6 senators who voted not to certify the 2020 election results were as follows:
Josh Hawley, Missouri
Ted Cruz, Texas
Tommy Tuberville, Alabama
Roger Marshall, Kansas
John Kennedy, Louisiana
Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi
The rest all voted to certify.
I don't know if this was intentional on your part, but Dwight Schultz (the actor who played Lt. Barkley, pictured above) is a lifelong conservative. He even wrote a great article called "The Liberal Bastille" for Breitbart, in which he wrote about conservatives being blacklisted in Hollywood.
it states that the agencies no longer has cart blanche authority to interpret their laws when it's ambiguous.
But wouldn't that mean that, for example, Fauci still did have that legal authority when he did all of it?
I found it really telling when Sara Haines said, "Everyone has different emotions. Some people got what they wanted, a lot of people didn't."
Notice that she says some people got what they wanted, but a lot of people didn't get what they wanted.
"A lot" signifies more than "some." The implication of her words is that more people didn't get what they wanted than did get what they wanted. Even after being confronted by a full Trump victory (including the popular vote), she can't fully accept that more people wanted him to win than didn't.
The left shot themselves in the foot with their response to Trump refusing to accept the fraudulent 2020 election results.
For 4 years, they have relentlessly championed the message that questioning election results is tantamount to treason. If they question Trump's victory and try to have it overturned, they expose themselves as massive hypocrites.
I suspected before the election that they would do exactly that, but it increasingly appears that they are not doing so, in hopes of maintaining a veneer of decency.
Likewise, they spent nearly 4 years depicting a protest at the Capitol as an insurrection, so if they were to support protesting over the election results or Trump's certification, they would be exposed as "insurrectionists" by their own sanctimonious standards.
In each case, it's a lose/lose situation for them, and entirely of their own making.
I'm currently watching DDayCobra's stream:
Reminds me of this:
That article misrepresents the photo (as evidenced by the original source video I linked to) and doesn't present any sources to back up its claim that any of the panda eyes shown are caused by sex abuse.
The only pieces of media on that page that look like they are verifiably from abused children are the video on the right hand side of the page (the boy in the video doesn't have panda eyes) and possibly the boy in the photo on the very top left of the square of photos on the page (who doesn't have panda eyes but has significant facial and neck injuries indicating head trauma, possibly but not definitely from a beating).
I was able to trace back one of the panda eyes photos on that page to its original source, a medical article about a boy who had suffered cranial trauma.
https://www.jem-journal.com/article/S0736-4679(09)00684-2/abstract
As you can see, he also had forehead bruising, indicating a head injury.
There are many people in law enforcement (including a former crime scene investigator who I personally know, who worked some horrific cases including one in which a 2-year-old girl had been raped to death by a Satanist) and medicine who have worked with sexually abused children, including those who were anally raped, and none of them have ever reported panda eyes resulting from this sexual abuse.
Panda eyes are always caused by head trauma, usually intracranial bleeding (which can be caused by beatings, car accidents, and various other causes). The rectum is so far from the head that no amount of trauma to it can cause the panda eye effect, even in a small child. A pedophilia victim can of course have panda eyes, but only from having also suffered head trauma.
I've now tracked down the source of the image of the girl at the top right. It's from the 2015 news video "Children of Gaza".
Her name is Niema Habufu, and her panda eyes are a result of injuries she sustained during a bombing. Images of her from the video have since been taken out of context to present her as a victim of sexual abuse.
Here's the full original source video:
I looked at the date of the supposed tweet at the bottom left (March 6, 2015) and found the most recent Archive.org archive of her Twitter account after that date (March 10, 2015), which shows the tweets on her account from March 5 -to March 10, and the tweet is nowhere to be found.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150310054156/https://twitter.com/chrissyteigen
After posting my first reply, I looked at the date of the supposed tweet (March 6, 2015) and found the most recent Archive.org archive of her Twitter account after that date (March 10, 2015), which shows the tweets on her account from March 5 -to March 10, and the tweet is nowhere to be found.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150310054156/https://twitter.com/chrissyteigen
But what did you mean by this?
I'm still confused by that. Did you mean that the Conservative Treehouse didn't believe the election was stolen?
Was there something suspicious about the trip? I've read a little about it, but not enough to have a clear view of its implications.