swordfish

SF just comes to argue with Gonzo......

https://nypost.com/2019/12/17/men-are-showing-up-to-the-wing-and-women-are-pissed/ Ladies, leave your man at home. The Wing was supposed to be the ultimate sanctuary for women: decidedly feminine in design, with walls and furniture in shades of millennial pink and a thermometer set at a women’s-clothing-friendly 72 degrees. Conference rooms and telephone booths are named after feminist icons like Anita Hill and fictional literary heroines such as Hermione Granger of “Harry Potter” fame. It offers perks that other co-working spaces can’t match — showers stocked with high-end beauty products and events featuring big names such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Critics of the Wing were quick to point out the lack of diversity in the spaces, but the company’s expansion and popularity has brought up a completely different issue that was never expected to arise: straight men wanting to come in and hang out. Sure, it’s not against the rules for men to be at the lady lair, which costs anywhere from $185 to $250 a month in the US to join. But that’s only because legally the company can’t ban men. “There’s usually at least one [man] whenever I visit,” says Kaitlin Phillips, 29, a member in New York for the past two years. “It’s bizarre to choose to occupy a space women specifically wanted for themselves. Classic patriarchal entitlement complex.” “At first it was jarring,” says a 30-year-old longtime New York member, who asked to not be named. “It started about a year ago and it’s getting worse. A guy even checked me out a few weeks ago. The whole purpose of the space is to not have to deal with anything like that.” The Wing, which started with one location in New York in 2016 and has grown to nine locations in seven cities, including a new international outpost in London, never had a membership policy, because, reps say, they didn’t think they’d need one. Instead, they simply billed themselves as a women’s co-working space and social club. This lack of official paperwork garnered the attention of the New York City Commission on Human Rights, which in 2018 opened an investigation into the company. The Wing’s large membership — more than 11,000 worldwide, according to reps — meant it couldn’t pass as a “social club,” and therefore can’t discriminate based on gender. This, coupled with a lawsuit brought by a 53-year-old man earlier this year claiming gender discrimination, led the Wing to formally adopt a membership policy: “The Wing is a space designed for women with a women’s-focused mission. Members and guests are welcome regardless of their perceived gender or gender identity. Recognizing that gender identity is not always consistent with someone’s sex assigned at birth, we do not ask members or guests to self-identify.” Based on the new policy, the commission confirms to The Post that it dropped its investigation this past summer. But all of the women The Post spoke to had the same questions: Why would a man want to go to the Wing, anyway? Just because he can? To hit on women? To be a troll? The company’s magazine is called No Man’s Land! Phillips says she thinks the problem is new members — who may not be as familiar with the original purpose of the space — bringing in men as their guests. “I think they’re just losers,” she says of the male plus-ones. “Or cucked boyfriends. It’s a legal fluke.” Up until about a year or so ago, when the space was truly a women-only sanctuary, members said they could comfortably walk around braless in a robe after a shower. Now, they say, they’re constantly looking over their shoulders, wondering who the loud dude chewing his lunch is. Numerous California members tell The Post that the phenomenon is getting out of hand. “It’s just annoying,” says Caitlin White, a 31-year-old West Hollywood member who sees at least one man working in the space each day. “Why do men need to be there? Why can’t they respect the spirit of the place? Men have to have everything.” The San Francisco location, numerous members tell The Post, “is really bad — like, filled with tech bros.” “I usually see about five men coming in throughout the day,” says a 31-year-old San Francisco member who asked to remain anonymous. “I think it’s members bringing in men for investor meetings. Here, everyone is in [venture capital], and men still hold all the money and power. These women are trying to fund their businesses.” When she first joined, she says, she made the mistake of bringing in her cis male boss for a meeting, something that she now regrets. “I’ll never do that again,” she says. “He didn’t respect the space, acting like we were in a coffee shop or something. I was getting looks from other members.” In New York, of course, the stares are no less subtle. “I glare at the men and I glare at the members who bring them,” says the anonymous New York member. White, meanwhile, says she hopes the company can work out some sort of happy medium. “Maybe make it one day a week that men are allowed?” White says. “There has to be a legal way to work this out that still respects the space.” Seriously - They couldn't see this coming?

It is interesting to see how this develops with the Burgs of DC in northern VA trying to set the rules for the rest of the state. Reminds me of Illinois (Chicago).

No spin - just the facts that your side has a problem making the connection....... FYI - That "kid" is now a public figure like it or not she begged for the spotlight and now she has it........

Genesis.......The origin or coming into being of something...... Unless the two topics are in someway not related at all.....and are not a continuation of a conspired strategy..... The reason for that, Maria is, because the Democrats made the mistake staking the credibility of all this on Adam Schiff, the person that they put in charge of this investigation, turns out is the one that helped start it by meeting with a person who walked out of Adam Schiff's office and became the whistleblower. At the very same time that is happening, as you mentioned, now there is an inspector general report that comes out and says during the last impeachment hoax, the Trump/Russia one, Adam Schiff repeatedly made false statements to the American people about the FBI's actions.

Literally - LOL!!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/15/ratcliffe_democrats_made_the_mistake_of_staking_impeachment_on_adam_schiffs_credibility.html MARIA BARTIROMO: We're expecting impeachment vote on Wednesday. What are you expecting in the week ahead and tell me about the reaction you're seeing from the I.G. Report? REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE: Yeah. As you said the vote will be on Wednesday, despite what a Democratic scholar called the fastest, thinnest, weakest impeachment in U.S. history. That's the direction that we're going. The real question is, how big will the jailbreak be by the Democrats. We've already seen one democrat apparently switching parties over it. Another saying he will vote against it. So really the question is, how many more before Wednesday's vote. The reason for that, Maria is, because the Democrats made the mistake staking the credibility of all this on Adam Schiff, the person that they put in charge of this investigation, turns out is the one that helped start it by meeting with a person who walked out of Adam Schiff's office and became the whistleblower. At the very same time that is happening, as you mentioned, now there is an inspector general report that comes out and says during the last impeachment hoax, the Trump/Russia one, Adam Schiff repeatedly made false statements to the American people about the FBI's actions. So I think you know, that is what's happening. That's why the Democrats have been rushing to keep this from unraveling and keep their folks in line. They're having a really hard time to do that. I wouldn't want to bank my political future on Adam Schiff's credibility but they made that mistake. MARIA BARTIROMO: I mean, going back to the I.G. report, you know, Adam Schiff was certainly out and about a lot throughout the last three years saying there is collusion in plain sight. And now we get the I.G. Report. We actually see the misconduct and what they called, errors, fraud, whatever you want to call it, what is your reaction to what you learned from Michael Horowitz? JOHN RATCLIFFE: Well, it wasn't just that Adam Schiff was out and about, he put out a report says there was no FISA abuse by the FBI. That was false. He said that the FBI didn't fail to turn over exculpatory information. That was false. He said that the Steele dossier was not a central part of the FISA applications against Carter Page. That was false. The inspector general's report, the findings in there detail all of that. It is an indictment of the things that Adam Schiff was saying. It was an indictment of Jim Comey's leadership at the FBI. The biggest takeaway out there, maria, what the inspector general's findings clearly delineate, even if you concede, and I don't, even if you concede there was a predicate to start this, there was no predicate to continue a counterintelligence investigation against the president of the United States. They had to do it by making those false representations to the FISA court. MARIA BARTIROMO: Yeah. We'll speak to Devin Nunes shortly of course. You referred to the Nunes memo back in 2018, February of 18, where he wrote out all of the misconduct that took place by that cabal of people. Then Schiff came out with that "correcting the record" memo which we know now was wrong, just flat-out wrong. You mentioned some of the wrongdoing. One of them we know from the Michael Horowitz report was altering of a document by a FBI lawyer. Tell me about that. Where are you expect accountability, congressman? JOHN RATCLIFFE: Well, as the inspector general's findings outline, what are referred to as "errors and omissions" are false statements, misrepresentations, destruction or alteration of documentary evidence. What you have are FBI lawyers literally changing evidence to make false representations to the court to continue this counterintelligence investigation against the president. So you know, it details -- now everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Democrat never want to give one to Donald Trump, but the inspector general's findings really outline what is criminal activity. We're talking about FBI lawyers who are depriving folks like carter page of their civil rights under color of law. Tampering with evidence. Taking documents and making them say the opposite what they really represent and certifying that to the court. So you know, really terrible, again an indictment of Jim Comey's leadership at the FBI and of the things that the Democrats said, again, most important point, to continue a counterintelligence investigation against a sitting president of the United States when there was no probable cause to continue it. That they started by making seven errors and omissions that were misrepresentations, alterations of evidence, then added 10 more to continue it along the way. You know, I don't think the American people can really appreciate the damage that was done to the FBI during Jim Comey's tenure there. MARIA BARTIROMO: Are you saying there was criminal activity against Carter Page and against a sitting president? JOHN RATCLIFFE: Certainly, I would love to be Carter Page's lawyer. His civil rights, as alleged, in the findings by inspector general Horowitz, very clearly delineate that. But there were actions taken by individuals at the FBI to continue a counterintelligence investigation against a sitting president, against his campaign. Against his presidency. You know, so these are things that, findings made by inspector general Horowitz I would now expect John Durham to look at from a criminal standpoint. I'm not saying that anyone, I'm not making allegations that anyone should be convicted. These are allegations, everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence but do I think there is activity detailed in this, that should be investigated and prosecuted? Absolutely. Tampering with evidence, destruction of evidence. MARIA BARTIROMO: Could people go to jail over this? JOHN RATCLIFFE: Absolutely. What would an aggressive prosecutor do with this if the folks involved were George Papadopoulos or Michael Flynn? The findings of fact made by the inspector general here, you know, certainly detail potential criminal activity which would send people away for a long period of time. Will the vote happen before Wednesday to keep the team together?

And this is why we need term limits for both houses of Congress.

HR 3361 - The USA Freedom Act - That's the one that actually passed with updates relative to FISA......In 2015 with bi-partisan support......

https://nypost.com/2019/12/12/heres-the-likely-whistleblower-and-the-questions-he-should-answer/ In the middle of Russia fever, the liberal press took a hectoring tone to any outlet that showed a glimmer of doubt. How dare any journalist not believe that President Trump is an agent of Vladimir Putin! Who would question the upstanding virtues of the FBI? Of course, we now know that the conspiracy theories were wrong. There was no Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. And, moreover, the inspector general report proves that the FBI trampled over civil liberties and common sense in pursuit of the case. While idle conversation during a meeting with George Papadopoulos and an Australian official may have sparked the inquiry, Crossfire Hurricane, it was only because of outlandish gossip in a Democrat-funded opposition report, the Steele dossier, that the FBI was able to land a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Even as the agency found that Steele’s sources did not back up the dossier, that facts did not back up the dossier, they continued the red scare. When it came out that Page was an informant for the CIA, an FBI lawyer lied about it. Every suspicion of FBI agents was leaked to the press and printed without skepticism. Few questioned their methods. It is only now that the New York Times begrudgingly publishes an “analysis” that, oops, maybe this was “A Disturbing Peek at U.S. Surveillance.” Forgive us, then, for the sense of déjà vu when it comes to the impeachment hearings. This time, the press is near united in arguing that you shall not question the narrative of how this whole thing got started. Don’t you dare name the whistleblower. Don’t ask how Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) might have helped him write his complaint. Or even that Schiff is lying when he says he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. Or why Schiff is subpoenaing the phone records of his colleagues. This is the same Schiff, by the way, who in 2018 said that the Department of Justice’s warrants for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISAs, met “the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed.” Schiff had the same information as Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who found the exact opposite. So we know Schiff is a liar. Two years from now, will we find out the real story? It may not change either side’s view of impeachment, but isn’t that what the press does — try to find the truth? The whistleblower is most likely CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella. Journalist Paul Sperry reported his name in late October, saying that sources inside the closed-door impeachment hearings identified him. Ciaramella has put out no statement denying these reports. Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps. In a sign of how farcical this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats angrily denounced the “outing.” If you don’t know the man’s name, how do you know the man’s name? Politico’s Jack Shafer has eloquently argued that the press should name the whistleblower. It is not against the law — whistleblower protections are to prevent retaliation in the workplace and apply to his superiors, not the media. Yet while the press eagerly tried to out Deep Throat or the anonymous author of “A Warning,” they suddenly lack curiosity. They’ve also been hypocritical. In September, the Times reported the whistleblower was a male CIA officer who worked at the White House and was now back at the CIA. Why? Executive editor Dean Baquet said, “We wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.” A cynic might say they were trying to argue that the whistleblower was credible. But if that’s the argument, and if Ciaramella is the whistleblower, isn’t it also relevant that he, according to Sperry, previously worked with CIA Director John Brennan, a fierce critic of Trump, and Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s political opponent and the crux of the impeachment inquiry? That he’s a registered Democrat and that he was — again, according to Sperry — accused of leaking negative information about the Trump administration and that’s why he was transferred back to Langley? What, if anything, did he leak? Did he work with Biden on Ukraine, apparently Ciaramella’s area of expertise? Did he know about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Who told him about the call, and why did that person not complain instead of him? How did Schiff’s staff help him tailor the complaint? This is only the fourth time in our history that a president has faced impeachment. Shouldn’t we know the answers to these questions now, and not in two or three years when the inevitable official reports and tell-all books come out? Why must we wait for the truth? Spot on.....

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/13/21011471/house-democrats-impeachment-vote-trump And let the defections start........Surely won't be enough defections to get this to drop, but fun to watch the dems in the red states squirm.......

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-blames-staff-says-nobody-warned-him-sons-ukraine-job-could-raise-conflict Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed in a new interview that when his son Hunter was a board member of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings while he was in office, no one informed him that it could pose a problem. Biden insisted again that Hunter did nothing wrong, but this time appeared to fault his staff for not cluing him in that there could be concerns about his son's involvement with the foreign company that had been under investigation while Biden was in office and dealing with Ukraine policy. "Nobody warned me about a potential conflict of interest. Nobody warned me about that," Biden told NPR in a story posted Monday. State Department official George Kent addressed this during his testimony as part of the impeachment inquiry of President Trump, acknowledging that he told staff members there was concern over the appearance of a conflict of interest, but that no one told the vice president because his older son Beau was suffering from what was ultimately a fatal battle with brain cancer. "They should have told me," Biden says now. Hunter's dealings and the elder Biden's role ousting a prosecutor looking into Burisma are being used by Trump and his supporters against the now-2020 presidential candidate, even as Trump's effort to press for an investigation into that conduct has spurred the impeachment inquiry. "The appearance looked bad and it gave folks like Rudy Giuliani an excuse to come up with a Trumpian kind of defense, while they were violating the Constitution," Biden said. "Nobody warned me about it"......Was he really that stupid? Or does he just think we are.......

You are correct - the report indicated there was no "documented or testimonial" bias. It is true that the IG investigation “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence” of bias. But in his testimony Wednesday, Horowitz conceded that he could not rule it out. Graham was more candid. “They had bias that reeked,” he said. They wouldn't give that up freely - even these low-level non-decision makers are smarter than that.. Wait until or if they are under oath and the threat of perjury hangs over their heads.......

FINALLY Kudos to W82 for bringing this one home - Yep you are correct sir - Kinda like the "abuse of power" argument the left uses that alleges the President "says he can do whatever he wants" when they always fail to note the context (every time he said it) was responding or referring without fail to the Meuller probe where the President does indeed have the authority to hire/fire whoever he wants in that capacity. See how that works........Scary stuff indeed........

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/12519-7 Read for yourself - from the speaker's own transcript - December 7. "because all I hear from the press is that I move so swiftly that it’s like a blur going by. This has been a couple of years – two and a half – since the initial investigation"

Throwing the BS flag...... Peter Strzok - Former Chief of the Counterespionage Section, led the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server, Deputy Assistant Director (one of several) of the Counterintelligence Division, led the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and worked on Robert Meuller's special council before being removed by the same.... Yeah, low level non-decision maker....My ash......

YET - the former administration's FBI (led by Comey) DID fool the FISA court with the tampered and falsified documents Horowitz found........And not even Patches O'Houlihan himself can deny, dodge, deflect that one......

Exactly - Horowitz couldn't get anything under oath from anyone. So he reported what they (whoever he was investigating) told him. (Surely none of them lied .....)