I present the following “argument” as a curiosity, because I do not believe that it is complete enough to be parsed as an argument.
5 Jewish facts about Kamala Harris
1. She smashed a glass at her wedding
She met her Jewish husband, Douglas Emhoff, on a blind date in San Francisco, arranged by friends. They married in 2014 — Harris’ sister Maya officiated — and smashed a glass to honor Emhoff’s upbringing. It was her first marriage and his second — Emhoff has two children from his first marriage.
You thought Jews can be parochial? “Most eligible Indian American bachelorette marries fellow lawyer” is how one Indian American media outlet reported the story.
Emhoff took the Washington, D.C. bar exam in 2017 so he could work in the same city.
2. She did the blue box thing
“So having grown up in the Bay Area, I fondly remember those Jewish national fund boxes that we would use to collect donations to plant trees for Israel,” she said at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2017. “Years later when I visited Israel for the first time, I saw the fruits of that effort and the Israeli ingenuity that has truly made a desert bloom.”
No mention why Harris was a blue box girl growing up — and Google was no help. JTA has put a query into her office.
3. She’s more AIPAC than J Street
Since being elected in 2016, Harris has spoken twice at the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Her 2018 speech, with the California delegation, was off the record (itself not unusual, although critics of Israel were unnerved), but she gave a good picture of where she stands in her 2017 speech.
She’s for two states — so is AIPAC, although, sometimes less than emphatically — but she doesn’t believe in big-footing either side.
“I believe that a resolution to this conflict cannot be imposed,” she said. “It must be agreed upon by the parties themselves.”
More than half of the Democratic caucus in the Senate gets the endorsement of J Street, the Jewish liberal lobbying group that believes pressure is necessary to start peace talks. J Street did not endorse Harris. Her only association with the group was in November 2017, when she was one of 17 local and federal politicians on the host committee (i.e., “yes you can stick my name on the invitation”) of a party thrown by J Street’s Los Angeles chapter.
Harris also co-sponsored a Senate resolution in early 2017 that essentially rebuked the Obama administration for allowing through a U.S. Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s settlement policies.
She supported the Iran nuclear deal, although she was not a senator in 2015 when Congress voted on it, and is on the record opposing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel.
Harris also digs Israel’s Supreme Court building.
“The beauty of the architecture and spirit of design left a lasting impression — the straight lines in the building represent the immutable nature of truth, while the curved glass and walls were built to represent the fluid nature of finding justice,” she told J. in 2016. “The Court, like Israel, is a beautiful home to democracy and justice in a region where radicalism and authoritarianism all too often shape government.”
4. She’s big on tackling hate crimes
Harris created a hate crimes unit as San Francisco District Attorney and made hate crimes a focus of her work as the state’s attorney general. (Harris reported that in 2012 anti-Jewish hate crimes were the most commonplace religion-based hate crime.)
One of her first successful Senate actions was to get passed a non-binding Senate resolution that named religious institutions as possible targets of hate crimes, and urged better hate crime reporting, a key demand of Jewish civil rights groups over the years.
5. Her big sisters are Jewish
Well, in political terms, anyway. In October 2016, she got key endorsements from the state’s two Jewish senators — Barbara Boxer, who was retiring and whom Harris would replace, and Dianne Feinstein, the state’s senior senator. This was important because in California’s “jungle primary” system the two top vote-getters in the primaries get on the November ballot even if they are of the same party. Harris was facing a popular Democrat, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, in the general election.
[Anon doubts her citizenship:]
Her father was Jamaican and her Mother was Indian. They came to the US in 1960/1.
She was born in 1964 therefore neither parent had held a green card for the 5 yr minimum for naturalization.
KAMALA’S BRO-IN-LAW is a very interesting cabal-type figure.
he is married to her sister, Maya, a commentator on CNN and lawyer.
HIs name is TONY WEST.
HE worked for Hussein admn and pepsi-co
works for uber now.
While working for Hussein from 2009- 2014 prosecuted child trafficking and abuse cases.
By the way, the ADL doesn’t like QAnon!
One of the most interesting social media phenomena in 2017 was the rise of “QAnon” conspiracy theories. In late October 2017, an anonymous user known as “Q” began posting batches of cryptic comments which were interpreted by readers as secret intelligence from the Trump administration about actions it was taking to oppose an anti-American conspiracy. As followers attempted to deduce the events and actors referenced in the QAnon comments, social media erupted with a multitude of conspiracy theories. On Twitter, more than 3.3 million posts referencing QAnon appeared between October 2017 and January 2018.
The vast majority of QAnon-inspired conspiracy theories have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. However, a small percentage of tweets referencing QAnon also referred to Israel, Jews, Zionists, Rothschilds (a Jewish banking family at the center of numerous anti-Semitic conspiracy theories), or George Soros (a progressive Jewish philanthropist who is often demonized by the political right). This study’s methodology does not allow us to determine how many of the QAnon tweets containing those terms actually expressed anti-Semitic sentiment, but an impressionistic review revealed some troubling examples.
I will make a note to review this claim from an FBIAnon at the end of February:
Until recently Josh Campbell was an FBI special agent. He was appointed in 2008 and stationed in the Los Angeles field office. He also once served as a special assistant to James Comey. He is now most well known for a New York Times op-ed, “Why I am leaving the FBI.”
In the wake of Comey’s firing last May, he wrote another piece for USA Today — a glowingly sympathetic tribute to the just-relieved director, “James Comey is no showboat.”
What struck me odd at the time — having retired in 2015 after serving for 25 years in the FBI agent and executive management ranks — was this: Who afforded a GS-13 bureau employee the privilege to have a personal opinion piece published?
An official farewell soiree flyer from the FBI’s Los Angeles office announced that party attendees could “celebrate [Josh’s] new endeavor defending the Bureau as a CNN Law Enforcement Analyst.” Well, knowing how difficult it is to break into the television analyst ranks, and having the privilege to work at CNN as a full-time contributor since last May, I graciously extend a hearty welcome
But, Campbell’s explanation for resigning talks of “reluctantly turning in his badge” and “leaving an organization he loves.” He describes his voluntary, unforced resignation as “painful.”
He describes ignoring the counsel of “a small number” of onboard and retired agents who gamely advised him that FBI agents should keep their heads down and ignore the maelstrom that is the current president’s rhetorical attacks on certain senior leadership. And as he flatly states in the piece about those who disagree with him: “They are wrong.”
Why the sudden urgency to quit, you ask?
Well, as Campbell notes, “So I can join the growing chorus of people who believe that the relentless attacks on the bureau undermine not just America’s premier law enforcement agency but also the nation’s security.”
And having served for a full decade in the special agent law enforcement ranks, Campbell now views criticism of FBI leadership as a “threat to national security.”
Now, I do not know Campbell and some may view him as well intentioned. Comey — the man Campbell spent a year working for — certainly does. In another curious twist, Comey tweeted Campbell’s piece on Friday, adding his personal imprimatur, lamenting how Campbell would be missed at the FBI and noting, “his voice is an important addition to the national conversation.”
Comey’s public commendation to an agent who elected to resign is unusual.
But allow me to share another side of the debate that some, like Comey and Campbell, feel is settled. Many of us have watched the proceedings these past few years with disgust and revulsion. We are angry and disillusioned for different reasons than the ones described by Campbell, and certified by Comey.
Many of us await the impending report from the Office of the Inspector General that will, hopefully, answer some questions about glaring instances of politicization within the senior ranks of FBI and DOJ.
If the nine troubling encounters Comey described with the president occurred exactly as he recounts them, leaving him feeling “uneasy” — as he testified — why didn’t the 6’8” head of the world’s premier law enforcement agency directly confront the president?
As he told Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee last June — “maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance but that — that was — that’s how I conducted myself.” Which begs the question why didn’t he tender his resignation on the spot. Many of us inside and outside the bureau, found his lack of courage disappointing, sad and pathetic.
And since Campbell established his bona fides in the Times piece, allow me to relate my own.
I didn’t always agree with the decisions of Presidents Bush and Obama. But I put my head down and awaited the (((passing of the storm))).
My hope is that all who have left the bureau’s ranks remain loyal to the FBI’s motto of fidelity, bravery, and integrity.
James A. Gagliano
is a CNN law enforcement analyst and retired FBI supervisory special agent. He also serves as an adjunct assistant professor at St. John’s University and is a leadership consultant at the Thayer Leader Development Group (TLDG) at his alma mater, the United States Military Academy at West Point. Follow him on Twitter @JamesAGagliano.
Brian Cates wrote:
If you’ve followed the Spygate twists and turns since this whole thing began, you’ve noticed a recent trend in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) media complex: the number of over-hyped Trump–Russia collusion “bombshell” stories being published are coming faster and faster—and they quickly blow up and fall apart within just a few days….
This brings me to just the latest media fiasco that erupted over the past few days: the BuzzFeed fake news report that the special counsel had documentary evidence proving President Donald Trump directed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
Written by intrepid BuzzFeed reporters Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier, the story quickly took off upon publication and dominated the national news for an entire day.
And then it fell apart.
This BuzzFeed story was so wrong that special counsel Robert Mueller’s office took the almost unprecedented step of issuing a public statement.
“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller’s office, said.
Following the announcement from the special counsel’s office, many in the media finally stopped loudly promoting the BuzzFeed story and actually began carefully examining it.
It certainly didn’t help BuzzFeed’s case when the two reporters of the article couldn’t even get their stories straight about the supposed evidence upon which their entire “bombshell” report was based. Leopold went on MSNBC and said during a phone interview that he had seen some of the documents; Cormier went on CNN and in his phone interview said he’d seen no documents.
Trying to save the story, Cormier appeared with chief BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith on CNN, during which host Brian Stelter pressed them on the discrepancy. Leopold wasn’t there; Smith claimed that he was out working on a story and wasn’t available.
When Stelter directly asked the vital question about why Cormier said he hadn’t seen any documents, while Leopold said he did, Cormier ludicrously says, “I can’t really get into, like, the details there.” The host then presses Cormier about if he’s seen any evidence since BuzzFeed published the story. Cormier states he’s received more “confirmation,” which only means he went back to the anonymous sources who simply told him the same things over again….
To explain what happened, let me go back to another massive media scandal from last year involving CNN. The network had multiple leakers who were sources for a “bombshell” report claiming that Donald Trump Jr. got an offer via email to get early access to stolen emails in the possession of WikiLeaks. That Trump Jr. was offered this early access was evident from the date on the email, Sept. 4, 2016.
After CNN published that report, the email was quickly produced, and to the absolute consternation of the entire DNC media complex, somehow, through some miracle, at least two independent leaking sources, who supposedly had looked at that same email, saw the same date on it, and subsequently reported that same date to CNN’s reporters, got the date wrong. The actual email had the date of Sept. 14, 2016.
There are only two possibilities here:
1. Both sources saw the real email, both got the date wrong, and both gave the same wrong date to the reporters. This is most unlikely.
2. Both sources saw a fake email with a fake date on it and accurately reported what they saw to the CNN reporters.
Why has the news media refused to entertain that second possibility for even a second? It actually makes far more sense than the first possibility.
They won’t entertain it because it means their trusted leaking sources have been compromised. And they’ve been compromised for some time.
It’s not just the political partisans inside the government playing the strategic leaking game anymore. As I detailed last year, there is a very serious, professional FBI leak-hunting unit at work, and laying traps using fake documents is just one of the things they have been doing.
Most people assume that once you catch a leaker, he or she is immediately arrested and charged. That only happens in some cases. In other cases, the leak hunters leave those people in place and either flip them into double agents or feed them fake information.
That’s right: You have FBI agents and counterintelligence operatives deliberately putting fake documents where leakers, who don’t know they’ve been spotted, will see them and pass them on to their media contacts.
So why would they leave in place some of these anonymous sources who are leaking to the media? It’s so they can keep the media busy doing something useless.
Right now, there are many serious investigations underway beneath the surface that involve massive national-security issues. Not just the Uranium One and the Spygate-related investigations, there are others. There is always the danger that reporters are going to start getting in the way and blowing the cover of these investigations.
So how do you keep inquisitive media investigative reporters out of the way and distracted so they can’t thwart anything you are really doing?
It’s simple. You map out their leaking network, then you flip some of the leakers or send them new leakers, who are actually disinformation agents. You then keep all these media hacks super-busy doing what they really want to be doing—fervently and enthusiastically chasing their Trump/Russia collusion Holy Grail, by having all the leakers you control constantly feeding them Fake News that is almost instantly debunked. And you keep them locked into doing this for months on end.
You turn the constant, relentless need for more Trump–Russia collusion stories against them by feeding them fake news.
It took some time—it didn’t happen overnight—but now most of the leaking networks have been mapped out and the leakers who were left in place—either willingly or not—have been turned into disinformation agents feeding constant fake leaks to the media. And the media is continuing to fall for it.
The DNC media complex is actually accelerating the shredding of any credibility it had left over the past few months. It’s launched one quickly debunked Trump–Russia “bombshell” after another in recent months, and the pace of these absurd stories actually is increasing. This isn’t an accident. It’s being guided into doing this.
Someone told the media at the very beginning: “The leaks are real; the news is fake.”
They didn’t listen. And they’re still not listening.
Page #13 is the most interesting, and ties back to the Page #9 rule.
Here Speaker Pelosi sets up an internal House division of lawyers, paid with taxpayer funds, to defend Obamacare against any adverse action. In essence Pelosi is setting up her own Legislative Branch division of justice, to fight against the Executive Branch U.S. Department of Justice if needed.
Pelosi is setting up a legal activist agency within the House Counsel that will specifically “advocate” for Democrat priorities, against the position of the U.S. Department of Justice, and use taxpayer funds to finance the scheme.
Speaker Pelosi is creating her own mini DOJ inside the legislative branch. And, with additional investigative powers granted to House committees, we might even see a mini-FBI units, dispatched to conduct investigations and spy operations, accountable only to speaker Pelosi. Heck, considering congress already has subpoena power, there’s no telling where this might end.
[Remember, House democrats have already promised to get rid of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of their legislative branch priorities.]
In case you didn’t know, “Press TV” is Iranian, and thus many readers don’t trust anything it writes. But in fact it wrote something that is hard to dispute:
CIA, Mossad coordinated September 11 attacks: Scholar
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Israeli spy agency Mossad played a crucial role in the “sophisticated intel. operation” that was the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, says an American scholar and political analyst.
The New York Post said in a report on Sunday that Saudi Arabia’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of the American government.
The extent of the cover-up goes beyond hiding 28 pages of a congressional report on 9/11 which was released in 2002, the report noted. …
Fetzer said strong evidence “substantiates that this was a very sophisticated intel operation, involving coordination between the CIA and the Mossad.”
He said “dual Israeli citizens” in the US Department of Defense also played a significant role in facilitating the attacks by “keeping the Air force from responding to the attacks.”
President Barack Obama and his Vice President Joe Biden are also involved in the cover-up, Fetzer said, arguing that they deliberately neglected their obligations upon taking office.
The 9/11 incident is expected to overshadow Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia on April 21.
Special bonus story:
Mueller probe ‘close to being completed’: acting U.S. attorney general
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The probe of possible Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is wrapping up, Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker told reporters on Monday.
“I’ve been fully briefed on the investigation and I look forward to Director Mueller delivering the final report,” he said at a press conference on U.S. charges against China’s Huawei Technologies Co Ltd. “Right now the investigation is I think close to being completed and I hope that we can get the report from Director Mueller as soon as possible.”
The investigation most recently ensnared a long-time confidant of President Donald Trump, political operative Roger Stone, and has led to the conviction of Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort. Mueller has been tight-lipped about when the months of closed-door grand jury sessions and plea deals will conclude, leaving questions over how far into the White House his probe will reach and what will happen to his findings. Trump’s nominee to fill the attorney general post permanently, William Barr, recently pledged to make public as much of the report as possible, saying Mueller is required to file it confidentially. Russia denies any wrongdoing in the 2016 election. Trump has repeatedly said he was not involved in any collusion with Russia and has often referred to the probe as a “witch hunt.”