Bob Ness

Good start. Maybe Brancato can make playing cards hahaha?

The problem is Malone has no current clinical experience with patients who have been diagnosed with other diseases or CV. He apparently has contracted it himself, in spite of not being a clinical physician working with patients (he must not understand masks - back to school time!). He asserts he's the "inventor" and may indeed have written papers on it but he is in no way an authority on CV or it's vaccines in the same way as the scientists and physicians who developed the vaccines and did test them. He's never done peer reviewed double blind studies of the vaccines nor does he sit on any boards who do. Of course he fits the narrative Hannity et al want to broadcast and is amenable to the publicity he gets, as I'm sure you're aware. Many seriously ill people have no recourse other than to wait for the unvaccinated CV patients to clear - they often can't because the elderly who live in assisted living can't be released back to where they came from, rendering the hospitals into hotels. My wife and by extension myself get tired of arguing with ignorant people who couldn't care a less about anyone but themselves while she risks her life and other innocent people get the benefit of their selfishness. It would be different if CV infection were unavoidable but at this point a solution has been provided that is simple and available to all in the US and UK.

So you're an authority on this? Maybe the the newspapers you're reading are flat out full of it. or is this data someone is feeding you quoting VAERS? That one has been around a while.

We didn't listen much to the CDC in the beginning for the simple reason that they didn't know much more about CV than you or I do. I knew that the situation was going to be in flux until they had a chance to study it. That's not unreasonable. They were up against it and have an entirely different set of concerns. Namely, public safety. My concern is me. We ignored their recommendations on masking and used them from almost day one. Their concern was supply and didn't want people to buy them up. I get it. We ignored them and purchased enough for our needs. Everyone could have used something but Fauci insisted that distancing was good enough. Until it wasn't. BS. Then Biden came out and said you don't have to wear them and guess what? You can't pay people to wear them! Then Delta came along. Just to get these idiots to wear a mask for 15 minutes in a store or on an airplane is almost impossible. Now the new one. Wait to get a booster for 8 months! We got one at 5. Now they're saying the vaccines wanes at 5 or 6.

It's more like a war on ignorance and poverty. The ignorance comes from the blizzard of "facts" spread around by that age old profession Snake Oil Sales and the poverty is what continues to repopulate the virus overseas for the most part. From the beginning, if people had worn masks and practiced spacing and correct hygiene, the R Naught rate could have been lowered until such time as the vaccines came along. It needs to be lower than one by a good margin for the virus to subside in the population. A significant portion of the population refused to do so and Delta was the result. An extra year or so of all the fun stuff. The good news is (I've been told by the wife) is that Omicron may be the sign that the virus is weakening (she's been right 100% of the time throughout the pandemic - masks, mutations, efficacy of the vax etc). I interpret that to mean it will be mutating into something more like the flu rather than a devastating respiratory illness.

Fortunately for me I live with a scientist who is a clinician with thousands of patients and an authority on the subject due to her three board certifications and residencies studying among other things virology and immunology. I for one encourage her to consider taking time off and F%ck the covidiots who spread garbage like this largely because I tire of sending her off to work to risk her and my life for people who can't do simple stuff like get a vaccine and wear a mask. It's literally mind numbing stupidity going on 2 years and we can afford to let the bug kill people off until we figure it's safe to come back. She's sworn those oaths and what-not and fortunately not all her patients show up with CV to her exam room (yes - many have) so here we sit daily listening to this stuff. Meanwhile, at the hospital, refer trucks in July were parked for bodies of the "anti-vaxxers" while somebody with a large mass in their neck can't get a biopsy for weeks because there are too many people in gurneys in the halls. The stupidity is withering.

Yes. Because the MIC you're talking about has the legal authority given by the citizens of the United States of America to classify information and withhold it from public view .on national security grounds. That makes them and by extension the people of the United States, it's allies, any other entity whose information was exposed and individuals whose identities were revealed without their permission "victims". Larding your comments with ridiculous hyperbole and faux shock about the aftermath of those events implies to me that you, Wikileaks and Helen Keller were the only people who didn't know what was going on until WikiLeaks had their "epiphany". The MIC and people who agree with them would no doubt say that the WikiLeaks disclosures set back the efforts of the allies to unencomber the people of Iraq and Afghanistan of brutal rulers who themselves have slaughtered and tortured their own ken and those of their neighbors. I'm not saying that is or isn't the case but if true the numbers you cite include WikiLeaks contribution to the mess. In some minds that case can be made and neither you or I are the arbiters of that although we can have our opinions. Please explain how you sentenced him to life in prison already? A tad premature I'd say. I've certainly been aware of quite a bit of the ridiculous mess that was made and quite a few other things as well. In fact I knew it would happen before we went into Iraq and had sources in Syria as well. What's stupifying to me is how anyone doesn't know that military operations like the Iraq invasion results in several times the casualties in the civilian population than in the armed forces and combatants. WikiLeaks contribution to the world would have been multiplied several times over if they had taken off their hacker hat's and put on their lawyer hat's. As I said before they could have protected their sources and the information and still made their disclosures. They were careless and have made it worse for the one million dead and 23 million displaced unfortunates. It's truly very sad.

I think the back story was the "race story" not the Rittenhouse malarky itself. Doesn't mean people read that in but I never got the feeling race was the major issue there except when he was gallivanting around with racist groups.

Thanks Chris. I try hahaha

That's coming out next week! You'll see. Everyone will be covered! It's just in draft form waiting for final embellishments! Well said W.

She should have been raped after dressing in a bikini. Something like that, Jeff? You have a strange way of making victims. The perpetrators should be victimized? The victims are the real perpetrators? The Pentagon, CIA and DNC are organizations that us US citizens entrust (no matter what your or my opinion of them is) to engage in our defense (by extension Canada and Europe too!!) and political concerns (DNC) for the purpose of furthering our society. We pay for them (Canadians get a free ride there) with our tax dollars and expect that they will be protected by courts and legal authorities from expensive and otherwise costly intrusions and theft of property, intellectual or physical. That's not unreasonable. Wikileaks and it's members are not part of what has been assembled to inspect and oversee the performance of those institutions. I didn't ask them to purloin documents and create untold amounts of man hours and expense to undo their bungling of the information they received illegally. Wikileaks could have provided the information redacted and in tranches and maintained their security while accomplishing their "journalistic" endeavor. They didn't. I personally think that much of what they have done is amateurish and speaks more to their earnest desire to right wrongs (I'm sure they feel justified and I might agree with them most of the time) while not really knowing how to accomplish it properly. Assange is problematic because I believe his motives are different. His overt narcissism conflates reporting with his need for recognition and success in the business and that's where the problem lies. In principle "Wikileaks" is a great idea. In practice it became an extension of his ego. Uh... Russiagate hasn't been retracted, Jeff. Nice try. Either way - how do you know about it, Jeff? It wasn't Wikileaks. Any of the above examples you cite have been exposed and not necessarily by little publications. I could go on about these examples but with the exception of Russiagate I'm sure we would agree about them. I may even know stuff you don't about certain episodes!

There's a really big gray stripe down the middle of that road I'd say. Certainly the ability for journalists to reveal the truth is extremely important in every sense. The point where it goes over a line is usually best handled in court rooms I suppose. Imperfect as they may be they're built for sorting through complex issues with conflicting arguments studied in excruciating detail. One example of a very close call was the case in Chicago in I believe 1942 where a newspaper there published a story that revealed the US Government's successful decryption of the Japanese "Purple" code: For 74 years, only members of a Chicago grand jury could definitively say why they declined to indict a reporter responsible for a 1942 front page article that implied American cryptanalysts had cracked the Japanese military code. The documents were unsealed for a group of petitioners in late 2016 after a three-year court battle, and on Wednesday, a number of carefully selected documents will be publicly available online for the first time on the National Security Archive’s website, said John Prados, editor of the postings. The timing — just 10 days after the publication of “Stanley Johnston’s Blunder,” a novel by former journalist and historian Elliot Carlson — was merely coincidental, both men said. Carlson sued for the release of the grand jury documents with the help of the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Prados testified as an expert... ...The grand jury declined to indict Tribune war correspondent Stanley Johnston and the Tribune’s then-managing editor, J. Loy Maloney, because Adm. Ernest J. King, who Carlson called “the adult in the room,” didn’t want to risk even more media attention and the chance that Japanese leaders would change the code from the one the Americans had already cracked. “If this had gone on to a public trial, there’s no telling how much publicity it would’ve received or how much chaos it would’ve caused,” Carlson said from his Maryland home Tuesday. “It was already turning into a media circus, and Adm. King didn’t want to risk it hitting the airwaves. They didn’t so much fear Japanese agents in America, but that somehow all the publicity of the trial would come to the attention of the Japanese and they would change the codes.” Keep in mind the Grand Jury files were just unsealed in 2016!! This is a case where tens of thousands of lives could have been lost as a result. Maybe even more. But the Chicago Tribune, the Managing Editor and the Reporter were all called in and faced charges. They didn't go run to the Spanish Embassy and hide out until the war was over. In general I'd say on a case by case basis as the rights of the individual are at least as important as the state. Regarding Assange I believe there was an 18 count indictment but it's really hard to say whether there will be superseding indictments and who they may cover. They've already gone after others and there's probably more on the way.

They haven't figured out what the Republicans have - you can just outright lie and enough of your supporters are stupid enough they will believe you and it doesn't matter how outlandish the claim is. A significant amount of them think Trump won still.

This is the problem Jeff. Quote from para two: WikiLeaks planned to take a year to slowly roll out the unpublished parts of its archive of leaks in order to redact as much as possible. But Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding published the password to that archive in their book published in February 2011. A German newspaper, Der Freitag, learned about the password and published it even though Assange tried hard to convince them not to because of the risk of revealing informants’ names. After Freitag published it Cryptome dumped the entire un-redacted archive on its website on Sept. 2, 2011. WikiLeaks then took the decision to also publish the entire archive the next day to help alert informants so they could get to safety. Nevertheless, the government is trying to portray Assange as recklessly endangering individuals. Seriously? You're claiming they didn't act irresponsibly but "somehow" the credentials for the archive became public knowledge? WTF? How hard is it to make the archive unavailable or restrict access on a server? It isn't! Any fifth grader could! Wikileaks was responsible for the dump because it was in THEIR archive and in THEIR source's best interest to protect them. FCS they apparently knew about it for 7 months! In fact I'm sure they're lying about it because the effort to maintain the security of the archive is trivial (especially for tech people) to the point it appears intentionally mishandled. It was his/their responsibility to care for the material NOT the people they spilled it to. Put another way: The intention party X has in giving classified information to party Y, who then makes it public, is not relevant to to the culpability of both parties in making those materials public. They are both part of the conspiracy equally. These facts are why the links you post to UNATTRIBUTED authors at Consortium News are worse than useless because people actually believe the thrust of the article. They get difficult to read.

Why'd she do that? Better off before hahaha!

To illustrate the point: If I were the administrator of this site, I could potentially publish financial data from you that would be available online that you freely gave to this site without reading the terms of agreement (who does?). I could host it and route it through 10 different countries with no treaties, cooperation agreements or capability to enforce regulations and your lawyer or a Federal Attorney (not certain who covers that - SS, DoJ ???) would be stopped at the first uncooperative country. After that, if the country agreed to help, they'd have to convince the next one to share their information. And on and on until they get to the country where I reside that has legal authority over me. But no laws have been broken domestically that I can be charged with and there you go. That's an over simplification but is essentially how many of these extra legal organizations function without any corresponding oversight. Now your debit card is online and when the complaints finally make it to my doorstep, I claim I'm a journalist and many of the charges revealed in your account corroborate the claim my other source (I'm keeping that secret) gave me that you're planning an assassination! Perfect! One of the ways to keep from running aground is to do investigations on your plot under the aegis of an actual media banner established for investigating such things. They can and have been sued for substantial sums when they've got it wrong. To one degree or the other they're also obligated professionally to act in accordance with the best public interest. Wikileaks has done a number of remarkable expose's but has also offered itself as a dump site for information from people with grudges. In some ways they should be held to a much higher legal standard than Fox or the NYT simply because their business model seems to depend on the dissemination of wholesale "leaked" material with no consideration of the punitive effect on innocent people (there are plenty).

Deleted.

Well I don't know. It doesn't seem to me that he's been acting like a "journalistic enterprise" but it's also obvious he's made enemies. These days it's a little different when an entity can take sensitive information and simply dump it all willy-nilly and let the chips fall where they may. It appears he's crossed lines that have put innocent people at risk and that comes with a cost. National security issues are further complicated by the need to do damage assessment and potentially mitigate whatever damage has been done. Often times certain issues can't even be acknowledged because to do so will do more damage. The US couldn't prosecute the Rosebergs with all of the information they had because to do so would reveal the extent of the information they were getting from Venona decrypts, as an example. In this case Wikileaks/Assange could very well have revealed apparently innocuous information that in and of itself has no value but combined with other information, possibly from other sources, could make obvious sensitive information that could cost lives. It's happened before and is very easy to do inadvertently and with no malice. With the withering amount of flack in the air from both sides of the Wikileaks/Assange issue it's nearly impossible to tell who is right. Assange could have just soldiered up and done what most journalists do and said "See ya in court!" (aside from those in Russia who tend to end up trying to fly from buildings (shhhh! Don't tell Jeff I said that! Jk).

That is determined in court. I guarantee Cuomo would get the same treatment if he helped publish or recruited people to hack into sensitive Government servers, circulate hacking tools or whatever they end up charging him with. Press freedoms come with responsibilities too. They will need to specifically allege and prove that Assange and his co=conspirators broke the laws they're charged with. There's no mystical phantom lurking around or cigar chomping back roomers doing him wrong.

Ben, trust me, spies don't have business cards that say Joe Schmoe - Professional Spy for Israel or whatever. Intelligence information that is harmful to any country can be revealed or or learned in many ways. Charging under the espionage act is sketchy but has more to do with the result.

It's very squishy but the point is those entities are prepared to go to court to prove their assertions of journalistic protection and Assange is not. Because he isn't one. Under the prevailing theory we would have to protect the free speech rights of any entity claiming "journalism" when they publish the names and addresses of police officers online for instance. Especially if the publisher can make up something about them that seems dastardly!

Jeff, I haven't. I'm perfectly willing to let a jury determine his guilt or innocence. The same can be said of Wikileaks who although they may have not been the originator of the material, certainly has provided a means to disseminate information that could be harmful to innocent people. This is what Judge Baraitser thinks: As part of his assistance to Ms. Manning, [Assange] agreed to use the rainbow tools, which he had for the purpose of cracking Microsoft password hashes, to decipher an alphanumeric code she had given him. The code was to an encrypted password hash stored on a Department of Defence computer connected to the SIPRNet. It is alleged that had they succeeded, Ms. Manning might have been able to log on to computers connected to the network under a username that did not belong to her. This is the conduct which most obviously demonstrates Mr. Assange’s complicity in Ms. Manning’s theft of the information, and separates his activity from that of the ordinary investigative journalist. At the same time as these communications, it is alleged, he was encouraging others to hack into computers to obtain information. This activity does not form part of the “Manning” allegations but it took place at exactly the same time and supports the case that Mr. Assange was engaged in a wider scheme, to work with computer hackers and whistle blowers to obtain information for Wikileaks. Ms. Manning was aware of his work with these hacking groups as Mr. Assange messaged her several times about it. For example, it is alleged that, on 5 March 2010 Mr. Assange told Ms. Manning that he had received stolen banking documents from a source (Teenager); on 10 March 2010, Mr. Assange told Ms. Manning that he had given an “intel source” a “list of things we wanted” and the source had provided four months of recordings of all phones in the Parliament of the government of NATO country-1; and, on 17 March 2010, Mr. Assange told Ms. Manning that he used the unauthorised access given to him by a source, to access a government website of NATO country-1 used to track police vehicles. His agreement with Ms. Manning, to decipher the alphanumeric code she gave him, took place on 8 March 2010, in the midst of his efforts to obtain, and to recruit others to obtain, information through computer hacking. Mr. Assange, it is alleged, had been engaged in recruiting others to obtain information for him for some time. For example, in August 2009 he spoke to an audience of hackers at a “Hacking at Random” conference and told them that unless they were a serving member of the US military they would have no legal liability for stealing classified information and giving it to Wikileaks. At the same conference he told the audience that there was a small vulnerability within the US Congress document distribution system stating, “this is what any one of you would find if you were actually looking”. In October 2009 also to an audience of hackers at the “Hack in the Box Security Conference” he told the audience, “I was a famous teenage hacker in Australia, and I’ve been reading generals’ emails since I was 17” and referred to the Wikileaks list of “flags” that it wanted captured. After Ms. Manning made her disclosures to him he continued to encourage people to take information. For example, in December 2013 he attended a Chaos computer club conference and told the audience to join the CIA in order to steal information stating “I’m not saying don’t join the CIA; no, go and join the CIA. Go in there, go into the ballpark and get the ball and bring it out”. So that's what the Judge thinks and I'm inclined to think that's enough to test.

Yeah he was literally the guy who ripped the messages of Pearl Harbor off the teletype. More or less, something like that anyway. He was the Exec Officer at the station. Later he was in Manila chasing the Japanese out. We have pictures of Santo Thomas concentration camp after they freed it. Naval Liaison with Chiag Kai Chek and I believe Dai Li. Served with Louis Tordella in several capacities at the AFSA (forerunner to the NSA) and was the OIC (NavComm)at Nebraska Street. Tordella is basically the father of computer decrypt and was the longest serving Deputy Director of the NSA.

These are hardly the only "key witnesses" that are going to testify against Assange. There are several witnesses (David House) that will testify against him from Wikileaks and if you think the feds are stupid enough to hang their case on these two you are completely wrong. Siggi's testimony was only retracted for basically irrelevant garbage and the fact is he was a part of the conspiracy and therefore his previous testimony is still valuable in the sense that YOU DON'T KNOW NOW WHICH STORY HE'S TELLING IS TRUE, do you? He's useless to Assange for exactly that reason. What kind of War Crime was he trying fight when they hacked the Police and Fire department Jeff?

If you're extradited to the US from a country with a treaty with us (it's common) when you land you don't have to fetch a Taxi. The Feds will give you a ride to where you're going.