Military Tribunal Convicts John Brennan of Murder, Treason By Michael Baxter – May 24, 2021

After a brief yet terse tribunal that lasted only 3 hours and saw a bitter, resentful, and combative John Brennan battling Rear Adm. Darse E. Crandall, who presented the military’s case on behalf of the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, a three-officer panel formed of 1 male and 2 females convicted the former CIA director of murder and treason and sentenced him to be hanged.

At 10:30 a.m., military police escorted a handcuffed Brennan into GITMO’s south courtroom and seated him at the counsel table where his legal advocate, David H. Anderson of Howrey LLP, awaited his arrival.

From the moment Brennan entered the courtroom, he scowled menacingly at both Rear Adm. Crandall and the three officers charged with weighing the merits of the case against him. His scrunched face and sour puss regarded them with what can be described only as hateful contempt.

Rear Adm. Crandall wasted few words tying Brennan to multiple murders he had orchestrated while serving as Obama’s CIA director between 2009-2013. The epic arguments began with Crandall producing a 2012 agency document that authorized the assassination of conservative publishing mogul Andrew Breitbart, who on March 1, 2012 inexplicably dropped dead while walking home from a restaurant in Brentwood, California. The Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office claimed Breitbart died of a heart attack, even though he had been in good health and had no family history of coronary artery disease.

The document shown to the panel had Brennan’s signature at the bottom of the page.

Rear Adm. Crandall read from it aloud: “Andrew Breitbart, publisher of, has proved to be a domestic terrorist and a threat to national security, per section 215 of the Patriot Act. By order of B.H.O., Breitbart is to be considered a target of opportunity provided discretionary measures are used in carrying out agency transactions.”

“At the request of Barack Hussein Obama, apparently, you ordered Breitbart’s murder,” Rear Adm. Crandall said, addressing Brennan directly.

Brennan sprang to his feet and with apoplectic fury said, “I served my country as ordered. I admit nothing. I deny nothing. The only thing I see here is a bunch of pussies hiding behind Donald Trump. You’re all cowards.”

His legal advocate, David H. Anderson, tried to silence him, but Brennan continued to rampage: “Any action I’ve ever taken was in the interest of national security and protecting this once great nation of ours from subversive threats. You’re all too obtuse to understand that.”

Following a brief recess, Rear Adm. Crandall introduced a witness for the prosecution, a former CIA spook named James Gaeffer who said he had murdered five law-abiding Americans, including Andrew Breitbart, while under Brennan’s control. He told the panel he had used a “heart attack gun” to kill Breitbart and other persons on Obama’s infamous enemies list.

He described two types of weapons; one that fired an ice-encased poison bullet; the other, and more contemporary weapon, fired an ionized burst of highly concentrated microwave energy into a victim’s body, causing in most cases an immediate myocardial infraction. Gaeffer testified he had used such a weapon on Breitbart.

“And you were told by John Brennan to do this?” Rear Adm. Crandall asked him.

“I was. He told me straight off that Breitbart was criminally culpable for exposing Anthony Winer’s sexting texts with an underage girl, for questioning Obama’s nationality, for helping to expose that Michelle Obama is really a man. I was told to remove him with extreme prejudice,” Gaeffer said.

“Did you kill other people at Brennan’s request?” Rear Adm. Crandall asked.

Gaeffer admitted he had, naming specifically a journalist for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, who in 2013 perished in a fatal car-crash after revealing that he was working on a profile of Brennan for the magazine. His article highlighted Brennan’s war on journalists who questioned the Obama regime’s drone strikes against American citizens both at home and abroad.

Although the circumstances surrounding his death were initially considered suspicious, WikiLeaks countered the official findings, tweeting on June 19 that “Michael Hastings death has a very serious nonpublic complication,” but after that the incident drifted into the shadows and was seldom spoken of again.

“So, you killed Hastings, at Brennan’s request?” Rear Adm. Crandall asked Gaeffer.

“I did. I knew where he’d be, when he’d be. It was all quite simple,” Gaeffer said. “I killed others at his bidding, and I know other agency personnel who killed good people because Brennan wanted them dead. I regret what I’ve done, for what good it’s worth, but, yes, I too am guilty.”

Brennan again leapt to his feet, shaking his handcuffed hands in the air. “I say again, my actions were taken for the betterment of this country, against people trying to destroy or weaken it. You want to convict me for following lawful orders that helped to protect this nation—then do it. Everything I did, I’d do again. You’re all a group of cowards. I spit on all of you,” Brennan said, and spat on the floor. “The only true leaders of this country in the last thirty years were William Clinton and Barack Obama, everything else is a farse. Want to sentence me to death? Do it. Do it now. I’m not afraid to die. I’m proud to have served this country the way I have,” Brennan said.

Rear Adm. Crandall asked the panel whether they had heard enough, and it said it had. It recommended Brennan receive capitol punishment in the form of being hanged by the neck until death for the myriad atrocities he had committed against America and its people. Rear Adm. Crandall agreed, and he declared that Brennan’s execution be held on Monday, June 7, which, incidentally, is one week after John Podesta is scheduled to face a firing squad for his crimes.


Military Puts SCJ Amy Coney Barrett on House Arrest

Military Puts SCJ Amy Coney Barrett on House Arrest

By Michael Baxter – May 19, 2021

Acting on a sealed indictment, the U.S. military has placed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on house arrest and fitted the mother of 7 with an ankle bracelet to ensure she does not abscond while JAG decides whether to show compassion or schedule a military tribunal.

On May 15, U.S. Navy JAG and Army CID investigators visited Barrett’s D.C. home where she lives with her children and her husband, Jesse, most of whom were present when investigators told Barrett that the Insurrection Act of 1807, which Donald J. Trump invoked before leaving office, empowered them to detain or arrest citizens who stand accused of treason or present a threat to national security.

A source involved in Trump’s Deep State battle told Real Raw News that Barrett, evidently confused, welcomed investigators into her home under the impression that they were seeking her help in an official, Supreme Court Justice capacity. When told that she was the target of the military’s investigation, Barrett turned belligerent and said she did not acknowledge military authority over the citizenry. She accused investigators of misrepresenting themselves to gain access to her home, and demanded they leave unless they had an arrest warrant issued by a D.C. circuit judge.

“The military told Amy’s husband to take the kids to another room while they did business with her. Then she dropped a bombshell, told investigators she was personal friends with Kamala Harris and that she would have their heads on silver platters. The investigators told her Kamala Harris had no authority over them and that Amy was lucky they were showing her a courtesy by only placing her under house arrest and not immediately shipping her ass off to GITMO,” our source said.

As reported previously, the military and Donald J. Trump spent the last week of December debating the merits of imprisoning Barrett, who was viewed in conservative circles as the woman who would bring parity to the Supreme Court and prevent the liberal left from hijacking the 2020 election. But two days after her confirmation hearing, she stabbed Trump in the back by recusing herself from a pivotal vote that could have exposed widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

“Amy Barrett is a source of embarrassment for Trump. He championed her, and she betrayed him,” our source said.  “Trump and [Jeffrey] Rosen wrote the indictment way back on December 19 and handed it off to the military. She is guilty of treason and other high crimes,” our source said.

Those other crimes, he added, include a tangential link to the late Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose organization, the Clinton Foundation, helped Barrett circumvent roadblocks and red tape that had previously hampered her efforts to adopt Haitian children. Barrett has adopted two children, one in 2005, the other in 2010. The military’s focus, our source said, is on the second adoption. It has evidence proving that the Clinton Foundation had kidnapped hundreds of Haitian children in the aftermath of the massive 2010 earthquake that killed 300,000 people. When the quakes subsided and the dust settled, the Clinton Foundation swept in and scooped up children like minnows caught in a fishnet, under the pretense of rehoming orphaned kids. According to Clinton Foundation documents obtained by the U.S.

military, less than 25% of “rescued” children ever set foot on United States soil. The military, our source said, has indisputable evidence that the majority were sold into slavery.

“The Clinton Foundation took these kids saying their parents had been killed in the earthquake. Fact is, it later turned out many of the parents were alive and wanted their kids back, long after they vanished into the ether. There are no official adoption records for the Barrett kid. No paperwork at all. It’s like he just magically appeared, and no one ever questioned it. No doubt it should have been vetted before her Supreme Court nomination. That was clearly a big oversight on Trump’s part. The questions are, was that kid kidnapped, are his parents really alive, and what exactly does Barrett know?” our source said.

“Trump still has a soft spot for Barrett; he’s a compassionate man. He’s weighing justice against taking a mother from her kids. That’s why he asked JAG to place her on house arrest, at least for the time being, rather than deport her treasonous ass to GITMO. Now she has to wear a tracking anklet until a final decision is made,” our source said.

Barrett, he added, verbally thrashed investigators with unbridled hatred, accusing them of violating her Constitutional rights. The JAG and CID agents tried to pacify her by saying insolent behavior would yield a hasty trip to Guantanamo Bay.

“They put the tracking anklet on her, and her family was put under a gag order,” our source said.

The arrest of Amy Coney Barrett comes at a time of inquietude, as the Supreme Court has recently taken a case that could imperil Roe v. Wade.

Correction: The arrest occurred on 15 May, not 15 April. Date has been corrected in article text.


Military Arrests Adam Schiff By Michael Baxter – May 26, 2021

Military Arrests Adam Schiff
By Michael Baxter – May 26, 20216256379

As the Deep State lodged its final and fruitless bid to eliminate Donald Trump by convening a bogus Grand Jury to hear fabricated evidence of non-existent tax fraud, the United States military arrested yet another Deep State asset who had eluded justice for far too long. On Monday morning, U.S. Special Forces arrested Chair of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff at his Potomac, Maryland home.

Sources involved in Trump’s Deep State War and within the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps told RRN that Schiff’s arrest was legal and proper and based on a sealed indictment Donald J. Trump and acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen had authored prior to January 20.

The formal charges against Schiff include numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. Specifically, the indictment alleges that Schiff and other prominent Democrats did knowingly conspire to manufacture unsubstantiated claims that Trump and members of his campaign had colluded with Vladimir Putin to thwart Hillary Clinton’s 2016 bid for the presidency. Moreover, the indictment states that Schiff’s personal war on Trump cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $2,000,000,000, money he misappropriated to fund a personal vendetta. It further stipulates that Schiff unconstitutionally pressed for Trump’s removal from office after grossly exaggerating the context of a telephone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The indictment concludes Schiff betrayed his oath of office, lied to his constituents, embezzled cash, subverted the Constitution, and committed treason—all in the name of wanting to eradicate his nemesis, Donald Trump.

Even the less severe charge, embezzlement, could deliver upon Schiff a 5 to 99-year sentence in a federal penitentiary, while the most egregious, treason, could see him hanged by the neck until dead.

Sources told RRN the military began its investigation into Schiff’s criminal misconduct in early January and would have arrested him sooner, but both JAG and its cooperating partner, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division, have been swamped in a litany of indictments. JAG completed its inquiry in mid-May and drew up plans for Schiff’s capture.

“Even then it wasn’t exactly easy. Special Forces would’ve nabbed him more expeditiously, but Schiff was travelling around incognito. He was shuffling between the many homes he owns across the country. But you know what they say: You can run, but you can’t hide,” one source said.

Special Forces, he added, had staked out Schiff’s homes in California, Massachusetts, and Maryland, and had a surveillance team watching the U.S. Capitol. Although Schiff was spotted several times in the Halls of Congress, the military ultimately deduced that the D.C. Schiff was not Schiff at all, but rather a convincing body double.

“The military used gait recognition technology, which proved the body double theory. The Deep State has been using body doubles to protect its ranks,” our source said.

Gait recognition refers to the use of video of human gait, processed by computer vision methods, to recognize or to identify persons based on their body shape and walking styles. This is a passive mode of acquiring biometric data from a distance.

On Monday morning, however, the military hit paydirt, finding the true Adam Schiff alone in his Maryland domicile. When confronted by Special Forces, Schiff pissed himself, fell to his knees, and cried like a baby, our source said.

In closing, our source said Schiff has been taken to a “holding facility” where he will await transportation to Guantanamo Bay.


NAVY SEALs STORM Gates’ Wyoming Ranch

NAVY SEALs STORM Gates’ Wyoming Ranch

By Michael Baxter – May 20, 202154613922

Less than two weeks after Bill and Melinda Gates called it quits, U.S. Navy SEALs stormed a Gates’ owned property in northwest Wyoming and clashed with security forces Gates had hired to protect the 492-acre ranch.

The U.S. military approved the raid after Gates’ estranged wife, Melinda, contacted Donald J. Trump with news that Bill, whom she called a psychopathic, evil genius, had visited Epstein Island 24 times between 1997-2017 and, on Epstein’s advice, had spent $36,000,000 to excavate his own subterranean “child dungeon” beneath Irma Lake Lodge.

A confidential source involved in Trump’s Deep State War told Real Raw News that Gates’ friendship with the convicted pedophile was the catalyst for Bill and Melinda’s divorce. Melinda had long been aware of Bill’s philandering with both adult and underage women, but had remained silent to protect her financial interests in the marriage. She reportedly told Trump that Bill and Epstein made frequent weekend getaways to Irma Lake Lodge. Although she admitted she had not personally seen the subterranean complex, she had paperwork and receipts proving its existence.

“He told me to pretend I was an underage frightened schoolgirl and to pretend he was a maniacal genius who liked to play with young girls,” Melinda said. “For him it was roleplay, but it really wasn’t, because he is exactly what he pretended to be.”

On May 14, Trump spoke to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and asked that the U.S. military confirm the existence of the alleged underground complex. To carry out this task, the military employed two techniques. First, a synthetic aperture radar satellite scanned Irma Lake Lodge. Second, a UAV fitted with ground penetrating radar made several high-altitude passes over the property. While neither technique was able to concretely gauge the size and depth of the underground dungeon, both proved massive excavation had taken place where Melinda Gates said it had.

“It was enough for the military to act on. They didn’t want to just bomb the place because they didn’t know if kids were still down there. So they opted to send a SEAL team, the same ones who raided Biden’s compound and got those kids off the boat,” our source said.

In the predawn hours on May 17, Navy SEALs launched a tactical assault on Irma Lake Lodge, meeting resistance shortly after they breached the property and crept toward the underground lair. Gates’ security personnel, dressed in paramilitary gear and armed with automatic weapons, detected the intrusion and opened fire on the SEALs. The SEALs returned fire in what turned out to be a 15-minute firefight in which one SEAL and 8 enemy combatants lost their lives.

Having suppressed Gates’ security, the SEALS found a trap door hidden beneath piles of hay in a horse stable. The door concealed a steel platform—an elevator of sorts—that descended 300’ below ground and opened into a hewn chamber 150’ in diameter and with tunnels branching off in several directions. The SEALs, our source said, spent hours scouring the tunnels for signs of life, but no children were found. However, the operation was not in vain, as they did uncover a facsimile of a young girl’s bedroom, with a pink-frame platform bed, stuffed animals, and racks of child-sized clothing. Moreover, three DSLRs on tripods had been aimed to video whoever had lain on the bed. At least one camera still had an SD card.

The SEALs, our source added, seized the cameras before exfiltrating the compound.

In closing, our source said he believes—but cannot confirm—the military has infiltrated other properties owned by Gates.

Indian government makes it clear: There is no Indian corona mutation

Indian government makes it clear: There is no Indian corona mutation!

The Indian government has disenchanted the fairy tale of the Indian Corona variant. In an official statement, the government is calling on social media platforms in particular to delete all content that reports on an alleged Indian variant of Corona. Even the WHO does not have a so-called Indian variant with the designation B.1.617, according to the Indian government.

Western media and alarmists like Karl Lauterbach are once again convicted of the lie. It is unbelievable which bold fairy tales are served up to scare us and deprive us of our basic rights! These criminals belong in court!

If you don’t believe it, you can find the original document on the website of the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology:

Determined teen lawyers up when HS principal says she can’t praise her Christian faith during valedictorian speech

Determined teen lawyers up when HS principal says she can’t praise her Christian faith during valedictorian speech
May 27, 2021 | Robert Jonathan
A public high school principal and a valedictorian have reportedly found themselves at the opposite ends of a debate over purported censorship of religious expression.

The determined teen now has a law firm supporting her free speech rights.

Hillsdale (Mich.) High School senior Elizabeth Turner is scheduled to deliver her speech at the June 6 graduation ceremony. In one passage of her valedictory draft, Turner wrote, in part, that “For me, my future hope is found in my relationship with Christ. By trusting in him and choosing to live a life dedicated to bringing his kingdom glory, I can be confident that I am living a life with purpose and meaning.”

That language allegedly didn’t pass muster with Principal Amy Goldsmith who was reviewing the content and highlighted two paragraphs in a Google doc with which she took issue.

The principal reportedly told Turner that “you are representing the school in the speech, not using the podium as your public forum. We need to be mindful about the inclusion of religious aspects. These are your strong beliefs, but they are not appropriate for a speech in a school public setting. I know this will frustrate you, but we have to be mindful of it,” Fox News reported.

Some additional online back and forth occurred between the principal and the student about other aspects of the prepared remarks during which the latter reportedly told the principal “Unfortunately I don’t think I would be able to deliver a genuine speech under those circumstances.”

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which applies to a government entity such as a public school, states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Ads by
Turner apparently reached out to the First Liberty Institute legal organization, which is headquartered in the Dallas area, and which specializes in religious freedom cases. The group subsequently notified the principal in writing to more or less back off, with a deadline of 5 p.m. on May 28.

“Student graduation speeches constitute private speech, not government speech, and private speech is not subject to the Establishment Clause [in the First Amendment]. Contrary to your statements that religious sentiments are ‘not appropriate for a speech in a school public setting,’ Elizabeth’s statements do not transform into government speech simply because they are delivered in a public setting or to a public audience,” the organization wrote in its demand letter, which also advised the school that it is allegedly violating federal law.

In a video embedded below that briefly summarizes the controversy, First Liberty’s media relations director insists that “Elizabeth’s First Amendment rights don’t stop at the schoolhouse door.”

First Liberty counsel Keisha Russell added that “Graduation is a time for celebration not censorship. Students retain their constitutional rights to freedom of expression from elementary school all the way through the graduation ceremony. All public schools should protect the private religious expression of their students.”

Pursuant to January 2020 U.S. Department of Education guidance, “[s]tudent remarks are not attributable to the school simply because they are delivered in a public setting or to a public audience,” according to First Liberty, Fox News added.
— Read on

Newsom ordered to pay $1.35 million for COVID-19 church discrimination

Newsom ordered to pay $1.35 million for COVID-19 church discrimination

By Tori RichardsMay 25, 2021 – 5:28 PM to get the latest Examiner videos

California’s embattled Gov. Gavin Newsom has been dealt a fresh blow after a federal judge ordered him to pay $1.35 million over the state’s draconian lockdown of 3,000 churches during the coronavirus pandemic.

In his capacity as governor, Newsom was ordered to pay the costs and attorney fees for a lawsuit brought by a Pasadena church that made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The May 14 order told Newsom and all state officials to stop regulating church attendance unless a specific set of infection statistics occur, which is unlikely.

“He is the worst governor in America” for religious freedom, said Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit law firm that represented plaintiff Harvest Rock Church. “The church stayed open [during the lockdown], and the pastor and parishioners were threatened with daily criminal charges that were up to a year in prison.”null

This is the nation’s first statewide permanent injunction against COVID-19 restrictions on churches and places of worship. Newsom is facing a recall from voters who are angry over his COVID-19 policies.


The COVID-19 restrictions in every state

The lockdown started on March 19, 2020, allowing only essential businesses to remain open. Churches were not included on this list. On May 26, 2020, Newsom allowed churches to open at 25% capacity but with less than 100 people. This was pulled back during the summer with an additional lockdown that lasted until April 8, 2021, for most Californians. The state had enacted a color-coded tier system that allowed limited societal openings that were almost impossible to meet.

Along the way, Newsom also imposed restrictions on singing, outdoor churches, and Bible studies

“Circling-Back” to 11.26.2020. Phill Kline, former Kansas Attorney General & current Director of the Amistad



Phill Kline, former Kansas Attorney General & current Director of the Amistad

Project: “We already have suits in 6 states, but we’re filing more based on this new data.

A series of decisions at the local level, funded & encouraged by the flow of $350M of #MarkZuckerburg monies that allowed for the infusion of these questionable or fraudulent ballots into the stream to be counted. The analysis, using gov’t data and then calling out to voters, asking them about their behavior and getting them to SIGNED affidavits, is that in EACH ONE of these swings states, there are 100’s of THOUSANDS of ballots in question.

In addition to the ballots in WI [up to 150k improperly filed/counted] we’ve identified over 12,000 REPUBLICANS who voted, whose votes WERE NOT COUNTED according to the state’s data. So what you had was:

• $350M coming in

• the creation of all this drop-box

• consolidated counting centers in the urban core around the nation

• #MarkZuckerburg money paying the election judges & officials inside the rooms…

• while the Republicans in America were kicked out of the counting room.


#MarkZuckerburg’s monies alone matched the federal gov’t appropriations for elections this year. $400M.

#Google:also gave money to this effort.

• We now have evidence pursuant to court order … that they actually told local election officials how to manage the election in these core Democrat areas where you see all the problems.

That was #MarkZuckerburg and a group called “The Center for Tech & Civic Life”.

I give you this thought:

They told America we need to consolidate counting centers, for COVID! We’re going to create a crowd, to protect us … from COVID!

That makes no sense. The reason they did it, is because they didn’t want Republicans to see, and they wanted to infuse fraudulent ballots … and they did it!

Suit filed in GA at the time of this note. There where 200k ballots.

Another link:

Circling-Back to Lawsuit Against Mark Zuckerberg over $500M ‘Dark Money’ Contribution Enabling 2020 Election Fraud – California Globe

Lawsuit Against Mark Zuckerberg over $500M ‘Dark Money’ Contribution Enabling 2020 Election Fraud
Attorneys say Zuckerberg’s $500M to influence election evaded campaign contribution limits by using charities
By Katy Grimes, December 16, 2020 2:07 pm

Mark Serrano, President of ProActive Communications, announced Wednesday a new lawsuit is to be filed by attorneys at the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society against Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, over the $500 million of “dark money” he spent to facilitate election fraud in key battleground states. Serrano said the suit will be filed in the next 24 hours in the District Court of the District of Columbia that covers with Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona and Georgia.

In an interview on The War Room with Steve Bannon, Serrano said their report at the center of the lawsuit shows that Zuckerberg contributed a total of $500 million to a network of non-profit and “charitable” organizations in the various named states.

Serrano said Zuckerberg’s millions funded the ecosystem that caused such massive fraud to take place.

Phill Kline, Director of the Amistad Project explained in great detail at a press conference how Zuckerberg’s funds ensured that America was not allowed into the ballot counting rooms, while oligarch funder Zuckerberg was. He said Zuckerberg’s $500 million flowed through charities, and paid for election judges, satellite offices to turn out the vote, machines, and dictated the policies that undermined state laws.

Serrano said the case is broken down into three: “First of all the dark money funding. Then the changing and the shifting of the election law by governors and secretaries of state leading into election day and then the fraud we saw take place on and after election day in the management of the elections and even in the counting of the ballots where a billionaire, Mark Zuckerberg, was allowed in the counting room because he funded it.”

During his press conference, Kline reiterated that it is government’s job to manage elections, and do it without a thumb on the scale. “We don’t put out elections to bid, or bring you elections by Coca Cola,” Kline said. “With transparency, we can discover fraud.”

Both Kline and Serrano said of Zuckerberg’s $500 million, $350 million went through the Center for Technology and Civic Life. “He paid for election judges, purchased drop boxes, contrary to state laws,” Kline said. “Zuckerberg ordered the consolidation of counting facilities. Zuckerberg’s money paid local officials who boarded up the windows to counting rooms. Zuckerberg’s money purchased machines – Dominion and otherwise – and Zuckerberg’s funding was contributed to Secretaries of State.”

Kline said “there is no question that there is evidence, that impacted this election and incentivized people to violate election laws. That evidence has been demonstrated and proven.”

Kline was particularly critical of the media, which he said has had a false narrative throughout this, and highlighted a call he received from a Wall Street Journal reporter who said questioning the process would undermine Democracy.

Author Recent Posts

Katy Grimes
Katy Grimes, the Editor of the California Globe, is a long-time Investigative Journalist covering the California State Capitol, and the co-author of California’s War Against Donald Trump: Who Wins? Who Loses?

Spread the news:

Phill Kline: New Amistad Project Election Lawsuit; $500 Million to Increase Votes in Democratic Strongholds?

Phill Kline, the former attorney general of Kansas and director of the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society. Kline argues that hundreds of millions of dollars were donated by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to nonprofits, which used them in ways that compromised election standards. According to an Amistad Project report, election officials who received Zuckerberg’s money put their thumbs on the scale by trying to increase voter turnout in only democratic strongholds.

We discuss ongoing efforts to expose election fraud, and we break down Amistad Project’s most recent lawsuit, which demands that legislatures in five states be allowed to certify electors prior to congressional certification.

This is American Thought Leaders, and I’m Jan Jekielek.

Jan Jekielek: Phill Kline, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Phill Kline: Thank you. Great to be here.

Mr. Jekielek: Phill, of course, you’re the director of the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society basically looking at election integrity. You’re an election watchdog operation. Recently, you had an editorial in The Epoch Times, an op-ed, “We Should Follow the Constitution When Electing Our President.” That seems obvious. It seems almost like a truism. Tell me why you chose to write this op-ed.

Mr. Kline: Well, it’s remarkable. It’s absolutely what we should do, but it is not what we are doing. In fact, the only date in the Constitution that’s truly relevant to when we select our next president is Inauguration Day. All of the other dates are really statutes that have emanated through the years. If you go back [far] enough in their history, they’re based on how long it takes to ride a horse to Washington, D.C. and also based on when the harvest was finished. That’s when we first started Election Day on a specific Tuesday in November.

When we’ve had this unprecedented election—and what I mean by that, Jan, is that we’ve had a shadow government operate; one billionaire put in more money to run the election than the federal government did—we have to pause and make sure that the election was conducted lawfully, which it was not, and also whether we can have faith in the result.

State legislatures under the Constitution have that responsibility and that authority. And they have not even met as a body since the election to look at whether the election was conducted in a lawful manner. That’s deeply concerning, and it should be deeply concerning to all Americans. That’s what the Constitution calls for, and that’s what is not happening right now.

Mr. Jekielek: So you just mentioned a whole number of things that I want to dig into a little bit here. The one that just really stuck out was the billionaire putting in more money than the federal government put in, into the election?

Mr. Kline: Yes.

Mr. Jekielek: Tell me about this.

Mr. Kline: Well, in March of 2020, the federal government passed the CARES Act. That was the omnibus kind of COVID relief measure that went forward, and it appropriated $400 million for the states to use in conducting the election during COVID. Mark Zuckerberg alone, in the money that we’ve tracked thus far, we’ve tracked $419 million that he put forth in dictating to cities how they’re going to conduct the election, as well as monies he put forward to a 501(c)(3) that manages our polling books, our electronic poll books. $50 million went to them.

So Zuckerberg’s money greatly influenced how the election was operated and conducted in the urban core of the swing states. In fact, everywhere his money touched, there was illegality. It was Zuckerberg money that paid the election workers. He paid the election judges. He paid for the consolidated counting centers. He purchased the machines. It was people paid by Zuckerberg that boarded up the windows so that America was kicked out of the counting room, and the billionaire was invited in. And that’s deeply concerning, as it relates to election integrity in America.

Mr. Jekielek: That’s a very serious set of charges, obviously. So how did you actually dig up the evidence around this?

Mr. Kline: Well, we started getting involved in election integrity over 18 months ago, and we started to see, as COVID hit, a couple of things come together. First of all, particularly in blue states, executive officials started shutting down in-person polling and making it more difficult to vote in person as they emphasized absentee ballots.

Well, this shutting down harms a particular demographic. Polling clearly indicates that Republicans prefer to vote in person on Election Day and Democrats prefer to vote in advance. And moving towards the absentee ballots raised concerns, in fact, bipartisan concerns, until this election. A report that was authored by James Baker and former President Jimmy Carter articulated the concern about absentee or mail-in ballots because they are more prone to fraud.

The ballot is cast away from trained election workers that are present when you vote in person. So there’s no one to prevent intimidation or coercion or misleading the voter or even making sure it’s the voter who completed the ballot. So states have all kinds of protections added to absentee ballots—common sense things like requiring a witness or requiring a signature comparison, in some instances requiring the absentee ballot to be directly delivered to a clerk or an election official.

Then the left, in March, started attacking all of these restrictions through litigation. We have filed litigation lately, but it was the left that initiated scores of lawsuits in March and April, claiming that COVID, for example, made it too threatening to have a witness, or COVID didn’t allow a signature comparison, even suits that said COVID required the state to prepay the return envelope and postage because people would be afraid to go to the post office.

Now, this is a two-pronged attack: one, eliminating absentee restrictions, and two, shutting down and restricting in-person polling. And then Zuckerberg stepped in to the breach here. A man by the name of David Plouffe, who was President Obama’s campaign manager, was working for Mark Zuckerberg, and he published a book in March of 2020 that is entitled, “A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump.”

On page 81 of that book, he mentions that the election will be decided by a block by block street fight to turn out the vote in the urban core in cities like Philadelphia and Milwaukee and Minneapolis and Detroit. Then suddenly, about that time, a sleepy little 501(c) that’s operated by leftist activists—former Obama-ites who worked in the Obama administration, Obama fellows and so forth; they were running about a million dollars a year—started reaching out to Democrat mayors saying, “Look, we’ve got some money on the way. We want to give you money to come up with your own elections plan. You need to turn out the vote, you need to focus on these demographics, you need to have money for drop boxes and mobile pickup units and all of this stuff, and put together that plan and come back and ask us to fund it.”

Then on September 2, Mark Zuckerberg throws $250 million their away. He adds another $100 million just about a week later. He gives $50 million to the Center for Election Innovation and Research, $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life,[CTCL] and those monies start to pour out into Democrat strongholds. They purchase local election officers. They tell them how to run the election. It was focused on turnout, turning out the Democrat vote in Democrat strongholds for Biden. That’s not a role government should play. Government should not have its thumb on the scale in managing the election.

Mr. Jekielek: What do you mean exactly by purchase election officials?

Mr. Kline: Well, they told them exactly what to do this election, in the grants and the agreements of the grants which we were able to obtain. Initially, we couldn’t get this because CTCL and Mark Zuckerberg are private. If it was government doing it, there’s transparency. There has to be a budget; there has to be hearings. But instead, this was a private entity that refused to share information with us.

So we got some documents pursuant to court order, and they show in the grant agreements. For example, [in] Philadelphia, it dictated how many satellite polling locations Philadelphia will have. Eight hundred is what it told them. “And if you don’t do it, we’re going to take back our money.” They actually dictated to them how much they were going to send, the number of polling places and what they would be used for, and how many funds, how much monies would be dedicated to that, and their title.

That’s significant. It’s just one example. Philadelphia, or Pennsylvania, as all states do, they require both parties to be present in the counting room. That’s common sense because in the counting room, these election inspectors, as they’re called in some states, or poll workers, are actually completing ballots or filling out ballots for people who aren’t there.

There are many reasons why a ballot can’t be read by the machine, and the law says that if it can’t be read, like it might be torn or the coffee stained or the paper crinkles or whatever, that these folks actually complete the ballot for that person. They’ll look at the ballot, and they’ll say, “Well, they voted for Biden here, so I’m going to put Biden and they voted on down,” and then they cast the new ballot and count it.

So the only way to prevent fraud is to have both parties there as such conduct is engaged in. So every state has that requirement. But in Pennsylvania, the satellite offices, the law requires a Republican in the polling place. And the grant defines satellite offices as doing the same work as the polling place, but they are to be called “satellite offices.” That allowed the Democrats in Philadelphia to say, “This is not a polling place, so the law doesn’t require a Republican to be there.” And they kicked Republicans out.

In Michigan, it worked this way: Zuckerberg money consolidated the counting center. So instead of having a ward where five people get in the room and they do this process of checking the ballots and so forth, they put it into what’s called the TCF Center, which is an abandoned former ice hockey arena the size of two football fields. They had 134 counting tables there.

They claim they had to do this because of COVID. So they’re creating a crowd because of COVID. Then they had a Republican … the Michigan laws says a Republican must be in the place of the counting. They said, “Yeah, the Republican’s in the place.” He or she is in the cheap seats, and they can’t see what’s going on, on these 134 counting tables.

So Zuckerberg money went in there and dictated the manner in which they were going to do this and the manner allowed them to kick one party out of the counting facilities. That’s wrong. That’s illegal. Another thing it did: with consolidated counting centers, you suddenly had reasons to drop off hundreds of thousands of ballots in one location. And these drop boxes were put out.

Now, just to give you an example of the impact of the drop box, I go to Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Democrat strong hold. There was one “Zuckerbox”—that’s what we call them—for every four square miles. That’s two miles by two miles square. In other words, you could take a stroll and vote. Plus, they’re all these satellite locations.

In the 59 counties that President Trump won in 2016, there was a drop box for every 1159 square miles. So in Republican counties, Pennsylvania told Republicans, “Go on a weekend vacation and find Waldo,” and in Democrat counties, “We’ll come by and pick up your ballot for you.” That’s wrong. Government should not be engaged in suppressing the vote of one demographic and trying to turn out another demographic.

America tried that before in the Deep South. It was a Democratic strategy around the turn of the 20th century, and it focused on suppressing the black vote and turning out the white vote. This time it was suppressing the Republican vote and turning out the Democratic vote. It’s wrong in either case.

Mr. Jekielek: This is really fascinating. Basically, the mechanism is that the Zuckerberg foundation founded these two non-profits, which then used the strategy—am I reading this right?—straight out of this book that came out in March 2020?

Mr. Kline: That’s part of it. Now, Zuckerberg’s foundation didn’t found these 501(c)s. He just funded them to the tune of $350 million and the other one to $50 million. I think you have a right to call it your own charity if you give them $350 million. But no, they had pre-existed. And it operated for a while and generated about a million dollars of revenue before Zuckerberg came along.

Editor’s Note: We reached out to Mark Zuckerberg and the Center for Tech and Civic Life [CTCL] about these allegations but neither immediately responded.

Mr. Jekielek: So I understand that you just recently put out a lawsuit, actually, I think, today as we’re filming. Can you tell me about it?

Mr. Kline: Yes, we’re suing about this. It’s again, those artificial restrictions that are in the law regarding when the electors are to be seated, when they’re to be counted and so forth. And it is happening at a time … the Constitution under Article I, Section 1, Clause 1, says the state legislatures determine how electors for their state are selected for the Electoral College. So they oversee the elections. They have the responsibility of determining whether the election was conducted properly and whether you can have faith in the result.

But oddly enough, since Election Day, none of these legislatures have been able to meet as a body. They are only able to meet if a couple of things happen. It varies state to state. If they have a super majority—which shouldn’t [even] be required for them to perform a constitutional function. It shouldn’t be required to get two-thirds of the legislature to call a legislature into session, as it relates to constitutional obligation. They should be able to meet. Or a governor calls a special session, which these blue state governors have refused to do.

So the very body that is responsible for how these electors are selected can’t even meet after the election, up through January. So that’s unconstitutional, in that it’s a delegation of authority to a governor of a legislative function. That is not allowed. These governors have been hostile to meetings. An example is Michigan. In Michigan, a couple of things have happened. First of all, the attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of the state—and I had that role in Kansas—threatened legislators who didn’t agree with her on the election result with criminal investigation and prosecution. That’s stunning to me. That type of intimidation and threat should never happen in America from the state or chief law enforcement officer.

Secondly, Governor Whitmer, actually [first] claiming COVID and then changing it, and then saying there was a threat, which was denied by the state police who said there was no threat that they were aware of, mobilised 200 state police officers to surround the Capitol building in Michigan on December 14, and they disabled Republicans from entering. Now Democrats were able to enter the building, and they entered the building and certified their electors on that day. But Republicans, not a one was allowed in the people’s chamber. The governor shut down the legislature. That doesn’t happen. Kings and queens shut down parliament. Governors don’t shut down legislatures. That is a significant problem, and we are bringing suit over those issues.

Mr. Jekielek: Okay, very interesting. So, a couple of questions here. The first one is some of the rhetoric that I’m hearing talks about how, “Well, it doesn’t make sense. There’s no real reason to call a session of the legislature. It’s just all bluster and so forth.” So that’s the reason they’re not being called.

Mr. Kline: Well, what’s the harm? We have now seen nine months where these governors have declared the legislature to be irrelevant to lawmaking. In fact, some of our earliest involvement was challenging these governors declaring themselves to no longer be a part of the lawmaking process, but rather to be the law—that what they say when they wake up in the morning is the law. They no longer need to go to the legislature. They no longer need to have hearings so we can debate the science of these shutdowns.

Rather, they have forwarded the most massive wealth shift in American history, from small business to the big box stores, and the big internet conglomerates that are delivering product. They have shut down and killed small business, and they’ve done it by proclaiming themselves to be the law.

And now they’re doing it with elections. I wonder, my question to them is when did they lose faith in democracy? When did they believe that they have the right and the responsibility to say, “Legislature, you’re no longer relevant to lawmaking in this state. I’m going to do it on my own.”? That is an affront to the Constitution. And it’s an affront to the American people.

We’ve seen this arrogance on the left, that they can’t share information with us because we’re not wise enough to discern the truth, so we have to have censorship. We see them saying, “You’re not wise enough to have a legislative representative body to debate whether we should shut down our economy or close schools because I know what’s best for you. If I don’t offer that and dictate it, at the threat of putting you in jail if you differ, you’re probably going to hurt yourself.” It’s stunning to me how we’ve lost faith and freedom in this nation over the past year.

Mr. Jekielek: So Phill, irrespective of what you described happened in Michigan, a number of states have sent competing slates of electors. There’s Democratic electors and there’s Republican electors. There’s some debate about the utility of this, or how this can meaningfully play out. I’m wondering if you could please speak to that, from your perspective?

Mr. Kline: Well, it has happened before, where there are multiple slates of electors from a state. When that happens, Congress can declare that state’s election is in dispute, and therefore, its electoral votes are not to be considered. If that happens, it reduces the potential of hitting what is required, and that is the 270 votes to be elected by the Electoral College.

If that doesn’t happen, then it goes to Congress to decide who the next president is. That is a voting Congress where each state gets one vote, and all the members of Congress from that state participate in determining how that vote is to be cast. The Constitution does provide steps on how we manage this in all these circumstances. The Founding Fathers and that generation foresaw these types of problems. And they have placed in there a way to handle it.

Mr. Jekielek: So you describe in your op-ed, this earlier election, ii is 1876, I believe?

Mr. Kline: Yes.

Mr. Jekielek: You believe it shares some commonalities with today. Tell me about that.

Mr. Kline: Well, there were multiple states that sent two sets of electors. In fact, in one part of our nation’s history, and I can’t remember the state right now, there were actually three sets of electors that were sent by the state legislature. When the popular vote or the results of an election are in dispute, the Constitution is very, very clear that the state legislature is the one with the authority to send multiple sets of electors, and that Congress then has the responsibility, if the majority of 270 votes is not present in the Electoral College, to step in. That’s why you see some congressmen now saying, “Look, we ought to take a look at this. We ought to take the time to understand what happened in this election. There are hundreds of thousands of ballots in dispute.”

I don’t know if you saw it, but one of the whistleblowers that we brought forward is a truck driver who transported 140 to 280,000 completed absentee ballots from Bethpage, New York, a postal facility that doesn’t even receive mail—they’re not supposed to have ballots there—to Pennsylvania, where his trailer carrying those ballots disappeared, just disappeared. There’s no reason for a quarter of a million ballots to be transported over state lines into a state. Unless, I suppose—and I’ve heard somebody claim this—perhaps a quarter of a million Pennsylvanians happened to be vacationing in Bethpage and decided to mail in their absentee ballots on the same day using a postal facility that doesn’t accept mail.

That alone should call into question these late night ballot dumps that occurred in the urban core, with the work stoppages that have never happened before. You don’t stop counting. You only stop counting so one side can learn how many ballots they need to make up the difference. That’s the only reason to stop counting. All of these urban core areas at certain times had ballot counting stoppages. Then loads of ballots came through the door. So there’s a lot of concern about the integrity of this election and Congress and state legislatures are to step up to the plate.

Mr. Jekielek: So is it actually true that it has never happened before that the counting stops? I find that hard to believe.

Mr. Kline: Well, there was one time it stopped that I’m aware of. This was pre-machine, pre-everything, and it was the Senate Democrat primary in Texas with Lyndon Baines Johnson running against a popular former governor, Coke Stevenson. And suddenly, it stopped, and Johnson was behind by a handful of votes, and they couldn’t find Ballot Box 13 in one small city, along the southern border of Texas.

When they finally found it, it had just enough votes in it for Lyndon Johnson to overtake Stevenson and win the primary. Coincidentally enough, all of those voters in that one precinct voted in alphabetical order. They all had the same penmanship, had the same pen, and all voted for Johnson. So yes, we’ve had a ballot counting stop before. And the result was Johnson stole the senate seat.

Mr. Jekielek: So Phill, let’s talk about the machines a little bit here. In Antrim County, Michigan, there was a forensic audit done of machines—I think it’s the only one that I’m aware of up to now—and it found this unusual rate of errors that would require the ballots to be adjudicated. This triggers this situation that you were describing earlier, where someone will go in and basically redo the ballot and figure out what it was supposed to mean. That would be the normal process. How does the error rate that was found there—I’ve heard different stories—measure up to typical error rates?

Mr. Kline: It greatly exceeds federal standards, in fact, over 2000 percent higher than the federal standard. Federal law requires the certification of the election system, and how it functions could not be certified in that instance with that error rate. Here’s what’s deeply concerning about the machines from my perspective.

First of all, you can’t count what you can’t see. The machine is like the ballot box where the ballot goes in. But you can’t see how it’s counted. You can’t pull it back out, unless you see the computer logs, unless you see how that machine was functioning. There’s something called the file integrity manager log. It will tell you whether there’s any type of intervention in the way that it’s functioning. Election officials will not release those logs. They won’t allow America to see those logs. The Secretary of State of Michigan is fighting the release of that forensic report. And in fact, there’s a memorandum she issued after the election requiring and ordering election officials to start deleting information from the machines. That is alarming.

I’ve often had the press and the media say, “Where’s your proof? Where’s your evidence?” You don’t understand. I oversaw the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. You’re not understanding what evidence is. If I was investigating you for tax evasion, and I had a search warrant for your home believing documents were there, and I showed up on a summer day. It’s 98 degrees, sweltering hot, sun burning down, mid-afternoon, and you bar the door, and then I see smoke coming from your chimney. That’s evidence you’re burning the documents.

When these election officials, who are pledged to run transparent elections, start suddenly hiding things, shredding things, erasing things, that’s evidence, and that is concerning. We see that in each of these areas. The stunning thing about it, it’s not that hard to do an audit of the performance of the machines. It doesn’t cost much. They’re not allowing it. It doesn’t cost too much to have a risk limiting audit, grabbing actual ballots and grabbing the envelopes and doing forensic analysis of the ballots. There’s a lot that can be determined, whether it was completed by a machine or a human hand, and so forth.

They’re not allowing it. They’re not allowing the simple steps to take place to ensure that this election was conducted with integrity. Instead, they’re saying, “Trust us. Even though we kicked you out of the counting room, even though we took private money, even though we sidestep state laws and ignored other laws, and we broke the chain of custody of the ballot, trust us. Our guy won, and there’s no fraud going on here.” I’m sorry. That’s evidence that needs to be investigated.

Mr. Jekielek: So of the range of evidence that’s out there, that there were significant irregularities, I think Peter Navarro has a report that kind of summarizes a lot of that recently. What do you think is the most compelling? What do you think is the thing that really needs to be addressed first?

Mr. Kline: Well, honestly, it’s the hiding of the evidence. There’s absolutely no reason for it. And that shows intentional conduct. When you’re destroying evidence, when you’re not releasing information, when you’re not being transparent, that is evidence of your intent and your fear. So I’ve never investigated a person who was innocent, and controlled information of their innocence, who didn’t want me to see it. And I’ve never investigated a person who was guilty, who wanted me to see the evidence of their guilt that they controlled. That’s pretty basic.

Mr. Jekielek: So Phill, aside from this new lawsuit that you’ve filed now, you actually have a number of other lawsuits in play. I’m wondering if you could update us on the status of these.

Mr. Kline: Well, we plan to pursue them to their completion, and particularly the lawsuits involving CTCL and Mr. Zuckerberg’s money, because we cannot privatize elections. We can’t have elections brought to you by Coca Cola, or the Koch brothers, or the National Rifle Association, which I believe if they were doing what Zuckerberg was doing, you’d have mainstream media or left media going crazy over it. We can’t afford to have a billionaire auction of election offices before the next election. So we’re going to press that forward. Through that, we will have the opportunity to engage in what is called in a civil litigation manner, “discovery,” and to compel these groups to answer questions and to respond with documents so we can really know what went on inside those offices as they poured out this money. So we plan to pursue those. That will not impact the 2020 election. But hopefully, it will change things for the future.

Mr. Jekielek: Phill, come January 6, this is a date that is on a lot of people’s minds. This is the point at which a number of these congressmen, for example, Congressman Gaetz is one of them, are saying they’re going to contest the election. How does that process actually work? What happens, and what could happen subsequently?

Mr. Kline: I can only tell you what I hope happens. And that is if they are able to have a House member and a Senate member contest, then Congress will engage in a serious look at what happened in this election and call witnesses and subpoena witnesses and do what state legislatures should have done over the past several weeks, but were prohibited because governors refused, and/or leadership refused to call them into session. So America deserves a look at this election. And Congress now is best positioned to do it. I would hope that they wouldn’t wait until January 6, quite frankly. They ought to start now pulling together this information. It is vitally important. The only thing that’s preventing it is the politics of the moment and people concerned about appearances and people trying to wait out the clock. That’s the wrong thing to do when we’ve had election chock full of lawlessness and irregularities and an unprecedented expenditure of private funds.

Mr. Jekielek: Any final thoughts before we finish up, Phill?

Mr. Kline: No. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be with you. I appreciate what you guys are doing and your willingness to share the truth and share different perspectives. It’s appreciated.

Mr. Jekielek: Phill Kline, such a pleasure to have you on.

Mr. Kline: Thank you.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

American Thought Leaders is an Epoch Times show available on YouTubeFacebook, and The Epoch Times website. It airs on Verizon Fios TV and Frontier Fios on NTD America (Channel 158). Source:

Election Night Results Southern California
November 4, 2020

Core-Mark: California To Texas
September 11, 2018

Megan Dahle Wins State Assembly Seat In Special Election
November 6, 2019
Tagged Amistad Project, Center for Technology and Civic Life, election fraud, election judges, Election laws, Facebook, machines, Mark Serrano, Mark Zuckerberg, Phill Kline, President of ProActive Communications, Steve Bannon, turn out the vote
18 thoughts on “Lawsuit Against Mark Zuckerberg over $500M ‘Dark Money’ Contribution Enabling 2020 Election Fraud”
December 16, 2020 at 3:05 pm
Oh GOOD. Glad to see this lawsuit. “Break a leg!”

December 17, 2020 at 8:12 am
“Break a leg” is right! It’s all coming out now. There’s no stopping it!

December 17, 2020 at 2:58 pm
Sounds good, let’s hope!

December 16, 2020 at 11:25 pm
Treason. Life in jail or the firing squad. Use all his assets to go after other fraudsters.

December 17, 2020 at 2:59 pm
Works for me! No objection here.

Matt Tobias
December 17, 2020 at 3:39 pm
But first, some serious interrogation. He doesn’t look like the type to resist for very long. Let’s get some good intel first…then the firing squad.

Johanna Jacobs
December 17, 2020 at 5:21 am

Pingback: Lawsuit Towards Mark Zuckerberg over $500M ‘Darkish Cash’ Contribution Enabling 2020 Election Fraud – NITTY GRITTY GAZETTE
December 17, 2020 at 12:51 pm
yes go to jail sucker

Thomas Busse
December 17, 2020 at 1:10 pm
Mark Zuckerberg is a product of the national security state and Facebook operates as a proprietary. What Facebook actually did was spin off DARPA-developed psychological warfare tools and Zuckerberg was recruited to be a figurehead. The term is a “proprietary.” In other words, the intelligence agencies considers Facebook and the cash proceeds from it to be “theirs.” To the extent these “donations” were made by Zuckerberg, they’re really pass-through instructions for the intelligence agencies to create their illusion of democracy. The politicians are intelligence assets and to the extent races are competitive what they represent is an intelligence war between compartmentalized factions. It wasn’t Zuckerberg doing this, it was his handlers.

Gordon Gekko
December 17, 2020 at 7:03 pm
You’re f-ing delusional.

Pingback: Q SCOOP – Poursuite contre Zuckerberg pour la contribution de 500MD à la fraude électorale de 2020. – L’Informateur.
Philip Farrell
December 19, 2020 at 1:31 pm
Come on, Trump!

December 19, 2020 at 7:04 pm
Seize his assets and shut him down, then hang him for treason.

Pingback: Poursuite contre Zuckerberg pour la contribution de 500MD à la fraude électorale de 2020. | Le journal participatif et citoyen !
Burhanudin Bin Nawawi
January 25, 2021 at 12:15 pm
Mark Zuckerberg can buy himself out of any “hole” he falls into (including the one in his ass) as that cunt has all the money ! Fuck Zuckerberg & his billions because the destitute in the U.S. remain destitute. M. Zuckerberg will just fuck around, wedging his cock up his arse & say, “It’s not my fault that those people are in poverty .” Zuckerberg’s mouth is where his cock is ! In his ass !

Pingback: Mark Zuckerberg sued through Class Action for financing Voter Fraud agents. | Felix Democracy
Djon Ayub Sa’ad
February 28, 2021 at 12:45 pm
With $90 billion/- to his name, Mark Zuckerberg struts around as though he is God’s gift to humanity. He thinks he is king once & for all. He has no intention of providing aid to the homeless & destitute in the U.S or anywhere. The whole world was created for Mark Zuckerberg(and Friskila Chan) only. Zuckerberg tries to use newsmedia from other countries without paying, in the hope he will gain more into his bank accounts. Bum pumping arsehole of a Jew, what else ? Worships money. Zuckerberg’s church is the bank & his god is facebook. There are idiots who worship the ground Zuckerberg walks on. And M.Z kisses the ground Kim Jong Un walks on !

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Name *

Email *




Editor: Katy Grimes,
Reporter: Evan Symon,
General Manager & Advertising: Kevin Sanders,

California Globe  Book and Film Globe  Fine Art Globe  Modern Consensus  New Jersey Globe  Rock and Roll Globe Wine and Whiskey Globe
© 2021 California Globe     
About Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Advertise with us

— Read on

What are the HIPAA rules for privacy?

What are the HIPAA rules for privacy?

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge.

Healthcare providers, insurance companies, and their business associates are all bound by HIPAA rules.

Protected health information can only be disclosed:

  • To patients themselves
  • For treatment, payment or healthcare operations
  • With permission from the patient or in their best interest, such as notifying family members when a patient is incapacitated
  • In the public interest for 12 national priority purposes

But that didn’t stop critics from expressing concern, with one Twitter user sharing fears that Google’s advanced AI algorithms would be able to identify even anonymized records. 

Medical records are protected under federal privacy laws, but the rules allow hospitals and other healthcare providers to share patient information with contractors, as long as they abide by the same privacy protections.

HCA says that patient records will be stripped of personally identifying information before being shared with Google data scientists, and that the hospital system would control access to the data, according to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the partnership.

‘Privacy and security will be guiding principles throughout this partnership,’ HCA said in a statement. ‘The access and use of patient data will be addressed through the implementation of Google Cloud’s infrastructure along with HCA Healthcare’s layers of security controls and processes.’

HCA hopes to use Google’s algorithms to provide real-time input on treatment options for doctors and improve patient outcomes.

The hospital system points to early success using its own technology to monitor critically ill COVID-19 patients, and notify doctors of potentially better treatment options.

‘Next-generation care demands data science-informed decision support so we can more sharply focus on safe, efficient and effective patient care,’ said HCA CEO Sam Hazen in a statement. 

The partnership marks Google's latest foray into the healthcare realm -- and it is already raising privacy concerns
The partnership marks Google’s latest foray into the healthcare realm — and it is already raising privacy concerns 

‘We view partnerships with leading organizations, like Google Cloud, that share our passion for innovation and continual improvement as foundational to our efforts,’ added Hazen.

HCA says the partnership will also focus on streamlining non-clinical support areas that may benefit from improved workflows through better use of data and insights, such as supply chain, human resources and physical plant operations. 

It is not Google’s first foray into the healthcare realm, and the company’s prior partnerships on healthcare records have drawn criticism before.

In 2019, a whistleblower leaked details of Project Nightingale, Google’s partnership with Ascension, the St. Louis-based healthcare company that helped Google collect personal health-related information of millions of Americans across 21 states. 

‘Two simple questions kept hounding me: did patients know about the transfer of their data to the tech giant? Should they be informed and given a chance to opt in or out?’ the whistleblower wrote in an essay for the Guardian.

‘The answer to the first question quickly became apparent: no. The answer to the second I became increasingly convinced about: yes. Put the two together, and how could I say nothing?’ the person continued.

The person said that about 150 Google employees and 100 Ascension staff collaborated on Project Nightingale, transferring the personal data of more than 50 million Americans to Google.

The data involved in Project Nightingale includes lab results, doctor diagnoses and hospitalization records, among other categories, and amounts to a complete health history, complete with patient names and dates of birth.

In that project, Google hoped to use artificial intelligence and machine learning tools to predict patterns of illness in ways that might some day lead to new treatments, according to the whistleblower.

Ascension issued a press release acknowledging its partnership with Google after the Wall Street Journal blew the lid off the project.

The statement said that the project would help Ascension ‘improve the experience of patients and consumers, as well as providers and associates, and advance its Mission of providing compassionate, personalized care to all, especially people living in poverty and those most vulnerable.’