Democracy May Die In Darkness, But The Washington Post Dies Because of Sunlight.

The Washington Post, like many papers, is dying. Not because of the format, but for the content. 

I was reading an article on the resignation of Sally Buzbee as the managing editor of The Washington Puke, err Polk. She's held the job for three years and is not enthused with the way things are going in the future. The powers that be in the Post want to reorganize the "news" of the paper into three sections, with more video reporting and artificial intelligence (One would hope it replace the natural stupidity of the staff, but that remains to be seen.)

Now it's very understandable whey the people in charge of the paper want some change, it's been bloody over the last few years. Let’s start with: Why is Ms. Buzbee out after just three years?

It actually goes back five months, when Will Lewis was brought in by owner Jeff Bezos to be the new publisher and CEO. Just last month, Lewis told staff that the Post has suffered stunning financial losses in the past year — some $77 million — and that there had been a 50% drop-off in audience since 2020.

It sounds bad. Very bad. So what are they doing to stop the bleeding? Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Post publisher Will Lewis and Matt Murray, a former Wall Street Journal editor named to temporarily replace Sally Buzbee, met with reporters and editors at the Post on Monday to explain changes that had been outlined in a Sunday night email.

The plan includes splitting the newsroom into three separate divisions with managers who report to Lewis — one that encompasses the Post’s core news reporting, one with opinion pieces and the third devoted to attracting new consumersthrough innovative uses of social media, video, artificial intelligence and sales.

Well, it’s not like they haven’t noticed that people are not buying what they are selling (Full disclosure, I subscribe to the Washington Post digital edition and read it regularly). 

Washington Post will offer buyouts to cut staff by 240

The staff reductions come after Post leaders determined that recent revenue projections were overly optimistic

The Washington Post announced plans Tuesday to offer voluntary buyouts to its staff, in an effort to reduce head count by 240.

In an email to staff, interim CEO Patty Stonesifer wrote that The Post’s subscription, traffic and advertising projections over the past two years had been “overly optimistic” and that the company is looking for ways “to return our business to a healthier place in the coming year.”

The Post currently employs about 2,500 people across the entire company. A staff meeting is planned for 10 a.m. Wednesday to discuss the buyouts, which will be offered to employees in specific jobs and departments.

“The urgent need to invest in our top growth priorities brought us to the difficult conclusion that we need to adjust our cost structure now,” Stonesifer wrote.

That's not the problem. It's not the style of what you're doing, it's the substance. 

I draw your attention to a recent article in the Washington Post on Republicans in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. 

Several Pa. House Republicans boo officers who defended Capitol on Jan. 6

Harry Dunn and Aquilino Gonell were invited to Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives — but several GOP lawmakers booed and some walked out, Democratic lawmakers said.

 

Leo Sands

 

Two former law enforcement officers who defended the U.S. Capitol from rioters during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection were jeered by state GOP lawmakers as they visited Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives on Wednesday, according to several Democratic lawmakers present.

 

Former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and former sergeant Aquilino Gonell were introduced on the floor Wednesday as “heroes” by House Speaker Joanna McClinton (D) for having “bravely defended democracy in the United States Capitol against rioters and insurrection on January 6.”

 

As the two men — both of whom were injured by rioters on Jan. 6 — were introduced, the House floor descended into chaos. According to Democratic lawmakers, several GOP lawmakers hissed and booed, with a number of Republicans walking out of the chamber in protest.

 

“I heard some hissing and I saw about eight to 10 of my Republican colleagues walk out angrily as they were announced as police officers from the U.S. Capitol on January 6,” state Rep. Arvind Venkat (D) said in a phone interview Thursday. “I was shocked and appalled,” he added. According to Venkat, the commotion lasted about five minutes. Fewer than 100 lawmakers, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, were present in the chamber before the chaotic scene unfolded, he said…

 

Something about modern events. Everyone has a cell phone with a camera (or as someone told me once, a “camera that you can make a phone call on”). The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has 203 members, of which 102 are Democrats. Not one of them recorded the event and put it out? I checked

YouTube, and found two reports on them, MSNBC and a local station. Neither had any video of the reported incident. 

I put a comment in the Washington Post article, explaining the issue:

Mr. Sands

 

Until this is fact checked beyond any possible doubt by actual independent sources (i.e., not the Washington Post), it's a lie. Show us the video. Please, if the majority of Republicans in the PA House were booing and turning their backs on these men, you expect me to believe the Democrats did not get their cameras out and video tape it? 

 

Yes, I used that word. This is a rag paper that lied about "Russian Collusion" with the 2016 Trump campaign. The Mueller Report said it was BS.

 

Didn't this paper spread the propaganda  of "Hands up! Don't Shoot!" after Officer Darren Wilson justifiably shot the thug criminal Michael Brown? 

 

Didn't this paper spread the lie Nicholas Sandmann instigated a confrontation with American Indian Nathan Phillips back in 2019? You know, the lies that you had to settle the lawsuit with this young man?

 

So no Mr. Sands, you and your paper do not get the benefit of the doubt for honesty. Prove it, or it's BS. Cynical? Not really. You've earned it. I think your former editor will agree with me. 

Forgot to add, “Didn’t this paper say Hunter Biden’s laptop was a non-issue? The same laptop that’s being introduced into evidence in his gun possession trial?”

 

The press (now more appropriated called the media) has a legitimate purpose, so important that the Founding Father’s put freedom of the press into the First Amendment. It is to hold the government accountable. Or, to borrow the phase from E.K. Hornbeck (played by Gene Kelley) in Inherit the Wind, “…it is the duty of a newspaper to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Anyone more “comfortable” than the Bidens, the Clintons, or the Obamas. Don’t forget the comfortable on the other side of the aisle, like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. 

 

Every one of the people are worth millions, and none of them had that wealth before they entered “public service,” I don’t see many media members questioning how Joe Biden can afford multiple mansions when he’s been a politician all his life. Or looking into how the “Big Guy” got money from the Chinese and the Ukrainians. I won’t hold my breath. 

 

Years ago I was in a discussion with a family member who was, at the time, an editor of the major newspaper in a medium sized city. He took an early buyout during their downsize (Wait, a paper had to get rid of staff? No!). Point I made was he is in a dying industry and if there is not a major change, it’s gone. Newspapers need to get away from “immediate” news (it will always be “yesterday’s news”) and show some actual journalism, deeper articles into more serious subjects. Let television and Internet handle the immediate stuff. He disagreed, but he also got out. I can’t blame him. 

 

As the Washington Post dies in sunlight (the best disinfectant), look at what it once was. It was second only to the New York Times in, to a great content, controlling what people knew. Papers cannot do that anymore, and for that we should all be grateful. They have shown themselves completely untrustworthily. If they are to survive, then it must rebuild trust with its readers, something that is practically impossible to do. But more to the point, they are unwilling to do. And that is why it will die in sunlight. 

Again, Calm Down. Let The Process Proceed.

An officer involved shooting has the usual race baiters excited. We need to let the investigation proceed and determine the facts. 

I noticed just over a week ago the coverage of the shooting death of an Air Force airman by a sheriff’s deputy in Florida. The basic facts are fairly straight forward. The deputy responded to a call about a disturbance in an apartment complex. After an initial interview with the caller, he walks up to an apartment and knocks a total of three times. 

 

The first time, he knocked without announcing who he was, and stepped aside of the door. The last two, he clearly announced, “Sheriff’s office, open the door!” and was in front of the door. Presumedly he was visible to the tenant inside of the apartment.

 

Upon opening the door, the deputy did see a man with a pistol in his right hand, pointed down. The deputy immediately drew his weapon and fired multiple shots. The deputy requested an ambulance for the man, but he unfortunately died later at the hospital.

 

Now, what do we know at this moment. The deputy was called for a disturbance. And yes, this was a homicide, an unnatural man caused death. Was it a criminal act? Was it murder, manslaughter, or a justified use of deadly force? That is to be determined. 

 

How are we to judge this deputy on his actions. First, I would say as I’ve said countless times after a police shooting, calm down. The investigation is a complicated process and needs to proceed. The video is not the whole incident and the entire investigation will not be determined by it. 

 

A few years back I was one of over 200 cops on a police shooting which was initially believed to be justified operation. Further investigation showed the lead investigator had falsified his statements to get a warrant. A disaster to put it politely, but not obvious from the preliminary investigation.

 

The initial impression that gets rioters into the street is usually not the full truth. Remember the greatest lie of the 21^st Century, “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!” Dozens of “witnesses” said Officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown for absolutely no reason, that he was surrendering to the officer with his hands up. They swore Brown never got close to Wilson. 

 

When the forensics came back showing power residue from Wilson’s gun on Brown, Brown’s blood in Wilson’s patrol car, and the entry wounds on the “top” of Brown’s arms, not the “bottom,” it showed their statements were not “accurate.” The witnesses quickly revised them to preclude the perjury charges. 

 

We have had multiple controversial police shootings over the last fifteen years and some have shown the officer’s actions justified (e.g. Brown, Adam Toledo), and some unjustified (Walter Scott). Where do we go with this case? Again, we let the process proceed. Each of the cases I’ve listed showed that competent investigation is required for the judicial system to work. 

 

Multiple times I’ve written how a defendant  walks into a courtroom, and only the jury can make his guilty in the eyes of the law. That is western jurisprudence. But let’s  not let the foundation of legal theory come in the way of a race riot.  

 

The usual race baiters have jumped on the case, determined to make a name (and lots of money) on this incident. Racial shyster Benjamin Crump was quickly on the scene, mis-stating (I’ll give him the benefit of a doubt) the deputy knocked on the wrong door. The video below shows he was at the correct door. 

 

Both Crump and Al Sharpton are now involved in this case, and those two should make anyone suspicious. They are only interested in money, power and fame. If a riot ensues, so be it. 

 

Again, let the justice system work its way out. We don’t need another “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!” We don’t need another summer of riots. And that is what people like Crump and Sharpton long for. 

 

 

No, wealth is not for the government to take and redistribute

The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.

 

In Star Trek: First Contact, Captain Picard explains to a 21st-century visitor why money is not important.

 

After reading this article in The Atlantic, I was remined of something from the late great Rush Limbaugh back in the mid-90s. He spoke of how a GOP member of the congress asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate, by year, how much revenue would be raised if you taxed all income over $250,000 at one-hundred precent. You would have to make it retroactive (see the Clinton budget of 1993), but as I recall the CBO said (going by a 30-year memory), “The initial year would be 225 billion dollars, the following year would be 243 billion dollars, etc.”

 

The obvious reality would be next year, no one would make a salary of over 250K. What is the point?  Two things about liberals and the money you have. One, it is theirs, not yours. Two, their attitude is, “We take it from you, we know how to spend it wisely, and you will just smile and say, ‘Thank you sir, take some more.’” You won’t, or should not,  do anything to avoid paying any more taxes.

 

But this article is rather interesting. Let’s look at a few points.

 

What Would Society Look Like if Extreme Wealth Were Impossible?

 

Limitarianism questions the idea that individual wealth is ever individual.

 

By Christine Emba April 1, 2024

 

In February, 93-year-old Ruth Gottesman, a former professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the widow of financier David Gottesman, announced a gift of $1 billion to her school. With the funds came instructions: The money is to be used to make tuition free for students at the Bronx institution, in perpetuity.

 

The donation was celebrated—for its size, of course, but also for its humanitarian cast. As the New York Times columnist Ginia Bellafante put it, Gottesman’s giving “broadcasts a message of how a billionaire might live his or her best life—without terra-forming Mars, without Burning Man, without the attempts to stealth-run Harvard…”

 

A generous donation on behalf of Ms. Gottesman, but if her late husband David had not acquired this wealth through his work, and she had not inherited it, the free tuition would have never happened. No Ms. Emba, the Gottesmans did not inherit their wealth, but acquired it over decades of investment, knowing the right people, and being disciplined.

 

…Endowing an underfunded medical school is clearly a better use of money than buying yet another super-yacht.

 

That is your opinion Ms. Emba, not a fact. Many colleges suck up millions and their endowments are greater than the GDP of other nations, e.g., Harvard and Yale. But for some reason they won’t put out their fair share and allow students to attend tuition free.

 

I would also remind you what happened when a former Democratic administration put a luxury tax on yachts. The rich buyers simply went overseas to purchase their new toys. The people who this hurt were not the “super rich,” but the middle class people who produced, sold, and serviced these yachts.

 

“For a long time, I felt there was something wrong with an individual amassing so much money, but I couldn’t properly articulate why,” writes the Dutch philosopher Ingrid Robeyns. “After a decade of analyzing and debating extreme wealth, I became convinced that we must create a world in which no one is super-rich—that there must be a cap on the amount of wealth any one person can have. I call this limitarianism.” In her book of the same name, Robeyns fleshes out the case for such a cap while upending common conceptions of agency, ownership, and what a fortune really signifies.

 

Extreme wealth keeps the poor poor, she argues, and expands inequality. The super-rich undermine democracy through their outsize political influence and wreck the climate with their luxurious lifestyles. Some of their money is acquired through questionable means—from exploitative business practices, or dodging taxes, or outright theft. Robeyns argues that no one deserves such excess, that people would be better off morally and psychologically without it, and that there are better uses for society’s spillover abundance—ending poverty, say, or improving infrastructure. Even well-intentioned philanthropy doesn’t make up for these downsides: It’s no stand-in for a well-functioning, well-funded government—the sort that the wealthy often undermine in the course of making their fortune…

 

Again, who are you to determine when I’ve made enough money? I recall a previous president lecturing a tradesman, “I do believe at some point you’ve made enough money.” Now he has no issue with himself being worth 70 million with speeches and make work positions on boards, etc.

 

I’ve known rich people before, and I’ve yet to meet one who had become rich because of “public service.” Obama (and Clinton) was not rich before the presidency, but somehow became fabulously wealthy after the White House. On the contrary, George W Bush was worth 20 million before achieving the presidency, mainly by oil and professional sports. Donald Trump entered the White House a multi-billionaire and actually lost wealth during his term. Ronald Reagan was worth over 20 million in 1981. And unlike the current Democratic alumni of the Oval Office, they money is rather unambiguous.

 

A don’t disparage anyone achieving wealth, by legal means. I do take serious offense of a rich leftist lecturing me on achieving a degree of prosperity from their personal yachts and Lear Jets.  

 

And it’s that government and its citizens on which any fortune depends. “Take any multimillionaire or billionaire, and put them on a desert island,” Robeyns writes. “They still have all the same talents and personal traits as before. How rich could they become? Not very rich, obviously.”

 

I think we have the issue here. Obviously on an abandoned island, the effort would be for survival, not things above  food, water, and shelter. But people with intelligence (not necessarily education), ideas, and drive will come up with something that people are willing to spend the results of their labors on, i.e., their disposable income, on. A few examples:

 

-      Henry Ford and his automobile.

 

-      Steve Jobs and Apple computer.

 

-    Elon Musk with electric cars, online pay programs and commercial space launch systems.

-  Joe Kennedy Sr and his whiskey.

 

Of the current ten richest men on earth, nine started with relative non-wealth in their early days. I dare say if you try to take their wealth from them, the company will immediately transfer its flag to a less insane nation like Switzerland or Lower Slovia. These men (and women) have worked for their success. They will not just hand it over to a politician because of a law.

 

But if you want to take the ill-gotten wealth of the superrich, I suggest you go after the liberals who want to steal from the American people. Ms. Bill Clinton, John Kerry (you know, the dude who dodged Massachusetts taxes by docking his yacht in New Hampshire). Let’s  not forget Elizabeth “Faukahuntus” Warren, she of lecturing students to not use real estate to make money, but she has no issue with herself making millions in the market. Or take a look at non-profit programs where the uber rich can park billions of dollars, give away a few million a year and dodge a fortune in taxes (See Bill Gates Discovery Foundation).

 

I have to say I’m interested in reading Ms. Robeyns book, but I definitely don’t want to buy it. Might drive her into illegitimate wealth and we don’t want to drive up her individual wealth.  

An Anti-Jail Break.

Not exactly Escape from Alcatraz here. From the old hometown of New Orleans. 

Man arrested after allegedly trying to climb into New Orleans jail grounds

NEW ORLEANS (WVUE) - A 29-year-old man was arrested Wednesday (March 13) after allegedly attempting to scale a wall to climb into the secure grounds of the Orleans Justice Center jail.

Dylon Guidry was booked with attempted burglary, resisting arrest by force, trespassing and attempting to bring contraband into the jail, Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson’s office said.

The unusual anti-jailbreak occurred around 1:36 p.m., the sheriff’s office said, after deputies spotted the man wearing a white shirt and cargo shorts attempting to climb a wall behind the OPSO’s Temporary Detention Center...

Guidry was apprehended about 11 minutes later by deputies from OPSO’s Investigative Services Bureau...

...The OPSO said the contraband allegation against the suspect stemmed from his attempt to bring a cellphone into the facility when he tried to scale the wall.

Let's all get a good laugh and to all my fellow cops out there, remember, we should take dudes like this. They are job security. 

Thank you Joe Sbisa for the link.

Lessons Learned From A Cop’s Death

Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

 

Otto von Bismarck

Chancellor of Germany 1871-1890

 

In my time in law enforcement, I’ve reviewed countless videos of officer involved deadly force incidents, and where officers get killed or critically injured. It’s not to blame the deceased, but to learn from their actions to prevent another cop being injured or killed. Much like as the armed forces embraced the after-action review in the 1970s, law enforcement is also using it to improve our operations.  

 

When I was a field trainer (and field training supervisor), a bible for instruction was from the 1970s. Officer Down: Code Three, by Pierce Brooks is still an excellent reference on things that get cops killed. When I was instructing new officers, I would assign them a chapter a night to read, and we would review the points the next day. 

 

The Las Cruces NM Police Department lost an officer a month ago. The officer approached a suspect who was originally non-hostile. The suspect then pulled out a kitchen knife, charged the officer, and stabbed him to death. The suspect was killed by a civilian with his personal pistol (I thought that never happened) coming to the aide of the officer.

 

Back to Officer Down: Code Three, the book list ten critical mistakes that get cops killed. Looking at this video, I see three apparent missteps that are covered by the writing: Relaxing too soon; Missing the danger signs, and; Failure to watch their hands. 

 

 

Looking at the video, the first thing to notice is how quickly the suspect jumps up as the officer approaches. The suspect has taken himself from a tactically weak position (on the ground with legs crossed) to a much stronger one (standing, able to run or engage). The implication is the suspect sees the officer as a threat and he is preparing to react. A definite danger sign missed.

 

Next, the suspect begins talking to the cop, seemingly in a friendly way. In a way that implies “I’m not a danger to you.” We can only assume the officer did not see him as the threat he was. 

 

The officer continues to approach with his hands in his jacket pocket. He doesn’t see the suspect as a threat and has relaxed to a point. But as you see the suspect quickly starts to move towards the officer and pulls the knife out. The officer doesn’t have the time to react, specifically pull his pistol out and fire. 

 

Yes YouTube use of force and police tactics experts, a kitchen knife is a deadly weapon. Don’t believe that? Shove one between a couple ribs and tell me how that feels. 

 

Reviewing the video, another critical point. As the cop approaches, the suspect has his arms crossed so the officer cannot see his hands. Something drilled into cops in every instruction, hands are what kills you. They are what strike you directly or handle the weapons that do injury or kill you. 

 

This video shows how the “21 Foot Rule” is applicable in law enforcement. Again, from the 1970s, it shows how quickly a man with a knife can charge and injure a cop with a gun before the cop can get his pistol out. There is a reason we train officers to approach with the pistol side back, hand on the weapon and the holster unlocked. It gives the officer the chance pull his weapon a bit faster, when a fraction of a second matters. 

 

To emphasis again, I am in no way ridiculing an officer (RIP). I am showing the lessons to be learned on the last call he took, and hopefully this will keep other cops from suffering a similar result.

Another example of deafening silence.

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?

Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.

Gregory: The dog did nothing in the night-time.

Holmes: That was the curious incident.

 

Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Gregory, Silver Blaze, by Sir Author Conan Doyle.

On Sunday February 11^th, I was driving home from work around 200pm and noticed two Harris County Sheriff’s Office shops (also known as patrol cars) “running hot,” i.e.,lights, sirens, etc. I didn’t pay it much attention, it’s a not uncommon event in Houston TX.

 

A minute later I noticed a third car running hot. Then a fourth.  I assumed it was serious, like a unit “dropping an assist.” The call “Assist the Officer” means an officer is in danger and requires immediate backup. That was an understatement.

 

An active shooter call dropped at Joel Osteen’s mega-church, Lakewood. The attack occurred just as they were starting Spanish service, and the shooter was armed with a “rifle.” Fortunately two cops working off duty security at the church immediately engaged and terminated the suspect.

 

During the Super Bowl I checked on updates to the shooting and the POS was described as a “transgender female” using a “rifle” for the attack, with a 4–5-year-old child. In speaking with an officer on the scene, the POS (I will not mention its name, for multiple reasons, more to come) was using the child as a human shield. Unfortunately, the boy (the POS’s child) was hit and is in critical condition. However, thanks to the quick work of the two cops on the scene, the POS only shot one man in the leg and he should make a full recovery. 

Again, I find it curious that a mass shooting, in Texas, by a shooting using an “assault rifle” has not made a bigger splash in the  news. During the Super Bowl I checked the local channels and understandably they were updating as news became available. I checked my NY Times emails from Sunday afternoon and did not see a “breaking news” alert on an active shooter in Houston. I reviewed their emails from Monday and it showed nothing. 

 

They did actually have a decent summary on Tuesday 2/13/24, including the ”’Palestine” on the rifle, but nothing on the shooter being a ”transgender.” They did update their report on Wednesday 2/14/24, questioning how a mentally disturbed “woman” who had been involuntarily committed for phycological evaluation could purchase a firearm. But something was missing. The shooter was a ”transgender”

 

From the latest, the shooter is a biological female who “transitioned” to male, and apparently decided to go back to being a female (this is subject to change without notice). There are multiple reports referencing the shooters mental issues. Fair enough. But dare I say it, the fact  the shooter is a “trans” is a mental issue. From Psychology Today:

Individuals who identify as transgender tend to experience higher rates of mental health issues than the general population. While approximately 6.7 percent of the general U.S. population suffers from depression and 18 percent grapple with some iteration of an anxiety disorder, nearly half of all individuals who identify as transgender experience these issues. What's more, over 41 percent of trans men and women are estimated to have attempted suicide — a rate that's nearly nine times as high as the rate of cisgender Americans. 

 

I have no doubt if this shooter has a MAGA hat on or attended a Trump rally it would be front, center and above the fold on page one of every paper in the country. 

 

Exaggeration? I don’t think so. Remember in March 2023, a “transgender male” entered The Covenant School, murdered three children and three adults before being killed by responding officers. Almost immediately reports of the shooters manifesto surfaced, but authorities were against releasing it. If a trial was pending, that would be understandable, it could be used in the investigation. As the shooter was dead, there is no custodial interview conducted. But it was fortunately leaked (The people who were very happy Dobbs v Jackson was leaked were upset at this. I wonder why?) and showed a lot of motive. Politically incorrect motive. 

 

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (TND) — Portions of the manifesto belonging to Nashville school shooter Audrey Hale are circulating social media after months of debate regarding its release.

 

Steven Crowder, the host of the Louder with Crowder talk show, shared leaked images from the manifesto Monday morning. The pages released by Crowder allegedly reveal the intentions behind Hale's deadly attack.

 

Wanna kill all you little c*******," one page from the manifesto reads. "Bunch of little f****** w/ your white privlages f*** you f******…"

 

… Hale's manifesto includes an hour-by-hour calendar of the tragic day, which Hale called "Death Day," including everything from "getting dressed" and "eat breakfast" to "prepare for attack" and "time 2 die."

 

I'm a little nervous, but excited too. Been excited for the past 2 weeks," Hale allegedly wrote. "Can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm ready... I hope my victims aren't."

 

I have also not heard from President Biden, his VP, or any other member of the DC Establishment (the local federal agencies have been very involved with the investigation). And I doubt I will. The facts don’t fit the template. 

 

I’ll monitor this and update as needed. But I have no doubt it will be off the national news by the end of the week.