One of the best ways to support the State of Israel during this time is to stay updated with accurate information about the war against Hamas. We encourage you to share this newsletter with your network, and to ask people you know to subscribe to receive important information as Israel acts to defeat Hamas. HERE is the link by which you or someone you know can subscribe to our Consulate's newsletter. +++
When virtually every radical law suit reaches SCOTUS, they will be overturned. Radical district attorneys have twisted the law to "suit" their political views and hatred of Trump. They are wasting untold sums of public funds, while seeking to wreck our legal system.
Those who hate Trump and support these legal thugs are the real enemies of this nation.
Viewpoints are one thing ad to be tolerated, actions are another. Rioting, calling for death to Jews and American are harmful, hateful and despicable.
They are threats to our republic and Biden should address them but he is part of the problem and I expect this Chameleon of a president will go down in disgrace. +++ Supreme Court Justices Seem Skeptical of Jan. 6 Obstruction Charge Used in Trump Case Hundreds of defendants, including President Trump, hope the court’s eventual ruling in this former cop’s appeal will lead to their charges being dismissed.
Supreme Court Justices Seem Skeptical of Jan. 6 Obstruction Charge Used in Trump Case
By Matthew Vadum
Conservative Supreme Court justices seemed generally sympathetic on April 16 to a former police officer charged under an accounting reform law after he entered the U.S. Capitol for four minutes on Jan. 6, 2021.
The case is being closely watched because once the Supreme Court rules, its decision could affect hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions, including the Jan. 6-related case against former President Donald Trump.
Joseph Fischer, from Jonestown, Pennsylvania, was indicted on several counts following the Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021, including obstructing an official proceeding under Enron-era obstruction law 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c). Convictions under the section can lead to 20 years in prison.
The wording of 1512(c) is focused on documentation and ensuring it is made available for official proceedings.
Section 1512(c) states: “Whoever corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
The charge relates to the alleged obstruction of the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election results, a proceeding that paved the way for the inauguration of President Joe Biden two weeks later.
A Supreme Court Win Is in the Cards for Jan. 6 Defendants, Lawyers Predict
Jan. 6 Defendant Questions Government’s Legal Theory in New Supreme Court Filing Mr. Fischer argues that he should not have been charged under section 1512(c), an evidence-tampering provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act aimed at curbing wrongdoing on Wall Street.
The legislation came in the wake of fraud-related scandals at Enron Corp. and other major corporations. Enron employed dubious accounting practices to conceal falling profits and exaggerate earnings, and its employees reportedly began destroying paperwork when they learned that indictments were in the works.
Some defendants who arrived at the Capitol after Congress was evacuated on Jan. 6, 2021, were also charged with obstructing an official proceeding. Several defendants have argued unsuccessfully at trial that they couldn’t have obstructed Congress because they weren’t present in the Capitol until after lawmakers left the complex. Mr. Fischer also says he left the complex before Congress attempted to move forward with certifying the election and was in Maryland at the time of the security breach.
Legal experts, including Mr. Fischer’s defense counsel, have criticized the Biden administration for prosecuting defendants, including President Trump, under the law, arguing it is an inappropriate vehicle for the prosecutions.
Lawyers argue that the accounting reform law under which Mr. Fischer and others have been charged is being used by the Department of Justice to prosecute people who were exercising their First Amendment right to protest the congressional certification of election results.
During oral arguments on April 16, Mr. Fischer’s attorney Jeffrey Green said the Biden administration was wrong to charge his client under 1512(c), which was intended to be used for evidence tampering only.
Congress passed the statute to prevent the destruction of evidence, he said.
“The January 6 prosecutions demonstrate that there are a host of felony and misdemeanor crimes that cover the alleged conduct,” the lawyer said.
“A Sarbanes-Oxley-based Enron-driven evidence tampering statute is not one of them.”
Until the Jan. 6 prosecutions, 1512(c) had never been used for anything other than evidence tampering, he said.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said 1512(c) is not a narrow legal provision.
The provision “by its terms is not limited to evidence impairment. Instead, it’s a classic catch-all” with regard to obstruction, she said.
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked if pulling a fire alarm to halt a proceeding would subject the offender to a 20-year prison term.
Ms. Prelogar said it might but that the government would have to have proof of criminal intent.
Justice Samuel Alito asked if protesters obstructing a trial would violate the statute.
“For all the protests that have occurred in this court, the Justice Department has not charged any serious offenses, and I don’t think any one of those protesters has been sentenced to even one day in prison. But why isn’t that a violation of 1512(c)(2)?” he asked.
Ms. Prelogar replied, “There would be the backstop of needing to prove corrupt intent.”
Justice Alito asked whether protestors blocking roads and bridges around the nation’s capital, as happened on April 15 when pro-Palestinian protesters shut down the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, would violate the statute.
Ms. Prelogar said she did not believe that would violate the statute.
She also said Mr. Fischer went to the Capitol intending to prevent Congress from conducting business.
“He had said in advance of January 6 that he was prepared to storm the Capitol [and was] prepared to use violence. He wanted to intimidate Congress. He said, ‘They can’t vote if they can’t breathe,’” she said.
At the Capitol, he allegedly assaulted a law enforcement officer, and that action impeded the ability of police to regain control and let Congress do its job, she said.
“It is entirely appropriate for the government to seek to hold petitioner accountable for that conduct with that intent,” Ms. Prelogar said.
In a recent brief, Mr. Fischer’s attorneys denied he committed acts of violence on Jan. 6, 2021, and said he was instead a victim of violence. They said that he was knocked to the ground by a crowd surge and that contrary to government claims that he was forcibly removed from the complex, he walked out on his own.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if the protesters could have been charged under the section even if they had not breached the Capitol.
If they had remained outside “but their goal was to impede, chanting things like ‘stop the steal,’ getting too close, and ignoring police’s calls to disperse, would that still violate the statute?” the justice asked.
Ms. Prelogar said if that had happened when Congress had to go into recess from a joint session because of a security risk, then it “probably would be chargeable” if there was evidence of criminal intent.
This is a developing story. This article will be updated. ++++ This was sent to me by very dear friends who have serious issues with Trump but fear Biden. They are some time readers of my memo's, are religious and read the WSJ as if it were a newsworthy bible.
For well over 3 years, I have been weaning them off the poisonous progressive milk bottle.
I "ain't there yet but Biden has been a "for sure" contributory helper.
Biden saying to "take the win" is akin to asking BIBI sleep with a grenade as Iran holds the pin. Yes a win, by Biden's standard of pusillanimity. but a incomprehensible loss by any rational standard.
As long as "this" Hamas organization of Islamist Terrorists lives more Israeli's and American's will eventually die.
Perhaps a new Hamas will be worse but Israel cannot afford he luxury of taking a chance. Time to strike Iran hard, go for the jugular.
Yes, easy for me say. +++ From: The Paul E. Singer Foundation
Dear friends,
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is set to impose new sanctions on Iran at the International Monetary Fund conference today. The Treasury department said it “will not hesitate to work with our allies to use our sanctions authority to continue disrupting the Iranian regime’s malign and destabilizing activity.” Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz has written to 31 other countries urging them to impose sanctions on Iran and designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
The House of Representatives is set to vote on four separate aid bills to American allies including Israel and Ukraine. Speaker Mike Johnson announced that he would attempt a legislative maneuver which would introduce the Senate aid bill from last month under a single debate rule which allows for separate votes for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the other foreign policy proposals.
If you have friends, family, or colleagues who may be interested in joining the distribution for this newsletter, please ask them to fill out this short Google form. R------ and M----
TPESF Operation Swords of Iron Daily Roundup ++++ 1. Biden and Bibi
A tense phone call between President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu after Iran's weekend strike and weeks of souring relations over Israel's Rafah operation have cast doubt on the extent of U.S. support for Israel. Anshel Pfeffer cuts through that cloud of doubt and argues in the Jewish Chronicle that Joe Biden has been one of Israel's most important allies:
This week President Biden surpassed his own record as an unparalleled ally of Israel when he created an ad-hoc international coalition with Britain, France and a number of key Arab countries to help shield Israel from the largest salvo of missiles and drones ever launched in one go by a single country.
Biden convinced the other partners to join this coalition, despite supporting Israel to the hilt since October 7 and having had his advice to Israel’s leaders over the past six months spurned every step of the way. Despite international support for Israel being at an all time low. And despite his own well founded distrust for Israel’s prime minister.
The coalition put together by Biden not only saved Israeli lives but has opened a way for Israel out of the strategic quagmire into which the Netanyahu government has led the country. At a time when the anger towards Israel in the Arab world over the situation in Gaza is at a peak, Biden motivated Arab regimes to cooperate in a military alliance protecting Israel against Iran. That would have been an unprecedented achievement in more normal times. That he has done it now, when he is paying a price domestically for his unstinting support of Israel, gives him a claim to be the staunchest ally of the Jewish people in history.
Without the Biden-organized coalition opposed to Iran’s strike, Pfeffer asserts that Israel would have faced a catastrophe degrees worse than October 7:
Biden didn’t just prevent such an outcome, he also demonstrated to the entire Middle East that an American-backed alliance between Israel and the moderate Arab regimes can effectively work together, openly, against Iran. Previous American presidents spoke about such alliances, but only Biden has proved it can work, and at the most unexpected moment.
“Israel has suddenly received a strategic opportunity,” an Israeli general said this week. “It’s like the moment we had just after October 7, when we had the sympathy of the world.” It hasn’t changed the situation on the ground in Gaza but it has brought home the fact that Hamas is on its own. Iran has been proved to be both unwilling, when it comes to using the Hezbollah card, and incapable, when it comes to the use of missiles fired from its own territory, to help Hamas.
The October 7 comparison is important. The disaster was averted on 14 April but if enough Iranian missiles had got through we would be talking now of yet another epic failure by Israeli intelligence — the assessment that Iran would not respond directly to the air strike on 1 April against the building in the Iranian embassy compound in Damascus, where seven IRGC officers, including a senior general, were killed. That assessment has now been shown as wrong. Since no Israelis were killed in Iran’s retaliation it’s going largely unmentioned, but it has certainly been noticed, as has been the decision by Israel’s leadership to act upon it.
In the Wall Street Journal, Walter Russell Mead contests Joe Biden's bona fides and warns that Biden has led Israel into harm's way:
“Take the win,” President Biden reportedly advised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after Iran’s unprecedented missile and drone attacks against Israel sputtered shambolically to an ignominious end.
As the world waits on tenterhooks for Israel’s response, two things seemed clear. It would be political suicide for Mr. Netanyahu to take the president’s advice, and it would be national suicide for any Israeli prime minister to do so. Mr. Biden is primarily worried about his re-election, a cause he conveniently if sincerely conflates with the survival of democracy in the U.S. and of freedom in the world. Israel is worried about something more tangible—the survival of the world’s only Jewish state. ...
What the president appears not yet to understand is that Iran has become so powerful, and America’s reputation as a source of sound policy and reliable support so weak, that only resolute American backing of our allies can turn the tide. This problem has been decades in the making. George W. Bush’s mismanagement in Iraq removed the one regional power capable of containing Iran on its own—without building an effective replacement.
Barack Obama’s feckless Syria policy gave Iran and its new best friend, Russia, a commanding position in the heart of the Middle East. Mr. Trump’s support for the Abraham Accords and tough policies toward Iran pointed in the right direction, but were mostly a case of too little, too late, and too erratic. Mr. Biden’s support for Israel is appreciated in Arab capitals as well as in Jerusalem, but his vacillations with Iran have further strengthened the ayatollahs and undercut America’s much-diminished prestige.
Mead argues that the Arab states didn't rush to Israel's defense out of fealty to the liberal world order. They did so out of interest. If Israel ignores this truth, Mead worries it will be truly alone when American support dries up:
From an Arab point of view, there are two things that make Israel valuable at a time of diminished confidence in the U.S. First, Israel sees the common fight against Iran as part of its own fight for survival. It will be a reliable ally because it has no choice. Second, Israel offers the mix of strength and relentlessness without which Iran cannot be stopped. At a time when liberal opinion in the U.S. was elegantly wringing its hands about Israeli ruthlessness in Gaza destroying any possibility of Arab-Israeli cooperation, Jordan and Saudi Arabia leapt to Israel’s defense against the Iranian attacks. The fastest way for Israel to lose friends in the Middle East would be to start thinking like American liberal foreign-policy hands.
This isn’t an ideal situation by any standard, and one may hope that better times will bring nobler views, but people fighting for their survival against an utterly amoral opponent will do what they must. Americans eager to critique what they see as the immorality of the region’s governments should reflect on the part our own poor choices have played in the deterioration of Middle Eastern security to its current abysmal state. ++++ 2. Jews and the Ivy League Ahead of Wednesday's House Committee on Education and Workforce Hearing on Columbia University's response to antisemitism, Tal Fortgang debates whether Jews ought to continue to engage with elite universities that are host to anti-Semites:
The case for Jews withdrawing from elite universities is strong. It presents itself most comprehensively when presidents and bureaucrats, who preen unrelentingly about the importance of making all groups feel safe and welcome, find themselves suddenly tongue-tied when Jews report feeling unsafe. The bureaucrats so quick to wield Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act to railroad students accused of unverifiable discomfort-inducing gender-based comments suddenly misplace their Civil Rights Act when rank national-origin discrimination is captured on camera. This illuminates an embarrassing irony: While elite schools go to great lengths to shield favored groups from words in the name of safety, and launch into action where evidence is scant, they drag their feet when defending disfavored groups’ physical safety in the face of violent assaults (notably at Harvard), false imprisonment (notably at the Cooper Union), and harassment (everywhere).
Aside from the hypocrisy, elite universities have revealed how degraded and morally inverted their “education” has become. Academic babble about identity and oppression provided the conceptual scaffolding for administrators and professors to excuse—and occasionally celebrate—the inexcusable. With each tenured Ivy League academic exclaiming his elation over Hamas’s massacre of children—because there are no innocent “occupiers” in the minds of cutting-edge academic theorists—the treason of the intellectuals becomes clearer. Top universities are not bastions of Jew-hatred despite being at the vanguard of progressive enlightenment but because of it.
While these universities claim to be about high principle and deep thought, their very sophistication has led them to the basest conclusion imaginable: aiding in-groups and punishing out-groups. Just as universities inculcate the belief that so-called powerless groups can be heroes for committing atrocities against “powerful” Jews in Israel, favored groups on campus are immune from consequences and are fêted for their social-justice activism when breaking campus rules (and even state law). For Jewish Americans, whose names adorn the buildings on which “glory to the martyrs” was projected, recognizing that the Jew had somehow become the enemy in yet another viral ideology, for little more than thriving when we weren’t supposed to, has been perhaps the most difficult part of all.
Fortgang asks why these institutions of higher learning have proven unwilling to protect Jews:
Unable” means “unwilling.” Universities can identify and expel every single person responsible for making Jews unsafe on campus. They choose not to, even when those same people flagrantly violate school rules against vandalism, disruption, harassment, and occupying buildings. The reasons for this are varied but not terribly complex. Partly it is not hatred of Jews but love of Mammon: It would be painful to part with all those Qatari riyals. As Neetu Arnold revealed in Tablet, “At elite universities…international students make up almost 25% of the student population” and “disproportionately pay full price for tuition and housing.” Many have been imported from the biggest Jew-hating countries around the world and would have to return there if expelled. MIT admitted it wouldn’t punish rule breakers subject to deportation if the students were found to be in violation of campus rules. Another hesitation is surely the poor optics of expelling these disproportionately “diverse” students.
And what of the white leftists, many of whom do not pay full tuition or boost diversity numbers? Put simply, they are allies of the mob, not enemies. Elite universities are proud to host dozens of identity-based social-justice clubs, full of radicals who will soon take the helm of our politics, or left-wing organizations such as the ACLU or the New York Times.
It is no coincidence that people gleefully calling for Israel’s destruction are vastly overrepresented on college campuses relative to the general population, even if administrators never meant to flood their campuses with open Jew-haters. This state of affairs is simply the natural consequence of molding the “campus community” in a certain image: ethnically diverse, moneyed, oriented not toward knowledge but social justice, prizing the pseudosophistication of the campus protest over the seismic potential of intellectually curious young people confronting Aristotle, Einstein, and da Vinci. At the most prestigious schools, where admissions officers can handpick the cleverest and most dedicated activists, these patterns are only more acute. Prestige and radicalism are now positively correlated and mutually reinforced.
Yet, Fortgang considers trade-offs associated with abandoning prestige institutions like the Ivies:
Let us address the trade-offs with candor, admitting that what draws us back to the Ivy League is its prestige. We need not be embarrassed about that. I am not ashamed to admit that I was once a young Jew far too concerned with being validated through a Princeton acceptance letter. I also wanted to know that the hard part was over—the ungodly hours I spent on my studies and extracurriculars in high school would soon pay off in the form of high-prestige, high-income, secure jobs. Like so many high-achieving students are now, I was motivated by a combination of the noble aspiration to use my abilities and credentials for good and the vainglorious desire for recognition.
What was and remains true of college applicants writ small is true of the Jewish community writ large. We want those credentials and high-paying jobs for altruistic reasons: We can give more tzedakah and defray the costs of Jewish education; advocate for our people in every arena; develop technologies that enhance human life; access leadership roles at large organizations to steer them in the direction of the good and righteous. But we are moved by more than altruism. A chip remains on our collective shoulders and accounts for our hesitancy to give up on brand-name schools at the top of the rankings. As a people, we still seek validation. Tell us we are as good as everyone else. Please, affirm that we are a light unto this nation.
This Diaspora mentality of perpetual outsider status only grows as elite schools play hard to get. But it is not necessary. The American people—not the sliver represented in the Ivy League, but the vast millions—do not need us to prove our worth before they will treat us as equals.
Put differently, the universities are not the only ones who have changed. We Jews have changed, too. In every way but mentality, we are no longer immigrants wary of overstaying our welcome. We are, in the eyes of our countrymen, full-fledged Americans who rightly believe in George Washington’s promise that we are not merely tolerated here. We have “made it” in America, not in the sense that we have shattered all glass ceilings or no longer need access to the engines of social mobility, but in the sense that if we want to go through our lives fully Jewish and fully American without explanation or apology, there are states and institutions happy to facilitate that. In Florida, Texas, and several other states, new programs are forming a nascent constellation of genuinely elite educational institutions dedicated to learning, not finishing. Rather than doing so by profiting off Jewish success, they seek our genuine partnership.
Fortgang urges Jewish parents to take the gamble and chose education over elitism:
Pivoting to non-brand-name institutions will doubtless feel like a major risk for Jewish parents who have invested so much time, money, and hope in their kids taking the elite-education route to success. It will be cold comfort to note that abandoning elite schools is a small sacrifice for the greater good of our people. It certainly pales in comparison with what 18-year-old Jews in Israel do. Perhaps more comforting is that older generations can help set these young Jews up for success by no longer treating Ivy League degrees as a golden ticket in their professional lives, and by redirecting donations from old elites to promising upstarts. Elite status is socially constructed. It currently does not reflect objective merit. We can—and should—deconstruct it.
Ditching elite schools is still a gamble, on ourselves and on a future in which civilization prevails over barbarism. But it can be self-fulfilling. Done conscientiously, our exodus can send a message to the next generation of Jews: The Ivies need us more than we need them. We don’t need the old badges of prestige to prove we are smart, or to reach the top of STEM, law, or the arts. It also signals to other Americans that we put our money on the long-term value of actual education, maintaining the long-standing Jewish faith in the power of critical thought. To join us is to express faith in the ethos of the liberal West, that producing valuable goods, services, and ideas for our fellow citizens is the path to fame and fortune. Together, we reject the prevailing view, which holds that true wisdom entails unraveling the West—and especially that the Jews should go back wherever they came from.
We Jews like to play up the centrality of education to our longevity and success. But emphasizing “education” is imprecise. We have valued a particular kind of education, one that supports moral and aesthetic formation, and knowledge that can help humanity flourish. Collecting degrees and accolades is not the essence of a Jewish education. Developing our individual talents to advance the good of our people, and the good of all decent people, is. Touting the number of Jewish Nobel Prize winners is wonderful for when we try to prove our worth as a people, but a self-confident Jewish nation needs no statistic to prove that we are equal participants in the American future. ++++ Wonderful nature! +++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From a friend and fellow memo reader.
+++ Dear Jack, you are too pro-Israel. I say this as a friend
Too pro-Israel? What is that? When I hear the opening notes to Hatikvah, I am touched so deeply that I can not resist weeping. It gets me all the time. Op-ed. By Jack Engelhard
“Dear Jack. You are losing readers, and as a huge fan of your books, allow me a few moments to tell you why.”
So begins a letter from a reader who names himself only as Earnest. I am curious as to what he has to say, as a critical huge fan.
He says two novels of mine are his favorites…first Indecent Proposal…’’the movie so goyish, that I was shocked to find the novel so Jewish. Beautifully written, as the Amazon reviewers say, but it begins and ends with Israel. Your Krav Maga chapter, the Jew against the Arab, is so meticulously orchestrated that it is unmatched on the art of self-defense. Joshua Kane is the champ, but Israel is the hero.
“Why Israel? i know the book is now a classic and an international bestseller, but Jack, the book could have sold many more copies if it weren’t so Israel.
“Is Israel so unconditionally perfect? In your eyes, yes. The same for your novel Compulsive, my favorite book of all time. I am a horseplayer myself, so I know what Gil Gilels is going through. In your fast-paced zip zip prose, he must navigate around a Soros type character to save himself, his aged parents, and Israel…chapter 22 the sum of it all.
“But Jack, why Israel? Israel is not popular these days. But you persist. Please explain.”
Dear Earnest…You may as well ask me why I love my wife, my children, my grandchildren unconditionally. This cannot be explained. Not in words.
Maybe in music. When I hear the opening notes to Hatikvah, I am touched so deeply that I can not resist weeping. It gets me all the time.
The emotion is inexplicable and overpowering. Emotion is a secret part of the heart. To say too much is to write it away.
I was raised in a Torah-loving home. Let me skip to a brief memory. When I was a child, my mother would start the water running for my bath.
This was okay until the water got too high. At least I thought so. I thought so because in that instant, the water menacingly rising, I was trapped with my people facing the Red Sea.
So real was the Torah to me…and so to this day.
To this day, a people returning home after a 2,000-year absence is the greatest love story ever told.
Yes, growing up, I had heroes in baseball…DiMaggio, Mantle…also hockey…Maurice Rocket Richard, Guy Lafleur…the movies, mostly Westerns.
But the biggest hero of them all was, and is King David. I am with him through all his trials and triumphs, and he speaks to me every day through his Psalms.
You could say that from David I take my cue. From Psalm to Psalm, David expresses his unconditional love for Israel. He cries to God for our sake.
David is no globalist liberal. He is openly disdainful of the other nations, particularly those who torment his people.
How did he know Hamas, from 3,000 years ago, and that at this moment, thousands of these nations, the great unwashed, are marching throughout America to protest Israel?
Their day will come. He saw the reckoning then, in his day, and he will see it again, in our day.
David writes that for God, the nations are toys, playthings. Only Israel is God’s treasure.
Similarly, Moses. A stiff-necked people? Yes. But Moses was all in for his Hebrews.
To prove his unconditional love, he declined God’s offer to destroy the people, and create a new nation from Moses’ seed.
Said Moses, “If you destroy them, O Lord, destroy me too.”
I still get chills when I study this.
This legacy is mine, and it is my privilege to honor it and pursue it in all my works…God give me the strength.
New York-based bestselling American novelist Jack Engelhard writes regularly for Arutz Sheva.
He wrote the worldwide book-to-movie bestseller “Indecent Proposal,” the authoritative newsroom epic, “The Bathsheba Deadline,” followed by his coming-of-age classics, “The Girls of Cincinnati,” and, the Holocaust-to-Montreal memoir, “Escape from Mount Moriah.” For that and his 1960s epic “The Days of the Bitter End,” contemporaries have hailed him “The last Hemingway, a writer without peer, and the conscience of us all.” Contact here. ++++ Beware of what the link below suggests if u open. A free Atlantic is a come on to turn you against Trump.. Atlantic is now owned by Bezos' radical former wife. He owns WAPO so he has a powerful news organ to protect him from his radical views and intentions and scare those in Congress.. +++ https://x.com/TrungTPhan/status/1780079761236316452 ++++ | 
No comments:
Post a Comment