Published on Feb 23, 2019


By Tony Lee
She said it is “very concerning” that the leaks all came from the Chicago Police Department and insisted that Smollett’s claim that he was attacked by two President Donald Trump supporters in near sub-zero temperatures in Chicago who were yelling “this is MAGA country” and hurling racial and homophobic slurs was “staunchly believable” as of two days days ago.
On February 19, when Sanders said she thought Smollett’s story was still “staunchly believable,” news reports had already surfaced that indicated that Smollett had paid two Nigerian-American brothers to orchestrate the attack after the the hate letter that he allegedly mailed to himself on the Empire set did not get enough attention. Celebrities such as Snoop Dogg and Dave Chappelle had already mocked Smollett for his alleged hoax while Cardi B had declared that Smollett “f*cked up Black History Month.”
“I have spoken with Jussie Smollett’s team. I’ve heard Jussie tell his account in his own words. And I want to tell you… When I had this conversation about two days ago, I believed him,” she insisted. “It was staunchly believable.”
Sanders said she only changed her mind when the video of the two Nigerian-American brothers buying ski masks and a red cap surfaced. Smollett reportedly paid the brothers $3,500 to stage the attack and gave them an additional $100 to buy supplies.
“When the video came out today of the two gentlemen buying what I’ve referred to as a hate crime starter pack, I, like everyone else, had questions,” Sanders said. “At this point, my thoughts are…. we need to see some of the evidence… I think it’s very concerning that all of these leaks came from the Chicago Police Department… So frankly all we have is leaks from the Chicago Police Department… now what they’ve said at this press conference and what Jussie Smollett and his team have said.”
Sanders insisted that “things do not add up here” and “this just doesn’t seem right” because, in reference to the $3,500 that Smollett reportedly paid to the brothers to stage the attack, “$3,500 won’t even buy a round-trip ticket to Nigeria.”
“So I, like many people in America, are confused… even though I’ve heard, I’ve seen what the police department’s said,” she said. “So at the very least I think we should see the police report.”
Sanders said Smollett has lost in the court of public opinion, adding that “this is not a good day for Jussie Smollet” and “frankly it’s a terrible day for folks who have not come forward who have experienced hate crimes and who now are maybe hesitant to come forward if something does actually happen to them because of this.”
“So it’s just not a good day,” Sanders said. “It’s still a terrible Black History Month.”

FEBRUARY 22, 2019
“America, let me just tell you something. Do not commit crimes with checks. If you’re going to break the law, do not write a check,” Barkley said, mocking Smollett for leaving a paper trail.
Barkley also poked fun at Hollywood actor Liam Neeson who recently admitted an urge to kill a “black bastard” after learning his friend was raped by an African American.
“Jussie, you wasted all that damn time and money. You know what you should have did? Just went up to Liam Neeson’s neighborhood. That would have solved all your damn problems,” chuckled Barkley.
Barkley’s co-host Shaquille O’Neil couldn’t stop laughing during the segment as Barkley relentlessly slammed Smollett’s poorly planned hoax.
Esquire Magazine called the rant “bizarre” and said the Liam Neeson joke was “turrible,” a shot at Barkley’s pronunciation of the word.

“In a word, it’s brutal. In a few more? It’s random, weird, and will make you uncomfortable,” Esquire wrote.
When Esquire posted the article to their Twitter account, the post was ratioed by users who slammed the fashion magazine.
Check out a sample of reactions from Twitter users below:




By PAUL BOIS
Over at MSNBC, Zach Stafford, Editor-in-Chief for the LGBTQ magazine The Advocate, went so far as to accuse Trump-loving cops in the Chicago P.D. of rigging the investigation in order to deal maximum damage to the disgraced actor.

According to Stafford, the Chicago P.D. intentionally leaked information pertaining to the investigation in order to destroy Smollett, alleging that the police called “it a racist and homophobic attack” even though it initially understood Smollett to be lying. Stafford claims this was all just a part of a broader setup.
“Personally, it was incredibly shocking on day one to see the police department call it a racist and homophobic attack. Their first statement — they exclusively said that, said they’re investigating it as a victim case,” Stafford said, according to Fox News. “As someone that has been investigating these for years in Chicago, that was really unprecedented before.”
Stafford went on to say that the Chicago P.D. essentially played into the victim narrative against Smollett in order to spring a trap on him.
“And a lot of the time people in the background were worried they were leaning into this victim part of the story because they didn’t believe him and they wanted to use it against him at the end when they were able to prove that he was lying,” Stafford continued.
The LGBTQ magazine editor went on to throw dirt at the Chicago P.D.’s past record of leaking information, saying they have a history of lying to the population.
“The police were openly confirming and not confirming certain reports and not doing it to other parts of the story, and so, due to the vocal nature in this case, it was really peculiar,” Stafford said. “Chicago has a deep history of openly lying to citizens. This police department did in 2016, openly through their union, support Donald Trump.”
Stafford suggests that the police union’s support of Trump indicates that there is reason not to believe them — especially in light of the information leaks.
“The central question of this case was, ‘Are Donald Trump supporters out here committing hate crimes?’ And that’s what really sparked a lot of the tension,” Stafford said. “To have a police department that hasn’t been as cooperative as they have been this round, do not openly give information, do openly lie and mishold information in cases and then to know that they…have openly supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election, a lot of activists on the ground are saying, ‘Wait, what’s going on here? Who do we believe out of these two suspect people.'”
In the end, Stafford suggested that even if Smollett were guilty of staging a hoax “hate crime,” he still highlighted a greater truth. “Jussie may have created this whole situation to highlight a reality that is happening every day,” he said. “Our current administration doesn’t support people like him — that are black and queer.”
By The Babylon Bee

But no. In the actual year 2019 that Trump has created, gay people are still being forced to attack themselves in the streets. Gay people, especially black gay people, have been so brainwashed by the messaging of Trump’s America that they are now hiring people to oppress them right out in the open.
This isn’t some third-world country where this is happening. This isn’t in some dystopian young adult fiction, where I get most of my political ideas. It’s here. It’s now. Every day, a gay person somewhere in this country hires a couple of Nigerian guys to make it look like he’s hated and oppressed.
We need to take a good, hard look in the mirror, America, and ask ourselves if this is who we want to be. We have allowed an evil movement of Trump supporters to take over our nation so effectively that we’re now paying people to dress up like them and beat us up. This won’t stand any longer. The time has come to say, “No more!”
May we look back a year from now and be able to declare proudly that the year is 2020 and the LGBT community is no longer compelled to pay people to oppress them. We owe it to our future, more progressive selves.
By

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” Harris reportedly said. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”
That statement followed a radio interview in which she explicitly agreed with the host when that “government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination.”
Warren echoed a similar sentiment.
“Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported,” The New York Times said.
The report said that Warren “declined to giver further details” about her reparations plan.
These are the same candidates that also support a “Green New Deal,” which will also cost trillions of dollars at the expense of the American taxpayer.
But there are more questions surrounding reparations than exactly how much they would cost.
Mainly, who would pay them?
Would reparations be paid only by white people who have slave-owning lineages, like Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia? Would I, as an Arab American whose family immigrated to the United States through Ellis Island, be required to pay for something in which my ancestors had no part?
Likewise, who exactly would receive them?
Would all blacks receive some form of reparations, regardless of whether their ancestors were slaves? What if someone is half black? Or a quarter? Is that person owed a fraction of the reparations of a fully black American?
And what about poor white people? There are millions of whites who “do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” as Harris argued. Will they be buried more deeply – will they have to become poorer – simply to atone for the color of their skin? Is that justice?
Most importantly, would reparations help repair the cultural strife in this country, which is mostly promulgated by the mainstream press for ratings and Democrat politicians for votes? Wouldn’t the Harris/Warren plan cause more strife and racial tension?
Do these loons really believe that – in a perfect world – reparations would be paid and everyone would simply shake hands, walk away, and that the country will be more united than it has ever been?
These are practical questions that remained unanswered by politicians who are race-baiting for votes.
By Grace Carr

Despite calls from both Fairfax accusers, Tyson and Meredith Watson, legislative leaders have failed to pursue appropriate action, according to an official statement from the law firm Katz, Marshall & Banks, which is representing Tyson.
The law firm represented Christine Blasey Ford in hearings regarding allegations brought against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“[T]he Virginia General Assembly has remained silent and has taken no action whatsoever in response to her allegations, even after a second woman, Meredith Watson, came forward to report that Lt. Governor Fairfax raped her while they were students at Duke University in 2000,” the statement reads.
While lawmakers in both parties have responded with words of concern, they have utterly failed to act and have stood idly by as Lt. Governor Fairfax has impugned Dr. Tyson’s actions as being politically motivated; verbally attacked Dr. Tyson and Ms. Watson; [and] threatened to file criminal charges against Dr. Tyson if she pursues criminal charges against him. … It now appears that the Virginia General Assembly lacks the political courage to establish a process by which Dr. Tyson and Ms. Watson’s serious allegations of sexual violence suffered at the hands of Lt. Governor Fairfax will be fully investigated. We ask the members of the Virginia General Assembly to consider what message such inaction sends to victims of sexual assault and rape.
Tyson alleges that Fairfax assaulted her while they were at a Democratic National Convention in 2004. Fairfax has vehemently denied the allegations and maintains their encounter was consensual.
Watson alleges that Fairfax raped her in 2000 while they were both students at Duke University. Fairfax has also denied Watson’s allegations. (RELATED: Second Fairfax Accuser Slams Calls For An ‘Investigation,’ Wants To Testify Publicly)
Thursday’s statement comes two weeks after Tyson first went public with allegations against Fairfax. Tyson has “made clear that she is willing to cooperate in any investigation by the Virginia General Assembly or other appropriate authorities,” the statement also says.
Virginia’s General Assembly is scheduled to adjourn Friday.
“It is unfathomable that the Virginia General Assembly appears intent on ending its current session without addressing this issue in any meaningful way. We call on the General Assembly to hire experienced independent investigators to conduct a prompt and thorough inquiry of these matters. Credible allegations of sexual assault must not be ignored,” the statement reads.
The assembly must act immediately because Tyson and Watson deserve better than supportive words, according to the statement. The statement also calls for “a credible, transparent process in which all sides have the opportunity to be heard.”
More than 150 alumnae of Watson’s alma mater, The Bryn Mawr School in Baltimore, Maryland, have signed a statement supporting Watson.
Virginia House Delegates Todd Gilbert and Tim Hugo did not immediately reply to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

By Josh Hammer
Bloomberg reports:
“The public will feel rightly that there is a coverup” if details are withheld, [Blumenthal] told CNN Thursday.
Blumenthal, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he hopes the Republican-led panel would be among the congressional committees that seek to compel the release of any details that aren’t forthcoming. The subpoenas could seek the full report or even Mueller himself. “A Senate or House committee can subpoena anyone,” he said.
As Bloomberg notes, Mueller is expected to submit his report’s final prosecutorial decisions to Barr as early as next week. Barr, as Attorney General, then retains ultimate discretion as to how to act (or not) upon the report’s conclusions and recommendations.
As Roll Call notes, Barr has been noncommittal as to whether he would permit Mueller to testify before Congress, as well as whether he would resist a hypothetical subpoena for Mueller’s report.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, echoed Barr’s comments last month. As CNN reported, at the time, Nadler told Anderson Cooper at the time: “If necessary, our committee will subpoena the report. If necessary, we’ll get Mueller to testify. The American people need the information here.”
As The Daily Wire reported earlier today, CNN appears to be actively attempting to lower its viewers’ expectations as to what to expect from the Mueller report’s impending release:
Asked by “New Day” host Alisyn Camerota Wednesday if he believed the Mueller investigation would find “enough” to take down Trump, former National Intelligence Director and rabid anti-Trump CNN analyst James Clapper attempted to temper the audience’s expectations.
“That’s the big question,” Clapper said. …”I think the hope is that the Mueller investigation will clear the air on this issue once and for all. I’m really not sure it will, and the investigation, when completed, could turn out to be quite anti-climactic and not draw a conclusion about that.”
The Mueller investigation has been dominating news cycles for much of the past week, due in no small part to the firestorm caused by fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s remarkable “60 Minutes” interview with Scott Pelley, in which McCabe claims that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had openly discussed the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment after President Trump’s firing of then-FBI Director James Comey. Last week, The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti reported:
The New York Times reports that McCabe claims “top Justice Department officials were so alarmed by President Trump’s decision in May 2017 to fire James B. Comey, the bureau’s director,” that they reached out to individual Cabinet members to judge their receptiveness to triggering the removal clause of the 25th Amendment, which allows the Cabinet to “vote out” a president who is incapacitated or otherwise unable to fulfill the duties of his job.
McCabe also claims that Comey’s firing “prompted Mr. McCabe to order the bureau’s team investigating Russia’s election interference to expand their scope to also investigate whether Mr. Trump had obstructed justice.”