monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

POLL: 91% say mob violence "helps Trump by proving his point"

The vast majority of respondents say the current riots and violence happening in some U.S. cities "Helps Trump by proving his point." That's according to the results of the latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com.

Of more than 1,000 people who responded, 91% said it proves Trump's point. Only 1% said it "Helps Biden: Trump wants violence."

Six percent (6%) said the violence "Helps neither."

Facebook Declares Kyle Rittenhouse’s Actions ‘Mass Murder,’ Won’t Allow Posts in Support

Facebook is officially designating the actions of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old who allegedly killed two people and wounded another in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after being mobbed and attacked by rioters, a “mass murder,” despite the fact that this has not been proven in court. Facebook confirmed that it would remove any posts that support Rittenhouse.

On my second FB "ban" in five weeks. Apparently it's "hate speech" to say that the platform is protecting convicted felons Epstein and Weinstein, because Zuckerberg is also Jewish, and also made his way to paedophile island.

Previously, a comment I made "Who needs gas" violated their "arms and munitions" protocols, despite the conversation being about rocket stoves.

I don't see them lasting much longer.

The Rittenhouse thing is going to hurt them.

Credibility is nearing 0.

Knee-jerk reactionaries are the new normal.

You strike me as a "Blame Trump" type of person.

You are from Australia? Someone else here was from Australia though their name escapes me.

If there was any question before about whether William Barr could be willing to use his power as attorney general to tilt the scales in the upcoming presidential election, there shouldn't be anymore. Barr appeared to confirm as much in his interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN Wednesday: that he would be willing to breach longstanding Justice Department norms -- that is, the unwritten "60-day rule" -- to advantage the re-election campaign of President Donald Trump.

Barr also continued to claim that mail-in ballots provide potential for widespread fraud. "Elections that have been held with mail have found substantial fraud and coercion," he said.
When asked by Blitzer whether he could cite any prosecutions relating to this purportedly widespread criminal phenomenon, Barr responded by citing one case -- yes, one.

Blitzer asked: "You've said you're worried a foreign country could send thousands of fake ballots ... what are you basing that on?"
"Logic," Barr replied. "But have you seen any evidence?," Blitzer pressed? "No," Barr replied.
I'm trying to envision what would have happened in my Justice Department days if I had made a crucial assertion about a case and, when asked by a judge for proof, responded that I had none -- but it was "logic." It would not have ended well.

Barr has made entirely clear that he intends to continue parroting Trump's most paranoid, cooked-up conspiracy theories about massive fraud in mail-in voting. If we end up in a dreaded (but eminently possible) contested election scenario, Barr is offering plenty of reason to expect that he would be prepared to use the might of the Justice Department to swing the outcome towards Trump.

The attorney general also tipped off another trick he may have up his sleeve. Traditionally, the Justice Department will not announce a new case that has political implications within this period. This 60-day rule (or the "blackout rule," as it is sometimes called) reflects the Justice Department's vital commitment to keep its awesome prosecution power out of electoral politics wherever possible.
In essence, unless it is absolutely unavoidable, the Justice Department will refrain from announcing new charges or from taking overt investigative steps (such as executing a search warrant) that might impact an upcoming election. As the Republican-appointed Mukasey stated while serving as attorney general, "Simply put, politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges."

But contrary to Justice Department practice under both political parties, Barr is keeping the door wedged open to deliver Trump a September or October surprise.
Barr had already signaled that he will not respect the 60-day rule as it relates to any potential indictments resulting from the ongoing investigation by John Durham into the origins of the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. When asked during his House Judiciary Committee testimony in July 2020 whether he would observe the 60-day rule relating to the Durham investigation, Barr responded flatly, "No." Barr reiterated in his interview with Blitzer that he is aware of the rule but does not believe it necessarily applies to the Durham investigation. He said: "I will handle these cases as appropriate, and I do not think anything we do in the Durham investigation is going to be affecting the election."
... ... ...

Barr appeared to confirm as much....

Hearsay based on hearsay.