Archive for the ‘NEWS’ Category

James A., PhD

Twitter has now permanently suspended my account. No reason was given, but the last tweets that I published were screenshots sent to Trump, and several Republican senators with evidence that Trump’s Twitter feed was being censored.

On February 13, 2019, Trump had a yuge rally in El Paso Texas. Much of his speech echoed his epic State of the Union address. Immediately after the rally, Trump tweeted a photo of the massive audience which included several video excerpts from his speech at the rally. Since mainstream media always takes truncated clips of Trump’s speeches out of context, using Twitter has been Trump’s way of reporting what HE actually said, and last night, Twitter was trying to prevent Trump’s tweet from going viral, and I had proof.

Not only was “El Paso” not trending even though it had over 400 thousand tweets ascribed to the subject, but Trump’s tweet showed up ONLY on the El Paso hashtag, but did NOT show up on his own timeline. Within 30 minutes of sending the evidence for this to several FOX News reporters and US Senators, my account was permanently banned without explanation.

Part of my recent tweets also included criticism of Democrat Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, for her antisemitic rhetoric. Given that I am half Native American and Jewish ethnically, Omar’s comments were particularly offensive. Omar also cause Jewish journalist, Laura Loomer, to be banned from Twitter.


I’m just one more Christian conservative in a long line of other conservatives who have been censored by Twitter.



One thing I discovered with my new Twitter account is just how bad I was shadow banned on the suspended account. Below is the “tale of 2 screenshots”. The first one is my suspended account. My last tweet generated only 100+ impressions, which should be MUCH, MUCH higher given that I had @26 thousand followers, and the hashtags and names tagged. The new account, which barely has any followers, generated nearly twice as many impressions. fff

James A., Ph.D

In Brannon Howse’s new book, Marxianity, Howse devotes a chapter to the migration crisis that is crippling Europe right now. However, although Howse doesn’t address the so-called “Russian Collusion” accusation by Democrats and RINOs, I think he has inadvertently exposed a fatal flaw in the Russian Collusion canard that proves Russian president Vladimir Putin would’ve never wanted Donald J. Trump to become president of the United States.

It is already a well established fact that Obama and Hillary Clinton worked out a plan that netted Putin 20% of American uranium through the Uranium 1 deal, and Hillary’s 2016 campaign staff in cooperation with FBI, DOJ, and UK officials worked with Russian intelligence to fabricate a dossier that provided the grounds for a FISA warrant used to spy on the Trump campaign (with information illegally obtained from the FISA warrant fueling Robert Mueller’s targeting of “suspects” to interrogate). It is becoming painfully obvious that there is a Democrat/Russian connection that involves a scheme to destabilize sovereign countries through the massive influx of immigrants which has given rise to hoards of Islamic terrorism and rape in Germany, England, France, and Sweden and elsewhere.

So while Democrats accuse Trump and his campaign staff of colluding with Russia, the facts are pretty clear that the accusations are a smoke screen to hide their cooperation with Russia in using not only ISIS, but Islamic migration in general to cause chaos from which they will ultimately use to forge a solution that involves global governance and full-blown communism. President Trump’s border policies, and his demand for a wall in particular to secure the US southern border, would be a direct threat to one of Putin’s-and the Democrat’s-largest schemes in destabilizing the US, and Putin’s plan on using Islam as a proxy army against conservative Americans. There’s no way that Putin would’ve ever sanctioned a scheme that made Donald Trump the president of the United States of America.

Here are the facts explicating the Nyquist-Cernea white paper on Russia’s weaponization of Islam excerpted from Howse’s Marxianity.

*In a recently published article by the Katehon Institute in Russia, B. Ozerov explained that the Soviet government in 1918 “was guided by understanding Islam as a close ideology to the communist doctrine.” After all, Islam favored ideals of equality, social justice, and the redistribution of wealth. According to Ozerov, Moscow’s initial plan in the region was to “transform Islam into an Eastern edition of Communism…”

*Some of our sources have claimed that modern terrorism was introduced to the Muslims by the communist block a half a century ago. This point must not be forgotten when evaluating the left’s strange love affair with Islam. “From the very beginning,” said former KGB Lt. Col. Konstantin Preobrazhensky, “the so-called Bolsheviks, or communists, were considering Muslims as the reserve [army], as the human resource for the world revolution.”

*Prof Przemyslaw Zurawski Vel Grajewski, is one of Poland’s best political analysts…According to Prof. Zurawski, the Russians are not responsible for all the refugees who have flooded in Europe, but is is certain “they did their best to make [the problem] larger…to confuse the political scene in European countries…as much as they can.

*In July 2005 the Russian KGB/FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko told the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita that Ayman al-Zawahiri (then Al-Qaeda’s second in command) was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in 1997.

*The Ukrainian MP, Anton Gerashchenko speaking on TV Channel News One, stated: “The crisis of migrants in Europe arose because of Putin. The war in Syria began in 2011, but migrants flooded [Europe] like a large river in the spring of 2015. Russia made a decision after Europe imposed economic sanctions on Russia: ‘Let’s create problems for them.’ They created a problem: $1,000 was allocated for the head of [each] refugee who will be taken from Syria to Europe. A million refugees are a billion dollars. This is nothing to Putin…” The cost to Europe, however, is much more than $1 billion. Gerashchenko added that an atmosphere of xenophobia has been created in Europe along with the growing influence of various nationalist parties, which are known for their favorable position toward Putin’s Russia.

*The Romanian intelligence defector, Lt. Gen. Ion Mahai Pacepa has described Moscow’s use of Arab terrorist organizations throughout the Cold War in his books. We know that Russia stands firmly behind the Islamic terror regime in Tehran [Iran].

*As reported by the BBC, U.S. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the senior NATO commander in Europe, said that Russia and Syria were “deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.” He cited Russia’s use of barrel bombs against Syrian civilians. What was the purpose of such indiscriminate attacks? The purpose was, he said, to “get them [masses of people] on the road” to Europe.

*In terms of the Muslim refugee crisis in Europe: reports of ISIS training camps in Russia, reports of GRU/SVR and Russian Mafia assistance to a massive influx of refugees, reports of Russian infiltration of terrorist organizations throughout the Muslim world, etc., constitute a loaded gun.




James A., Ph.D

On December 13, 2018, The Daily Caller (“DC”) (founded by Tucker Carlson of FOX News) published an article claiming that Dr. Jerome Corsi helped raise $25,000 for a doctor that didn’t exist. I will direct the reader to the article so as to not take credit for their work and to avoid redundancy in repeating the same claims.

Corsi’s lawyer, Larry Klaymen, posted a response to the article here. 

For the following reasons, I believe Jerome Corsi knowingly and intentionally engaged in wire fraud, theft, conspiracy to defraud,  and assisted in a scam that bilked $25,000 from his followers to endorse a cause he knew to be fraudulent. I do not say this lightly. I have been a fan of Corsi’s for several years, and own some of his well-researched books. I supported and defended Jerome Corsi when he was attacked by the “Q Anon” crowd in April of 2018 [I believe Q Anon is an absolute fraud and have posted quite a bit of evidence on my Twitter page to prove it]

Let me address why I think every excuse that Corsi and Larry Klaymen-who I have a lot of respect for-have made in their defense against the Daily Caller article are absurd.

The Daily Caller Article Is Based On A Mueller Leak?

Corsi is the target of a Robert Mueller probe where Mueller is seeking to connect Corsi to Roger Stone and Wikileaks. I do not think Mueller can prove that, nor do I think Wikileaks got any of their information from Russian agents, so the entire premise of Mueller’s witch hunt is based on a question begging presupposition. Nevertheless, Corsi has asserted that Mueller tried to set him up to lie against president Trump, and the information obtained by the Daily Caller is just another one of those attempts to vilify Corsi. At most, I think that’s a half truth.

However, let’s assume arguendo that Mueller did leak the information. So what? That doesn’t prove that the content of the DC article is inaccurate. In fact, most conservatives point out that the attacks on Wikileaks should not detract from what’s revealed in them. Criticizing the DC article based solely on HOW the DC obtained is known as a pyschogenetic fallacy, and dismissing it based solely on its source is a classic genetic fallacy. The response offered by Klaymen does nothing to address the merits of the facts and arguments raised by the DC, and therefore the arguments Klaymen and Corsi raise against the DC article that are based solely on its source and how it was obtained are fallacious and erroneous.

Furthermore, what exactly did Mueller leak? Corsi published several videos endorsing the Go Fund Me campaign, offered several links to the “doctor’s” website, publicly named the person (Thomas Sickler) he was raising funds for and even had some fancy campaign videos made for him and publicly stated that his wife’s cousin was treated by this doctor (“Mendelsohn”) in Israel. So what exactly did Mueller convey to Chuck Ross (the author of the DC article) that wasn’t already open source, public information? All of these facts are listed in the DC article with the links where they can be verified.

It is interesting that of all the public appearances Corsi made on FOX and Youtube following his Mueller interrogation, which included the claims that Mueller was targeting his stepson, Corsi never mentioned that Mueller was also looking into his Go Fund Me campaign reference by the DC article. In my opinion, Mueller likely didn’t know about the Go Fund Me (given what Corsi himself told us about the interrogation) but now, Corsi is attempting to insert a peremptory defense in the event the Mueller uses it against him. In other words, if Mueller can’t charge Corsi with collusion, he’ll turn to the Go Fund Me fiasco, and when he does, Corsi can say “we told you so”. It’s kind of a round-about way of preventing Mueller from using the Go Fund Me campaign against him, but if he does, it will be bootstrapped to his argument as proof that Mueller leaked the information to Chuck Ross.

Corsi Endorsed The Campaign With A Personal Testimony

Jerome Corsi claimed that his wife’s cousin was treated by this doctor in Israel. Even if the “doctor” (“Mendelsohn”) and the “cancer victim” (“Sickler”) (who may be the same person given that the organization’s medical practice website in Florida is registered in the “cancer victim’s” name) had “misled” Corsi, and were the ones scamming him, Corsi would’ve known that the practice was a scam once his wife’s cousin arrived in Israel and realized that no such doctor existed. That would likely make for one very angry cousin if she was truly suffering from cancer and traveled from Argentina to Israel only to find that no such treatment is available at the hospital where it is claimed to be practiced at, nor does the doctor exist who is claimed to be its champion.

Corsi’s followers may have been reluctant to contribute to this campaign, but given Corsi’s endorsement of the treatment, and his claim that the doctor cured his wife’s cousin, Corsi put any doubt to rest and put his potential contributors at ease by vouching for the cancer treatment.

Was Corsi Duped and Mislead by Dr. Mendelsohn and Thomas Sickler?

Corsi asserts that it’s possible that he was mislead or “bamboozled” by Sickler and the doctor, but that he genuinely believed that Sickler was a cancer patient and the Dr. Mendelsohn was a real doctor. HOWEVER, keep in mind it was Corsi’s claim that this doctor healed his wife’s cousin that gave credence to the claims of the medical treatment, and therefore, for the endorsement of Sicker’s campaign. That means that the narrative about Corsi’s cousin came BEFORE the campaign was started for Thomas Sickler. Hence, Corsi knew it was fraud before he started the campaign on Sickler’s behalf.

Moreover, how ironic is it that the “cancer patient” Corsi was raising funds for just happens to also be the same patient who owns the website for one Dr. Eliad Mendelsohn? If the doctor was a fraud when Corsi sent his wife’s cousin to Israel (if THAT is even true: we haven’t heard from the cousin), he was a fraud when Corsi established the campaign for Sickler, and Corsi knew it. But my, what a coincidence that Corsi just happens to run into the very person who created Dr. Mendelsohn after his cousin returning from Israel would’ve told him that no such doctor exists! This clearly implies that not only did Corsi know that Dr. Mendelsohn did not exist, but implies he knew who was behind the fraud because the odds that he would start a Go Fund Me campaign for the very person who created Dr. Mendelsohn after knowing that his wife’s cousin was not treated by any such person, while not being suspect about the person approaching him for the need to be treated by this “doctor” would be astronomical.

Therefore, it appears to me that Jerome Corsi knew all along that the Dr. Mendelsohn “cancer treatment” was fraudulent, and he compounded the scam by lying about the treatment of his wife’s cousin which gave the campaign a veridical appearance, when in fact, it resulted in defrauding hundreds of people who contributed to what they thought was a genuine campaign to treat a cancer patient.


I am not only disappointed in Jerome Corsi as a long time faithful follower of his, but I am angry. Corsi has given the impression that he is a Christian, and has declared that he would not accept Robert Mueller’s plea agreement because he could not “lie before God and country” to something he knows to be a lie. And yet, it is obvious to me that Corsi lied about the Sickler/Mendelsohn Go Fund Me campaign. These kind of actions give other Christians a bad name, and it should be called out.

Corsi owes his followers an apology. He owes his followers reimbursement for their contributions to this campaign. Corsi should also be criminally prosecuted for theft and conspiracy to defraud the contributors (note: Corsi denies receiving any of the proceeds of the campaign, but at this point, I believe even that needs to be investigated).

One of my biggest complaints against the current Trump presidency is that not enough has been done to drain the swamp. I believe Mueller’s inquisition is a witch hunt, and good people like Mike Flynn are being destroyed while crooks and liars like Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Eric Holder, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein and the rest of the Deep State cabal seem to get away with murder. It’s obvious that there’s one standard of justice and another for conservatives. Nevertheless, it numbs the mind to think that Corsi should be exonerated merely because Deep State actors aren’t held accountable for their actions. Corsi should be held to the same standards as anyone else, and any defense of Corsi’s actions are inexcusable. I pray Corsi seek’s the counsel of the Lord, and after some long reflection comes to repentance.

James A., Ph.D

“Creepy Porn Lawyer”, Michael Avenatti, was arrested on or about November 14, 2018, for felony domestic battery. Although Avenatti denies being either “charged”, or accused of a felony, the LAPD website states both: that Avenatti was not only “charged”, but charged with a class F Felony.

After Avenatti’s release on $50,000 bail, Avenatti accused Jacob Wohl of orchestrating a smear campaign against him. In other words, Avenatti was arrested not because he actually assaulted someone, but because there’s a vast conspiracy between Jacob Wohl and the Los Angeles Police Department (which just happens to be one of the most liberal strongholds in the country).

For the following reasons, this accusation against Wohl is patently absurd.

1. Avenatti’s grounds for this accusation seems to be based on a single tweet made by “Surefire Intelligence” which stated simply, “Surefire strikes again”. It is obvious that the tweet was not an admission to Wohl’s “complicity” in Avenatti’s arrest, but a sentiment that they thought they were  first to circulate the story, which is a common “puffing” tactic used by all news reporting agencies and marketers. Even if Surefire was playing head games with Avenatti, that’s not evidence that Wohl was behind Avenatti’s arrest.

2. The reports which rely heavily on TMZ and AP Network News, who report getting their information from the LAPD, state that the victim reporting the incident had visible injuries. The injuries were serious enough to charge Avenatti with a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor. To think Wohl orchestrated the physical, visible bruises on the victim is absurd. Avenatti has attacked TMZ for being part of the “conspiracy” against him as well because it’s owner is friends with President Trump, even though TMZ has quite a plethora of negative anti-Trump articles. However, ironically, Avenatti is silent on the same reporting done by AP, who is clearly not Trump-friendly.

3. Avenatti was arrested for a DOMESTIC battery, which typically indicates the victim and perpetrator were in a close relationship.* This is also supported by the fact that the victim obtained a restraining order (screenshot of relevant portion of the article below) against Avenatti on November 15, 2018. The fact that the victim feared that Avenatti would return not only shows trauma, but also shows that Avenatti and the victim knew each other, and knew each other long enough for there to have been a relationship. For Wohl to have orchestrated this, he would have to have known who Avenatti was dating, and then somehow, convinced the victim to cooperate in a conspiracy to have Avenatti arrested for battery, in addition to being willing to take a punch.

To think that Wohl just schmoozed into this woman’s life and someone convinced a girl he didn’t know to accuse her boyfriend of domestic abuse is just absurd. How did Wohl know who Avenatti was dating? How did Wohl know where they lived?  Note that in all of Avenatti’s public statements, he has not denied knowing the woman, he has not denied having a relationship with the woman, and he has not directly accused the woman or Jacob Wohl of knowing each other.

4. Avenatti is reported to have told the police, “she hit me first”. Avenatti has not denied that he made this statement to police. This statement made in the heat of the incident would be considered in law “res gestae, excited utterance”. These kind of utterances are often the most powerful statements because they reflect what a person is thinking and feeling in the moment without having time to reflect on how they could have or should have responded differently, and before you give your official spin narrative to the media. The fact that Avenatti has claimed he never hit the woman, AT ALL, yet claims that she hit him first based on his excited utterance shows that not only is he lying about hitting her, but is trying to give the impression that even if he did, it would be OK to crush a woman’s face simply because she hit him first.

So much for “believe survivors”, and “believe women”.

The media, and Avenatti’s supporters have pointed to another incident in where they accuse Wohl of orchestrating an attack against Robert Mueller. Even if this were true (and there’s no proof that it is), it is a post hoc ∴ propter hoc fallacy to claim that Wohl is behind the Avenatti arrest based solely on Avenatti’s question-begging premise that Wohl orchestrated a “Mueller smear”.

Thus ultimately, the only grounds so far that Avenatti has put forward in an attempt to substantiate his claim that Jacob Wohl was behind his arrest is a single tweet that is quite ambiguous. This is just sloppy, irresponsible lawyering, and hardly constitutes evidence of a conspiracy.

Unfortunately, California is an activist state. It is where the ACLU goes judge shopping, and where courts have exonerated illegal immigrants in the face of overwhelming evidence of murder, and warned them in advance of impending arrests by ICE. It is highly likely, in my opinion, Avenatti will seek the assistance of the US Senator over Los Angeles, Dianne Feinstein, the senator who was involved in smearing Justice Kavanaugh, who will then put pressure on local LAPD officials and the mayor, and thus it is unlikely Avenatti will face any real consequences, and the victim will not get any real justice. But until the case against Avenatti has been adjudicated, it is absurd to make Jacoh Wohl into a patsy, and direct public ire against him without any evidence whatsoever that Wohl had anything to do with putting Michael Avenatti’s fist into the face of his girlfriend as reported by the LAPD, TMZ, and AP.  All Avenatti is doing at this point is harpooning the public pool of opinion. “Harpooning the jury” is a lawyer tactic where even though a lawyer knows a comment will be objected to and ordered stricken from the record, it nevertheless stews in the minds of the jurors and can often be persuasive in deliberations. It is clear that’s what Avenatti is doing. Even though there’s absolutely no substance to his accusations, he’s employing a common propaganda technique to deflect and project the entire case onto Jacob Wohl. In my opinion, if all this is true, Avenatti should take the advice of Jacob’s father:

*Although it appears that the victim was misidentified at first as Avenatti’s ex-wife, Lisa Avenatti, it is clear that Avenatti was accused of hitting SOMEONE. It would not be difficult for any media to make this kind of mistake given that Avenatti was charged with a domestic battery, and his last known spouse was Lisa Avenatti. However, domestic battery can include a girlfriend. What Avenatti has attempted to do is deny that any person was assaulted at all by laying the entire alleged assault on Lisa, and since Lisa denies being the victim, ergo it follows that no victim exists at all and the event as alleged never happened. Again, bad lawyering and really bad logic.

James A., Ph.D,

Tucker Carlson made headlines the week of November 7-8, 2018, as the domestic terrorist groups, Antifa, Smash Fascism, with Think Progress, surrounded his home, tried to break into his house, threatened him with mail bombs, and terrorized his wife.

But over the weekend, we learned there was another event that precipitated this, which Tucker was trying to keep a low profile on to protect his children. According to a statement by Tucker Carlson, a Leftist confronted his daughter, and called her Tucker’s whore. His daughter returned to their table in tears, and the Leftist was subsequently confronted by Tucker and his son. The restaurant investigated the matter and suspended the Leftist’s membership.

It has been said that it’s not the crime, but the cover up that always seems worse, and in this instance, Creepy Porn Lawyer, Michael Avenatti, takes the cake. In a not-really-surprising twist, Avenatti is representing the Leftist who accosted the Carlson family, and is attempting to spin the narrative, and accuse the Carlson’s of doing exactly what his client did to them. Of course, this isn’t the client’s first rodeo with an establishment like this. Avenatti’s client, Juan Granados, once sued a Virginia Health Club over similar allegations (we’ve also seen similar tactics like this from the LGBT Mafia who target Christian businesses, like cake shops).

Avenatti released the following statement on Twitter, which was preceded by several other tweets (which will all be addressed below), and it is my purpose to challenged every statement made.

First of all, let’s address the elephant in the room. Given that the November attack by Antifa at Tucker’s residence was about his opinion over the Honduran caravan approaching the border, it is beyond ironic that the Leftist accosting his family at the restaurant just happens to be “an immigrant”. What a great way to spin a narrative than by claiming that Tucker’s family conspired to attack an immigrant, giving the impression that his views on FOX about the caravan are actually based on racism. Secondly, are we really supposed to believe that Carlson’s entire family was involved in some vast conspiracy to find a gay Latino at a restaurant to confront him over his immigration status, as opposed to visiting the restaurant to enjoy a meal with family? What’s entirely missing from Avenatti’s narrative is how this conflict arose in the first place if he’s denying that he did what the Carlson’s say he did.

Inappropriate Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

Avenatti attempts to commit a common fallacy of appealing to credentials and authority to bolster his client’s credibility (as he attempted to do with a Kavanaugh accuser, Julie Swetnick). In other words, my client isn’t guilty because he’s an activist in good standing with his activist community. It also begs the question: how do we know he has great character? I would argue, however, that his activism is what makes him more suspect, not a credible witness. Leftists have adopted a win-by-any-means-necessary revolutionary tactic, and seeking out the Carlson family in a restaurant attempting to provoke a confrontation and then use it to create a false narrative in the mainstream media against Carlson is not beyond the type of typical tactics we’ve seen from the Left.

1. Granados claims that he has witnesses that claim he did not call Tucker’s daughter a whore or a cunt. Yet none of those witnesses have provided a statement which as Avenatti well knows, is hearsay. So on point 1, it’s the word of Granados against Tucker and his two children, and other witnesses in a video that Avenatti audaciously claims supports his client.

The obvious question looming here is how the Carlson’s came into contact with Granados in the first place? In a short one minute video posted Avenatti, Avenatti argues for Granados that Tucker told him to “go back where you came from”, yet this would require Tucker to know where he came from. How would Tucker have known that? The video shows nothing of the sort. There are numerous voices shouting, and a lot of profanity exchanged, but what is never said is “go back where you came from”. Avenatti is attempting to “Acosta” the video, make you see something or not see something based on gaslighting. In fact, the video shows that other witnesses support Tucker’s claim. One witness attempting to get Granados to leave says, “you’re going to defend that guy? [uses thumb to point to Granados] Did you see what he did?”.

2. Granados then claims that Tucker’s daughter never returned to her table in tears. How would he know that? Did he follow her back to the table? What made him pay attention to her in the first place if he claims the confrontation never happened? Isn’t it kind of odd that he would be watching her return to a table after a confrontation he says didn’t occur? In denying the description provided by Tucker’s daughter on this point, Granados actually incriminates himself.

3. Granados then asserts that Tucker and his son are/were the aggressors “as shown in the video”. As stated above, the video shows nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the video is taken AFTER the incident described by Tucker Carlson’s statement. This is the equivalent of the older brother punching his little brother in the stomach (remember “The Good Son”!), and then filming his brother’s reaction for the purpose of blaming the victim for being aggressive. The video does nothing to refute what Carlson claims happened before the video was taken. Moreover, it would be even more suspicious if there just happened to be a camera rolling ab initio.

4. Granados alleges that Tucker’s daughter was drinking, and was “underage at 19”. First of all, how does this creep know how old she is? Granted, he could have learned that later, but a statement such as what Avenatti is providing is supposed to recite events AS YOU WERE AWARE OF THEM AT THE TIME, not as you became aware of them later, and Granados is affirming that he knew of her age AT THAT TIME. Was he stalking Tucker’s daughter? Furthermore, Granados never mentions how he knew Tucker’s daughter was drinking an alcoholic beverage. Did he ask the bartender what he served her? Did Avenatti get a statement from the bartender? Is this even true at all? Perhaps the bar was the closest place to get a refill on a soda without having to wait for a waitress. This statement is unproven and slanderous, and frankly, the restaurant should sue Granados for defamation by accusing them of serving alcohol to minors.

It is extraordinary how much Granados seems to know about where Tucker’s daughter sat, what she drank, that she traveled to a bar on several occasions, and whether or not she was crying, all while denying he never had any contact with her that night as described by Tucker. For a person who didn’t know what she was talking about, he sure knows an awful lot about her, and her activities at the restaurant.


Now that we’ve disposed of the Granados statement, and the video, let’s move on to Avenatti’s explanatory tweets (I’m going to skip some of the first tweets because they are redundant to what his client argues in his written statement above, and those arguments have already been addressed).

In Tweet 2/3, Avenatti posts, 

2/3 – and battery (on video). You are the aggressor in the video as is your friend. The man at the bar sits there calmly. Numerous witnesses contradict your claim of innocence. Your daughter was drinking underage in a bar with your assistance and knowledge. You were intoxicated.

At first, Avenatti claimed that Tucker’s daughter was “LIKELY” drinking underage. Then he moves to claiming it as an absolute fact that not only was Tucker’s daughter drinking, but that Tucker himself was intoxicated. How does Avenatti know either statement is true, and where are the witnesses and forensic evidence to prove his statements? This is a defamatory claim that the Carlson family should sue Avenatti for.

Secondly, Avenatti claims that “numerous witnesses” contradict Tucker, but then why is he asking for help to find witnesses? If there were numerous witnesses, shouldn’t Avenatti already know who they are and obtained and published their statements? It seems the strategy is to create the narrative first, then search for the elements necessary to prove the crime later. Publicizing only one small part of the story allows activists to come forward claiming they were there, when all of the evidence that Avenatti claims he relies on should’ve been presented before making his claims.

2/2 – We are attempting to locate additional witnesses and to identify those depicted in the video. In particular, we need assistance identifying the balding man that grabs the man seated at the bar. We anticipate charges being filed. Anyone with knowledge, pls contact us.

Finally, Avenatti asks in a tweet,

3/3 – You told the man to “go back where you came from” before the video starts. And if you were so innocent, why didn’t you disclose it weeks ago as you recently did in connection with the protest at your home?

Tucker already explained why he never mentioned this incident, an explanation that is ignored by Avenatti, and it’s more than a reasonable explanation. Unlike Democrats who enjoy using children as political props, Conservatives don’t exploit their own children to help their career or agenda. He wanted to keep his children out of the media. Given the actions of these mobs, what parent wouldn’t? The difference between this restaurant incident, and the mob at Tucker’s house, is that it was the mob itself that posted the video of what they did and made it public, whereas the incident at the restaurant was never made public until Michael Avenatti spoke about it publicly on behalf of his client. For Avenatti to even ask this question shows either abject incompetence, or deliberate means to promote propaganda.

I may add more to this later, so check back often, and leave your comments. But in my opinion, I believe that Avenatti is orchestrating these events, and should be investigating by the Department of Justice.



UPDATE: The prosecutor that questioned Christine Ford before Congress has released her findings in a memorandum to Republicans. Here is the Gateway Pundit article and for whatever reason, some Republican gave the Washington Post a full copy of the memo. It covers many of the same arguments I’ve made below, but it systematically and thoroughly debunks Ford’s claims.

UPDATE: Evidence has been uncovered that Christine Ford is familiar with counter measures and passing polygraph tests.


James A., PhD

I’m going to lay out several arguments against Christine Blasey Ford’s (hereinafter, “Ford”) story to show she is either outright lying against Brett Kavanaugh, or there isn’t enough information concerning her allegations to deem her statements credible. I’m not going to give a lengthy introduction to the controversy and just assume that most of the audience reading this has already heard enough of the facts.

How Did She Know It Was Kavanaugh and Mark Judge Walking Down the Stairs?

Ford claims that after Mark Judge jumped on top of Kavanaugh and Ford, she ran into a bathroom and locked the door. She then claims that she heard Kavanaugh and Ford walking down the stairs and knew it was safe to exit the bathroom. Ford never mentions that there were ONLY two people upstairs with her (this was a party, after all), and certainly, if she was pushed into a room immediately upon taking the stairs to the second floor, there’s no possible way for her to have assessed how many people were upstairs. Therefore, how did she know whether it was someone coming UP the stairs, or going down? Furthermore, if the bathroom door was closed, how could she know it was Kavanaugh and Mark Judge walking down the stairs? Ford never mentioned the ability to see through doors in her testimony.

Ford also claims that the music was turned UP to drown out her screams. If that’s the case, then how could she have heard anyone walking up or down the stairs? How could she have recognized the voices of two people she did not know, especially with loud music? Furthermore, what made Ford think leaving the bathroom was safe? How did she know they weren’t waiting downstairs for her, or outside of the bathroom?

It’s also interesting to note that she left her best friend behind with a group of boys neither of them knew of whom she claimed had just tried to rape her. Even if she didn’t mention calling the police for herself, you would think that she’d at least call the police because her best friend was still in that same house with those same boys.

Why Did Ford Use the Second Floor Bathroom In the First Place?

Most houses also have a bathroom on the first floor. Why did she initially go up the stairs to use the second floor bathroom? She never mentioned whether the downstairs bathroom was in use or whether it was closer.

Why Did Ford and Her Friend Attend a Party With Only Six People Of Whom They Did Not Know?

Although there are different versions of exactly how many people were at this party, what we do know is that Ford and her best friend did not know any of the boys that were there. Most women would be uncomfortable being invited to a party (and the invitation is another problem) only to find out upon arrival that there’s only a handful of boys there that they do not know. I’ve never known anyone in their party days that wanted to go to or stay at a “dead party”, especially when they didn’t know the few people that were there.

Who Invited Ford and Her Friend?

Ford claims she was at Columbia Country Club in Chevy Chase, Maryland, where she claims she was swimming prior to the party. Why she left a wet bathing suit on under her clothing is strange, given that most women try to “look their best” before going to a party (in my party days, my girlfriend always took 3 hours to “get ready”). If she took the time to put make up on, and “do her hair”, it would likely be reasonable to think she would have changed her clothes as well, especially a wet bathing suit. She claims she went to the party with her best friend so that suggests she either went to her friends house first, or her friend met her at the country club. But the friend never mentions meeting Ford at the country club, so we must assume Ford went to her friends house first where she would’ve had time to dry off and change her clothes.

But if she was at Columbia Country Club (a members only club which is by invitation only), how did she hear about the party? where’d she get the address? If the boys that were there didn’t know her, it couldn’t have been them. It couldn’t be the case that they met her somewhere else to invite her because she never mentions running into any of the boys at a different location, and her best friend said she didn’t know Kavanaugh. Her best friend also never mentions how Ford would’ve came to know of this party. So hid did Ford even know this party was going on, who would be there, what the event would be like. Who invited her?

Who Turned Up The Music?

Ford claims that when she went upstairs she was immediately shoved into a room and thrown on the bed by Kavanaugh, followed by Mark Judge shutting the door behind them and turning UP the music. That distinction is important between “up” and “on” because if the music was already on, that begs the question as to why? If this was a party, you’d have to assume that music was already playing, and at a party, it normally plays from the first/main floor. If nobody was in that room until Kavanaugh and Judge allegedly pushed Ford into the room, that means a radio was already playing in a room that was unoccupied during a party where music was already playing downstairs. Having two radios playing at once at a party would be pretty annoying.

How Did Ford Topple Out From Under Kavanaugh?

Ford claims that Mark Judge jumped on Kavanaugh and Ford and then they all “toppled over” and she escaped. If Ford was underneath Kavanaugh on a bed, I find it highly unlikely that a person adding more weight to the pile would cause the person on the bottom to “topple over”. Toppling over usually describes people falling over who are standing, not a description of someone lying down on a bed. Furthermore, Ford gave the impression that Mark Judge was helping Kavanaugh rape Ford. If that was truly Judge’s intention, he didn’t much help Kavanaugh by jumping on him. This story is simply unbelievable.

Why Did Ford Keep Going Back To These Parties For Two Years?

According to Ford’s yearbook, she was part of a group of girls that targeted younger boys for sexual escapades and played “pass out” games. The yearbook in question was here SENIOR year. Ford claims Kavanaugh attacked her during her SOPHOMORE year. That means Ford continued going back to these parties for two years after claiming she was traumatized by Kavanaugh and Judge.

Why Did Ford Give Two Different Ages?

When Ford’s story was first told, she claimed that Kavanaugh was 17 and she was 17. The story later changed to she was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17. Although sometimes small details can be obscure, it is important factor in determining whether an explanation is ad hoc. In other words, all of the flaws and inconsistencies in her story show more of a rushed statement rather than one that can be recalled with accuracy based on reflection of actually memories and genuine historical events.

What this shows is that Ford had an idea on derailing Kavanaugh, at least enough to delay the confirmation, but never thought she’d have to give a detailed account, and therefore her subsequent explanations weren’t well thought out and show a gross inconsistency with the initial claims.

These are just a few observations that I would ask Ford if I were representing Kavanaugh. Many other conservative pundits have raised other valid questions and objections (like the most recent one here) so I won’t repeat them here. Tell me what you think below, and add any comments you think add to these arguments. Ford can’t remember basic details of her allegations and based on the foregoing arguments and conclusion, I do not believe she is telling the truth, and given her past involvement in anti-Trump events and her assistance with an ACLU lawsuit against Trump, her motivation seems clearly political.






James A., PhD

During the Senate hearings for the confirmation of Brent Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court, it was only 11 seconds into the introduction of Kavanaugh by Chuck Grassley that Kamala Harris interrupted him, followed by several other senators who then demanded an adjournment. Not to be outdone, a circus act then erupted by multiple shouting protesters, one after the other, reminiscent of the followers of Charles Manson shouting at his murder trial. That this event was staged in order to derail the hearing was admitted by Illinois rep, Dick Durbin.

However, the scene that made headlines was when the father of a Parkland school shooting victim, Fred Guttenberg, attempted to sneak past secret service and shake Kavanaugh’s hand. When security intervened, the narrative created by the media (and Guttenberg himself) was that Kavanaugh purposely ignored Guttenberg (as if Kavanaugh knew who he was) and refused to shake the hand of a shooting victim’s father. Ergo, Kavanaugh should not be appointed SCOTUS since he shows no sensitivity to victims of gun violence according to the Goebbels media.

Guttenberg denies this was staged. But for the following reasons, I call nonsense.

First of all, Guttenberg admits he was invited to the hearing by Diane Feinstein. What would her motive be in inviting a shooting victim’s father? Kavanaugh, as a judge, would not be permitted to give his opinion on a gun shooting case prior to its submission to the Supreme Court for review. Kavanaugh is not a legislator, and neither are the other justices on the Supreme Court. Thus, it appears that Feinstein’s logic was to use emotionalism to intimidate Kavanaugh into becoming a “legislator from the bench”, which as Feinstein is well aware, is not the role of the Supreme Court.

Secondly, Guttenberg was positioned close to Kavanaugh’s seat, knowing that the melee in the room would likely lead to an adjournment that would give him an opportunity to stage this photo-op of him attempting to shake Kavanaugh’s hand. Why was Guttenberg placed so close to Kavanaugh if this wasn’t the intention of liberals in Congress to stage a still-shot “gotcha” scene?

Thirdly, given that Guttenberg, along with all of the other “gun control now” liberals, believes that those defending the Second Amendment are responsible for the deaths of their children, it bewilders me why any grieving father would want to shake the hand of someone he believes is responsible for the death of his daughter. But, to know whether or not that’s how Guttenberg really felt about Kavanaugh, we’d have to show that Guttenberg expressed such a disdain for Kavanaugh PRIOR to the confirmation hearing, and that brings us to point Four…he did




So is this like Peter Strzok claiming that he wasn’t “bias” in his investigation into Trump even when his texts stated, “We will stop him”? Are we supposed to believe that Fred Guttenberg had honorable intentions in attempting to meet Kavanaugh and shake his hand? Are we supposed to believe that with Guttenberg making NUMEROUS tweets about “no chance we give [the Supreme Court] another justice like Kavanaugh”, that he wasn’t there for a publicity stunt? Are we supposed to take the media seriously when they defend his presence at the hearing as being some genuine attempt to “start a conversation about gun laws” when it is obvious from Guttenberg’s tweets that he had already made up his mind that Kavanaugh shouldn’t be confirmed?

Are we really supposed to think that Guttenberg had no intention of playing a part in disrupting the confirmation hearing when he’s tweeting support to “STOP THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS NOW”?? More of these anti-Kavanaugh tweets can be found on this search thread.

In summary, we know the uprising was staged. That much was obvious. We know Diane Feinstein was aware of the plotted obstruction. Feinstein invited Guttenberg to be a part of that disruption because there would be no other reason for Guttenberg to be there given that Kavanaugh would not be in a position to do anything about Guttenberg’s gun violence complaints whether he was confirmed or not. That is the legislator’s jobs, not the judiciary, and it is unlawful to attempt to persuade a judge to rule according to your liberal presuppositions. Guttenberg’s plethora of anti-Kavanaugh tweets prior to the hearing show precisely what his intent was in showing up at the hearing, and this must be kept in mind when viewing the video that the crooked mainstream media is using to promote a slanderous and false narrative against one of the most qualified judges to ever be considered for a position on the Supreme Court.

This is why Trump calls the media the “enemy of the people”, because they are willing to do any underhanded tactic imaginable to foist their socialist agendas upon our great country.



James A., PhD

Omarosa claims to have heard an “N word” used by Trump on a recording (although she doesn’t claim to know who recorded it, or when) but I’m sure if this tape existed it would’ve been used in the 2016 election. Since this tape will never be produced, she’s attempting to give credibility to that narrative by producing other tapes, and giving those recordings ad hoc explanations. The propaganda scheme here is this, if Omarosa has these tapes, she must be telling the truth about the “N word tape”.

What I believe Omarosa is doing is sharing hours of recorded conversations of Trump staff with lawyers and media, and pouring over the recordings until they find something they can spin. Each narrative of every new tape relies on Omarosa’s explanation of its content. For example, the most recent tape with Lara Trump implies that Lara Trump was attempting to bribe Omarosa. However, this assumes that Lara Trump was aware that Omarosa had tapes, and that a “back pocket” reference is a reference to these tapes. That is an ad hoc explanation that is not supported by the actual content that can be heard. The context of the excerpts all depend on whether Omarosa is telling the truth about the context of the conversation. Let me explain why she’s lying.

1. It is absolutely absurd to think that Lara Trump knew that it was tapes that Omarosa “had in her back pocket” (whether that was literal or metaphorical). What person in their right mind would try to bribe someone over secret tapes in a conversation that itself would likely be taped about the bribery? In other words, Lara would be attempting to bribe someone to keep tapes from being made public, in a conversation with a person who she knows records conversations. It stretches credulity to think Lara would put herself in that position.

2. It is equally absurd that of all the ways to bribe Omarosa over tapes, Lara would offer her a public speaking position. If Lara was trying to bribe Omarosa, why would she do so by giving her unfettered access to Trump voters, donors, and campaign strategy memorandums? I can’t imagine trying to silence someone who I believe has bribery material on me by putting them in a position to gather even more information than they already claim to have.

3. Nazi media is attempting to paint Lara as a criminal for offering campaign finances to pay Omarosa for working on the 2020 reelection campaign. I don’t know what planet these liberals are from, but on earth, campaign donations are how the workers in the campaign are paid, and if this entire conversation was about Lara Trump offering Omarosa a job for the 2020 campaign, it was a perfectly legitimate offer, and to claim it was “hush payment” takes some stretching that Rubber Man himself couldn’t pull off.

4. If Lara knew these tapes existed, then so did Donald Trump and John Kelly before Omarosa was fired. To think that they planned on bribing Omarosa after firing her would be the most strategic blunder of the millennium. Let’s think this scenario through. You know Omarosa has secret tapes, so you fire her to cover it up, then attempt to bribe her by bringing her back to the very atmosphere you terminated her from in the first place? You know she has tapes so you provoke her by firing her? Most strategic cover up artists either play the game of keep your enemies closer, or do what the Democratic Party did to Seth Rich.

5. Whatever was in Omarosa’s “back pocket”, or “up her sleeve”, there’s no evidence that it was tapes. Not every campaign operative has good or acceptable ideas all of the time. It’s likely that Omarosa thought she had a good idea for a campaign strategy (and competing for winning ideas is what she did on The Apprentice), and this idea was deemed “a lil some some I got in my back pocket”, but Lara and other campaign leaders disagreed that it would be useful, and if she were to be brought on to the 2020 reelection campaign, she’d have to abandon the “back pocket” idea. To provide this ad hoc claim that the conversation was about secret tapes is not only unsupported by what any listener can hear for themselves, but in concert with the 4 above facts is patently ridiculous.

Now on to another matter.

I personally think Omarosa should be investigated for the death of her “fiance”, actor Michael Clarke Duncan (“Duncan”). Duncan was famous for his role in The Green Mile with Tom Hanks. He was a healthy 54-year-old that did not use drugs or drink. He was worth an estimated 18 million dollars. According to TMZ, when Duncan passed, Omarosa got “almost everything“, leaving only $100,000 to his sister. It is not uncommon to leave your spouse or significant other an inheritance, but there are suspicious circumstances about the arrangements and even the very status of the relationship itself questioned by Duncan’s family.

First, there’s the matter of whether Omarosa was in fact, Duncan’s fiance. Not only does Duncan’s family dispute that they were ever enganged, but I’ve been unable to find any photos of Omarosa and Duncan where Omarosa sports an engagement ring. However, she can be seen wearing several different rings AFTER Duncan’s funeral. There’s also one of the last videos of Duncan taken just 4 months prior to his death where he refers to Omarosa as his girlfriend, not his fiance.


The photo on the left is at Duncan’s funeral. The ring has no stone. The one on the right is one month later, with a noticeable stone.




Second, according to Duncan’s family, Omarosa convinced Duncan to change his will while he was in intensive care following his heart attack. Personally-and I’m sure Duncan’s family was thinking the same thing-the last thing I’d be concerned about if my healthy partner just had a heart attack was getting them to change their will while they are likely on a large amount of medication. Depending on what kind of medications Duncan was on and how much the dosage was would certainly call into question Duncan’s legal ability to enter into any binding contractual agreements. It also begs the question as to whether Omarosa knew Duncan was about to die. Since she wasn’t legally a family member, any medical information would’ve been confidential. It’s possible Duncan revived and consented to sharing information with her, but there’s no record confirming that that I can find.

Thirdly, LaToya Jackson had once claimed she thought Omarosa “pulled the plug” on Duncan in the hospital, to which Omarosa replied with a lawsuit threat. However, the best defense that was offered by Omarosa defenders was that she “saved Duncan by giving him CPR”. In my opinion, that’s not much of a defense if the argument is that she had to wait for him to change his will and then merely exploited his weakness. At the time she provided CPR, Duncan appears not to have included her in his will, and after all, 18 million dollars is quite a motive for waiting. It appears that the same cast of Apprentice also accused Omarosa of feigning an emergency 911 call about Duncan to avoid a conflict in the board room.

Fourth, Omarosa responded to Duncan’s sister, Judy, by attacking her, and claiming that she was not in control of Duncan’s estate and therefore could not have been trying to scam Duncan. However, Omarosa was able to sell Duncan’s home which seems a legal conundrum if she was not an administrator, executor or some appointed position for Duncan’s estate.

Let me make clear, I’m not claiming this proves Omarosa is guilty of murder, but I think there’s enough circumstantial facts that an investigation should be conducted and let law enforcement decide. But one thing I am clear about is that anyone that would treat their friend like Omarosa treated Lara Trump doesn’t seem like a person who would’ve truly cared for Michael Clarke Duncan. To me, it’s simply in Omarosa’s nature to be a deceitful, conniving person willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead and grab power. She’s certainly lying about the tapes, so what else has she lied about? The mainstream media doesn’t care. Liberals are so desperate to regain control of Congress that they will invent stories out of thin air. Since 2015, it has been my contention that if Hitler and Goebbels would’ve had our American mainstream media on their side, Hitler would’ve won World War 2.

James A, Ph.D

On January 20, 2018, Twitter suspended my account for a year old tweet about homosexuality and slavery (quoting Biblical history) which was reported by followers of James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. Today, they have suspended my account, again, for no given reason. At least the last time the Twitter Nazis suspended my account they showed the tweets in which they claimed violated their terms of service. This time, no such tweet was listed. Twitter just arbitrarily suspended my account.



I didn’t find out what why my account was suspended until I logged in today (6/22/18 1:38 PM), and had to delete this tweet to get back on to my account.

James A., Ph.D, Paralegal

In my professional opinion, the following is what I believe happened:

Daniels knew the risk of a defamation suit, so she never wanted to say she slept with Trump. She approached Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, first, and said she MAY HAVE slept with Trump (she was quite evasive on Jimmy Kimmel so she has a pattern of this kind of elusive ambiguity and ‘read-between-the-lines’ gimmicks). Daniels knew that with the media hosting several ‘sexual assault victims’ against Trump during the election, this would be a hot story, but it’s better to try getting a pay day then to have to prove the story if challenged.

Cohen then took it upon himself to offer her a pay day ($130,000) thinking he’s doing Trump a favor, and would foolishly think that Trump would reimburse him for being such a fine, thoughtful lawyer. So Cohen offered to pay for her silence over a story that was likely a bluff to begin with. That Cohen acted on his own explains why Trump’s name was not used in the non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”), and why there was no signature (not even of the supposed alias, David Dennison). Why any lawyer would think that using an alias would constitute a binding contractual obligation is beyond me, but I digress.

As a year passes, Daniels thinks she can get more than $130K because several media outlets are now offering her a lot of money to dish on Trump, but she acts as if she can’t speak of “it”, she can simply give the IMPRESSION that something happened without ever having to actually confirm it. To bolster this impression even more, her lawyers then sue Trump over the NDA, not because Daniels actually plans to tell a story, but because the lawsuit actually puts the NDA in the public. Hence, Daniels can speak through her lawyer without Daniels actually confirming the affair so as to not violate the NDA, but it’s not quite defamation against Daniels if it’s the lawyer saying “it” and not Daniels (the lawyer can simply say he “thought” that’s what his client meant), and by putting the NDA in the spotlight, it gives the appearance that SOMETHING must have happened or there wouldn’t be an NDA in the first place. In other words, Daniels and her lawyers have constructed a slick legal maneuver to get around the NDA, while at the same time, using the NDA as the ‘evidence’ that an affair actually occurred because the NDA makes it appear as if Trump has something to hide. It’s a way of making petitio principii a bona fide legal maneuver.

Daniels’ lawyers have thrown a monkey wrench into the plot, though. Perhaps inadvertently. They publicly claimed that Daniels can speak about the “affair” without being in violation of the NDA because Trump never signed the NDA which makes the contract void. The question then remains, if that were true- WHY HASN’T SHE? I believe she’s simply waiting for the biggest offer from the likes of CNN, MSNBC or Megyn Kelly and the highest bidder gets a (not THE) story. Think about it, what’s the real risk in speaking out? If these allegations were true, do we REALLY think that Trump’s going to enforce an NDA that he claims no knowledge of? Daniels’ lawyers have surely thought of that as well. If Trump litigated a breach of contract, it would be a tacit admission to the allegations. The smartest thing mainstream media could do to implicate Trump would’ve been to pay Daniels millions of dollars to breach her NDA and dare Trump to sue her over it. So then why hasn’t she spoken? Because Trump was never involved in the first place, and the agreement was solely between Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels without Trump ever being privy to the NDA. To speak out over a story that she knows is false would give her and the mainstream media a bloody nose. But as long as she can continue to play a game of well placed ambiguities she stays protected…and gets paid for it.

Trump probably first found out about the NDA when the FEC questioned Cohen and it was leaked to the media. Trump would’ve likely then called Cohen to his office and asked him why he did such a stupid thing like let some porn actress dupe him into a settlement when what Cohen should’ve done was brought this to the attention of the president and called her bluff. It wasn’t an accusation of sexual assault so it likely wouldn’t have affected the campaign. If the other 13 accusers and the Billy Bush tape didn’t slow the campaign down, one has to wonder what Cohen was thinking here. Cohen panicked.

The media will do anything to sabotage Trump’s presidency even if that includes trying to destroy all of his family members and his marriage. There’s even the possibility that the Deep State and the media want to create a scenario where after Trump hides an affair after the birth of his son with Melania, Melania becomes so enraged that she wants Trump dead; the Deep State then arranges the assassination and blames it on the First Lady.  (Think about the speculation surrounding the Kennedy assassination regarding Jackie Kennedy’s motive for supposedly assisting in the assassination of her husband after discovering JFK’s multiple affairs, including one with Marilyn Monroe.) Granted, I believe the initial motive of the Democrats is to link the payment of this NDA to an election campaign issue as a grounds to impeach Trump, but they know they can’t prove Trump knew about it, so I believe there’s a much bigger, long-game with this Stormy Daniels issue.

I believe Cohen made a foolish choice and expected to get compensated for it. I’m reminded of a time where I bought my mother something expensive for her car that I thought she needed without getting her permission first. My mother didn’t want the item and certainly it was unreasonable to ask for reimbursement because I made the decision on my own (a refund was not an option). Cohen owns this, and there’s no evidence that Trump actually did what Daniel’s said, or that he knew about the claims that made up the substance of the NDA. But I’m sure at this point, Daniels will come up with a Stephen King novel if she gets paid enough.

On a personal note, as a Christian I am disgusted by many of Trump’s past trysts, and I don’t think Trump has a very knowledgeable spiritual life. But the reality is actual conservatives had a Hobson’s choice: elect an immoral boss who at least wanted to honestly help the country with policies that we agreed with, or express our outrage over his immoral behavior by letting a murdering, deceitful Communist/Socialist in office that would’ve destroyed what’s left of any freedoms America had. Those Never Trumpers who call that an erroneous ‘lesser of two evils’ argument are…well…idiots.