Realmente yo pensé que Robert Muller nos daría una cátedra de profesionalismo en la procuración de justicia. Realmente supuse que escucharlo sería una experiencia. Independientemente de lo que dijo, yo me equivoque, no solo no nos enseno nada, el fue una decepción total.
La impresión que nos queda es:
El súper héroe(según J Comey) no llego preparado.
Estoy seguro que el 90% de los que lo vieron concluyen que no escribió ni ha leído el “reporte Muller”.
Muller ya no quiere saber nada del asunto.
Ademas, físicamente ya esta anciano, no puede. Pero bueno la lana que le dieron era muy buena.
Resulta que el sicario, Andrew Weissman, es el que realmente llevo a cabo la investigación y preparo todo el reporte.
Yo me siento muy contento de volver a ver que se les devuelve a los demócratas su mala intención.
Mi predicción, para las elecciones 2020, es de que si los demócratas cooperaran con el esfuerzo de Trump para sacar adelante todas las broncas que hay, ganarían mas posiciones en 2020 de las que finalmente van a ganar.
Ya veremos, tratare de incluir marco de referencia para medir si tengo razón.
Insider: Google “is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again.”
Google Head of Responsible Innovation Says Elizabeth Warren “misguided” on “breaking up Google”
Google Exec Says Don’t Break Us Up: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation”
Insider Says PragerU And Dave Rubin Content Suppressed, Targeted As “Right-Wing”
LEAKED Documents Highlight “Machine Learning Fairness” and Google’s Practices to Make Search Results “fair and equitable”
Document Appear to Show “Editorial” Policies That Determine How Google Publishes News
(New York City) — Project Veritas has released a new report on Google
which includes undercover video of a Senior Google Executive, leaked
documents, and testimony from a Google insider. The report appears to
show Google’s plans to affect the outcome of the 2020 elections and
“prevent” the next “Trump situation.”
The report includes undercover footage of longtime Google employee and Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai saying:
“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”
Said Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe:
“This is the third tech insider who has bravely stepped forward to expose the secrets of Silicon Valley. These new documents, supported by undercover video, raise questions of Google’s neutrality and the role they see themselves fulfilling in the 2020 elections.
Jen Gennai is the head of “Responsible Innovation” for Google, a sector that monitors and evaluates the responsible implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies. In the video, Gennai says Google has been working diligently to “prevent” the results of the 2016 election from repeating in 2020:
“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”
“We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?”
Google: Artificial Intelligence Is For A “fair and equitable” State
According to the insider, Machine Learning Fairness is one of the many tools Google uses to promote a political agenda. Documents leaked by a Google informant elaborate on Machine Learning Fairness and the “algorithmic unfairness” that AI product intervention aims to solve:
The insider showed Google search examples that show Machine Learning Fairness in action.
“The reason we launched our A.I. principles is because people were not putting that line in the sand, that they were not saying what’s fair and what’s equitable so we’re like, well we are a big company, we’re going to say it.” – Jen Gennai, Head Of Responsible Innovation, Google
The Google insider explained the impact of artificial intelligence and Machine Learning Fairness:
“They’re going to redefine a reality based on what they think is fair and based upon what they want, and what and is part of their agenda.”
Determining credible news and an editorial agenda. . .
Additional leaked documents detail how Google defines and prioritizes content from different news publishers and how its products feature that content. One document, called the “Fake News-letter” explains Google’s goal to have a “single point of truth” across their products.
Another document received by Project Veritas explains the “News Ecosystem” which mentions “editorial guidelines” that appear to be determined and administered internally by Google. These guidelines control how content is distributed and displayed on their site.
The leaked documents appear to show that Google makes news decisions about what news they promote and distribute on their site.
Comments made by Gennai raise similar questions. In a conversation with Veritas journalists, Gennai explains that “conservative sources” and “credible sources” don’t always coincide according to Google’s editorial practices.
“We have gotten accusations of around fairness is that we’re unfair to conservatives because we’re choosing what we find as credible news sources and those sources don’t necessarily overlap with conservative sources …”
The insider shed additional light on how YouTube demotes content from influencers like Dave Rubin and Tim Pool:
“What YouTube did is they changed the results of the recommendation engine. And so what the recommendation engine is it tries to do, is it tries to say, well, if you like A, then you’re probably going to like B. So content that is similar to Dave Rubin or Tim Pool, instead of listing Dave Rubin or Tim Pool as people that you might like, what they’re doing is that they’re trying to suggest different, different news outlets, for example, like CNN, or MSNBC, or these left leaning political outlets.”
Internal Google Document: “People Like Us Are Programmed”
An additional document Project Veritas obtained, titled “Fair is Not the Default” says “People (like us) are programmed” after the results of machine learning fairness. The document describes how “unconscious bias” and algorithms interact.
Veritas is the “Only Way”
Said the insider:
“The reason why I came to Project Veritas is that you’re the only one I trust to be able to be a real investigative journalist. Investigative journalist is a dead career option, but somehow, you’ve been able to make it work. And because of that I came to Project Veritas because I knew that this was the only way that this story would be able to get out to the public.”
“I mean, this is a behemoth, this is a Goliath, I am but a David trying to say that the emperor has no clothes. And, um, being a small little ant I can be crushed, and I am aware of that. But, this is something that is bigger than me, this is something that needs to be said to the American public.”
Project Veritas intends to continue investigating abuses in big tech
companies and encourages more Silicon Valley insiders to share their
stories through their Be Brave campaign.
As of publishing, Google did not respond to Project Veritas’ request
for comment. Additional leaked Google documents can be viewed HERE.
A federal judge struck down the Donald Trump administration’s plan to require some people to work for their Medicaid benefits. Another judge halted Trump’s plan to open Arctic waters to drilling. Yet another ordered an end to what critics said was the administration’s efforts to encourage an end run around the Affordable Care Act. All in the span of about a week.
I spent some time exploring whether I could create a more formal list only to discover that The Washington Post had basically done that.
Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times over the past two years, an extraordinary record of legal defeat that has stymied large parts of the president’s agenda on the environment, immigration and other matters.
In case after case, judges have rebuked Trump officials for failing to follow the most basic rules of governance for shifting policy, including providing legitimate explanations supported by facts and, where required, public input.
Many of the cases are in early stages and subject to reversal. For example, the Supreme Court permitted a version of President Trump’s ban on travelers from certain predominantly Muslim nations to take effect after lower-court judges blocked the travel ban as discriminatory.
But regardless of whether the administration ultimately prevails, the rulings so far paint a remarkable portrait of a government rushing to implement far-reaching changes in policy without regard for long-standing rules against arbitrary and capricious behavior.
I decided to reach out to the reporters and hear how their project came together and what they made of it. It seemed all the more timely in that the Trump administration is likely looking at a challenging legal road as it seeks to enforce the president’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border.
Barbash agreed to a modest Q&A:
What prompted you to undertake the review?
I watch the federal courts closely and became aware over time that the administration was being challenged in court on almost every important policy and deregulatory decision and that U.S. district court judges, who ordinarily defer to the government in most of these challenges, were no longer doing so. Deanna Paul and I began keeping track of the adverse rulings. I’ve been watching regulation and courts for a very long time, and the numbers of defeats were well beyond anything I had seen.
Was it hard to capture all the possible cases?
I’m not sure we did capture all the possible cases. The highly publicized cases, like DACA and the travel ban, are obvious. Nobody seems to keep some sort of master list of everything else. So Deanna and I began to track them down using a variety of sources. We wound up with the number 63, which even since we wrote the piece has increased to about 68.
What finding surprised you most?
As we interviewed experts on the subject, including former Justice Department officials who keep track of these things, we realized that these numbers were extraordinary. No one had an exact count comparing, say, the Obama administration’s record in court after two years with the Trump administration. But as we researched the subject, we found studies estimating the average “win rate” for administrations in the courts was somewhere around 70% whereas the Trump administration appeared to be losing at least 70% of the time.
Were you able to say the losses in nature or volume were different than prior administrations?
It would have taken six or seven months to get exact numbers. But every expert we talked to agreed that the volume was much higher for the Trump administration. The question then became why. As I wrote in an earlier story, when the losing streak started, it’s kind of like relationships. When one or two don’t work out, you can plausibly blame the other people. When the numbers mount, you have to think, maybe the problem is me, that is, maybe I’m doing something wrong.
Some experts you cited said the government had failed to do basic legal homework. You think that was really true? Seems kind of crazy.
It does seem crazy, but when you read the cases and the opinions of the judges, including Republican judges, that’s what they found in so many instances. It’s hard to tell whether the agencies knew that they were out on a limb with so many of these decisions and went ahead anyway, or didn’t have competent legal advice. Some experts, as the article said, thought that the failure of some agencies to “do their homework” as they suspended or delayed regulations, for example, showed that they were more interested in making announcements of deregulatory change than in the change itself, so the risk of a judge blocking their actions didn’t concern them all that much. Of course, the agency spokespeople deny that. But lawyers know, for example, that the law sometimes requires public notice and comment when making regulatory change. It’s not hard. It just slows things down. But if they fail to do it, it’s almost a certainty that a judge will object. These are not close calls. Now some of the cases, like the census case (the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census), are much more complex than what I’m describing and raise deeper issues, which we continue to pursue.
Kevin Shipp was a decorated CIA officer who refused to look the other way in regard to government criminality and cover-up.
In the following video, Mr. Shipp presents a shocking and compelling presentation on numerous, horrific and ongoing government crimes. The total persecution of anyone who dares to tell the truth about rampant government tyranny is also fully exposed. The paradigm we have all known has been built on deception and the dark agendas of the global power structure. The courage Kevin Shipp has shown by doing his best to expose government criminality and tyranny serves as a stellar example to us all.
We desperately need other individuals in government agencies and the US military to follow Kevin’s lead. All of us are essential in the battle to help wake the masses to the truth so that the whistleblowers have the support they need to come forward. If we have any chance of stopping the completely out of control criminal cabal that currently runs our country and much of the world, we must all make our voices heard, we must all join the fight for the greater good. Dane Wigington
Former CIA Officer and whistleblower Kevin Shipp says, “There is essentially a civil war involving parts of senior management and upper parts of our government that is occurring in the United States. It’s between the ‘Dark’ side and the ‘Constitutional’ side. There has never been anything like this in history. . . . People need to understand that the Democrat Party today is not the Democrat Party of John F. Kennedy. The Democrat Party with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is more Marxist than anything else. They think the Constitution should be a ‘progressive’ document. In other words, the Constitution is outdated and should be redone. They are both directly connected into George Soros, who wants to destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. government. . . . The Democrat Party is now made up of Marxists and leftists that have penetrated that entire organization. . . . Their entire goal is to change our form of government and destroy our sovereignty.” Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with CIA whistleblower Kevin Shipp, founder of the website ForTheLoveofFreedom.net. Donations: https://usawatchdog.com/donations/ Stay In contact with USAWatchdog.com: https://usawatchdog.com/join/ All Links can be found on USAWatchdog.com: https://usawatchdog.com/trump-is-doin…