open.substack.com/pub/brainmat...
open.substack.com/pub/brainmat...
An illustrated guide of the first year of profiteering.
www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
An illustrated guide of the first year of profiteering.
www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...
Homicides in NYC...
1990: 2,262
1993: 1,927
1998: 629
2001: 649
2013: 335
2019: 320
2021: 488
2024: 382
2025 (as of 12/28): 302
Homicides in NYC...
1990: 2,262
1993: 1,927
1998: 629
2001: 649
2013: 335
2019: 320
2021: 488
2024: 382
2025 (as of 12/28): 302
Well probably not shocked.
Sheldon Whitehouse is working to expose this.
www.rawstory.com/investigatio...
Well probably not shocked.
Sheldon Whitehouse is working to expose this.
www.rawstory.com/investigatio...
Sulzberg personally picked & chose whom the news apparatus would target and whom it would kiss up to.
Sulzberg personally picked & chose whom the news apparatus would target and whom it would kiss up to.
via @floridaphoenix.com
The House Judiciary Committee just released — on New Year's Eve — the 255-page transcript of Jack Smith's closed door deposition.
House Republicans continue their attempts to bury Smith's testimony.
Read it all here: tinyurl.com/cndtn3ez
JACK SMITH: “Yes.”
JACK SMITH: “Yes.”
via @floridaphoenix.com
via @floridaphoenix.com
via @floridaphoenix.com
And here is illustration number three million of why the GOP refused to allow Jack Smith's deposition to be carried live, on TV.
And here is illustration number three million of why the GOP refused to allow Jack Smith's deposition to be carried live, on TV.
100% obvious why GOP refused to allow this as open testimony, aired live. It's damning.
Testimony from John Dean or Alex ("wiretaps") Butterfield in Watergate days would have 1/10th the impact if just in print.
What Smith says is far more incriminating.
100% obvious why GOP refused to allow this as open testimony, aired live. It's damning.
Testimony from John Dean or Alex ("wiretaps") Butterfield in Watergate days would have 1/10th the impact if just in print.
What Smith says is far more incriminating.
Smith: Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and are made with knowing falsity, then no, they are not.
Smith: Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and are made with knowing falsity, then no, they are not.