New York Assembly Holds Show Trials on COVID-19 Deaths

The New York State Assembly waited till the last minute to announce their guests today in their show trial on COVID.  Instead of bringing in Governor Cuomo or Health Commissioner Zucker or families who lost loved ones due to policies put in place by the state leadership, the State Assembly brought in leaders of elderly care facilities to use as scapegoats for the state’s outlandish and deadly policies.

At 10:00 am this morning the New York State (NYS) legislature convened its “Joint Public Hearing: Residential health care facilities and COVID-19 Upstate New York.” This was the second of two hearings attempting to uncover information about NYSDOH Commissioner Howard Zucker’s March 25 mandate, which forced untested, Covid-19 hospital patients into NY nursing homes, and to attempt to figure out why NYS has had a massive number of Covid-19 nursing home deaths, the largest in the country except for, now, NJ. The hearings were being live-streamed.

These hearings were tightly controlled by the Democratic-progressive majority of the NYS legislature.  Since November 2018, New York is a one-party controlled state. There were no fewer than six committees involved in the hearings: Senate & Assembly Health, Senate & Assembly Aging, Senate Standing Committee on Investigations & Government Operations and the Assembly Standing Committee on Oversight, Analysis & Investigation.

Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Health commissioner, Howard Zucker, who is also a Democrat, issued the horrific and now-infamous March 25 edict forcing an astounding 6,326 untested Covid-19 hospital patients into New York’s nursing homes, resulting in thousands of senior citizen deaths and – according to the reliable Committee to Unleash Prosperity’s open source research database, which includes Covid-19 hospital deaths in its stats as all states except NY do – more than likely an estimated 13,212 NY senior citizens died from this policy, if not more.  (According to Worldometers Covid-19 database Cuomo’s New York currently stands at having the highest Covid-19 death count of all U.S. states, with 32,840 deaths.)

At last week’s initial hearing covering downstate nursing homes and held on August 3, New York State Senator Thomas F. O’Mara (R,C,IP), representing NY’s 58th Senate District in the rural Finger Lakes area of central New York and also the ranking member of the Senate’s Investigations and Government Operations Committee, made sure the public knew that the Republicans had no subpoena power nor ability to call witnesses for these hearings.  During his allotted five minutes at the very end of the hearings O’Mara noted “that the witness list for today, we received about this time last night. Not much fairness there.” He made it clear that both Cuomo and Zucker were not held accountable at these almost eleven-hour hearings and demanded that the Democrats “recall Zucker to be a witness at the next round of this hearing on August 10th.”

But the New York Democrats who operate best in secrecy, had no press release about today’s hearing at either the Senate or the Assembly websites and it wasn’t until almost 9:30 am this morning that the Assembly finally posted the agenda, leaving off, however, the submitted written testimony of three individuals.

It is implausible that both the Senate and Assembly only received three written statements for today’s hearings, when last week there were twenty-six uploaded to the Senate’s website.

The agenda shows the Democratic majority decided to lead off these critical Covid-19 nursing homes hearings, not with a panel of family members who were harmed by Zucker’s March 25 order, but with a panel of hospital and nursing home industry lobbyists and trade organizations. Clearly the July 15 demand of the Senate Republican Conference that the Democratic Senate Majority compel testimony, via subpoena, from Governor Andrew Cuomo, Commissioner Howard Zucker, recently retired DOH nursing home director Mark Kissinger, and others with knowledge of Zucker’s March 25 edict, was ignored. Neither Cuomo, Zucker nor Mark Kissinger were listed on today’s agenda.

New Yorker families appear to be, yet again, being denied explanations and accountability for the COVID-19 deaths of their family members in New York’s nursing homes. These deaths are due not only to Zucker’s shocking March 25 edict, but to the absolute mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis – made crystal clear to these NY families – by New York’s Governor Cuomo.

Janice Dean from FOX News, who lost both her parents in law in this crisis due to Cuomo and Zucker’s policies was prepared to speak but was not invited:

Fox News senior meteorologist Janice Dean says she was cut from testifying at New York’s hearings regarding coronavirus in nursing homes and called it “a complete sham” on Monday, August 10th.

Both of Dean’s in-laws died from coronavirus at nursing homes amid revelations that the state ordered homes to accept patients who had tested positive for COVID-19. Dean has openly condemned Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s order, which was rescinded May 11.

The Federal government should step in and investigate.  The policies of Cuomo and Zucker led to the death of thousands of elderly New Yorkers.  This never should have happened.


See also:

Republican Operative, Roger Stone, Found Guilty on all 7 Counts Against Him, including Witness Tampering and False Statements, by Jury of Democratic Operatives

Political operative Roger Stone was convicted on all 7 counts against him today by a jury containing other operatives in an area that voted over 90 percent for Hillary Clinton.

NBC reports:

Republican operative Roger Stone was found guilty Friday of all seven counts against him, including witness tampering and making false statements. …

His sentencing was set for Feb. 6, and he faces up to 20 years in prison. The jury deliberated for two days.

The trial took place in Washington, DC, a city that voted 90.9 percent for Clinton. Stone’s former client, Donald Trump, received just 4.1 percent of the vote, according to the New York Times.

InfoWars’ Alex Jones reported the jury included “CIA operatives, Democrat Party operatives, people that work for Clinton, Obama, high-level — not just this one woman, the first that it came out in that hearing, was selected as the first juror.” Following his exposure to the corrupt jury and judge, the prosecutor in the case called for the arrest of Alex Jones. The judge in Stone’s trial, Amy Berman Jackson, is an Obama appointee who is “transparently and aggressively political,” as Tucker Carlson highlighted on his November 6th show.

Jackson had already prevented Stone from publicly defending himself in the case, allowing the media to continue to slander Stone without him being able to defend himself under threat of imprisonment.

Carlson said Jackson’s behavior in court had turned out to be “even more ludicrous and unprofessional,” rolling her eyes and snorting at Stone to suggest “he’s guilty before the trial even started.”

One of the prospective jurors turned out to be a former press secretary in the Obama administration who “despises Donald Trump and has friends in the federal prosecutors office which is trying the case.

The potential juror absurdly claimed that she had followed the Mueller investigation closely but hadn’t heard of Stone and didn’t have a strong opinion on the issue. Jackson refused to remove the woman from the jury pool, arguing, “personal conflicts were not automatically disqualifying.”

“What ought to be automatically disqualifying is Amy Berman Jackson behavior from the bench, no fair person could condone it,” said Carlson.

Sources close to the trial said that out of 82 prospective jurors, just two indicated that they were Republican and were immediately struck down out of hand. Even one woman who had once worked for the Reagan administration was dismissed as a potential juror because of a supposed conflict of interest. However, jurors who have worked under Obama or who have expressed their hatred for Trump were selected with no qualms whatsoever.

The judge also held reporter Jacob Engels in contempt of court for trying to manipulate jury selection process by pointing out a former Obama employee. Jackson also reportedly told the media to leave the courtroom and then cut the live video feed to the media room on at least one occasion.

Pro-Stone demonstrators were also not allowed anywhere near the courthouse yet activists from Right Wing Watch were allowed to be permanently on site and yell slurs at Stone.

President Donald Trump called the jury’s verdict against his former campaign associate Roger Stone a “double standard.” Moments after the verdict was revealed, Trump questioned why others who used government resources to stage a coup attempt against his presidency aren’t being held to the same standard.


The Head juror in the Stone case was radical democrat and Trump-hater Tomeka Hart who had a Twitter history of disparaging Trump, and retweeting anti-Stone commentary after Stone’s arrest, including sharing articles about the Roger Stone case, according to a masterful thread by MAGA researcher Shem Horne. Tomeka Hart testified during the jury selection that she had no biases against Roger Stone and that she ‘hardly paid attention’ to the Russia investigation, but she specifically attacked Stone on Twitter shortly after he was arrested. Crooked Judge Amy Berman-Jackson covered for her.

Seth Cousins, juror number 3 in Roger Stone’s trial, wrote an op-ed published by the Washington Post, claiming that the jury, who handed down a guilty verdict on all counts against Stone, acted independently and with no bias towards Mr. Stone for his previous political activities or the fact that he is one of President Trump’s most ardent defenders and longtime friends.

Court documents obtained by NATIONAL FILE show that a Russian national who used the fake name “Henry Greenberg” when meeting with Roger Stone in 2016 admitted under oath to being a longtime FBI informant.

On February 10, 2020, Federal Prosecutors recommended 67-year-old Trump confidante Roger Stone serve 7-9 years in prison for process crimes during the Mueller witch hunt. President Trump would slam Stone’s political targeting and sentencing as a “Miscarriage of Justice” in a tweet:

Following the Trump tweet and outrage by the right for the injustice after so many lying leftists walk free of even a day in court, the DOJ backed off of the excessive charges: “The Department finds seven to nine years extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate,” the source told Fox News. Pelosi would accuse Trump of engaging in “political interference” for his tweeting about Roger Stone’s excessive sentencing, claiming that the ‘DOJ should be investigated’ in an effort to silence any dissenting voices and put up resistance or their political sentencing. The Department of Justice said it was “shocked” at the excessive prison term being sought by Mueller’s prosecutors because it wasn’t what the DOJ was initially briefed on. The same thing happened in the General Flynn show trial.

This was all a set-up to get reaction from Attorney General Bill Barr and President Trump in order to start up a new smear campaign against Trump and his trusted Attorney General. Democrats and Deep State Democrats know the ongoing Durham investigation will expose them criminal actors who lied and deceived the American public and Congress in order to remove President Trump from office.


The corrupt judge, Amy Berman-Jackson, would impose a full gag order on Stone as well after he posted an inflammatory photo of the judge on his Instagram. Several potential jurors in Stone’s case ended up being Trump-hating, Obama-era officials who admittedly voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 so Stone’s lawyer’s tried to strike them as potential jurors. And another juror was a Democrat candidate for office in Tennessee. Amy Berman Jackson wouldn’t dismiss any of these jurors, stacking the deck against Stone. One of the potential jurors actually had a husband who worked in the DOJ and played a role in the Russian collusion hoax that ultimately took down Roger Stone — and Judge Jackson allowed her to remain as a potential juror!

Stone’s attorneys would file a sealed motion requesting a new trial, however the corrupt and biased Judge Berman-Jackson would deny the request refusing to recuse herself after she praised the “integrity” of the jury that convicted him and respond with a harsh sentence of 3 years, 4 months in prison, $20,000 fine – and he’s still under gag order!

Judge Amy Berman Jackson entered letters in the sentencing case file for Roger Stone by seemingly random Trump-haters who wrote in praise of the judge while also spinning Trump-Barr conspiracy theories likely picked up by non-stop watching of MSNBC. One letter writer bragged they burned an American flag given to them by a veteran when Trump was elected.

Tucker Carlson referred to the Obama-appointed judge as a “Democratic activist wearing robes.” and advocated for her to be impeached.

(TGP) Roger Stone has fought to have the charges dismissed, a motion that Amy Berman Jackson has yet to rule on. At the same time, journalist and filmmaker Mike Cernovich has filed a motion with the court as an intervenor requesting to unseal the juror questionnaires so that it can be determined just how many of the jurors on the all Democrat jury lied about their extreme bias against Roger Stone and President Donald J. Trump.

In response to Cernovich’s motion, Judge Amy Berman Jackson appointed a pricey D.C. lawyer to represent the jurors, gifting them a blank check and the best defense money could buy. Immediately, Alan C. Raul, Jackson’s puppeteer, claimed that the release of the documents should be denied because it could violate the privacy of the jurors.

Raul and the Trump-Stone hating jury forewoman Tomeka Hart served on the advisory board of the Center for American Democracy and Technology. To think that Judge Amy Berman Jackson is so comfortable in her corruption that she would allow another conflict of interest to happen in her courtroom is almost unbelievable, except it isn’t. She believes she is above the law and cannot be held accountable. On the biography page of the Sidley Austin law firm where Raul serves as a partner, he openly admits in his bio that he serves on the advisory board of the Center for American Democracy and Technology.

A press release from the organization, obtained by TGP, shows them celebrating the fact that Tomeka Hart has also served on the Center for American Democracy and Technology’s advisory board.

Tomeka Hart – Center for De… by Jacob Engels on Scribd

Truther Jim Fetzer Fined over $500K in Libel Suit for Sandy Hook Claims

By Kevin Barrett

Stalinist show trials were conducted in front of rousing images. Jim Fetzer’s trial featured a tear-jerking backdrop image of Noah Pozner

Tuesday was the final day of Jim Fetzer’ defense against Lenny Pozner’s libel lawsuit. I attended and wrote up a “just the facts” report that evening. At almost the same moment I published my report, the jury came back with a verdict awarding close to half a million dollars to Lenny “Jim Fetzer gave me PTSD” Pozner.

Now it’s time for an opinion piece. And as much as I sympathize with Mr. Pozner, assuming his account is accurate, my opinion is that Jim Fetzer got a raw deal…and that the reverberations of this case will be disastrous unless it is overturned.

The whole courtroom drama was carefully scripted and controlled to ensure that the jury, as well as onlookers and reporters, got to hear only one side of the story. Fetzer was never allowed to present his defense.

Jim Fetzer’s defense is simple: Truth is an absolute defense against libel, and Fetzer published statements alleged by Posner to be libelous because he believed them to be true. What’s more, he still believes them to be true. Whether he is right I do not know. But I do know he is sincere in his beliefs.

I watched Jim Fetzer take the stand, swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”—and then watched him silenced and admonished, and the jury hurriedly chased out of the room, when he tried to speak the truth as he saw it.  Jim merely said he still believed his “libelous” statements were true. Asserting the contrary would be a lie. Not saying anything would be a lie by omission. So he was admonished and threatened by the court for the sin of not lying on the witness stand!

As I understand it, at no point during the two phases of the trial was Jim Fetzer ever allowed to present to a jury the evidence that led him to believe that Sandy Hook was an Operation Gladio style psy-op (which those who have read Daniel Ganser’s NATO’s Secret Armies know is entirely plausible) and that there was no actual school shooting (which does seem farfetched, but stranger things have happened). How could he present a truth defense without showing the evidence that led him to believe his allegedly libelous statements were in fact truthful?

According to the 7th Amendment of the Constitution:


Yet as I understand it—and perhaps someone can correct me in the comments if I am wrong—Jim Fetzer was never given the right of trial by jury to determine whether he had or had not committed libel. Instead, an obviously biased judge presided over that crucial first phase of the case, denying Jim’s Constitutionally-guaranteed right to a trial by jury. The same judge prevented Jim from presenting his truth defense, which would have entailed giving Jim full scope to present the evidence that led him to believe his statements were truthful and therefore not libelous.

It was only in the second, penalty phase of the trial that a jury was convened. And during that phase, not only was Jim prevented from presenting his truth defense to the jury, he was prohibited from even mentioning it, or from telling the truth about his beliefs.

Meanwhile the Pozner team was allowed to engage in shameless emotional manipulation of the jury. They even projected a huge adorable picture of Noah Pozner on the screen as the backdrop to the crucial back-to-back testimony of Lenny Pozner and Jim Fetzer! (Jim Fetzer, of course, was not allowed to use the big screen to project images that raise questions about the official story of Sandy Hook—images that can be found in Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, but which were, along with all other evidence supporting Fetzer’s truth defense, in essence banned from the courtroom.)

Chilling Effect?

One of the most dangerous repercussions of Pozner-vs.-Fetzer is its potential chilling effect on free speech. The decision awarded more than half a million dollars in “damages” based on the premise that a book presenting an alternative interpretation of a historical event hurt someone’s feelings. There was no tangible connection between the “libelous” statements in the book and any actual damages—loss of income, medical bills, etc. It was all about emotions: “This tearjerking Hollywood-style courtroom spectacle has whipped us into tearful sympathy with Pozner and two minutes of hate for Fetzer. Let’s express our emotions with a damage award.”

Following the court’s logic, if a German-American’s feelings are hurt by a book portraying Germans as villains in World War II, why not sue the author for libel and ban the book? Why not drag the author into court—and refuse to allow him to present the reasons he thinks his anti-German interpretation of World War II is truthful? Of course that would never happen, since popular prejudices are in sync with hatred of Germany’s mythic villainy; the court would find ways to rig the process to support the popular prejudice.

So how about these more plausible examples: African-American plaintiffs sue publishers for hurting their feelings by publishing 19th-century texts that include libelous portrayals of blacks; the grandson of Lyndon Johnson sues authors who have hurt his feelings by arguing that LBJ participated in the JFK assassination coup; a father who lost a son in Iraq sues an antiwar author for hurting his feelings by asserting that the invasion of Iraq was a criminal war based on lies and that his dead son was a war criminal.

One can imagine an almost infinite number of possible “libel” cases along these lines. And while only a few are likely to actually happen, that is a few too many—because the chilling effect of such lawsuits will terrorize authors and publishers into avoiding controversial or unpopular historiography. This is precisely what the Bill of Rights, whose purpose is to protect controversial and disturbing speech about matters of public import, is supposed to prevent.

I have had my differences with Jim Fetzer on many issues, including Sandy Hook. Specifically, I think we should be very careful about asserting or insinuating “nobody died” theories about suspected false flag events, for reasons that should by now be obvious.

But this is bigger than Jim Fetzer and Sandy Hook. This is about saving the Bill of Rights, which is under attack today as never before. Regardless of whether Jim is right or wrong about Sandy Hook, regardless of how mistaken some of his approaches may have been, the outcome of Pozner v. Fetzer presents a clear and present danger to freedom of expression in the United States.

The process of Pozner v. Fetzer appears to have been rigged precisely for the purpose of engineering this controlled demolition of our Constitutional rights. It must be appealed and overturned.



The Plamegate Affair: Journalist Robert Novak Publicly ID’s Covert CIA Officer Valerie Plame

On July 6, 2003, four months after the United States invaded Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson’s now historic op-ed, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” appeared in The New York Times. A week later, conservative pundit Robert Novak revealed in his newspaper column that Ambassador Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was a CIA operative. As […]