The BBC boat is not about to be rocked by its newly appointed Chairman; but the blame for which lies with a blustering, but backsliding & bottling Boris Johnson.
My latest for

Thread:

Here is a wake up call for those Republicans who believe we're going to take back the House in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024:

You will never win another election in the next 50 years.
The election fraud system perfected by the Democrats and their Deep State agents planted by the Obama cabal was put in place before the 2016 mid term and it is working perfectly.

It worked in 2016 when the GOP lost the House despite Trump being at the height of his popularity and the economy roaring back to life after 8 long years of depression;

It worked in November 2020 when Biden, an elderly man suffering from dementia was declared the winner with 1.5 million more votes than the young, charismatic and energetic Democratic Party political rock star Obama ever had cast for him in both elections he won;

And it worked in 2021 in GA run-offs, after the GOP candidates who were in the lead all day, they got defeated after vote dumps that happened after the counting closed for the day in a repeat of the scenario that happened during the Presidential election.

(1 of 2) Paul Manafort—a longtime associate of Howard Liebengood Sr.—is an exec at Event Strategies, which planned the 1/6 rally that ended with a breach of security at the Capitol, where Howard Liebengood Jr. worked security (USCP). 2 days later Liebengood Jr. committed suicide.

(2 of 2) I believe this is a coincidence. That said, because I don't think Manafort aiding and abetting a rally that ended in insurrection is coincidence, I have to assume that—out of an abundance of caution—law enforcement will investigate any possible Manafort-Liebengood link.

(PS) It is vital that no one presume connections where there may be none. My point is that as a criminal investigative matter, Manafort will be investigated for any role he had in the Save America March, and Liebengood's suicide would naturally be investigated due to its context.

(PS2) I'm sure there'll be those who say that a Donald Trump event giving tons of money to a company that enriches Paul Manafort at a time when Trump continues to need Manafort to stay quiet and Manafort is having money problems is a mere coincidence.

*That* I do not agree with.

(PS3) By the same token, as a federal criminal investigative matter, when you are about to have numerous investigations into whether security at a government building had been pre-compromised and someone who worked security at that building commits suicide, it gets investigated.

Today, if Johnson bothers to show up for the impeachment trial, he’ll hear a flimsy defense of the indefensible. Then he faces an existential, character-defining choice: Country and Constitution, or party and personal power. We have a guess. But first, let’s review some clues.

Just a couple of days before the impeachment trial began, Ron Johnson said that there was “no reason” to hold the trial—and that barring Trump from ever holding federal public office again would “pre-emptively” disenfranchise people.

Ron Johnson knows something about disenfranchisement. In fact, he’s a big fan of it. He sought to disenfranchise millions of voters who chose Biden, spreading lies and fueling the fire of the January 6th insurrection.

He went on Fox News to claim there was voter fraud, that “millions of Americans have suspicions,” and made accusations about the validity of absentee

Johnson went on in that same interview to explicitly call for Congress to “delay accepting a particular state’s electors.” He announced that he was going to vote against accepting Arizona’s electors, feeding the fury of the Jan 6th insurrectionists.

Why is Johnson's speech at the Munich conference hailed in some quarters, even by some journalists that should know better, as "a major policy speech" with "substance"? I went to read it expecting for once to be pleasantly surprised. Alas! Thread

It is full of the usual misplaced optimism not backed by any serious analysis, jingoism & digs at other EU leaders with transparent, nearly servile efforts to regain favour with the new US administration. A few examples:

The speech starts with the trademark rethorical device beloved of the UK right (whether to attack "woke' culture or pro-EU sentiments): A wildly exaggerated overblown simplistic statement that you then go on to "disprove"

So a dig aimed at Macron for saying NATO needs to adapt to changing circumstances and flattery towards America : "As you’ve seen and heard earlier, America is unreservedly back as leader of the free world and that is a fantastic thing."

Then the self- agrandissements : notice all the "I" & "Global Britain"