engineofgod retweeted
Five years ago, an important miscarriage of justice occurred.
The story began in April 2018 when David Sabatini, an MIT, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and Whitehead Institute scientist and professor began a consensual intimate relationship with Dr. Kristin Knouse, a principal investigator with her own lab at the Whitehead.
By January 2020, David sought to end the relationship, but Knouse apparently did not want it to end. When David thereafter started a new relationship and Knouse learned about it, she began a secretive campaign to destroy him by attempting to end his career as a scientist. She did so by damaging his name, reputation, and that of his family with false sexual harassment and other claims, thereby making him unemployable.
Knouse conspired with Dr. Ruth Lehmann, the then- and still current Director (i.e., President) of the Whitehead Institute, in her efforts to destroy Sabatini.
The record presented in court demonstrated that Dr. Lehmann committed to Knouse in October of 2020 that she would fire David. Dr. Lehmann made this commitment to Knouse before any investigation of the facts had taken place.
Seven months after committing to fire him, in March of 2021, Dr. Lehmann, on behalf of the Whitehead, hired the law firm of Hinckley, Allen, Snyder (HAS) to undergo an investigation of David. By July 2021, HAS shared a draft of its conclusions with MIT, HHMI, and the Whitehead, but not with David or his lawyers.
On the morning of August 19, 2021, David for the first time received the more than 200-page investigative report and a calendar invite for a meeting the following day with Dr. Lehmann, the president of HHMI, and the HR directors of both institutions. The report was riddled with errors and unsupported claims about David and his relationship with Knouse.
When David's lawyer immediately thereafter reached out to Whitehead counsel to ask whether David was about to be fired, they confirmed that he would be terminated at the meeting.
On the advice of his lawyer, David immediately resigned from HHMI and the Whitehead rather than attend the meeting. HHMI did not accept his resignation, choosing instead to fire him. MIT put David on leave and ultimately revoked his tenure. David thereafter resigned from MIT.
On August 20, 2021, one day after sending David the HAS report and before David had the opportunity to dispute the facts and the conclusions of the investigation, Dr. Lehmann emailed all employees at the Whitehead informing them that David had violated a number of Whitehead policies "including policies concerning sexual harassment."
The Lehmann public email, David's resignation and firing, and Dr. Lehmann's claims about David's sexual harassment exploded into a major global scandal covered in mainstream, social, and scientific media around the world as it had all of the requisite ingredients:
An attractive target with David, one of the most important scientists of his generation in line for the Nobel Prize, a purported inappropriate sexual relationship with a younger female colleague, and a political and institutional environment where punishing a man for sexual harassment advanced the career and reputation of the person and/or institution that destroyed the career and reputation of the accused, regardless of the validity of the allegations.
As a result of Knouse's claims, Lehmann's sham investigation, and the media onslaught that followed, David lost all sources of income and his reputation was destroyed. All prizes he had been previously been awarded were withdrawn. He was removed from all scientific advisory and other honorary roles other than as a member of our family foundation's (the Pershing Square Foundation's) scientific advisory board.
When I initially learned of the news about David in the summer of 2021, I hired him as a consultant to the Pershing Square Foundation as I believed our small foundation team would benefit greatly by his insights (and he now had the time to help us), and he needed the money to support his family.
At my request and under a confidentiality agreement, David provided us with many hundreds of pages of documents including texts and other communications with Knouse, the investigative report, and David's responses to the allegations so that we could do our own evaluation of Knouse's claims.
I and a member of our family office's legal team carefully reviewed the documents. After a careful review of the empirical documents -- in particular the texts between Knouse and David -- it became abundantly clear that Knouse's actions were that of an angry and jilted lover, not those of a sexually harassed junior colleague. And the investigative report appeared designed to deliver a pre-ordained conclusion rather than a dispassionate fact-based analysis.
The impact of the firings and the destruction of his career and reputation on David and his family was extraordinarily devastating, so much so that we became increasingly concerned that he might commit suicide.
[In order to make sure that David's important scientific research would continue, in February 2023, in partnership with an anonymous donor, we funded $25 million to support David launching a new lab. As you might expect, I was reviled in the press, in scientific journals, and on social media for doing so and for supporting a so-called sex offender.]
On October 20, 2021, David filed suit against Knouse alleging defamation and tortious interference in his career and his contractual arrangements. Thereafter, Knouse brought counterclaims against David.
Today, nearly five years to the date of the filing of the suit, he has finally received justice.
Today, a 13-person jury (seven men and six women) of David Sabatini's peers (12 jurors plus an alternate) unanimously determined that David proved that Kristin Knouse defamed him, tortiously interfered with his contractual relationships (his entire career as a scientist), and tortiously interfered with his prospective advantageous relationships (his future employment). The jury awarded him nearly $10 million in damages including interest.
The jury rejected all of Knouse's claims including her claims that David engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment and created a sexually hostile work environment.
While five years is a very long time to live under a reputational cloud, justice was finally served today for David, but not completely in my view.
To this day, Dr. Ruth Lehmann remains Director of the Whitehead Institute. Dr. Lehmann worked alongside Dr. Knouse to destroy David Sabatini, an acclaimed scientist and professor. She did not follow due process before she intentionally destroyed David's career and reputation.
Dr. Lehmann nearly killed David with her actions, as had we not rescued David by finding him employment, supporting him publicly to buffer the reputational damage, and supporting his recovery, he could have ended his life and left his son without a father before the world understood what had transpired here.
And the reputational damage was not just to David.
David's brother, Bernardo Sabatini, is one of the most important neuroscientists in the world. To this day, he has had to deal with a large cloud over his family name and reputation. Recently, when the new CEO of our brain institute mentioned that Bernardo Sabatini was on our board, he was asked: "Wasn't he involved in some kind of sex scandal?"
For obvious reasons, the character of the person who runs a scientific institute is of utmost importance. Among other failures here, Dr. Ruth Lehmann committed to Knouse that she would fire David many months before an investigation was even launched and without consideration of the empirical facts.
How can one trust research produced by a scientific institute if its leader is not committed to observing the empirical facts before reaching conclusions that have life-threatening import? We have unfortunately seen massive amounts of scientific fraud which has harmed innumerable human lives and wasted billions of dollars of research funding and time.
For her ethical breaches here, Dr. Lehmann should be fired from the Whitehead. Based on her actions in this case, she is in no position to serve as the leader of an important scientific institute.
I speak with some perspective on how scientific and other institutions should be led. Including the recent launch of the Ackman Oxman Institute, we have funded approximately $1 billion of scientific research and institutions over the last decade or so, and this experience has given us the opportunity to meet the leadership of many of the most important scientific institutions in the world.
To put it plainly, we would not give a dollar to a scientific institute whose leader compromised basic moral principles as has happened here.
At an absolute minimum, the board of the Whitehead should immediately launch a detailed and independent investigation of Dr. Lehmann's actions in the Sabatini case. I would encourage the investigation, among other considerations, to carefully exam all of the correspondence between Lehmann and Knouse, as well their correspondence with the HAS law firm on among other areas, the various drafts of the Sabatini investigative report.
Alternatively, Dr. Lehmann could resign, minimize further distraction for the Whitehead, and save institutional time and resources that would be better spent on research that benefits humanity.
engineofgod retweeted
Cornell Case - Jane Doe's Full Six-Page Statement
Jane Doe's complete six-page sworn police statement provides substantially more detail about the night at Chi Phi than the excerpts previously made public.
Several details stand out.
Doe says she arrived at Chi Phi between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. She had been to the fraternity before, knew several of the men, and describes a previous sexual encounter with Newell (I noted this in a previous post). She also recognized at least one of the men who entered the room later that night from her previous visit.
She recounts movement through the fraternity, conversations, sexual activity, drug consumption, people entering and leaving, and numerous interactions throughout the night.
There are also some details in Doe's statement that I find difficult to reconcile, particularly when comparing her descriptions of feeling trapped with her physical actions.
She recounts opening the bedroom door for Lopes while undressed after Newell explained that he also lived in the room. Why didn't she put her dress on before letting someone new into the room?
Later, when additional men entered, she describes hiding beneath the covers because she was naked, feeling unable to leave because the men were between her and the door, and being unable to access her phone across the room. She also explains that her bank cards had been stolen earlier, leaving her without money for an Uber.
Yet she also describes sitting up, exposing her breasts to yell at one of the guys, that her legs were exposed showing scars she had, then getting completely out of bed, standing naked in front of the men, and flexing her muscles. She says her intention was to intimidate one of them. At least two of the men's accounts also describe her flexing, laughing, and talking to the guys.
That raises questions for me.
If she was physically able to get out of bed and stand in front of the group, what prevented her from retrieving her dress and phone? And why did she feel emboldened enough to stand up and confront someone, but then felt too intimidated to approach the door?
Why didn't she communicate to Ingalls or Newell that she wanted to leave? And how does the text exchange with her roommate fit into that timeline?
I'm not suggesting that someone must attempt to escape or physically resist to establish that sexual contact was unwanted. They don't.
But when an account includes specific explanations for why someone felt unable to act, I think it's reasonable to examine those explanations alongside what the person describes physically doing.
I've now reviewed the DA's summary of her statement, the full six-page document, portions of her police interview, excerpts from Cornell's Title IX investigation, the 99-page hearing panel decision, and publicly released text messages.
I approached Doe's statement by separating her communication, physical behavior, and observable condition throughout the night, weighing her recollections alongside the accounts of the accused men.
What was communicated?
Doe describes multiple instances of verbal communication throughout the night.
She recounts men asking before initiating certain sexual acts, her responses, and occasions when she refused and the men stopped.
She also describes unwanted touching, a kiss she pulled away from, and feeling pressured into sexual activity.
The men's accounts in Title IX reporting provide another perspective. They describe conversations, checking whether she was okay, her communicating dizziness, and interactions in which they understood her to be participating voluntarily.
What was she physically capable of doing?
Doe describes a remarkable amount of activity over the course of the evening.
She recounts walking between locations, interacting with friends, drinking, consuming ketamine, participating in sexual activity, helping care for intoxicated men, moving around the bedroom, getting up naked and flexing, getting dressed, moving to another room, sleeping, and eventually leaving.
She recalls details about furniture, people, conversations, sexual acts, and the layout of the rooms.
The men's statements describe additional interactions and physical activity. These observations become important when assessing intoxication and capacity.
Doe estimates her intoxication at different points as 5/10, 6/10, and 8/10. She also describes being severely intoxicated and more impaired than she had ever been at the end of the night.
Those are subjective assessments, just as the men's descriptions of their own intoxication are subjective. They deserve consideration, but they must also be weighed against observable behavior and other evidence.
Without toxicology testing, reconstructing everyone's level of impairment will depend heavily on testimony, observations, and corroborating evidence.
What could the men reasonably have known?
This is where I think some of the public discussion has blurred important distinctions.
Doe describes feeling used in the moment, uncomfortable, isolated, angry, disgusted, and unable to make decisions. She recounts hoping she might pass out and thinking about the possibility of the men being charged with rape.
She also describes getting up naked in front of the group and flexing towards one of the men while telling him she would mess him up, explaining that her intention was to intimidate him. Her explanation provides insight into how she says she experienced the moment.
But what did the men actually observe?
Did they interpret her behavior as discomfort, intoxication, participation, or something else?
The men couldn't read her thoughts. Criminal responsibility cannot be established merely by assuming they knew what she was privately thinking.
That doesn't mean internal experiences are irrelevant, or that silence establishes consent. It means we must distinguish what someone felt from what another person knew, observed, or reasonably should have recognized.
INTOXICATION AND CONSENT
Everyone involved reportedly consumed alcohol or drugs to varying degrees.
Under New York law, voluntary intoxication alone doesn't automatically establish legal incapacity to consent. The degree and nature of impairment, and the applicable legal definitions, matter.
I also think the men's intoxication deserves consistent consideration. If ketamine could affect Doe's memory, perception, and judgment, it could also affect theirs.
That doesn't excuse criminal behavior, but it matters when evaluating inconsistent recollections.
CONTRADICTIONS AND EVOLVING ACCOUNTS
The full statement adds context, but it also raises additional questions when compared with Doe's later text messages, subsequent allegations, and the men's accounts.
Some believe those differences reflect a person gradually recognizing and processing sexual assault. Others question whether regret, shame, social pressure, or discovering that intimate details had been shared publicly contributed to her changing interpretation.
The same scrutiny should apply to the men's statements. Contradictions deserve examination, but they do not automatically prove deception.
WHERE I STAND RIGHT NOW
Based on the publicly available evidence I've reviewed, I have substantial questions about whether criminal charges could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt against each of the seven men.
That is not a declaration that nothing criminal happened; there is evidence we haven't seen.
But criminal responsibility must be evaluated individually. Being present in a room, behaving reprehensibly, participating in consensual sexual activity, and committing sexual assault are not interchangeable acts.
Nor should we assume that because Doe consented to some encounters, she necessarily consented to everything that followed.
What I see is an evening involving substantial intoxication, questionable judgment, degrading communications, blurred boundaries, and decisions that have had enormous consequences for everyone involved.
There are lessons here about personal responsibility, protecting ourselves and others when intoxicated, respecting sexual boundaries, and recognizing that consent to one person or one encounter is not consent to an entire room.
None of that requires blaming all men, dismissing women who report sexual assault, or treating fraternities and sororities as inherently dangerous.
The objective should be truth, accountability, and preventing similar situations.
engineofgod retweeted
THEY understand ACCOUNTABILITY perfectly fine.
THEY just seem to FORGET WHAT it means when the person DEMANDING it is a MAN.
Have you ever watched two women argue?
Female friends. Coworkers. Sisters. Complete strangers.
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD them SAY TO ANOTHER:
“Don’t be mad at her. She’s on her period.”
“Let her disrespect you. It’s her hormones.”
“She’s stressed. Just accept her attitude.”
“She’s experiencing postpartum depression. Don’t hold her accountable.”
NO. YOU KNOW WHY?
Because when women are dealing with other women, suddenly everybody remembers that being emotional doesn’t give you permission to treat people like garbage.
“BITCH, WATCH YOUR MOUTH!”
“WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING TO?”
“FIX YOUR ATTITUDE!”
Nobody wants to hear excuses about HORMONES.
Nobody is checking her menstrual calendar before deciding whether the disrespect was ACCEPTABLE.
BUT LET THAT SAME WOMAN DISRESPECT A MAN.
Suddenly, it’s a medical conference.
“It’s her hormones.”
“It’s her period.”
“She’s overwhelmed.”
“She’s stressed.”
“She’s emotional.”
“You need to understand what women go through.”
OH, SO WHEN ITS MEN, WE NEED A BIOLOGY DEGREE TO RECOGNIZE DISRESPECT? But…
When she insults another woman, she’s being disrespectful.
When she insults a man, she’s experiencing hormonal changes.
When she screams at another woman, she needs to control herself.
When she screams at her husband, he needs to control his reaction.
When another woman refuses to tolerate her attitude, she’s standing up for herself.
BUT WHEN A MAN REFUSES TO TOLERATE IT, HE’S SUDDENLY EMOTIONALLY IMMATURE.
Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
And here’s another interesting observation.
They love saying, “A REAL MAN WOULD NEVER HIT A WOMAN.”
Fair enough. Men shouldn’t hit women.
BUT NOTICE HOW QUICKLY THAT ENTIRE CONVERSATION CHANGES WHEN TWO WOMEN GET PHYSICAL.
Suddenly, everybody understands retaliation.
Suddenly, everybody understands consequences.
Suddenly, nobody expects unlimited patience.
WOMEN are perfectly capable of recognizing disrespect, setting boundaries, and demanding apologies from each other.
Yet women expect men to accept behavior they wouldn’t tolerate from another woman for FIVE MINUTES.
engineofgod retweeted
Replying to @AndrewBonderud @infantrydort
I'm sorry you feel that way but the Lieutenant Colonel is both sane and moral. As an attorney and former naval officer you should understand that.
At Major Hassan's 2013 court-martial he represented himself, admitted he was the shooter, and said he had “switched sides” in what he called a U.S. “war on Islam.” He claimed he acted to protect Taliban fighters and other Muslims from American military operations.
A panel of officers convicted him of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder and sentenced him to death, dismissal from the service, and forfeiture of all pay. Under Article 118, premeditated murder is punishable by death or imprisonment for life; the panel chose death, and that choice had to be unanimous. Because the sentence included death, review was automatic. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence; the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces later did as well; and in March 2025 the Supreme Court declined review.
In October 2026 the President approved the death sentence, and the Army set execution by firing squad for December 3, 2026.
That, my friend, is justice.
engineofgod retweeted
For those that still don’t understand what Benghazi was all about:
🚨mSo here's the REAL story:
Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to secretly retrieve US made Stinger Missiles that the State Dept had supplied to Ansar al Sharia in Libya WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission.
Sec State Hillary Clinton had brokered the Libya deal through Ambassador Stevens and a Private Arms Dealer named Marc Turi, but some of the shoulder fired Stinger Missiles ended up in Afghanistan where they were used against our own military. On July 25th, 2012, a US Chinook helicopter was downed by one of them. Not destroyed only because the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile. The helicopter didn't explode, but it had to land and an ordnance team recovered the missile’s serial number which led back to a cache of Stinger Missiles kept in
Qatar by the CIA.
Obama and Hillary were in full panic mode, so Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to retrieve the rest of the Stinger Missiles. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the Stand Down Orders given to multiple rescue teams during the siege of the US Embassy.
It was the State Dept, NOT the CIA, that supplied the Stinger Missiles to our sworn enemies because Gen. Petraeus at CIA would not approve supplying the deadly missiles due to their potential use against commercial aircraft. So then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus when he refused to testify in support of Obama’s phony claim of a “spontaneous uprising caused by a YouTube video that insulted Muslims.”
Obama and Hillary committed TREASON!
THIS is what the investigation is all about, WHY she had a Private Server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and WHY Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was the result of the YouTube video, even though everyone KNEW it was not.
Furthermore, the Taliban knew that the administration had aided and abetted the enemy WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission, so they began pressuring (blackmailing) the Obama Administration to release five Taliban generals being held at Guantanamo.
Bowe Bergdahl was just a useful pawn used to cover the release of the Taliban generals. Everyone knew Bergdahl was a traitor but Obama used Bergdahl’s exchange for the five Taliban generals to cover that Obama was being coerced by the Taliban about the unauthorized Stinger Missile deal.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised, as well and a Sec of State that is a serial liar, who perjured herself multiple times at the Congressional Hearings on Benghazi. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft were called upon for help in Benghazi: because the administration knew that our enemies had Stinger Missiles that, if used to down those planes, would likely be traced back to the CIA cache in Qatar and then to the State Dept’s illegitimate arms deal in Libya.
Make sure everyone reads the true story of Benghazi.
engineofgod retweeted
Replying to @NewsWire_US
This is false. No one is off the table. We will continue to arrest any and all illegal aliens that come into our path.
Anyone in our country illegally will be arrested and deported.
In an effort to protect American citizens, ICE has initiated a nationwide public safety surge in sanctuary cities where our brave officers will be targeting criminal illegal aliens—many released from jails by sanctuary politicians—including murderers, rapists, child predators, and gang members.
engineofgod retweeted
Yes, yes if by "dangerous" you mean "holy shit, we won't be able to fabricate the appropriate number of ballots out of thin air any longer to ensure Democratic victory in last-minute voter surges" then agreed.....
🚨BREAKING: In a dangerous decision for voters, the Supreme Court authorized the Trump administration to overhaul a federal immigration database into a vast, centralized and deeply flawed database of personal information to initiate registration purges. democracydocket.com/news-ale…
engineofgod retweeted
RUBIO JUST SAID THE NUMBER THEY NEVER WANTED ON TV
Americans work 40 years.
They retire.
Social Security: $800. $900. A thousand a month.
Somebody who got here from Cuba three months ago: $1,500 a month.
Marco Rubio said it out loud.
“So imagine if you’ve been working here for 40 years and your Social Security check is smaller than the benefits going to a 28-year-old, able-bodied person who just got here. That’s real. That happens. That’s happening every day. That makes no sense.”
You paid in.
They landed.
They beat your check.
That’s not compassion.
That’s a slap in the face with your own tax dollars.
engineofgod retweeted
Realities of being a man:
1. Nobody cares until you are rich or dead.
2. You have to provide something, then you get love in return.
3. You are born with no value. You have to build yourself up.
4. Your pain is your problem, you have to deal with it.
5. Nobody respects you unless you are competent.
6. If you are weak, society will crush you.
7. Nobody is coming to save you. Not a woman. Not your friends. Not the system.
8. Your usefulness is how most people measure you.
engineofgod retweeted
Women want taller men - preference.
Men want beautiful women - shallow a$$hole.
Women want older men - preference.
Men want younger women - creep. Predator.
Women reject broke men - she knows her worth.
Men reject single mothers - insecure little boy.
Women want dominant men - natural attraction.
Men want submissive women - misogynist.
Women set boundaries - empowered queen.
Men set boundaries - controlling narcissist.
Women have standards and society applauds.
Men have standards and suddenly society needs a f*cking emergency meeting.
Apparently "everyone is allowed preferences" means everyone except men.
engineofgod retweeted
Interesting weekend read.
"Permission economy": a society in which your ability to buy, move, produce and exchange depends on continuing approval from the institutions operating the system.
pulsechain.nexus/the-permiss…
engineofgod retweeted
"When Sheridan was six, she had her tonsils removed. I held her hand and made her a promise every father believes he can keep: 'You are safe. Daddy is right here. I will protect you.' The last thing she said before she closed her eyes was, 'I love you, daddy.'"
"13 years later, I held that same hand. Only this time it was cold."
"I was outside the Chicago Medical Examiner's office, holding the lifeless hand of my 18-year-old daughter for the last time. Our sweet Sheridan was murdered in Chicago by a man who was in this country illegally."
"All I could think about was that promise I made her — because when Sheridan needed me the most, I wasn't there. I couldn't get between her and that man."
"We don't want anyone else to have to hold the cold hand of their daughter and know it was 100% preventable."
"Find your voice. Speak up for these American angels."
— Tom Gorman, father of Sheridan Gorman 🕊️
What the heck is happen up north, Canada has so lost it's way.
Report: Canada admits gender-swapping men are raping women in prison, but will keep woke policies in place
notthebee.com/article/report…
engineofgod retweeted
Make sure to send this picture to all young progressive women you know and tell them that the illegal migrants in Ceuta are killing baby dolphins for fun
🇪🇸
engineofgod retweeted
I was wrong about Lindsay Clancy. Here’s why I changed my mind.
She was never diagnosed with postpartum depression or psychosis. She was not on 13 medications at once. She was not “hearing voices.” She was not abandoned by her family.
She was diagnosed with a mood disorder - never psychosis - and went to a variety of doctors who all prescribed different medications, which she took unreliably and not simultaneously.
She only heard a voice one time - and that was right before she killed her kids. Extremely atypical for psychosis.
She carefully planned her children’s murders down to the minute. She researched the distance of a restaurant she’d ask Patrick to go to. Added on a last-minute errand before he left. Calmly answered his phone call in the middle of her crime. Brought her children down to the basement one by one, overpowering their resistance and killing them slowly.
It does seem like she had support from her family. She may have still been overwhelmed, but it’s not true that all of her cries for help went unanswered.
I originally placed too much blame on the many SSRIs she was prescribed. For years on my show, I’ve talked to health professionals who have been warning about the violence-inducing effects of these drugs, and I thought Lindsay’s case may be an example of that reality.
Is it still possible these SSRIs had a negative effect? Absolutely. But the case that these drove her into a psychotic episode is weak.
This evidence continues to reveal, in my opinion, that Lindsay Clancy methodically murdered her children and she was fully aware of what she was doing.
engineofgod retweeted
Only the rich can afford to be communists, or if you prefer, "Democratic Socialists."
Grace Ryan, a 25-year-old chocolate heiress from Ohio, is the new poster girl for the communist gang. After attending the $35,000-a-year K-12 grade Columbus Academy she moved on to the $70,000-a-year New York University. Of course dorm life is not for nepo babies, so while attending NYU on her father's dime she lived in $3,170 a month Bushwick studio and spent $50/class for Pilates.
In between her busy life as anything but a poor student, she has photos of herself taken next to a $115,000 Hummer and puffing a cigar on a boat while sporting a $400 Ralph Lauren stars-and-stripes sweater. For the love of all that's holy, the last thing she should be wearing is the American flag!
I'mma seeing a trend here. Mamdani is rich. Hasan Piker is rich. Bernie Sanders is rich. Elizabeth Warren is Rich. El-Sayed is rich. Ro Khanna is Rich.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
engineofgod retweeted
Is this your coauthor’s LinkedIn?
How in the hell does someone serve in the Navy for ten years AND graduate the Naval Woke college without a f**king clue on how difficult and dangerous it is rescuing a man overboard at sea in a combat zone??
As a former ship captain, I have nightmares at least one a month.
Every single sailor who ever went to sea has moments of rear fear of being lost.
There is no greater fear than watching your entire ship sail away from you.
Do you have any f**king clue how difficult finding and then keeping track of a tiny little head bobbing in the water is?
And the only times I’ve tried, they were wearing big, giant orange life jackets, which presumably nobody puts on if they are suicidal.
And in a combat zone??
The entire formation which is supposed to be looking for enemy missiles has to look for this person.
Until very recently, a man who put an entire military operation at risk would have been court-martialed and jailed.
But that did not happen!
Instead, the strike group did the impossible. They found the man!
That’s harder than finding a needle in a haystack.
Then they got him psychiatric help.
This is the feel-good story of the year.
Your title should read “U.S. aircraft carrier bravely rescues man battling mental illness after he becomes lost at sea.”
But instead, you turn this into a political clown show.
My wife’s a sailor. She fought on an ammo ship in the Gulf War. I had many sleepless nights worried she might be blown off deck by a scud and lost at sea.
If she had been, I would be on my knees thanking every single crewman who risked their life rescuing her.
You don’t even thank the rescue helicopter crew. Which I understand if you are a civilian, but your coauthor is a NAVY VETERAN.
GMAFB with this horseshit.
Shame on both of you.
EXCLUSIVE: The wife of the USS Lincoln sailor who jumped overboard last week says she wasn't notified about the incident until four days after & said her husband repeatedly expressed concerns over his mental health but was "brushed off." w/@PriyaReporting
ms.now/news/uss-abraham-linc…

































