Project Veritas released a new video today featuring an interview with CBS San Antonio [KENS 5] whistleblower, Brett Mauser, who exposes his colleagues and outside corporate partners for promoting a political ideology rather than objective journalism in the newsroom.
Here are some of the highlights from today’s video:
Christina Karaoli Taylor, Multicultural Competency Trainer, CKT Cultural Strategies: “I challenge you [journalists] to stop thinking in terms of objective journalism. We’ll discuss why that’s not really feasible anymore.”
Ron Trevino, CBS Houston News Anchor: “I don’t really care if people trust us or not, we still have to do our job. Whether they trust us is the least of my concerns — whether they trust me or not.”
Grady Tripp, Tegna Chief Diversity Officer: “At this point, if you’re not listening to a podcast, or looking at a video, or reading any of the information that’s out as far as equality and social justice and race, you don’t care…The other thing is we’re going to be holding stations accountable, right? We’re going to be holding stations accountable because we know it’s important to the organization. KPIs [Key Performance Indicators] are going to change, right? KPIs are going to reflect diversity and inclusion from a representation standpoint.”
Brett Mauser, Former CBS San Antonio Promotions Producer and Whistleblower: “I don’t want to destroy the news. I don’t want anybody to get fired. I want people to change and realize that they are supposed to be objective.”
Mauser: “Teaching journalists at a national level, ‘Don’t be objective.’ To me, that was what journalism always was: to be objective. In my mind, if journalism is not objective, it’s not journalism — it’s propaganda.”
Mauser: “This mindset has been able to grow and infect what was supposed to be the fourth pillar of society. The journalists are supposed to be our watchdogs. They’re the ones that are supposed to be protecting us from tyranny and supposed to be going out there and finding out and giving us the truth.”Mauser: “I would tell people — my friends, family — you can’t trust the news. ‘You’re being manipulated. Well, how do you know? I work in the news!’”
I have heard that the Prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case has political aspirations and might have seen this trial as an opportunity to make a name for himself. He behaved in a way that made me think of daytime soap operas.
In fact, after the closing arguments, a new high definition video emerged. The Prosecutor should have provided it to the Defense but had not.
If you watched the trial, read through and see which of these “Special Responsibilities” were met and which were not met:
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:
(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and
(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:
(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and
(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,
(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and
(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.
(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.
You would assume that if the CDC was going to crush the civil and individual rights of those with natural immunity by having them expelled from school, fired from their jobs, separated from the military, and worse, the CDC would have proof of at least one instance of an unvaccinated, naturally immune individual transmitting the COVID-19 virus to another individual. If you thought this, you would be wrong.
My firm, on behalf of ICAN, asked the CDC for precisely this proof (see below). ICAN wanted to see proof of any instance in which someone who previously had COVID-19 became reinfected with and transmitted the virus to someone else. The CDC’s incredible response is that it does not have a single document reflecting that this has ever occurred. Not one. (See below.)
In contrast, there are endless documents reflecting cases of vaccinated individuals becoming infected with and transmitting the virus to others. Such as this study. And this study. And this study. And this study. It goes on and on…
But it gets worse…
Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg on Sunday announced the country is placing millions of people who aren’t fully vaccinated for COVID-19 on lockdown starting Monday.
About 65 percent of the Central European nation’s population is vaccinated, according to government data. Under the measures revealed on Sunday, unvaccinated people are ordered to stay at home except for limited reasons.
The rules, the government said, will be enforced by police officers who will be out on the streets carrying out spot-checks on people who are in public. Unvaccinated people are already excluded from entertainment venues, bars, restaurants, and similar venues and businesses.
“We are not taking this step lightly but it is necessary,” Schallenberg told a news conference announcing the new measures.
Schallenberg admitted that the government essentially “told one-third of the population: you will not leave your apartment any more apart from for certain reasons. That is a massive reduction in contacts between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.”
Now, unvaccinated people can only leave their homes for a limited number of reasons like going to work or shopping for essentials. It’s not clear how that would be enforced. Austria’s lockdown does not apply to the under-12s, to people who have recently recovered from COVID-19, and will last 10 days, Health Minister Wolfgang Mueckstein said….
The media is looking for absolutely anything (other than the obvious) to blame for the sudden surge in heart attacks, myocarditis, pericarditis and assorted heart diseases throughout the West.
The US media is blaming “broken heart syndrome”…
As well as “anxiety” and “depression”:
The media in Europe is blaming “climate change”:
The UK media is blaming “pandemic stress” and “poor diet”:
To their credit, the Times actually broached the real issue in the body of their piece.
“Poor diet and stress during the pandemic are likely to have caused a spike in heart attacks in Scotland, according to a leading heart specialist who said there was an outside chance that Covid-19 vaccinations had played a part,” the Times timidly reported…..
Of course vaccination without informed consent IS violence, but apparently our “leaders” think very little of their followers intelligence.