The [DS]/[CB] infrastructure plan is failing before it begins, people are beginning to realize that this is not about the infrastructure and more about payoffs, climate funding and taxes, everything the people do not want. Trumps economy has taken off since states and business opened. The [CB] now sees Crypto as a threat. The [DS]/MSM are going down the path that the patriots laid out for them. Lurking in the background is election fraud, Durham and other triggers. Trump is letting the people see first hand how bad it can get. The people are reaching the precipice. The power to the people will be returning, the legislatures are now implementing laws that will safeguard the elections. Flynn, says all those people running in 2024 can forget about it, think election fraud.
Do you get it yet? Everything this dude said in this MOVIE clip in 1981 was true. But, it was in a MOVIE so you don’t think it’s real. I guess we can call it double reverse psychology. In this case, tell them the real truth in a “fake” setting over and over and they’ll never figure out the truth.
Depopulation advocate and anti-human globalist Bill Gates wants to block the sun, collapse photosynthesis, destroy global food crops and starve humanity to death. Harvard University scientists helped him design an experiment to accomplish that. It’s called “SCoPEx.”
In a shocking turn of events, Sweden’s government, pressured by reindeer herders and other environmental groups, has backed away from conducting this mad science experiment, handing Gates a major defeat in his quest for global extermination and genocide.
I cover this in great detail in today’s podcast. If you’ve never heard of this before, you will be blown away by the truth.
Never before have so many starting seeking the truth, trying to understand the meaning of our existence, to know our true selves. We are spirits born with a into a world blessed with a mind and body. We are eager to learn but then as Dr. Bruce Lipton explains, we have been programmed since birth. Our education, media, medical, political and religious systems play an integral part of who we are and become. We have lost sight of our true selves because we have been guided daily through a world wide messaging system. Buddha tells us what we think we become. Have our thoughts, emotions and actions created our reality. Have we feel into the worldwide system of control that is keeping us sick, through the air we breathe the food we eat and vaccinations in the pretense of keeping us healthy.
We are now learning the global elites controls these systems and many are asking why? Perhaps it is the same story that humanity has faced since the beginning, the battle of good vs evil, positive and negative energy.
Perhaps is time to accept humanity is not alone in the universe and our purpose is to learn how to balance love and wisdom. Love is the most powerful energy in the universe. The signs are all around , we just have to be mindful of the moment and know that God, Infinite Intelligence is with us always.
We are experiencing a global spiritual awakening. There are no steps or stages that can be measure, no degree can be earned, the only thing man can do is guide you. Looking back at man’s track record, makes one ponder how we have been enslaved in concepts and belief systems, so now it is time to know our true selves.
In the Gospel of Thomas(3) Jesus said, “If those who lead you say to you, ‘See, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.”
We are seeing a push for people to be vaccinated for a virus that kills less that one percent for those who do not have a comprised immune system. The numbers are hidden of course and that raises the question of why the censorship. This link will lead you to censored videos of doctors speaking on the subject of the COVID19 Vaccine.
President Joe Biden recently announced his “wartime” strategy to confront COVID-19. His weapon: vaccines. The battle plan builds on former President Donald Trump’s arsenal of 400 million vaccines, with a purchase of an additional 200 million more shots so all Americans can get both their recommended doses faster.
To date, more than 60 million vaccine doses have been distributed in the United States and more than 10 million people have received their first of two doses.
Priority favors health care workers and those most at risk from infection, but people at the back of the vaccine line worry their turn for a jab won’t come fast enough. Biden’s purchase aims to alleviate supply concerns by providing enough doses for all 300 million Americans by the end of summer 2021.
But how many doses may go unclaimed? Health officials urge everyone to get vaccinated for COVID-19, but some are not so sure they want it.
This wary cohort is a sizable segment of the population. According to the latest COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 51 percent of Americans are either hesitant or opposed to the vaccine. Most of this group is taking a wait-and-see approach and watching for any problems that emerge in those who get the shot first.
One in five U.S. adults draw a deeper line in the sand, saying they will either “definitely not” get the new vaccine, or they will concede “only if required” for work, school, or other activities.
In California and Ohio, about half of frontline workers in hospitals and nursing homes are refusing the vaccine. And the U.S. Department of Defense reports that many service members are also refusing the shot, but won’t say how many are opting out.
Even some seniors are either on the fence about the shot or simply refuse it altogether. A survey of people 65 and older found that 16 percent of seniors are unsure they want it, and 6 percent say they definitely won’t get it.
For those eager to get their shot, the people who reject it are puzzling, because the push to take the vaccine is so well-publicized and the pitch so compelling. This government-endorsed medical intervention promises protection from a virus linked to millions of deaths, and health officials warn that restrictive social measures could last forever without it.
However, the reasons for refusing the vaccine have compelling features of their own.
New Kind of Shot
The Kaiser survey breaks down those for and against the COVID-19 vaccine by race, age, and political identity. These demographic divisions invite speculation and reveal some curious patterns. But for other groups, the line is crystal clear. For example, those suspicious of vaccines in general will obviously be suspicious of this one.
But the shot designed for the COVID-19 virus (also known as SARS-CoV2) has features that give even those who are otherwise supportive of vaccines cause for concern.
Traditional vaccines work by injecting a weak version of a pathogen to trigger an immune response. The goal is to prime the body to protect itself should it ever face a full-blown infection in the future. The formulation and application of this procedure has evolved dramatically over the past few decades, but the basic principle has been around for a few hundred years.
By contrast, the shots developed to protect against COVID-19 takes a form our ancestors would never have imagined. This new technology influences our immune mechanism at the genetic level. Because these vaccines act on our messenger RNA, they are known as mRNA vaccines.
Before COVID-19, scientists were already researching mRNA vaccines for other diseases in clinical trials. But emergency measures inspired by the pandemic sped up the approval process for candidates designed to protect against SARS-CoV2. Trials were run last year to monitor short-term health effects, but since the public rollout began only a month ago, the long-term impact remains a mystery.
This mRNA vaccine technology is designed to mimic natural viral infections in a way that the immune system recognizes, without the dangers of exposing the body to a genuine infection. In the case of SARS-CoV2 vaccine, it programs your cells to mimic the signature spike protein found on the surface of the COVID-19 virus, thereby programming your immune system to defend itself against this familiar form whenever it comes in contact with the real virus.
That’s what the shot is designed to do, anyway. However, some worry that this still experiential technology may have unintended consequences. One common concern is that mRNA vaccines could alter your DNA. However, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), this is false.
“The mRNA from a COVID-19 vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA is kept. This means the mRNA cannot affect or interact with our DNA in any way. Instead, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines work with the body’s natural defenses to safely develop immunity to disease,” states the CDC.
Another common point of confusion the health agency addresses is the question of who should take the shot, and who can go without. The CDC says just because someone may have developed an immunity to the virus, doesn’t mean they are adequately protected. People who have tested positive for SARS-CoV2 and recovered are still urged to get the vaccine.
“At this time, experts do not know how long someone is protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. The immunity someone gains from having an infection, called natural immunity, varies from person to person. Some early evidence suggests natural immunity may not last very long,” states the CDC.
To drive this point home, in December 2020, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued a report claiming that Pfizer’s study of its mRNA vaccine proved that it was highly effective for people who’d already had COVID-19.
But Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) discovered that the CDC was promoting false information. When Massie examined the Pfizer trial, he found that it clearly didn’t demonstrate a benefit for those with evidence of prior SARS-CoV2 infection as the health agency reported.
The congressman confronted the CDC in a private call, and the agency’s principal deputy director, Dr. Anne Schuchat acknowledged the mistake, and apologized for the delay in fixing it. However, as of this report, the CDC’s claim remains unchanged.
In a series of tweets, Massie says that the public needs to know that the CDC is misrepresenting the results of the Pfizer trial. Adding that the very meaning of science “has been perverted for this virus.”
“Baseless claims with no quantification are being made by the government, repeated by the media, and accepted by public,” Massie wrote on Twitter.
As our understanding of mRNA vaccines continues to evolve, the CDC’s claim that the shot doesn’t influence DNA may prove wrong as well.
An article published in the January edition of Nature Genetics finds that DNA stability will change if RNA is chemically modified.
Lead researcher Arne Klungland explained to Phys.org that several research groups are now working together to study what effect this can have on the DNA molecule.
“We already know that R-loop areas are associated with sequences of DNA containing active genes and that this can lead to chromosomal breakage and the loss of genetic information,” Klungland said.
Weighing the Risks
There would be no controversy if vaccines were shown to be 100 percent risk free, but even the most dedicated vaccine supporter has to admit that this medical intervention can do harm. The debate is about how much risk vaccines pose compared to the benefit they deliver.
In several surveys identifying the number of people who are suspicious of the COVID-19 vaccine, the most common concern is side effects. Drugmaker trials showed that reactions do occur, but they were typically mild. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration report from December 2020 on the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the most common adverse reactions were injection site reactions, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain, and fever.
Experts add that these reactions, particularly after the second shot, are a good sign, signaling that immune protection is kicking in.
However, since the public roll out of the shot, there has also been evidence of severe and unanticipated symptoms that may be associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), out of nearly 10,000 reports linked to the COVID-19 shot as of Jan. 29, VAERS has recorded 501 deaths, 1066 hospitalizations, 147 cases of anaphylaxis, and 128 cases of Bell’s palsy.
VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the United States, but keep in mind that their numbers may only reveal a small portion of the real story. A 2010 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that “fewer than one percent of vaccine injuries” are reported to VAERS.
More than 80 percent of people who test positive for COVID-19 have no symptoms, and most of the remaining group has mild symptoms. COVID-19 has an over 99 percent survival rate for people from zero to 70 without any treatment.
But as health experts remind us, not getting vaccinated carries risks, too. The disease can have serious, life-threatening complications, particularly for those who have two or more comorbidities, especially obesity and diabetes. And if you get sick, you could compromise the health of friends, family, or anyone else you may come in contact with.
So it’s a gamble, but officials say the odds are in the vaccine’s favor. According to the CDC, clinical trials of all vaccines must first show they are safe and effective before they can be authorized or approved for use, including the ones for COVID.
“The known and potential benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine must outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine,” states the CDC.
However, the risk that remains is all yours. The federal government has granted COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability if serious reactions occur. Likewise, government regulators and private companies that make the SARS-CoV2 vaccine mandatory for employees are also protected from litigation in the event of harm.
Considering the Unknowns
While health officials are generally in lockstep support with the new vaccine, many independent doctors say the risk it carries is still too great. One of these doctors is board-certified emergency physician and founder of America’s Front Line Doctors (AFLD), Dr. Simone Gold. In a recent lecture discussing “The Truth About the COVID-19 Vaccine,” Gold says the medical establishment ignores serious concerns that hang over this “experimental biological intervention.” One of these concerns include the lack of independently published animal studies for a product that has been rushed to market.
Gold criticizes the “tremendous failure” that has been observed in creating previous coronavirus vaccines but the SARS-CoV1 vaccine relies on a different anagram. Those shots utilized recombinant modified vaccinia Ankara (rMVA), which is not the same as the mRNA technology used in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s products designed to protect against SARS-CoV2.
In terms of speed, the new COVID-19 vaccine is a miracle, and is one of the points of concern raised by critics.
In a Q & A for Johns Hopkins Medicine, Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., senior director of infection prevention, and Gabor Kelen, M.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, say that such concerns miss an important point.
“The mRNA technology used to develop the COVID-19 vaccines has been years in development to prepare for outbreaks of infectious viruses. Thus, the manufacturing process was ready very early in the pandemic.”
COVID-19 vaccines created with mRNA technology allows for “a faster approach than the traditional way vaccines are made,” they write.
When it comes to whether somebody should get the shot, Johns Hopkins encouraged people to talk to their doctor and consult other health care organizations, but said the decision is ultimately up to each person.
“You alone make the decision about whether to get a COVID-19 vaccine.”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made comments last year about COVID-19 vaccines that clash with policies that his platform has implemented, leaked video shows.
Zuckerberg said in July 2020: “I do just want to make sure that I share some caution on this [vaccine] because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA … basically the ability to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream. So, there’s work on both paths of vaccine development.”
Zuckerberg took a different stance when appearing in a virtual forum in November 2020 with Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading government scientist.
“Just to clear up one point, my understanding is that these vaccines do not modify your DNA or RNA. So that’s just an important point to clarify,” Zuckerberg said, prompting Fauci to say: “No, first of all, DNA is inherent in your own nuclear cell. Sticking in anything foreign will ultimately get cleared.”
Facebook didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The footage was published by Project Veritas, a journalism watchdog. It was allegedly from Facebook’s internal weekly question-and-answer session.
Zuckerberg’s Facebook has imposed harsh guidelines on what people can post about COVID-19, and banned or restricted a number of users for violating the policies.
Facebook earlier in February said it would take down any posts with claims about vaccines deemed false by health groups or its so-called fact-checkers.
Facebook stated in a blog post, “Today, following consultations with leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), we are expanding the list of false claims we will remove to include additional debunked claims about the coronavirus and vaccines.”
The list includes “claims that the COVID-19 vaccine changes people’s DNA.”
Administrators for some groups will be required to greenlight all posts if the groups have been labeled problematic in terms of posts that have been made.
“Claims about COVID-19 or vaccines that do not violate these policies will still be eligible for review by our third-party fact-checkers, and if they are rated false, they will be labeled and demoted,” the company stated.
Footage showing Zuckerberg commenting privately on various issues has been made public before by Project Veritas. In one clip, he praised President Joe Biden’s early executive orders “on areas that we as a company care quite deeply about and have for some time.”
“Areas like immigration, preserving DACA, ending restrictions on travel from Muslim-majority countries, as well as other executive orders on climate and advancing racial justice and equity. I think these were all important and positive steps,” he said.
Facebook banned former President Donald Trump in January while Trump was still in office. Trump remains blocked from the platform.
Dozens of Aussie medical boards and AHPRA have judicially removed doctors’ right of refusal and right of professional judgement for an individual patient’s needs, or professional doubts about the government’s propaganda regarding its effectiveness.
Quotes from the joint statement published by AHRPA:
“In informing their patient or client of a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must be careful not to discourage their patient or client from seeking vaccination. Practitioners authorized to prescribe and/or administer the vaccine but who have a conscientious objection must ensure appropriate referral options are provided for vaccination.”
“While some health practitioners may have a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, all practitioners, including students on placement, must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID-19 vaccination.”
“Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.
“National Boards have developed social media guidance to help registered health practitioners understand and meet their obligations when using social media. The guidance explains that registered health practitioners must make sure that their social media activity is consistent with the regulatory framework for their profession and does not contradict or counter public health campaigns or messaging, such as the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.
“Health practitioners are reminded that it is an offence under the National Law to advertise a regulated health service (including via social media) in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive. Advertising that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by Ahpra [sic].”
The people can now see how the corrupt politicians payoff themselves and others. The stimulus bill is not meant for the people, it is meant for the elite. The [CB] is not in control of the economic system. Trump and the patriots have turned the table on all of them. There is a new system that is being built now and the control will be returned to the people. The [DS]/MSM have been setup. Everything we have learned in the past is now coming true in the future. Future does prove the past. Wray was testifying today and he did not lean either way. Is Wray a sleeper, can he be trusted. This will be a future marker. The virus is now disappearing, Texas/Mississippi have now removed the mask mandates, businesses are opening. This is all according to the plan.
On August 19, 1947, the judges of the American military tribunal in the case of the USA vs. Karl Brandt et. al. delivered their verdict. Before announcing the guilt or innocence of each defendant, they confronted the difficult question of medical experimentation on human beings. Several German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from previous American or German ones. Furthermore they showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation. This argument worried Drs. Andrew Ivy and Leo Alexander, American doctors who had worked with the prosecution during the trial. On April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes which outlined six points defining legitimate research. The verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments” and revised the original six points into ten. Subsequently, the ten points became known as the “Nuremberg Code.” Although the code addressed the defense arguments in general, remarkably none of the specific findings against Brandt and his codefendants mentioned the code. Thus the legal force of the document was not well established. The uncertain use of the code continued in the half century following the trial when it informed numerous international ethics statements but failed to find a place in either the American or German national law codes. Nevertheless, it remains a landmark document on medical ethics and one of the most lasting products of the “Doctors Trial.”
“The researchers found the most interesting and suspicious thing when they tried to estimate the mortality of people over 65 years old, most of whom had already been vaccinated. It seems that it is the death from the vaccine that explains the rise in official deaths from the coronavirus in Israel, which has been observed since December. Vaccination of the oldest people has led to a sharp increase in their mortality.” https://t.me/insider_amigo/553
The establishment is now panicking, they need a way to figure out how to stop people from moving from one system to another. They will try everything and anything, watch for [FF] with cryptos. The people are now shifting, slowly but surely, what we are witnessing is the destruction of the old economic system and the birth of a new one. Trump gave a speech at CPAC. The clock has been activated, it’s time to restart everything. Trump dropped messages during the speech, letting the people know that they are in control. Specific targets are locked on and the people will begin to find out the truth. This is just the beginning. Trump is showing the people the truth, they are now understanding that the [DS] policies do not benefit the people. Trump is now placing everything into position.
First the [CB]/Ds destroyed businesses across the country, now after destroying the businesses they are going to tax those individuals to build those same businesses back up. The pandemic plan was to hurt the little guy and prepare them for the great reset, but something happened along the way, crypto. The [DS]/MSM are fell right into the trap the patriots set. Everything they wanted them to do has almost been accomplished. It is now time to look at the real crimes, it’s time to unleash the Durham on these individuals. Most likely when they try to get rid of Durham, Durham will unleash it all.
After it was exposed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the philanthropic brainchild of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, purchased 500,000 shares in Monsanto back in 2010 valued at more than $23 million, it became abundantly clear that this so-called benevolent charity is up to something other than eradicating disease and feeding the world’s poor (http://www.guardian.co.uk). It turns out that the Gates family legacy has long been one of trying to dominate and control the world’s systems, including in the areas of technology, medicine, and now agriculture.
The Gates Foundation, aka the tax-exempt Gates Family Trust, is currently in the process of spending billions of dollars in the name of humanitarianism to establish a global food monopoly dominated by genetically-modified (GM) crops and seeds. And based on the Gates family’s history of involvement in world affairs, it appears that one of its main goals besides simply establishing corporate control of the world’s food supply is to reduce the world’s population by a significant amount in the process. Source Ethan A. Huff Natural News March 1, 2012
Who is Bill Gates? A software developer? A businessman? A philanthropist? A global health expert? This question, once merely academic, is becoming a very real question for those who are beginning to realize that Gates’ unimaginable wealth has been used to gain control over every corner of the fields of public health, medical research and vaccine development. And now that we are presented with the very problem that Gates has been talking about for years, we will soon find that this software developer with no medical training is going to leverage that wealth into control over the fates of billions of people.
In January of 2010, Bill and Melinda Gates announced a $10 billion pledge to usher in a decade of vaccines. But far from an unalloyed good, the truth is that this attempt to reorient the global health economy was part of a much bigger agenda. An agenda that would ultimately lead to greater profits for big pharma companies, greater control for the Gates Foundation over the field of global health, and greater power for Bill Gates to shape the course of the future for billions of people around the planet.
As more and more states and business open we are seeing exactly what Trump said we would see, a V recovery. Retail is up, manufacturing is up. The [CB] and Wall Street are feeling the pressure, the people are pushing something they don’t want because they will lose control. The [CB] is being pushed to the edge of extinction. The patriots are in complete control. Trump used the pandemic as cover to put everything in place. He knew once the truth start to come out the [DS] will react, optics are important, he has now delegated control the military as soon as this happens. MI and No Such Agency is the key, they have the information, POTUS and the people are the stone.
David Vaughan Icke is an English writer, author and a former footballer and sports broadcaster. He has written over 20 books and spoken in over 25 countries. Icke believes the universe to consist of “vibrational” energy and infinite dimensions sharing the same space and speaks about the mask and plandemic.
The push is on to put pressure on the [CB]. People will now start to wake up to the fact that the fiat currency is worthless. The people are now being exposed to a new currency. The [CB]s are in trouble, the Great Reset is in trouble. The [CB] in Myanmar has been taken over, this is just the beginning. The patriots are now pushing the plan forward, the [DS]/MSM have lost, the people see it all and many more are waking up. The global power structure is being dismantled. The day of reckoning is upon us. Trump let everyone know that in the months ahead he has something to share. The DOD put a pic of GW crossing the Delaware, message received. Dan Scavino sends another message.
This story was published in partnership with The 19th, a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy.
The Lincoln Project’s launch in late 2019 was designed to make a splash.
“We are Republicans, and we want Trump defeated,” four of its co-founders wrote in The New York Times. The organization would go on to raise nearly $90 million for its stated mission of defeating Donald Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box in 2020.
They created attention-grabbing ads that provoked responses from the former president. High-profile liberals such as DreamWorks co-founder David Geffen wrote them six-figure checks. Hundreds of small-dollar donations poured in. Leaders and staff decamped to a preelection headquarters in the ski haven of Park City, Utah, where their effort was chronicled by Hollywood filmmakers. Their plans after the election included leveraging the massive following they gained to build a media empire. They recently launched the platform LPTV.
The organization faces a rapidlyescalatingcontroversy over allegations that another of its co-founders, John Weaver, sexually harassed more than a dozen young men, including some working for the project, and over what other members of senior management knew about the claims and when they knew it.
The accusations have roiled the organization, and as its current and former employees and contractors began coming forward to discuss them, they described a workplace where women in key positions were sidelined and where sexist and homophobic language was used by those in leadership posts.
In reporting a story over the past several weeks about the Lincoln Project’s management, culture, finances and handling of the Weaver allegations, The 19th interviewed nearly two dozen people currently or formerly associated with the group or familiar with its operations.
Nearly all of them said they feared speaking publicly about their experiences with the Lincoln Project and its remaining co-founders. Many cited leaders’ tendency to “go nuclear,” as several put it, when faced with internal dynamics that could undermine the public image they cultivated with their liberal fans.
The interviews depict an organization that grew quickly, with little planning at its inception, then began to spiral out of control as its founders quarreled over the organization’s direction, finances, tactics and even who would own the donor data that the project eventually would amass. Some of the co-founders had an informal management agreement that excluded the others, without their knowledge. Several had private firms to which the Lincoln Project channeled tens of millions of dollars that were then not subject to disclosure, while others were paid relatively modest amounts directly or nothing at all. There were clashes over ego and resentments over podcasts and television contracts.
The Lincoln Project’s founders were some of the highest-profile players in Republican politics before they rejected Trump and became apostates within their own party. There was George Conway, a high-profile conservative lawyer who is married to Kellyanne Conway, who was a top adviser to Trump. Weaver worked on Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaigns, as did Galen and Schmidt. Mike Madrid is a strategist specializing in Latino voting trends. Jennifer Horn is a former GOP chair in New Hampshire. Wilson worked on Rudy Giuliani’s mayoral and Senate campaigns. Ron Steslow started his own consulting firm after working at the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Conway was the first to leave in August, citing family obligations. Weaver took medical leave around the same time.
A three-person board – Galen, Madrid and Steslow – was created without input from some of the other co-founders. Eventually, disputes over that board, and its scope, led to bitter infighting that involved individual co-founders lawyering up and threatening one another with “oppo” research, Washington-speak for the type of negative information amassed by a political campaign or organization to use against a rival.
In late 2020, Conway stepped in to help mediate what was quickly becoming a civil war within the organization. Madrid and Steslow departed in December after signing nondisclosure agreements and receiving separation packages that those familiar with the negotiations describe as lucrative.
Group’s super PAC status makes tracking spending difficult
On Dec. 21, the Lincoln Project paid Madrid’s firm, Grassroots Lab, two round-sum payments of $1.1 million and $300,000. On the same date, it paid Steslow’s firm, TUSK Digital, $900,000. All of the payments were described as for “political strategy consulting” on campaign finance filings.
The Lincoln Project was organized as a super PAC, meaning it could raise and spend unlimited sums of money but had to disclose only basic details about where the money was going. The firms that some of the co-founders brought with them to the Lincoln Project’s work became a source of internal frustration as more than half of the nearly $90 million raised by the project flowed to firms controlled by its various founders. Once it was there, there was usually no way to track how they spent or kept it.
As of late January, Galen’s firm, Summit Strategic Communications, had received roughly $27.5 million from the Lincoln Project, with the bulk of that going to “independent expenditures” such as television or internet advertisements and nearly $7 million to consulting. Steslow’s firm, TUSK, received $22.4 million, with $7.1 million for consulting.
Schmidt’s firm, SES Strategies, received $1.5 million for consulting, but he told the Chicago Tribune he returned it. Madrid’s Grassroots Lab received nearly $2.2 million for consulting services. The Lincoln Project paid Horn directly in amounts of $5,000 or $10,000 a month, campaign finance filings show. In the fall, she began receiving additional payments from LPTV, but in all, her annual compensation was about $150,000, sources familiar with the situation said.
There is no way to determine what portion of the consulting fees went directly to the co-founders as their compensation for Lincoln Project work or whether they paid one another, according to campaign finance experts. Super PACs are structured that way by design.
Super PACs are widely used by both political parties, but the percentage of the Lincoln Project’s money that went to vendors and firms connected to its co-founders raised eyebrows given the group’s criticism of Trump-affiliated political groups that similarly directed money to the organizations of allies as a “criminal enterprise.”
Another point of internal financial contention was the donor information that Lincoln Project amassed with ads that spread across social media. The specifics over who or which entity would own the data was not negotiated in advance, sources said, and the data’s market value grew as more people gave.
A frequent quip from Schmidt overheard by multiple people was that the Lincoln Project was his vehicle to achieve “generational wealth.”
Sexist, homophobic language cited in a toxic workplace
As senior management squabbled over how to divide the pieces of the project’s financial pie, dissatisfaction was growing within the organization’s more junior ranks, which were made up of largely young and liberal staffers who said they had different standards from some of the group’s leaders, citing Schmidt and Wilson specifically. There was language used in both the Lincoln Project’s ads and within its workplace about gender and sexuality that made many of them uncomfortable, the dozens of interviews revealed.
Young men were “wizards” while young women were “girls.” Political rivals were referred to using crude sexual and homophobic slurs. By the time the staff convened in Park City, the situation had become so “toxic,” according to more than a dozen accounts, that at least two co-founders, neither of whom remain at the project, had tried to intervene to improve working conditions.
Staff had also complained that some of the project’s ads, specifically some related to Ivanka Trump, were sexist.
There was dissatisfaction among the ranks when Ben Howe, billed as the wunderkind behind some of the Lincoln Project’s earliest ads, was brought back by Wilson. Howe had been fired after The 19th reported that in a series of tweets, he had used offensive slang for female anatomy to insult political rivals.
Lincoln Project women were treated differently from men
There were few women in Lincoln Project’s leadership, and those who were there were treated differently from the men, multiple people said. Horn was left out of meetings and not consulted about key decisions or public statements. At points, others within the organization had to persuade her not to quit.
On Thursday night, the Lincoln Project tweeted out private direct messages on the social media platform between Horn, who left the organization the previous week, and this reporter.
Horn had just provided a lengthy statement to The New York Times on the specifics of her departure, citing the remaining co-founders’ handling of the allegations against Weaver and saying that when she raised her concerns, she was “yelled at, demeaned and lied to.”
The Lincoln Project had the week before released a statement about Horn’s departure – it had not done so for Madrid or Steslow – that said the organization had parted ways with Horn over a compensation dispute after she asked for a “signing bonus” of $250,000 to remain with the group for its post-election work, along with a $40,000-a-month consulting contract.
Horn, who was in the middle of negotiating a post-election employment contract, has not denied the specifics. She said her departure was not about compensation but a request to address sexual harassment that was “rejected outright.”
Some of Horn’s allies with ties to the Lincoln Project reached out to The 19th at that time, wanting to discuss the group’s treatment of her specifically and women generally.
The screenshots shared Thursday night by the Lincoln Project, one of which was reshared by Wilson from his personal account, were of Horn’s inbox on the social media platform. She said she had neither provided the images to the Lincoln Project nor had she given anyone permission to access her account. The tweets were deleted after Conway said publicly that the move “looks on its face to be a violation of federal law” and urged their removal.
The Lincoln Project’s sharing of Horn’s private messages came shortly after The 19th had reached out to the group’s spokesperson, Kurt Bardella, as well as Wilson, Schmidt and Galen, with a list of more than 20 specifics about the group’s management, finances and handling of the Weaver allegations, drawn from publicly available government records and the interviews it intended to publish in a forthcoming story.
Bardella said Friday that he was no longer with the Lincoln Project, effective immediately. Wilson, Schmidt and Galen did not directly respond to any of the points laid out by The 19th.
Spotlight shines on allegations of Weaver harassing young men
New attention has been drawn to the Lincoln Project in the wake of allegations about Weaver.
Sources familiar with internal communications said that in June, multiple members of the Lincoln Project’s senior leadership team were told in conversations and in writing about allegations that Weaver had sexually harassed young men, including some who were working for the organization.
By August, nearly all of the co-founders still with the project were aware and a media plan was being crafted after the group’s employees and contractors were contacted by a news outlet working on a story about the allegations. By the time staff gathered in Park City for the buildup to the election, the accusations were an open secret even among junior staff, sources said.
The first allegations were published in January, first in the American Conservative and later in other publications, including The New York Times. Schmidt told The Times that senior management was not aware until that month. Schmidt’s timeline conflicts with that offered by more than a dozen sources who worked within and as contractors for the group at various times.
In the past few days, multiple news outlets have published articles laying out more extensive accusations against Weaver, as well as allegations that they were known earlier than previously reported. Schmidt has run point on responding to the reporting.
He told The Associated Press on Wednesday that no Lincoln Project employee, intern or contractor ever made an allegation so serious it would have triggered an investigation by an independent investigator. He provided the same statement to New York Magazine on Thursday. By Thursday night, the Lincoln Project announced it would hire a “best-in-class outside professional” to investigate the matter.
Calls to release staffers from nondisclosure agreements
Who knew how much and when, and who can say what, is now dominating the back-and-forth between those who remain at the Lincoln Project and those who have left.
When Ryan Girdusky first wrote about the allegations for the American Conservative magazine, he told The 19th it was a “constant problem of finding someone willing to come out and make allegations, go on the record, and within 48 hours, out of fear for their future, would drop out of the story. It happened for months on end.”
Conway and Horn, who said she was not aware of severity of the allegations against Weaver until The New York Times published its story in January, have called for the Lincoln Project’s current and former staff to be released from their nondisclosure agreements.
The group’s remaining leaders said Thursday night that anyone who wants to be released from their nondisclosure agreements to discuss allegations against Weaver should reach out to them directly. Six individuals told The New York Times that they did not feel comfortable doing so, citing Horn’s treatment and Schmidt’s statements about when he first learned of the allegations.
Steslow’s lawyer sent the Lincoln Project a letter late Thursday asking that he be released from the nondisclosure agreement he signed at the time of his departure, a spokesperson said.
“Any time there is an imbalance of power in a relationship, the weaker person becomes vulnerable to abuse. The stronger, more influential person has an obligation to conduct themselves with honor and integrity in order to preserve the dignity and autonomy of all involved,” Horn said in the statement Thursday night.
“Victims deserve to be – and must be – heard,” she added.