Enigma2a

You Do notice it said"The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." That means 13 agencies did not agree with the others.

Shabs, You are incorrect in your statement ".been corroborated by 17 different U.S. agencies, as you well know..". Please make sure you are providing correct facts. The NY times retracted this on June 29, 2017. Correction: June 29, 2017 A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community. You Do notice it said"The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." As Typical it is found at the bottom of the article. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/us/politics/trumps-deflections-and-denials-on-russia-frustrate-even-his-allies.html Here is the transcript before congress. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/

BA, Maybe this could help. Look who was the major stake holder in the first post for the Patent. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Now listen to Bill Gates, in his own words, what the plan is for vaccines.

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/real-umbrella-corp-wuhan-ultra-biohazard-lab-was-studying-worlds-most-dangerous-pathogens?fbclid=IwAR24PxjM6eK-uQzEdMOsrro16TUKCa8VA_CVg46PsuF7SvmRkqn5zdQoseI The Real Umbrella Corp: Wuhan Ultra Biohazard Lab Was Studying "The World's Most Dangerous Pathogens" by Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2020 - 03:10 195 SHARES Now that not one but seven Chinese cities - including Wuhan, ground zero of the coronavirus epidemic - and collectively housing some 23 million people, are under quarantine... ... comparisons to the infamous Raccoon City from Resident Evil are coming in hot and heavy. And, since reality often tends to imitate if not art then certainly Hollywood, earlier today we jokingly asked if the Medical Research Institute at Wuhan University would end up being China's version of Umbrella Corp. 37 people are talking about this As it turns out, it wasn't a joke, because moments ago it was brought to our attention that in February 2017, Nature penned an extensive profile of what it called the "Chinese lab poised to study world's most dangerous pathogens." The location of this BSL-4 rated lab? Why, Wuhan. A quick read of what this lab was meant to do, prompts the immediate question whether the coronavirus epidemic isn't a weaponized virus that just happened to escape the lab: What does BSL-4 mean? And here's why all this is an issue: Below we repost the full Nature article because it strongly hints, without evidence for now, that the coronavirus epidemic may well have been a weaponized virus which "accidentally" escaped the Wuhan biohazard facility. Hazard suits hang at the National Bio-safety Laboratory, Wuhan, the first lab on the Chinese mainland equipped for the highest level of biocontainment. Some scientists outside China worry about pathogens escaping, and the addition of a biological dimension to geopolitical tensions between China and other nations. But Chinese microbiologists are celebrating their entrance to the elite cadre empowered to wrestle with the world’s greatest biological threats. “It will offer more opportunities for Chinese researchers, and our contribution on the BSL‑4-level pathogens will benefit the world,” says George Gao, director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory of Pathogenic Microbiology and Immunology in Beijing. There are already two BSL-4 labs in Taiwan, but the National Bio-safety Laboratory, Wuhan, would be the first on the Chinese mainland. The lab was certified as meeting the standards and criteria of BSL-4 by the China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment (CNAS) in January. The CNAS examined the lab’s infrastructure, equipment and management, says a CNAS representative, paving the way for the Ministry of Health to give its approval. A representative from the ministry says it will move slowly and cautiously; if the assessment goes smoothly, it could approve the laboratory by the end of June. BSL-4 is the highest level of biocontainment: its criteria include filtering air and treating water and waste before they leave the laboratory, and stipulating that researchers change clothes and shower before and after using lab facilities. Such labs are often controversial. The first BSL-4 lab in Japan was built in 1981, but operated with lower-risk pathogens until 2015, when safety concerns were finally overcome. The expansion of BSL-4-lab networks in the United States and Europe over the past 15 years — with more than a dozen now in operation or under construction in each region — also met with resistance, including questions about the need for so many facilities. The Wuhan lab cost 300 million yuan (US$44 million), and to allay safety concerns it was built far above the flood plain and with the capacity to withstand a magnitude-7 earthquake, although the area has no history of strong earthquakes. It will focus on the control of emerging diseases, store purified viruses and act as a World Health Organization ‘reference laboratory’ linked to similar labs around the world. “It will be a key node in the global biosafety-lab network,” says lab director Yuan Zhiming. The Chinese Academy of Sciences approved the construction of a BSL-4 laboratory in 2003, and the epidemic of SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) around the same time lent the project momentum. The lab was designed and constructed with French assistance as part of a 2004 cooperative agreement on the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases. But the complexity of the project, China’s lack of experience, difficulty in maintaining funding and long government approval procedures meant that construction wasn’t finished until the end of 2014. The lab’s first project will be to study the BSL-3 pathogen that causes Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever: a deadly tick-borne virus that affects livestock across the world, including in northwest China, and that can jump to people. Future plans include studying the pathogen that causes SARS, which also doesn’t require a BSL-4 lab, before moving on to Ebola and the West African Lassa virus, which do. Some one million Chinese people work in Africa; the country needs to be ready for any eventuality, says Yuan. “Viruses don’t know borders.” Gao travelled to Sierra Leone during the recent Ebola outbreak, allowing his team to report the speed with which the virus mutated into new strains. The Wuhan lab will give his group a chance to study how such viruses cause disease, and to develop treatments based on antibodies and small molecules, he says. The opportunities for international collaboration, meanwhile, will aid the genetic analysis and epidemiology of emergent diseases. “The world is facing more new emerging viruses, and we need more contribution from China,” says Gao. In particular, the emergence of zoonotic viruses — those that jump to humans from animals, such as SARS or Ebola — is a concern, says Bruno Lina, director of the VirPath virology lab in Lyon, France. Many staff from the Wuhan lab have been training at a BSL-4 lab in Lyon, which some scientists find reassuring. And the facility has already carried out a test-run using a low-risk virus. But worries surround the Chinese lab, too. The SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times, notes Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Tim Trevan, founder of CHROME Biosafety and Biosecurity Consulting in Damascus, Maryland, says that an open culture is important to keeping BSL-4 labs safe, and he questions how easy this will be in China, where society emphasizes hierarchy. “Diversity of viewpoint, flat structures where everyone feels free to speak up and openness of information are important,” he says. Yuan says that he has worked to address this issue with staff. “We tell them the most important thing is that they report what they have or haven’t done,” he says. And the lab’s inter­national collaborations will increase openness. “Transparency is the basis of the lab,” he adds. The plan to expand into a network heightens such concerns. One BSL-4 lab in Harbin is already awaiting accreditation; the next two are expected to be in Beijing and Kunming, the latter focused on using monkey models to study disease. Lina says that China’s size justifies this scale, and that the opportunity to combine BSL-4 research with an abundance of research monkeys — Chinese researchers face less red tape than those in the West when it comes to research on primates — could be powerful. “If you want to test vaccines or antivirals, you need a non-human primate model,” says Lina. But Ebright is not convinced of the need for more than one BSL-4 lab in mainland China. He suspects that the expansion there is a reaction to the networks in the United States and Europe, which he says are also unwarranted. He adds that governments will assume that such excess capacity is for the potential development of bioweapons. “These facilities are inherently dual use,” he says. The prospect of ramping up opportunities to inject monkeys with pathogens also worries, rather than excites, him: “They can run, they can scratch, they can bite.” The central monitor room at China’s National Bio-safety Laboratory If that wasn't enough, here is January 2018 press release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, announcing the launch of the "top-level biosafety lab." NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories. Virologists read data on a container for viral samples at China's first level-four biosafety lab at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan After evaluating such things as the lab's management of personnel, facilities, animals, disposals and viruses, experts believed the lab is qualified to carry out experiments on highly pathogenic microorganisms that can cause fatal diseases, such as Marburg, Variola, Nipah and Ebola. "The lab provides a complete, world-leading biosafety system. This means Chinese scientists can study the most dangerous pathogenic microorganisms in their own lab," the Wuhan institute said. It will serve as the country's research and development center on prevention and control of infectious diseases, as a pathogen collection center and as the United Nations' reference laboratory for infectious diseases, the institute said. Previous media reports said the Wuhan P4 lab will be open to scientists from home and abroad. Scientists can conduct research on anti-virus drugs and vaccines in the lab. The lab is part of Sino-French cooperation in the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases, according to the news release. The central government approved the P4 laboratory in 2003 when the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome spread alarm across the country. In October 2004, China signed a cooperation agreement with France on the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases. This was followed by a succession of supplementary agreements. With French assistance in laboratory design, biosafety standards establishment and personnel training, construction began in 2011 and lasted for three years. In 2015, the lab was put into trial operation. Finally, this is what the real Umbrella Corp looks like from space: If nothing else, at least it got good reviews

https://nationalpost.com/health/bio-warfare-experts-question-why-canada-was-sending-lethal-viruses-to-china?fbclid=IwAR1uMb5I_L2i0rte_xJOKqt3lk5qCxzrLa9RdR2M2yuuOYdsmleHnMl26Co Bio-warfare experts question why Canada was sending lethal viruses to China 'I think the Chinese activities … are highly suspicious,' one expert said, after it was revealed a Winnipeg lab sent samples of Ebola and henipavirus to China Researchers work in the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Man., where the ZMapp antibody “cocktail” was created to fight Ebola.Handout Tom Blackwell August 8, 2019 2:08 PM EDT Filed under Health Comment Facebook Twitter Reddit Email More RECOMMENDED FOR YOU Rallying-Dutch rider Straver dies a week after Dakar fall 'No, No America': Iraq protesters demand U.S. military pullout UK scolds U.S. for refusing to give up diplomat's wife involved in crash No snow in winter? Norwegians make it instead Bulgaria set to expel two Russian diplomats over espionage In a table-top pandemic exercise at Johns Hopkins University last year, a pathogen based on the emerging Nipah virus was released by fictional extremists, killing 150 million people. A less apocalyptic scenario mapped out by a blue-ribbon U.S. panel envisioned Nipah being dispersed by terrorists and claiming over 6,000 American lives. Scientists from Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) have also said the highly lethal bug is a potential bio-weapon. But this March that same lab shipped samples of the henipavirus family and of Ebola to China, which has long been suspected of running a secretive biological warfare (BW) program. China strongly denies it makes germ weapons, and Canadian officials say the shipment was part of its efforts to support public-health research worldwide. Sharing of such samples internationally is relatively standard practice.

https://summit.news/2020/01/23/videos-show-chinese-people-eating-bats-as-experts-link-animal-to-coronavirus-outbreak/ BIZARRE Videos Show Chinese People Eating Bats As Experts Link Animal to Coronavirus Outbreak Some cultures are better than others. Published 5 mins ago on 23 January, 2020 Paul Joseph Watson 4 Comments Two videos have emerged showing Chinese people eating bats as experts say the coronavirus currently sweeping the country may have spread to humans from snakes or bats. One clip shows a young woman at a restaurant holding a bat with chopsticks as she bites into its wing. “Eat the meat! [Don’t] eat the skin,” shouts a man in the background. “[You] should eat the meat on its back.” 109 people are talking about this The bat had been dunked in a large bowl of soup in the middle of the table. Lovely. Another video shows a cooked bat with what appears to be a grin on its face dumped in a bowl of broth. “[After] experiencing this matter, can Chinese people give up eating wildlife?” asked the blogger who posted the video. 2,927 people are talking about this Another video shows a Chinese person eating baby rats that are still alive. He even dunks them in a sauce. Gross. 75 people are talking about this Chinese people consume bats, and even bat poop, because they believe it has medicinal properties that can treat malaria, gonorrhea and eye diseases. However, bat soup is known to be a popular dish in Wuhan, where the coronavirus outbreak originated, and scientists say that the virus shares a strain of virus found in bats. According to China Science Bulletin, the new virus could have been passed from bats to humans. This serves as a reminder that despite the current push by the media to normalize the consumption of all kinds of weird things, from worms to crickets, sometimes it can be incredibly dangerous. As I highlight in the video below, one of the dominant arguments is based in cultural relativism; The notion that because people from other cultures think it’s normal that we should embrace it too. Some Chinese people think eating dogs is normal too. They also eat chicken’s heads and, even at the risk of infection, bats and bat poop. Some cultures are better than others.

https://patents.justia.com/patent/10130701?fbclid=IwAR19lG8ZCjTCNyYx9VnDEF0riBAzdcmGRNsDl0Q3gJgFs_uACrN7CevoMlU Coronavirus Jul 23, 2015 - THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE The present invention provides a live, attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene encoding polyproteins comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein(s) (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16. The coronavirus may be used as a vaccine for treating and/or preventing a disease, such as infectious bronchitis, in a subject. Latest THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE Patents: Attenuated African swine fever virus vaccine Stabilised FMDV capsids Stabilised FMDV Capsids Chicken cells for improved virus production Mutant spike protein extending the tissue tropism of infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) Skip to: Description · Claims · References Cited · Patent History · Patent History Description FIELD OF THE INVENTION The present invention relates to an attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene, which causes the virus to have reduced pathogenicity. The present invention also relates to the use of such a coronavirus in a vaccine to prevent and/or treat a disease. BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION Avian infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), the aetiological agent of infectious bronchitis (IB), is a highly infectious and contagious pathogen of domestic fowl that replicates primarily in the respiratory tract but also in epithelial cells of the gut, kidney and oviduct. IBV is a member of the Order Nidovirales, Family Coronaviridae, Subfamily Corona virinae and Genus Gammacoronavirus; genetically very similar coronaviruses cause disease in turkeys, guinea fowl and pheasants. Clinical signs of IB include sneezing, tracheal rales, nasal discharge and wheezing. Meat-type birds have reduced weight gain, whilst egg-laying birds lay fewer eggs and produce poor quality eggs. The respiratory infection predisposes chickens to secondary bacterial infections which can be fatal in chicks. The virus can also cause permanent damage to the oviduct, especially in chicks, leading to reduced egg production and quality; and kidney, sometimes leading to kidney disease which can be fatal. IBV has been reported to be responsible for more economic loss to the poultry industry than any other infectious disease. Although live attenuated vaccines and inactivated vaccines are universally used in the control of IBV, the protection gained by use of vaccination can be lost either due to vaccine breakdown or the introduction of a new IBV serotype that is not related to the vaccine used, posing a risk to the poultry industry. Further, there is a need in the industry to develop vaccines which are suitable for use in ovo, in order to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of vaccination programmes. A major challenge associated with in ovo vaccination is that the virus must be capable of replicating in the presence of maternally-derived antibodies against the virus, without being pathogenic to the embryo. Current IBV vaccines are derived following multiple passage in embryonated eggs, this results in viruses with reduced pathogenicity for chickens, so that they can be used as live attenuated vaccines. However such viruses almost always show an increased virulence to embryos and therefore cannot be used for in ova vaccination as they cause reduced hatchability. A 70% reduction in hatchability is seen in some cases. Attenuation following multiple passage in embryonated eggs also suffers from other disadvantages. It is an empirical method, as attenuation of the viruses is random and will differ every time the virus is passaged, so passage of the same virus through a different series of eggs for attenuation purposes will lead to a different set of mutations leading to attenuation. There are also efficacy problems associated with the process: some mutations will affect the replication of the virus and some of the mutations may make the virus too attenuated. Mutations can also occur in the S gene which may also affect immunogenicity so that the desired immune response is affected and the potential vaccine may not protect against the required serotype. In addition there are problems associated with reversion to virulence and stability of vaccines. It is important that new and safer vaccines are developed for the control of IBV. Thus there is a need for IBV vaccines which are not associated with these issues, in particular vaccines which may be used for in ovo vaccination. SUMMARY OF ASPECTS OF THE INVENTION The present inventors have used a reverse genetics approach in order to rationally attenuate IBV. This approach is much more controllable than random attenuation following multiple passages in embryonated eggs because the position of each mutation is known and its effect on the virus, i.e. the reason for attenuation, can be derived. Using their reverse genetics approach, the present inventors have identified various mutations which cause the virus to have reduced levels of pathogenicity. The levels of pathogenicity may be reduced such that when the virus is administered to an embryonated egg, it is capable of replicating without being pathogenic to the embryo. Such viruses may be suitable for in ovo vaccination, which is a significant advantage and has improvement over attenuated IBV vaccines produced following multiple passage in embryonated eggs. Thus in a first aspect, the present invention provides a live, attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene encoding polyproteins comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein(s) (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16. The variant replicase gene may encode a protein comprising one or more amino acid mutations selected from the list of: Pro to Leu at position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6, Val to Leu at position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7; Leu to Ile at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8; Val to Ile at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9. The replicase gene may encode a protein comprising the amino acid mutation Pro to Leu at position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6. The replicase gene may encode a protein comprising the amino acid mutations Val to Leu at position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7; Leu to Ile at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8; and Val to Ile at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9. The replicase gene may encodes a protein comprising the amino acid mutations Pro to Leu at position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6; Val to Leu at position 393 of SEQ ID NO:7; Leu to Ile at position 183 of SEQ ID NO:8; and Val to Ile at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9. The replicase gene may comprise one or more nucleotide substitutions selected from the list of: C to T at nucleotide position 12137; G to C at nucleotide position 18114; T to A at nucleotide position 19047; and G to A at nucleotide position 20139; compared to the sequence shown as SEQ ID NO: 1. The coronavirus may be an infectious bronchitis virus (IBV). The coronavirus may be IBV M41. The coronavirus may comprise an S protein at least part of which is from an IBV serotype other than M41. For example, the S1 subunit or the entire S protein may be from an IBV serotype other than M41. The coronavirus according to the first aspect of the invention has reduced pathogenicity compared to a coronavirus expressing a corresponding wild-type replicase, such that when the virus is administered to an embryonated egg, it is capable of replicating without being pathogenic to the embryo. In a second aspect, the present invention provides a variant replicase gene as defined in connection with the first aspect of the invention. In a third aspect, the present invention provides a protein encoded by a variant coronavirus replicase gene according to the second aspect of the invention. In a fourth aspect, the present invention provides a plasmid comprising a replicase gene according to the second aspect of the invention. In a fifth aspect, the present invention provides a method for making the coronavirus according to the first aspect of the invention which comprises the following steps: (i) transfecting a plasmid according to the fourth aspect of the invention into a host cell; (ii) infecting the host cell with a recombining virus comprising the genome of a coronavirus strain with a replicase gene; (iii) allowing homologous recombination to occur between the replicase gene sequences in the plasmid and the corresponding sequences in the recombining virus genome to produce a modified replicase gene; and (iv) selecting for recombining virus comprising the modified replicase gene. The recombining virus may be a vaccinia virus. The method may also include the step: (v) recovering recombinant coronavirus comprising the modified replicase gene from the DNA from the recombining virus from step (iv). In a sixth aspect, the present invention provides a cell capable of producing a coronavirus according to the first aspect of the invention. In a seventh aspect, the present invention provides a vaccine comprising a coronavirus according to the first aspect of the invention and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. In an eighth aspect, the present invention provides a method for treating and/or preventing a disease in a subject which comprises the step of administering a vaccine according to the seventh aspect of the invention to the subject. Further aspects of the invention provide: the vaccine according to the seventh aspect of the invention for use in treating and/or preventing a disease in a subject. use of a coronavirus according to the first aspect of the invention in the manufacture of a vaccine for treating and/or preventing a disease in a subject. The disease may be infectious bronchitis (IB). The method of administration of the vaccine may be selected from the group consisting of; eye drop administration, intranasal administration, drinking water administration, post-hatch injection and in ovo injection. Vaccination may be by in ova vaccination. The present invention also provides a method for producing a vaccine according to the seventh aspect of the invention, which comprises the step of infecting a cell according to the sixth aspect of the invention with a coronavirus according to the first aspect of the invention. DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES FIG. 1—Growth kinetics of M41-R-6 and M41-R-12 compared to M41-CK (M41 EP4) on CK cells FIG. 2—Clinical signs, snicking and wheezing, associated with M41-R-6 and M41-R-12 compared to M41-CK (M41 EP4) and Beau-R (Bars show mock, Beau-R, M41-R 6, M41-R 12, M41-CK EP4 from left to right of each timepoint). FIG. 3—Ciliary activity of the viruses in tracheal rings isolated from tracheas taken from infected chicks. 100% ciliary activity indicates no effect by the virus; apathogenic, 0% activity indicates complete loss of ciliary activity, complete ciliostasis, indicating the virus is pathogenic (Bars show mock, Beau-R, M41-R 6, M41-R 12, M41-CK EP4 from left to right of each timepoint). FIG. 4—Clinical signs, snicking, associated with M41R-nsp10rep and M41R-nsp14,15,16rep compared to M41-R-12 and M41-CK (M41 EP5) (Bars show mock, M41-R12; M41R-nsp10rep; M41R-nsp14,15,16rep and M41-CK EP5 from left to right of each timepoint). FIG. 5—Ciliary activity of M41R-nsp10rep and M41R-nsp14,15,16rep compared to M41-R-12 and M41-CK in tracheal rings isolated from tracheas taken from infected chicks (Bars show mock; M41-R12; M41R-nsp10rep; M41R-nsp14,15,16rep and M41-CK EP5 from left to right of each timepoint). FIG. 6—Clinical signs, snicking, associated with M41R-nsp10, 15rep, M41R-nsp10, 14, 15rep, M41R-nsp10, 14, 16rep, M41R-nsp10, 15, 16rep and M41-K compared to M41-CK (Bars show mock, M41R-nsp10,15rep1; M41R-nsp10,14,16rep4; M41R-nsp10,15,16rep8; M41R-nsp10,14,15rep10; M41-K6 and M41-CK EP4 from left to right of each timepoint). FIG. 7—Clinical signs, wheezing, associated with M41R-nsp10, 15rep, M41R-nsp10, 14, 15rep, M41R-nsp10, 14, 16rep, M41R-nsp10, 15, 16rep and M41-K compared to M41-CK (Bars show mock, M41R-nsp10,15rep1; M14R-nsp10,14,16rep4; M41R-nsp10,15,16rep8; M41R-nsp10,14,15rep10; M41-K6 and M41-CK EP4 from left to right of each timepoint). FIG. 8—Ciliary activity of M41R-nsp10, 15rep, M41R-nsp10, 14, 15rep, M41R-nsp10, 14, 16rep, M41R-nsp10, 15, 16rep and M41-K compared to M41-CK in tracheal rings isolated from tracheas taken from infected chicks (Bars show mock, M41R-nsp10,15rep1; M41R-nsp10,14,16rep4; M41R-nsp10,15,16rep8; M41R-nsp10,14,15rep10; M41-K6 and M41-CK EP4 from left to right of each timepoint). FIG. 9—Growth kinetics of rIBVs compared to M41-CK on CK cells. FIG. 9A shows the results for M41-R and M41-K. FIG. 9B shows the results for M41-nsp10 rep; M41R-nsp14, 15, 16 rep; M41R-nsp10, 15 rep; M41R-nsp10, 15, 16 rep; M41R-nsp10, 14, 15 rep; and M41R-nsp10, 14, 16. FIG. 10—Position of amino acid mutations in mutated nsp10, nsp14, nsp15 and nsp16 sequences. FIG. 11—A) Snicking; Respiratory symptoms (wheezing and rales combined) and C) Ciliary activity of rIBV M41R-nsp 10,14 rep and rIBV M41R-nsp 10,16 rep compared to M41-CK (Bars show mock, M41R-nsp10,14rep; M41R-nsp10,16rep and M41-K from left to right of each timepoint). DETAILED DESCRIPTION The present invention provides a coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene which, when expressed in the coronavirus, causes the virus to have reduced pathogenicity compared to a corresponding coronavirus which comprises the wild-type replicase gene. Coronavirus Gammacoronavirus is a genus of animal virus belonging to the family Coronaviridae. Coronaviruses are enveloped viruses with a positive-sense single-stranded RNA genome and a helical symmetry. The genomic size of coronaviruses ranges from approximately 27 to 32 kilobases, which is the longest size for any known RNA virus. Coronaviruses primarily infect the upper respiratory or gastrointestinal tract of mammals and birds. Five to six different currently known strains of coronaviruses infect humans. The most publicized human coronavirus, SARS-CoV which causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), has a unique pathogenesis because it causes both upper and lower respiratory tract infections and can also cause gastroenteritis. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) also causes a lower respiratory tract infection in humans. Coronaviruses are believed to cause a significant percentage of all common colds in human adults. Coronaviruses also cause a range of diseases in livestock animals and domesticated pets, some of which can be serious and are a threat to the farming industry. Economically significant coronaviruses of livestock animals include infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) which mainly causes respiratory disease in chickens and seriously affects the poultry industry worldwide; porcine coronavirus (transmissible gastroenteritis, TGE) and bovine coronavirus, which both result in diarrhoea in young animals. Feline coronavirus has two forms, feline enteric coronavirus is a pathogen of minor clinical significance, but spontaneous mutation of this virus can result in feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), a disease associated with high mortality. There are also two types of canine coronavirus (CCoV), one that causes mild gastrointestinal disease and one that has been found to cause respiratory disease. Mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) is a coronavirus that causes an epidemic murine illness with high mortality, especially among colonies of laboratory mice. Coronaviruses are divided into four groups, as shown below: Alpha Canine coronavirus (CCoV) Feline coronavirus (FeCoV) Human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E) Porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV) Transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) Human Coronavirus NL63 (NL or New Haven) Beta Bovine coronavirus (BCoV) Canine respiratory coronavirus (CRCoV)—Common in SE Asia and Micronesia Human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43) Mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) Porcine haemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus (HEV) Rat coronavirus (Roy). Rat Coronavirus is quite prevalent in Eastern Australia where, as of March/April 2008, it has been found among native and feral rodent colonies. (No common name as of yet) (HCoV-HKU1)  Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Gamma Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) Turkey coronavirus (Bluecomb disease virus) Pheasant coronavirus Guinea fowl coronavirus Delta Bulbul coronavirus (BuCoV) Thrush coronavirus (ThCoV) Munia coronavirus (MuCoV) Porcine coronavirus (PorCov) HKU15 The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention may be derived from an alphacoronavirus such as TGEV; a betacoronavirus such as MHV; or a gammacoronavirus such as IBV. As used herein the term “derived from” means that the replicase gene comprises substantially the same nucleotide sequence as the wild-type replicase gene of the relevant coronavirus. For example, the variant replicase gene of the present invention may have up to 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identity with the wild type replicase sequence. The variant coronavirus replicase gene encodes a protein comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16 when compared to the wild-type sequence of the non-structural protein. IBV Avian infectious bronchitis (IB) is an acute and highly contagious respiratory disease of chickens which causes significant economic losses. The disease is characterized by respiratory signs including gasping, coughing, sneezing, tracheal rales, and nasal discharge. In young chickens, severe respiratory distress may occur. In layers, respiratory distress, nephritis, decrease in egg production, and loss of internal egg quality and egg shell quality are common. In broilers, coughing and rattling are common clinical signs, rapidly spreading in all the birds of the premises. Morbidity is 100% in non-vaccinated flocks. Mortality varies depending on age, virus strain, and secondary infections but may be up to 60% in non-vaccinated flocks. The first IBV serotype to be identified was Massachusetts, but in the United States several serotypes, including Arkansas and Delaware, are currently circulating, in addition to the originally identified Massachusetts type. The IBV strain Beaudette was derived following at least 150 passages in chick embryos. IBV Beaudette is no longer pathogenic for hatched chickens but rapidly kills embryos. H120 is a commercial live attenuated IBV Massachusetts serotype vaccine strain, attenuated by approximately 120 passages in embryonated chicken eggs. H52 is another Massachusetts vaccine, and represents an earlier and slightly more pathogenic passage virus (passage 52) during the development of H120. Vaccines based on H120 are commonly used. IB QX is a virulent field isolate of IBV. It is sometimes known as “Chinese QX” as it was originally isolated following outbreaks of disease in the Qingdao region in China in the mid 1990s. Since that time the virus has crept towards Europe. From 2004, severe egg production issues have been identified with a very similar virus in parts of Western Europe, predominantly in the Netherlands, but also reported from Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark and in the UK. The virus isolated from the Dutch cases was identified by the Dutch Research Institute at Deventer as a new strain that they called D388. The Chinese connection came from further tests which showed that the virus was 99% similar to the Chinese QX viruses. A live attenuated QX-like IBV vaccine strain has now been developed. IBV is an enveloped virus that replicates in the cell cytoplasm and contains an non-segmented, single-stranded, positive sense RNA genome. IBV has a 27.6 kb RNA genome and like all coronaviruses contains the four structural proteins; spike glycoprotein (S), small membrane protein (E), integral membrane protein (M) and nucleocapsid protein (N) which interacts with the genomic RNA. The genome is organised in the following manner: 5′UTR—polymerase (replicase) gene—structural protein genes (S-E-M-N)—UTR 3′; where the UTR are untranslated regions (each ˜500 nucleotides in IBV). The lipid envelope contains three membrane proteins: S, M and E. The IBV S protein is a type I glycoprotein which oligomerizes in the endoplasmic reticulum and is assembled into homotrimer inserted in the virion membrane via the transmembrane domain and is associated through non-covalent interactions with the M protein. Following incorporation into coronavirus particles, the S protein is responsible for binding to the target cell receptor and fusion of the viral and cellular membranes. The S glycoprotein consists of four domains: a signal sequence that is cleaved during synthesis; the ectodomain, which is present on the outside of the virion particle; the transmembrane region responsible for anchoring the S protein into the lipid bilayer of the virion particle; and the cytoplasmic tail. All coronaviruses also encode a set of accessory protein genes of unknown function that are not required for replication in vitro, but may play a role in pathogenesis. IBV encodes two accessory genes, genes 3 and 5, which both express two accessory proteins 3a, 3b and 5a, 5b, respectively. The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention may be derived from an IBV. For example the IBV may be IBV Beaudette, H120, H52, IB QX, D388 or M41. The IBV may be IBV M41. M41 is a prototypic Massachusetts serotype that was isolated in the USA in 1941. It is an isolate used in many labs throughout the world as a pathogenic lab stain and can be obtained from ATCC (VR-21™). Attenuated variants are also used by several vaccine producers as IBV vaccines against Massachusetts serotypes causing problems in the field. The present inventors chose to use this strain as they had worked for many years on this virus, and because the sequence of the complete virus genome is available. The M41 isolate, M41-CK, used by the present inventors was adapted to grow in primary chick kidney (CK) cells and was therefore deemed amenable for recovery as an infectious virus from a cDNA of the complete genome. It is representative of a pathogenic IBV and therefore can be analysed for mutations that cause either loss or reduction in pathogenicity. https://patents.justia.com/patent/10130701?fbclid=IwAR19lG8ZCjTCNyYx9VnDEF0riBAzdcmGRNsDl0Q3gJgFs_uACrN7CevoMlU

Very Interesting. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/108470/major-general-steven-l-kwast/

Did anyone actually watch the televised impeachment inquiry hearings? Well I did. Everyone of the witnesses were asked specifically if there were any first hand knowledge of an impeachable offence that POTUS did, and not one could provide an answer or they stated that they knew of no impeachable offense or crime was committed by POTUS. The only witness that actually talked to POTUS was AMB. Sondenlin (sp?) and in his opening statement he stated there was a Quid pro Quo, but in the end he actually stated the he presumed that is what POTUS meant. pre•sume prĭ-zoo͞m′► intransitive verb To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary. intransitive verb To constitute reasonable evidence for assuming; appear to prove. intransitive verb To venture without authority or permission; dare.

Shabs, an update for you on Durham. https://saraacarter.com/john-durham-criminal-probe-gathers-steam-investigating-post-election-docs/ John Durham Criminal Probe Gathers Steam Investigating Post Election Docs By Sara Carter - January 20, 2020 Department of Justice appointed federal prosecutor John Durham’s expanded criminal probe into the FBI’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign is focusing on a slew of government documents that surfaced during the first several months of Trump’s presidency. The documents, which are being kept close hold, were hinted at by Attorney General William Barr in an interview he did with NBC in December and reported on by CBS News Friday. On Friday, Catherine Herridge senior national security reporter with CBS first reported that a ‘strong paper trail’ of documents is being reviewed by Durham. Those documents span a time period from January, 2017 until May 2017, just before the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. However, Barr has already suggested at the expansive nature of Durham’s probe in December and hinted at the discoveries. And in October, 2019 reports revealed that Durham had expanded the scope of his investigation and would investigate not only the origin of the bureau probe into Trump’s campaign but also the post-election timeline. Barr said in an interview with NBC in December, that Durham “should spend just as much attention on the post-election period” noting that the probe will not just focus on the origins of the investigation. Barr said he asked Durham to look at the post Trump election because “of some of the stuff that Horowitz has uncovered which to me is inexplicable.” New Documents As Durham’s Criminal Probe Continues Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told SaraACarter.com she could not comment on Durham’s ongoing investigation. She gave no indication as to when, or if, a report will be issued on his criminal probe. Barr, who has been given full declassification authority by Trump, eluded in an interview that Durham may finish his probe by Spring or early this summer. According to sources, the documents already uncovered by Horowitz and the alleged new documents discovered by Durham are significant. Those documents will expose the intent of those involved in the malfeasance at the FBI and the continued operation to spy on Carter Page, a short term Trump campaign volunteer. Further, Durham’s probe is focused on actions of former senior Obama Administration officials that targeted Trump and his team, according to numerous former and current government sources that spoke to SaraACarter.com. Those being looked into by Durham are former CIA Director John Brennan, fired FBI Director James Comey, fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, among others. Durham’s team has already interviewed numerous personnel at the CIA and according to sources “those questioned are very nervous about the direction of Durham’s investigation.” Durham is looking into the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russia, in which Brennan has stated that the CIA did not use former MI6 spy Christoper Steele’s debunked dossier. Horowitz discovered during his office’s investigation of the FBI FISA review that the uncorroborated dossier was used in obtaining the warrant to spy on Page. Horowitz’s explosive report also revealed that significant information on Page was omitted from the report and that other information was altered by FBI Attorney Kevin Clinesmith. Page had actually assisted the CIA in reporting on Russia – a significant fact that was omitted and changed in the application that was submitted to the secret court. Durham Probe Expands To Pentagon SaraACarter.com first reported that Durham has expanded his investigation to include the Pentagon’s Office Of Net Assessment, which contracted former FBI informant Stefan Halper, who had contacts with four Trump campaign officials. The Office of Net Assessment awarded Halper multiple contracts that totaled over $1 million dollars. DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s most recent report described interviews with FBI agents that said it was “serendipitous” that Halper new all the sources of their Crossfire Hurricane investigation. In fact, the report stated that they “couldn’t believe [their] luck” that [Halper] had contacts with three of their four subjects. Those subjects included short term campaign advisors Carter Page and George Papadopolous, as well as Gen Flynn. Moreover, Barr has already hinted at the fact that Durham has acquired new and possibly damning documents as he suggested in a NBC News interview in December when he said Durham is “looking at the issue of how it got started. He’s looking at whether or not the narrative of Trump being involved in the Russian interference actually preceded July and was in fact the precipitating trigger for the investigation, and he’s also looking at the conduct of the investigation.” Barr also said there “are some things that were done in the investigation that are not included in [DOJ Inspector General Michael] Horowitz’s report. And he’s looking at those things.” Barr and Durham have traveled to England, Italy and interviewed senior foreign intelligence officials for their investigation last year. Durham’s team is tight lipped about the investigation but according to sources witnesses have been questioned about their role in the bureau’s investigation. Horowitz’s report, which Durham and Barr stated some objections too, did not suggest bias in the FBI’s investigation into Trump and his campaign. Republican lawmakers strongly disagreed with Horowitz’s finding that there was no bias in the actions of the agents despite strong evidence to the contrary.

Shabs, pick one. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-durham-investigation-fbi-misconduct-criminal-probe https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/10/24/breaking-barr-durham-investigation-now-officially-criminal-investigation/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-durham-opens-criminal-inquiry-in-dojs-investigation-of-the-investigators https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/why-its-unlikely-the-mccabe-grand-jury-voted-against-indictment/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-durham-already-used-a-grand-jury-in-russia-origins-probe-joe-digenova-says

Durham will not have a report. He has convened a Grand Jury and the only thing you will see from him is unsealed indictments, but no report. His investigation has turned into a criminal investigation.

B/A, I guess you missed this article from Politico on Jan 11 2017. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton. By KENNETH P. VOGEL and DAVID STERN 01/11/2017 05:05 AM EST President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the American presidential race. | Getty Continue to article content Facebook Twitter Email Comment Print Continue to article content MOST READ Watchdog report rips FBI handling of Russia probe Inspector general’s report on Russia probe: Key takeaways McKinsey allows Buttigieg to disclose clients Senate looks for holiday truce on impeachment trial The mystery of Rudy Giuliani's spokeswoman Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country. Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillarious Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails. Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said “I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case.” There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election. And President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race. CONGRESS Lawmakers broach possible Trump campaign coordination with Russia By AUSTIN WRIGHT and MARTIN MATISHAK Yet Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections. Russia’s meddling has sparked outrage from the American body politic. The U.S. intelligence community undertook the rare move of publicizing its findings on the matter, and President Barack Obama took several steps to officially retaliate, while members of Congress continue pushing for more investigations into the hacking and a harder line against Russia, which was already viewed in Washington as America’s leading foreign adversary. Ukraine, on the other hand, has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S. administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about Poroshenko’s regime, while sounding unusually friendly notes about Putin’s regime. Poroshenko is scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings with U.S. government officials “to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations.” A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort (pictured) and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. | Getty Revelations about Ukraine’s anti-Trump efforts could further set back those efforts. “Things seem to be going from bad to worse for Ukraine,” said David A. Merkel, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who helped oversee U.S. relations with Russia and Ukraine while working in George W. Bush’s State Department and National Security Council. Merkel, who has served as an election observer in Ukrainian presidential elections dating back to 1993, noted there’s some irony in Ukraine and Russia taking opposite sides in the 2016 presidential race, given that past Ukrainian elections were widely viewed in Washington’s foreign policy community as proxy wars between the U.S. and Russia. “Now, it seems that a U.S. election may have been seen as a surrogate battle by those in Kiev and Moscow,” Merkel said. ••• The Ukrainian antipathy for Trump’s team — and alignment with Clinton’s — can be traced back to late 2013. That’s when the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort had been advising, abruptly backed out of a European Union pact linked to anti-corruption reforms. Instead, Yanukovych entered into a multibillion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia, sparking protests across Ukraine and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country to Russia under Putin’s protection. In the ensuing crisis, Russian troops moved into the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, and Manafort dropped off the radar. Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world. A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party. In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well. She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, Chalupa said. In January 2016 — months before Manafort had taken any role in Trump’s campaign — Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump’s campaign, “I felt there was a Russia connection,” Chalupa recalled. “And that, if there was, that we can expect Paul Manafort to be involved in this election,” said Chalupa, who at the time also was warning leaders in the Ukrainian-American community that Manafort was “Putin’s political brain for manipulating U.S. foreign policy and elections.” PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION Trump confronts firestorm over Russia allegations By ELI STOKOLS, SHANE GOLDMACHER, JOSH DAWSEY and MICHAEL CROWLEY She said she shared her concern with Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar, during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy. According to someone briefed on the meeting, Chaly said that Manafort was very much on his radar, but that he wasn’t particularly concerned about the operative’s ties to Trump since he didn’t believe Trump stood much of a chance of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency. That was not an uncommon view at the time, and, perhaps as a result, Trump’s ties to Russia — let alone Manafort’s — were not the subject of much attention. That all started to change just four days after Chalupa’s meeting at the embassy, when it was reported that Trump had in fact hired Manafort, suggesting that Chalupa may have been on to something. She quickly found herself in high demand. The day after Manafort’s hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC’s communications staff on Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia, according to an operative familiar with the situation. A former DNC staffer described the exchange as an “informal conversation,” saying “‘briefing’ makes it sound way too formal,” and adding, “We were not directing or driving her work on this.” Yet, the former DNC staffer and the operative familiar with the situation agreed that with the DNC’s encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff to try to arrange an interview in which Poroshenko might discuss Manafort’s ties to Yanukovych. While the embassy declined that request, officials there became “helpful” in Chalupa’s efforts, she said, explaining that she traded information and leads with them. “If I asked a question, they would provide guidance, or if there was someone I needed to follow up with.” But she stressed, “There were no documents given, nothing like that.” Chalupa said the embassy also worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in the right directions. She added, though, “they were being very protective and not speaking to the press as much as they should have. I think they were being careful because their situation was that they had to be very, very careful because they could not pick sides. It’s a political issue, and they didn’t want to get involved politically because they couldn’t.” Shulyar vehemently denied working with reporters or with Chalupa on anything related to Trump or Manafort, explaining “we were stormed by many reporters to comment on this subject, but our clear and adamant position was not to give any comment [and] not to interfere into the campaign affairs.” Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 race was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin (pictured), and involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. | Getty Both Shulyar and Chalupa said the purpose of their initial meeting was to organize a June reception at the embassy to promote Ukraine. According to the embassy’s website, the event highlighted female Ukrainian leaders, featuring speeches by Ukrainian parliamentarian Hanna Hopko, who discussed “Ukraine’s fight against the Russian aggression in Donbas,” and longtime Hillarious Clinton confidante Melanne Verveer, who worked for Clinton in the State Department and was a vocal surrogate during the presidential campaign. Shulyar said her work with Chalupa “didn’t involve the campaign,” and she specifically stressed that “We have never worked to research and disseminate damaging information about Donald Trump and Paul Manafort.” But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. “Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa,” recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. “They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillarious team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa,” he said, adding “Oksana was keeping it all quiet,” but “the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa. In fact, sources familiar with the effort say that Shulyar specifically called Telizhenko into a meeting with Chalupa to provide an update on an American media outlet’s ongoing investigation into Manafort. Telizhenko recalled that Chalupa told him and Shulyar that, “If we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or Trump’s involvement with Russia, she can get a hearing in Congress by September.” Chalupa confirmed that, a week after Manafort’s hiring was announced, she discussed the possibility of a congressional investigation with a foreign policy legislative assistant in the office of Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus. But, Chalupa said, “It didn’t go anywhere.” Asked about the effort, the Kaptur legislative assistant called it a “touchy subject” in an internal email to colleagues that was accidentally forwarded to Politico. Kaptur’s office later emailed an official statement explaining that the lawmaker is backing a bill to create an independent commission to investigate “possible outside interference in our elections.” The office added “at this time, the evidence related to this matter points to Russia, but Congresswoman Kaptur is concerned with any evidence of foreign entities interfering in our elections.” ••• Almost as quickly as Chalupa’s efforts attracted the attention of the Ukrainian Embassy and Democrats, she also found herself the subject of some unwanted attention from overseas. Within a few weeks of her initial meeting at the embassy with Shulyar and Chaly, Chalupa on April 20 received the first of what became a series of messages from the administrators of her private Yahoo email account, warning her that “state-sponsored actors” were trying to hack into her emails. She kept up her crusade, appearing on a panel a week after the initial hacking message to discuss her research on Manafort with a group of Ukrainian investigative journalists gathered at the Library of Congress for a program sponsored by a U.S. congressional agency called the Open World Leadership Center. Center spokeswoman Maura Shelden stressed that her group is nonpartisan and ensures “that our delegations hear from both sides of the aisle, receiving bipartisan information.” She said the Ukrainian journalists in subsequent days met with Republican officials in North Carolina and elsewhere. And she said that, before the Library of Congress event, “Open World’s program manager for Ukraine did contact Chalupa to advise her that Open World is a nonpartisan agency of the Congress.” Chalupa, though, indicated in an email that was later hacked and released by WikiLeaks that the Open World Leadership Center “put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort.” Republicans pile on Russia for hacking, get details on GOP targets By MARTIN MATISHAK and AUSTIN WRIGHT In the email, which was sent in early May to then-DNC communications director Luis Miranda, Chalupa noted that she had extended an invitation to the Library of Congress forum to veteran Washington investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. Two days before the event, he had published a story for Yahoo News revealing the unraveling of a $26 million deal between Manafort and a Russian oligarch related to a telecommunications venture in Ukraine. And Chalupa wrote in the email she’d been “working with for the past few weeks” with Isikoff “and connected him to the Ukrainians” at the event. Isikoff, who accompanied Chalupa to a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy immediately after the Library of Congress event, declined to comment. Chalupa further indicated in her hacked May email to the DNC that she had additional sensitive information about Manafort that she intended to share “offline” with Miranda and DNC research director Lauren Dillon, including “a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I’m working on you should be aware of.” Explaining that she didn’t feel comfortable sharing the intel over email, Chalupa attached a screenshot of a warning from Yahoo administrators about “state-sponsored” hacking on her account, explaining, “Since I started digging into Manafort these messages have been a daily occurrence on my yahoo account despite changing my password often.” Dillon and Miranda declined to comment. A DNC official stressed that Chalupa was a consultant paid to do outreach for the party’s political department, not a researcher. She undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own, and the party did not incorporate her findings in its dossiers on the subjects, the official said, stressing that the DNC had been building robust research books on Trump and his ties to Russia long before Chalupa began sounding alarms. Nonetheless, Chalupa’s hacked email reportedly escalated concerns among top party officials, hardening their conclusion that Russia likely was behind the cyber intrusions with which the party was only then beginning to grapple. Chalupa left the DNC after the Democratic convention in late July to focus fulltime on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia. She said she provided off-the-record information and guidance to “a lot of journalists” working on stories related to Manafort and Trump’s Russia connections, despite what she described as escalating harassment. About a month-and-a-half after Chalupa first started receiving hacking alerts, someone broke into her car outside the Northwest Washington home where she lives with her husband and three young daughters, she said. They “rampaged it, basically, but didn’t take anything valuable — left money, sunglasses, $1,200 worth of golf clubs,” she said, explaining she didn’t file a police report after that incident because she didn’t connect it to her research and the hacking. But by the time a similar vehicle break-in occurred involving two family cars, she was convinced that it was a Russia-linked intimidation campaign. The police report on the latter break-in noted that “both vehicles were unlocked by an unknown person and the interior was ransacked, with papers and the garage openers scattered throughout the cars. Nothing was taken from the vehicles.” Then, early in the morning on another day, a woman “wearing white flowers in her hair” tried to break into her family’s home at 1:30 a.m., Chalupa said. Shulyar told Chalupa that the mysterious incident bore some of the hallmarks of intimidation campaigns used against foreigners in Russia, according to Chalupa. “This is something that they do to U.S. diplomats, they do it to Ukrainians. Like, this is how they operate. They break into people’s homes. They harass people. They’re theatrical about it,” Chalupa said. “They must have seen when I was writing to the DNC staff, outlining who Manafort was, pulling articles, saying why it was significant, and painting the bigger picture.” In a Yahoo News story naming Chalupa as one of 16 “ordinary people” who “shaped the 2016 election,” Isikoff wrote that after Chalupa left the DNC, FBI agents investigating the hacking questioned her and examined her laptop and smartphone. Chalupa this month told Politico that, as her research and role in the election started becoming more public, she began receiving death threats, along with continued alerts of state-sponsored hacking. But she said, “None of this has scared me off.” ••• While it’s not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign — and certainly for Manafort — can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government. Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency — and publicized by a parliamentarian — appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president, Yanukovych. The New York Times, in the August story revealing the ledgers’ existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were “a focus” of an investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry. One of the most damaging Russia-related stories during Donald Trump's campaign can be traced to the Ukrainian government. | AP Photo Clinton’s campaign seized on the story to advance Democrats’ argument that Trump’s campaign was closely linked to Russia. The ledger represented “more troubling connections between Donald Trump’s team and pro-Kremlin elements in Ukraine,” Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, said in a statement. He demanded that Trump “disclose campaign chair Paul Manafort’s and all other campaign employees’ and advisers’ ties to Russian or pro-Kremlin entities, including whether any of Trump’s employees or advisers are currently representing and or being paid by them.” A former Ukrainian investigative journalist and current parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko, who was elected in 2014 as part of Poroshenko’s party, held a news conference to highlight the ledgers, and to urge Ukrainian and American law enforcement to aggressively investigate Manafort. “I believe and understand the basis of these payments are totally against the law — we have the proof from these books,” Leshchenko said during the news conference, which attracted international media coverage. “If Mr. Manafort denies any allegations, I think he has to be interrogated into this case and prove his position that he was not involved in any misconduct on the territory of Ukraine,” Leshchenko added. Manafort denied receiving any off-books cash from Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, and said that he had never been contacted about the ledger by Ukrainian or American investigators, later telling POLITICO “I was just caught in the crossfire.” According to a series of memos reportedly compiled for Trump’s opponents by a former British intelligence agent, Yanukovych, in a secret meeting with Putin on the day after the Times published its report, admitted that he had authorized “substantial kickback payments to Manafort.” But according to the report, which was published Tuesday by BuzzFeed but remains unverified. Yanukovych assured Putin “that there was no documentary trail left behind which could provide clear evidence of this” — an alleged statement that seemed to implicitly question the authenticity of the ledger. 2016 Inside the fall of Paul Manafort By KENNETH P. VOGEL and MARC CAPUTO The scrutiny around the ledgers — combined with that from other stories about his Ukraine work — proved too much, and he stepped down from the Trump campaign less than a week after the Times story. At the time, Leshchenko suggested that his motivation was partly to undermine Trump. “For me, it was important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world,” Leshchenko told the Financial Times about two weeks after his news conference. The newspaper noted that Trump’s candidacy had spurred “Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election,” and the story quoted Leshchenko asserting that the majority of Ukraine’s politicians are “on Hillarious Clinton’s side.” But by this month, Leshchenko was seeking to recast his motivation, telling Politico, “I didn’t care who won the U.S. elections. This was a decision for the American voters to decide.” His goal in highlighting the ledgers, he said was “to raise these issues on a political level and emphasize the importance of the investigation.” In a series of answers provided to Politico, a spokesman for Poroshenko distanced his administration from both Leshchenko’s efforts and those of the agency that reLeshchenko Leshchenko leased the ledgers, The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. It was created in 2014 as a condition for Ukraine to receive aid from the U.S. and the European Union, and it signed an evidence-sharing agreement with the FBI in late June — less than a month and a half before it released the ledgers. The bureau is “fully independent,” the Poroshenko spokesman said, adding that when it came to the presidential administration there was “no targeted action against Manafort.” He added “as to Serhiy Leshchenko, he positions himself as a representative of internal opposition in the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko’s faction, despite [the fact that] he belongs to the faction,” the spokesman said, adding, “it was about him personally who pushed [the anti-corruption bureau] to proceed with investigation on Manafort.” But an operative who has worked extensively in Ukraine, including as an adviser to Poroshenko, said it was highly unlikely that either Leshchenko or the anti-corruption bureau would have pushed the issue without at least tacit approval from Poroshenko or his closest allies. “It was something that Poroshenko was probably aware of and could have stopped if he wanted to,” said the operative. And, almost immediately after Trump’s stunning victory over Clinton, questions began mounting about the investigations into the ledgers — and the ledgers themselves. An official with the anti-corruption bureau told a Ukrainian newspaper, “Mr. Manafort does not have a role in this case.” Ukrainian member of parliament Serhiy Leshchenko has sought to recast his investigation after the election. | Getty And, while the anti-corruption bureau told Politico late last month that a “general investigation [is] still ongoing” of the ledger, it said Manafort is not a target of the investigation. “As he is not the Ukrainian citizen, [the anti-corruption bureau] by the law couldn’t investigate him personally,” the bureau said in a statement. Some Poroshenko critics have gone further, suggesting that the bureau is backing away from investigating because the ledgers might have been doctored or even forged. Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, a Ukrainian former diplomat who served as the country’s head of security under Poroshenko but is now affiliated with a leading opponent of Poroshenko, said it was fishy that “only one part of the black ledger appeared.” He asked, “Where is the handwriting analysis?” and said it was “crazy” to announce an investigation based on the ledgers. He met last month in Washington with Trump allies, and said, “of course they all recognize that our [anti-corruption bureau] intervened in the presidential campaign.” And in an interview this week, Manafort, who re-emerged as an informal advisor to Trump after Election Day, suggested that the ledgers were inauthentic and called their publication “a politically motivated false attack on me. My role as a paid consultant was public. There was nothing off the books, but the way that this was presented tried to make it look shady.” He added that he felt particularly wronged by efforts to cast his work in Ukraine as pro-Russian, arguing “all my efforts were focused on helping Ukraine move into Europe and the West.” He specifically cited his work on denuclearizing the country and on the European Union trade and political pact that Yanukovych spurned before fleeing to Russia. “In no case was I ever involved in anything that would be contrary to U.S. interests,” Manafort said. Yet Russia seemed to come to the defense of Manafort and Trump last month, when a spokeswoman for Russia’s Foreign Ministry charged that the Ukrainian government used the ledgers as a political weapon. “Ukraine seriously complicated the work of Trump’s election campaign headquarters by planting information according to which Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman, allegedly accepted money from Ukrainian oligarchs,” Maria Zakharova said at a news briefing, according to a transcript of her remarks posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website. “All of you have heard this remarkable story,” she told assembled reporters. ••• Beyond any efforts to sabotage Trump, Ukrainian officials didn’t exactly extend a hand of friendship to the GOP nominee during the campaign. The ambassador, Chaly, penned an op-ed for The Hill, in which he chastised Trump for a confusing series of statements in which the GOP candidate at one point expressed a willingness to consider recognizing Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea as legitimate. The op-ed made some in the embassy uneasy, sources said. “That was like too close for comfort, even for them,” said Chalupa. “That was something that was as risky as they were going to be.” Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk warned on Facebook that Trump had “challenged the very values of the free world.” Ukraine’s minister of internal affairs, Arsen Avakov, piled on, trashing Trump on Twitter in July as a “clown” and asserting that Trump is “an even bigger danger to the US than terrorism.” Avakov, in a Facebook post, lashed out at Trump for his confusing Crimea comments, calling the assessment the “diagnosis of a dangerous misfit,” according to a translated screenshot featured in one media report, though he later deleted the post. He called Trump “dangerous for Ukraine and the US” and noted that Manafort worked with Yanukovych when the former Ukrainian leader “fled to Russia through Crimea. Where would Manafort lead Trump?” INVESTIGATIONS Manafort’s man in Kiev By KENNETH P. VOGEL The Trump-Ukraine relationship grew even more fraught in September with reports that the GOP nominee had snubbed Poroshenko on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where the Ukrainian president tried to meet both major party candidates, but scored only a meeting with Clinton. Telizhenko, the former embassy staffer, said that, during the primaries, Chaly, the country’s ambassador in Washington, had actually instructed the embassy not to reach out to Trump’s campaign, even as it was engaging with those of Clinton and Trump’s leading GOP rival, Ted Cruz. “We had an order not to talk to the Trump team, because he was critical of Ukraine and the government and his critical position on Crimea and the conflict,” said Telizhenko. “I was yelled at when I proposed to talk to Trump,” he said, adding, “The ambassador said not to get involved — Hillarious is going to win.” This account was confirmed by Nalyvaichenko, the former diplomat and security chief now affiliated with a Poroshenko opponent, who said, “The Ukrainian authorities closed all doors and windows — this is from the Ukrainian side.” He called the strategy “bad and short-sighted.” Andriy Artemenko, a Ukrainian parliamentarian associated with a conservative opposition party, did meet with Trump’s team during the campaign and said he personally offered to set up similar meetings for Chaly but was rebuffed. “It was clear that they were supporting Hillarious Clinton’s candidacy,” Artemenko said. “They did everything from organizing meetings with the Clinton team, to publicly supporting her, to criticizing Trump. … I think that they simply didn’t meet because they thought that Hillarious would win.” Shulyar rejected the characterizations that the embassy had a ban on interacting with Trump, instead explaining that it “had different diplomats assigned for dealing with different teams tailoring the content and messaging. So it was not an instruction to abstain from the engagement but rather an internal discipline for diplomats not to get involved into a field she or he was not assigned to, but where another colleague was involved.” And she pointed out that Chaly traveled to the GOP convention in Cleveland in late July and met with members of Trump’s foreign policy team “to highlight the importance of Ukraine and the support of it by the U.S.” Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S. Valeriy Chaly publically critcized Donald Trump during the 2016 elections. | Getty Despite the outreach, Trump’s campaign in Cleveland gutted a proposed amendment to the Republican Party platform that called for the U.S. to provide “lethal defensive weapons” for Ukraine to defend itself against Russian incursion, backers of the measure charged. The outreach ramped up after Trump’s victory. Shulyar pointed out that Poroshenko was among the first foreign leaders to call to congratulate Trump. And she said that, since Election Day, Chaly has met with close Trump allies, including Sens. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, and Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while the ambassador accompanied Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Ukraine’s vice prime minister for European and Euro-Atlantic integration, to a round of Washington meetings with Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.), an early Trump backer, and Jim DeMint, president of The Heritage Foundation, which played a prominent role in Trump’s transition. ••• Many Ukrainian officials and operatives and their American allies see Trump’s inauguration this month as an existential threat to the country, made worse, they admit, by the dissemination of the secret ledger, the antagonistic social media posts and the perception that the embassy meddled against — or at least shut out — Trump. “It’s really bad. The [Poroshenko] administration right now is trying to re-coordinate communications,” said Telizhenko, adding, “The Trump organization doesn’t want to talk to our administration at all.” During Nalyvaichenko’s trip to Washington last month, he detected lingering ill will toward Ukraine from some, and lack of interest from others, he recalled. “Ukraine is not on the top of the list, not even the middle,” he said. Poroshenko’s allies are scrambling to figure out how to build a relationship with Trump, who is known for harboring and prosecuting grudges for years. A delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians allied with Poroshenko last month traveled to Washington partly to try to make inroads with the Trump transition team, but they were unable to secure a meeting, according to a Washington foreign policy operative familiar with the trip. And operatives in Washington and Kiev say that after the election, Poroshenko met in Kiev with top executives from the Washington lobbying firm BGR — including Ed Rogers and Lester Munson — about how to navigate the Trump regime. Ukrainians fall out of love with Europe By DAVID STERN Weeks later, BGR reported to the Department of Justice that the government of Ukraine would pay the firm $50,000 a month to “provide strategic public relations and government affairs counsel,” including “outreach to U.S. government officials, non-government organizations, members of the media and other individuals.” Firm spokesman Jeffrey Birnbaum suggested that “pro-Putin oligarchs” were already trying to sow doubts about BGR’s work with Poroshenko. While the firm maintains close relationships with GOP congressional leaders, several of its principals were dismissive or sharply critical of Trump during the GOP primary, which could limit their effectiveness lobbying the new administration. The Poroshenko regime’s standing with Trump is considered so dire that the president’s allies after the election actually reached out to make amends with — and even seek assistance from — Manafort, according to two operatives familiar with Ukraine’s efforts to make inroads with Trump. Meanwhile, Poroshenko’s rivals are seeking to capitalize on his dicey relationship with Trump’s team. Some are pressuring him to replace Chaly, a close ally of Poroshenko’s who is being blamed by critics in Kiev and Washington for implementing — if not engineering — the country’s anti-Trump efforts, according to Ukrainian and U.S. politicians and operatives interviewed for this story. They say that several potential Poroshenko opponents have been through Washington since the election seeking audiences of their own with Trump allies, though most have failed to do do so. “None of the Ukrainians have any access to Trump — they are all desperate to get it, and are willing to pay big for it,” said one American consultant whose company recently met in Washington with Yuriy Boyko, a former vice prime minister under Yanukovych. Boyko, who like Yanukovych has a pro-Russian worldview, is considering a presidential campaign of his own, and his representatives offered “to pay a ****-ton of money” to get access to Trump and his inaugural events, according to the consultant. The consultant turned down the work, explaining, “It sounded shady, and we don’t want to get in the middle of that kind of stuff.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/mueller-star-witness-george-nader-indicted-on-child-sex-charges-now-reportedly-involved-in-funneling-millions-illegally-to-Hillarious-campaign-in-2016/ Mueller Star Witness George Nader Indicted on Child Sex Charges Now Reportedly Involved in Funneling Millions Illegally to Hillarious Campaign in 2016 by Joe Hoft December 6, 2019 124 Comments 6.6KShare 269Tweet Email We reported previously that George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman and one of Mueller’s ‘star witnesses’ was charged in a Virginia federal court in July with additional child sex crimes. Recall, Nader was previously indicted on June 3rd 2019 on child pornography charges. According to a 3-count indictment unsealed Friday, Nader was charged earlier in July for possessing child pornography and for traveling with a minor to engage in illegal sexual acts. Read more Nader is accused of transporting a 14-year-old European boy to the United States for sex in the year 2000. Now it’s being reported that Nader was involved in illegal campaign contributions from foreign entities to the Hillarious campaign in 2016 – The following Twitter thread from Tracy Beanz shares it all – 455 people are talking about this 489 people are talking about this 360 people are talking about this 422 people are talking about this 561 people are talking about this 333 people are talking about this 438 people are talking about this 328 people are talking about this 523 people are talking about this 351 people are talking about this 669 people are talking about this 383 people are talking about this 325 people are talking about this Mueller used a pedophile as his star witness who was also funneling illegal foreign money to the Hillarious campaign but Mueller never decided to investigate this. Instead Mueller used the known pedophile in an attempt to take down President Trump. Disgusting! 6.6KShare 269Tweet Email

So when the evidence shows that he does have a basement, by his own words, and you state he does not. I will go with the Rothschild on this one. The guy who shot up the restaurant does give proof that there is no basement. Are you trying to start your own conspiracy theory? Just because you do not believe it to be true, does not make it so. In this I will leave you with this: I will agree to disagree with you on this one. JMO.

In James' own words per the article. As always, just the truth. JMO

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (3) Security and related grounds (A) In general Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in- (i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information, (ii) any other unlawful activity, or (iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is inadmissible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 The Geary Act of 1892 The Act[edit] The original Exclusion Act of 1882 only excluded Chinese laborers for a period of 10 years. Following the Exclusion Act of 1882 and other amendments, such as the documentary requirement changing 1884 amendment, efforts were sought to crack down on illegal entry and residence of Chinese in the U.S. When the 1882 Act expired in 1892, Californian Democratic Senator Thomas Geary sponsored the Act's renewal and so the extension provision was named after him. The Geary Act, besides renewing the exclusion of Chinese laborers for another 10 years, also outlined provisions that required Chinese already in the U.S. to possess "certificates of residence" (as well as "certificates of identity" after the McCreary amendment was added) that served as proof that they entered the U.S. legally and had the right to remain in the country. The certificates of residence were to cost no more than $1($17.58 in today's money) and contained the name, age, local residence, occupation, and photograph of the applicant. The act placed the burden of proof of their right to be in the U.S. on the Chinese themselves, denied bail to Chinese in habeas corpus proceedings, made it the duty of all Chinese laborers in the U.S. to apply within one year for a certificate of residence, with a duplicate kept in the office of the Collector of Internal Revenue, and suitable penalties were prescribed for any falsification of certificates. Another of the Act's provisions required two white witnesses to testify to a Chinese person's immigration status. If any Chinese laborer within the United States without this certificate of residence was "deemed and adjudged to be unlawfully in the United States", they could be arrested and forced to do hard labor, and be deported after a year.[4] This was the first time ever illegal immigration to the U.S. was made punishable by such a harsh degree. Even though this Act seems to have granted no concessions to Chinese immigrants whatsoever, historians such as Elmer Clarence Sandmeyer have noted that many Californians were disappointed that the Act did not achieve total exclusion.[5] Although the Act stated that these certificates – as well as similar "certificates of identity" later created by the then newly formed Bureau of Immigration to document all Chinese who were actually exempt from the Exclusion and subsequent Geary Acts (for example merchants, teachers, travelers, and students) – were supposed to serve as "indubitable proof of legal entry", the documents did not function to protect legal immigrants and residents from government harassment. As Erika Lee describes, because the Act required all Chinese to possess the certificates, the entire Chinese community in the U.S. – including immigrants and residents who were supposed to be exempt from the exclusionary laws – was exposed to the same level of constraint and inquiry governing Chinese laborers.[6] This unprecedented level of inquiry was motivated by the prejudiced view that it was, as Senator Geary said, "impossible to identify [one] Chinaman [from another]".[6] No other immigrant group were required to hold documents proving their lawful residence until 1928, when 'immigrant identification cards' were first issued to any new immigrant arriving for permanent residence. These were replaced by green cards, officially called Alien Registration Receipt Cards, after 1940.[7] Such "gatekeeping" in Lee's characterization was rooted in "a western American desire to sustain white supremacy in a multiracial West".[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geary_Act Smith Act of 1940 The Smith Act (Alien Registration Act of 1940) is a federal statute of the United States that imposes criminal penalties for those who advocate the overthrow of the government. This Act also required all adult residents that are “non-citizens” to register with the government of the United States. About 215 individuals were obliged to register, which included alleged Trotskyists, fascists, and communists. The prosecutions set under the Act continued, until series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions reversed the convictions because of the unconstitutional nature of these punishments. Moreover, the statute has been changed several times in the past. Immigration and Naturalization Act CH 2 Sect 212.pdf

The Left has lost all credibility and integrity, with me JMO, when they started the day after Trump was elected and not sworn in that they wanted to impeach him. For three years we, including you, have witnessed this Fiasco since then. Operation Hurricane, Strok probe, Mueller investigation, Three impeachment votes already, and now a second hand hearsay whistle-blower that the IG changed the document after the whistle-blower filed his claim to allow second hand knowledge (but that does not show any wrongdoing) to say Trump had a Quid Pro Quo.

Actually do some research, there are several different factions of Kurds. The Turks have been fighting them for years, that means even before we helped them. Please DO NOT state words that i did not write, because I did not state anywhere that the Turks were given a greenlight to attack the Kurds.

Shab, You are correct, that an Impeachment inquiry (without the "", as Pelosi called it that) does not require a vote. But, the Speaker did say that the "inquiry" should be a fair process, her words not mine. If you think that this whole process has been fair and bipartisan, then I have the London Bridge to offer you for sale.

Shabs, You forgot to add that the Obama administration actually armed the JV team ISIS that allowed them to grow to the size we saw. Which ally did we abandon, our NATO ally, Turkey; or our recent ally the Kurds, but which sect of Kurds do you propose is our ally?

Caddie, Big difference between both, one is a formal Impeachment Inquiry and one is not. If you do not believe it is an impeachment inquiry, then hear it from the Speaker of the house herself. Benghazi was not about impeachment, but about finding out the actual events that led to the deaths of our citizens. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html

Shabs, It is a formal Impeachment Inquiry, per Speaker Pelosi as of September 24. If it is not one, then explain to me why Nancy calls it one and every Dem states it as well. This is why conservatives are in an uproar. She should never had announced it as a formal Impeachment inquiry. So, even without a vote, the Dems are treating it this way. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html