Now, this is an interesting twist of events.
This morning over two dozen investigators from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office raided the offices of Newsweek and its parent company, IBT Media.
IBT Media was co-founded by Jonathan Davis and Etienne Uzac and from we have been able to uncover the IRS placed a $1.2 million federal tax lien against Uzac back in December 2017. Although the reports are still a bit sticky the IRS agents were observed photographing servers in the offices of Newsweek Magazine but they did not go as far as to download any files at the offices located at 7 Hanover Square. What they appeared to be doing was photographing the serial numbers on the machines instead of finding out what the contents actually are.
Interestingly enough IBT has previously been linked to a Christian church which was founded by the Korean-American evangelist David Jang and Olivet University. That’s the same university located in California that Jang’s followers founded, The IRS had not responded to a call by press time and the Manhattan DA has declined to comment. So we will see where this all leads to in the coming weeks.
Even the far left Salon.com agrees:
Newsweek rehashes bogus scenario in which Hillary Clinton could still win the 2016 election
A story with no value and no newsworthiness is causing people to wonder what Newsweek was thinking
There exists, in some circles, a fantasy in which President Donald Trump is impeached, and Hillary Clinton is somehow named president. Those circles tend to be Republican ones, and one can argue they exist as some sort of nightmare fuel for conservatives itching for a reason to back Trump in his prolonged fight against special counsel Robert Mueller.
But a day after the president and his party tried to publicly shame the press with the term “fake news,” Newsweek gave us a story that makes absolutely no sense — one in which Trump was impeached, Vice President Mike Pence was impeached and Paul Ryan somehow gifted the presidency to Clinton instead.
That fantasy was borne out of a blog post in October penned by Harvard Law professor and activist Lawrence Lessig, who wrote that Mueller’s investigation would eventually lead to Trump’s impeachment. While that is improbable, it’s not completely impossible.
But Lessig took his theory a step farther, saying that, in some world, the presidential chain of succession would reach Paul Ryan, who would literally hand the most powerful office in the nation from himself to Clinton — a member of the opposite party and his party’s enemy number one.
Soak in this magical fairytale:
[If collusion is proven] the first step is obvious. Trump should resign or, if he doesn’t, he should be impeached.
The second step should be obvious as well: Pence should resign or, if he doesn’t, he should be impeached. He benefited from the criminal (and treasonous) conspiracy just as much as Trump. He shouldn’t benefit even more by becoming the residual President.
Under the law as it is, this leaves Paul Ryan as President. And the hard moral question that Ryan would then face is whether he should remain as President. By hypothesis, we’re assuming the office was effectively stolen from the legitimate winner by a criminal and treasonous act of the (previous) leader of Ryan’s own party. Ryan’s being President is just the fruit of that poisonous tree. So should he just ignore that? Or should he acknowledge the wrong, and act to make it right?
President Ryan would have the right to nominate a Vice-President. That right is specified in the 25th Amendment. That nominee then becomes Vice-President once confirmed by a majority of both houses. That’s how Gerald Ford became Vice President. And that’s how he eventually became President without ever running for that office.
If Ryan became President because the Trump/Pence campaign committed treason, who should he nominate as his Vice President? The answer seems unavoidable: He should nominate the person defeated by the treason of his own party, and then step aside, and let her become the president.
The theory is, to put it mildly, bonkers. No one should give it more than one second of thought.
But that’s exactly what Newsweek did on Thursday, revisiting Lessig’s old blog post to advance it with one simple question: Does he still believe that? That question is the only reason the Newsweek article exists. It was answered with a sure, why the hell not? Per Newsweek:
On Wednesday, Lessig told Newsweek this scenario was still a possibility.
“This is one way it could happen,” Lessig said. “But that’s very different from saying I think it will happen, or should happen, or [that] the evidence is there for it to happen.”
Since the essay was published, there hasn’t been “any evidence that’s come out that’s resolved the question, whether there was some conspiracy to steal the election,” the professor said.
So there you have it. Nothing has changed whatsoever. Indeed, if anything, improbable scenario has become less probable, as Lessig admits (he also concedes that there is no grounds for thinking it would be probable). The only possible news value here is that Newsweek asked Lessig if something has changed, and found out that nothing has. It’s pure air blowing in the wrong direction.
Many online came to that same conclusion.
No Newsweek, Crooked Hillary will never be our Commander In Chief, And you know this fact very well.
As you can clearly read in the above article, Newsweek Magazine, which was at one point a great publication for up and coming writers and journalists has, in the Trump era, become nothing more than a swamp propaganda extension of the deep state. An extension where they rely on shock headlines and fake news articles twisted in multiple leftist slants in order to sell their rag of a magazine. Let’s hope and pray Newsweek has its days numbered, for the sake of the nation.
Please share if you agree Newsweek needs to end its publication….