Anna Demidchik

How the fuck did California vote against a billionaire tax what is wrong with this place

🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE — PRIVATE MESSAGES EXPOSE TROUBLING COORDINATION AROUND WHITEHEAD’S DEI SURVEY IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL 🔱 NEW REVELATION — Following our exposé of the Whitehead Institute Board’s continued defense of its leadership and its deeply compromised 2021 investigative process—whose integrity is now seriously challenged by extensive court evidence and the jury’s $6 million verdict against Kristin Knouse for defamation and tortious interference—additional court evidence exposes deeply troubling private communications between Knouse and Tina Lopez, including explicit references to Whitehead Director Ruth Lehmann. On October 20–21, 2020, Knouse and Lopez discussed Whitehead Institute’s anticipated anonymous DEI survey, encouraging additional allegations and addressing concerns about anonymity. In these exchanges, Knouse explicitly referenced Whitehead Director Ruth Lehmann, while Lopez expressed extraordinary personal loyalty to Knouse. These communications raise serious questions about how Whitehead’s DEI survey was used to advance Knouse’s efforts against Professor @DMSabatini, what its leadership knew, and whether the subsequent investigation was genuinely independent. 1. Coordinating submissions to Whitehead’s DEI survey After discussing an anticipated anonymous survey concerning harassment, racism, and bullying, Knouse encouraged Lopez (@KristinaELopez) to submit information and wrote: 🔴 “carpe diem my friend ....” 🔴 “this is your chance to report what anna told you ....” When Lopez expressed concern about being identified, Knouse emphasized the survey’s purported anonymity. 2. Knouse explicitly discussed obtaining additional sources Knouse wrote: 🔴 “ruth basically knows already” 🔴 “just need more sources to say the same shit now” 🔴 “so i dont seem like a psycho” She subsequently encouraged another potential participant to contribute, writing: 🔴 “help my case plz” 3. Tina Lopez’s extraordinary declarations of loyalty Lopez told Knouse: 🔴 “Hey with your blessing I'll do just about anything” Later, she declared: 🔴 “Anyway I'm #teamKristin ride or die” These exchanges raise serious questions about personal loyalty, influence, and the independence of allegations submitted through institutional reporting channels. 4. Direct references to Whitehead Director Ruth Lehmann Knouse stated: 🔴 “nah i think ruth knows to hold the horses” 🔴 “i told ruth this” And later: 🔴 “here's hoping we got AA and ruth in our side cars” These statements warrant examination of what Whitehead leadership knew, when it knew it, and whether appropriate safeguards protected the independence of the investigative process. ⚠️ THE INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTION The scientific community has already seen the jury’s $6 million verdict against Kristin Knouse for defamation and tortious interference. Now these private messages expose how Knouse and Lopez discussed using Whitehead’s anticipated DEI survey to advance allegations, recruit additional voices, and address concerns about anonymity. Whitehead Institute (@WhiteheadInst), Director Ruth Lehmann (@REMLehmann), Board Chair Sarah K. Williamson (@SWilliamsonFCLT), and the Board of Directors must publicly address these documentary revelations. We call for an independent, evidence-based review of the DEI survey, the subsequent investigation, relevant leadership communications, and the institutional decisions that followed. 🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️ @SciGuardians 🔱

France is preparing to introduce a nationwide 0.8% levy on home, car and business insurance contracts to finance a compensation fund for damage caused by riots. The measure could take effect on January 1, 2027, and generate approximately €400 million annually. Although insurance companies would formally pay the levy, they could pass the additional costs directly on to policyholders through higher premiums. That means millions of ordinary French residents, including those who have never participated in riots or lived anywhere near affected areas, could end up paying more to cover the financial consequences of rioting elsewhere in the country.

The Text Messages Will Get You Every Time In the Cornell case, the text messages paint a very different picture from the narrative presented in the civil complaint and much of the media coverage. And here we are again. Different case, same lesson. When the full text exchanges start coming out, the narrative can change dramatically. David Sabatini's $6 million defamation victory against Kristin Knouse is a vindication, but it doesn't erase what happened to him. On October 16, a Massachusetts jury found that Knouse had defamed Sabatini and improperly interfered with his professional relationships. The jury also rejected her sexual harassment and retaliation counterclaims. Sabatini lost his prestigious positions, his laboratory, his reputation, and years of his career. He spent five years fighting to clear his name. Most people wouldn't have the financial resources, connections, or determination to take a case this far. So what happens to the people who can't? And what about accountability beyond a monetary judgment? When someone knowingly makes false allegations that destroy another person's livelihood, shouldn't there be consequences beyond writing a check? But there's another aspect of this case that deserves scrutiny: the people and institutions surrounding the allegations. Check out @SciGuardians and their ongoing coverage of the court evidence. Their posts examine contemporaneous communications involving Nora Kory, a former postdoctoral researcher in Sabatini's laboratory, discussions involving Kristin Knouse and MIT professor Sangeeta Bhatia, and references to Whitehead Institute Director Ruth Lehmann. What the court evidence revealed raises some serious questions about coordination, institutional influence, the use of DEI processes, and whether the people responsible for evaluating these allegations were as independent as they should have been. Some of this looks less like an impartial investigation and more like a coordinated campaign. Whether the full record supports that conclusion deserves closer examination. And while Sabatini won his case against Knouse, the verdict doesn't establish wrongdoing by every other person involved. Still, between the text revelations, the institutional politics, the reputational destruction, champagne celebrations, and the courtroom vindication, this has all the makings of a Netflix documentary.

🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE EXPOSES EXPLOSIVE PRIVATE MESSAGES REVEALING COORDINATION BETWEEN KRISTIN KNOUSE AND MIT PROFESSOR SANGEETA BHATIA IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL. 🔱 NEW REVELATION — Court evidence exposes how Knouse and Bhatia privately celebrated Sabatini’s removal, discussed the potential destruction of his professional career, and anticipated the revocation of his @MIT tenure. An 80-message exchange between Kristin Knouse and MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia, dated August 20–21, 2021, reveals their private reactions immediately following Whitehead Institute and HHMI's severance of ties with Professor @DMSabatini. The communications contain statements that deserve serious public examination. 🔴 1. “YOU DID IT” — “AND HE’S OUT.” On August 20, 2021, Bhatia congratulated Knouse: 🔴 “YOU DID IT. You crossed the finish line. It's out in the open. And you're not out in the open. And you're on the faculty. And he's out.” Knouse responded: 🔴 “You connecting me to Nancy [Hopkins]was the turning point. I will never forget that walk in Lexington.” 🔴 2. “THIS WAS THE OUTCOME I DREAMED OF.” The following morning, as news coverage spread, Knouse discussed the possibility of Sabatini losing his MIT tenure: 🔴 “Hard to imagine MIT will be left with any choice other than to revoke tenure.” Bhatia responded: 🔴 “You're right about tenure” She subsequently wrote: 🔴 “This was the outcome I dreamed of but NEVER certain I would get it.” Knouse also described her assessment of Whitehead's handling of the matter: 🔴 “And as skeptical as I was of Whitehead's end game, in the end I think the overall process was perfectly executed.” Bhatia expressed her approval of Whitehead Institute Director Ruth Lehmann: 🔴 “I'm proud of Ruth [Lehmann]” These exchanges occurred months before MIT's April 2022 tenure-revocation recommendation. 🔴 3. THE PROFESSIONAL CONSEQUENCES — BEYOND WHITEHEAD. The participants also discussed Sabatini's corporate affiliations and prospects for future employment. Knouse wrote: 🔴 “I know of one company already speaking with lawyers to remove him on grounds of morality clause.” She subsequently stated: 🔴 “Hard to imagine how he can be gainfully employed anywhere after the past 24 hours ...” These were not merely discussions about an institutional investigation. They extended to the potential consequences for Sabatini's career, tenure, corporate affiliations, and future livelihood. 🔴 4. THE DIVERSITY SURVEY AND PROTECTION FROM PUBLIC IDENTIFICATION. In another particularly consequential exchange, Bhatia wrote: 🔴 “Also the dei survey and subsequent investigation really protects you, which I love. There is not even a scent of whistleblower in all the press.” This statement takes on particular significance alongside the previously disclosed communications in which Knouse and Nora Kory discussed using Whitehead's diversity survey to conceal an investigation already under consideration (📑 see the original court evidence in the first comment below). 🔴 5. “WE DRANK CHAMPAGNE” — CELEBRATING AS THE NEWS SPREAD. Perhaps the most striking exchange appears on KK011419. On August 21, 2021, Knouse declared: 🔴 “I KNOW! Young people took down a relatively young king. Progress, progress, progress.” Knouse also wrote: 🔴 “Two other women who came forward and I drank champagne while watching the Tweets and articles roll in last night. It felt like campaign headquarters after an election victory. Really special.” Bhatia responded: 🔴 “That's awesome.” These exchanges reinforce the serious concerns about coordination and conflicts of interest raised by our previous disclosures. Their significance must be assessed alongside the full documentary record and the subsequent jury verdict. The scientific community deserves full accountability for any misconduct established by the evidence, including the roles of individuals who participated in or improperly influenced the institutional processes that subjected Professor Sabatini to a devastating ordeal and profoundly damaged his career. 📑 REVIEW THE ORIGINAL COURT EVIDENCE BELOW. 🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️ @SciGuardians 🔱

Bodycam footage shows Florida deputies arresting a mother at an airport after authorities say she left her four children, ages 9, 11, 12 and 14, home alone while traveling to Las Vegas for work. Irene Miller, 50, was taken into custody Friday as she stepped off a plane. Two days earlier, one of her children had called 911 after a dumbbell fell on her 9-year-old brother's head. When deputies arrived at the family's Kissimmee home, they found the children without adult supervision and had the injured boy taken to a hospital, where he was treated and released. Miller now faces four counts of child neglect.

It just dawned on me. This USA v. California case could mean the end of "all mail" ballots for California. If the 9th Circuit puts a halt to the process as it is now, they will not want to have to validate their voter rolls in the future. They know there are probably hundreds of thousands maybe millions of illegal aliens registered to vote because that is how they set up the program. All on-line registration, and NO citizenship verification (by their own statements). California is a Red State and I think this could be the route to show it. Get out and vote !

The New York Post has obtained and published an official copy of Ilhan Omar's sister's marriage certificate. It describes their father as "Nur Said Elmi," and his profession as a "military officer. More evidence that she is not who she says she is.

What amazes me is the attitude of so many of the centibillionaires. A 5% tax will not make any difference to the way they live. Their spending may be extravagant, but it is still much less than their (correctly measured) income. They know that, as gifted as some of them indeed are, they have benefited from extreme luck (and the help of the state, and, to speak like an economist, monopoly rents). They know that their effective tax rate is low, relative to what many others pay. They know that extreme inequality is extremely unpopular, and can lead to political unrest, backlash, or worse. They must admit that, morally, it is hard to argue for a society in which some become obscenely wealthy, while so many are poor and see their income stagnate. They typically have not indicated that they are building their wealth to eventually make the world a better place. But they are still willing to fight the tax, spending hundreds of millions in California to avoid paying the tax. Why? They simply think what is theirs is theirs, end of story. They believe in the slippery slope, and if they do not take a stand on this levy, the government will come back for more. They hate the state and the notion that their money will be misused? Or?

Woman cries for three hours after passenger refuses to swap seats so she can sit beside her husband on 10-hour flight from Turkey to the US

Men will literally build a flying car instead of going to therapy

French rioters loot Louis Vuitton store located just 2 KM away from the Élysée.

Biggest "the kids are fucked" moment I've had recently was at urgent care. Walked in for a strep test, asked upfront what it would cost without insurance. Receptionist said she couldn't tell me. "It depends on what the doctor finds." Got the test, got a quick look at my throat, was out in 15 minutes. The bill came three weeks later: $385. For a swab and a five-minute conversation. Called to ask for an itemized breakdown. Turns out "facility fee" alone was $220, just for walking through the door, regardless of what they actually did inside. I assumed a price was something you could ask for before you agreed to pay it. Apparently in healthcare, you find out what something costs only after you've already agreed to it.