About Last Week...

Got a Baby? Need Cash? Pfizer Has an Idea…

CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

So it’s St. Patrick’s Day and you may – if you decided to celebrate a day early (work tomorrow, I get it) you may be a bit hungover, unless your Irish and then you’re just powering through today with a very happy coffee-based tightener…or two.

But, while in your cups yesterday, if you decided to make a sizable wager on a team because “they can’t lose – their uniforms are green, for chrissakes! – Jameson’s for everyone!” and came up a cropper there may be a way out of your current financial predicament.

Got a baby?  Then Pfizer’s got your back.

As noted here recently , Pfizer/Bio-N-Tech is running covid shot clinical trials across the country that you’ll be able to ching ching ching to the bank – just hand them your kid.

Now, the kid has to be at least six months old – I know, such blatant ageism! – and cannot have ever been given a covid shot.  Meet those steep criteria and you could put that freeloading tot to work: literally, baby needs a new pair of shoes…

While the exact price for your child is unknown, “vaccine” (cough cough) trials are known to pay the highest participation fees in the clinical trial industry, upwards of a few grand.

So click here , poke around for a lab near you, and cash in!

What could go wrong?

Speaking of things that could go wrong, we come to the state of President Biden’s mental health. 

You may recall that a certain special counsel report issued by a certain government agency said Biden broke the law when it came to handling classified documents  but was so mental  that a jury – especially one in either DC or Delaware – would not find him guilty if charged.

By the way, deciding not to charge someone you are 99.99999% sure is guilty but you doubt you actually get a conviction (for whatever reason) is not uncommon; it’s one of the reasons the feds have such a high (well over 90%) conviction rate when they do go to trial.

Last week, that certain special counsel, Robert Hur, testified in front of Congress about said report.  While a number of Republicans were clearly irked that Hur decided against charging the president, the Democrats took a different tack, excoriating Hur for writing the truth behind his reasoning not to charge.

Congress has a lot of lawyers, correct?  Well, it seemed at the hearing that they all simultaneously forgot what the word “exonerate” means.  No matter how Hur tried to explain that under no circumstances did the report exonerate – i.e. declare Biden did nothing wrong -  they kept using that word.

Daring to note why Hur decided against pressing charges – the whole ga ga thing – infuriated the Democrats on the panel, saying it was not at all true and even if it was which it’s really rally not it shouldn’t have been put in the report, let alone released to the public because it, um, damaged the nation.

What was not mentioned by the Democrats – or even by the Republicans for that matter – was that it was not Hur who released the report – it was Attorney General Merrick Garland.  Hur literally had no control over the process.

Garland could have simply announced no charges or sent out a summary of the report or a heavily redacted version and that could have been that.  Why he did not raises a few interesting issues, primarily that Garland intentionally dumped the entire report to up end Biden’s re-nomination chances.

At this point, Biden has the delegates to get the nod; but also at this point Democrats are deeply deeply worried that, of all the Democrats in the country to nominate, they could be nominating the one who is most likely to lose – in a fair vote -  to Donald Trump.

Maybe Garland released the report because if he didn’t he would be seen as covering up for Biden?  That particular ship sailed years ago so any allegations along those lines could be simply thrown on the pile and ignored.

Maybe Garland was worried about a negative press reaction to redacted/minimized report?  If Garland actually thought that he is a very dim bulb indeed – the story would have been a one or two day “Biden exonerated, details held back for national security reasons (if even that)” and then dropped. 

Garland had to know that, leading us back to the Biden backstabbing explanation.

Or Garland is a really honest straight shooter who believes the American public should know why the Department of Justice makes the decisions it does.

Sorry, I jest.

Speaking of funny/sad, we come to Sen. Chuck Schumer.