NATO leaders converge on Washington ahead of Vilnius summit, as Ukraine presses for membership commitment

Jamie McIntyre reporting for Washington Examiner 

SUNAK MEETS BIDEN: After a day of meeting with U.S. congressional leaders and throwing out the first pitch at a baseball game in Washington’s smoke-filled air, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak meets in the Oval Office with President Joe Biden this morning for wide-ranging talks that will include discussions of Ukraine’s future with NATO.

“Of course, Ukraine and Russia will be top of mind and discussed, said press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Sunak’s two-day visit, his first as PM, comes ahead of NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s scheduled Monday White House meeting with Biden and as Ukraine is pressing for a concrete signal that it will be formally invited to join NATO once the war with Russia is over.

Sunak is also expected to lobby for Biden’s support for British Defense Minister Ben Wallace to succeed Stoltenberg, whose term as secretary-general ends in September.

SUNAK: 'UKRAINE’S RIGHTFUL PLACE IS IN NATO': In an interview with CNBC last week, Sunak said, “I agree with the NATO secretary-general, Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO” and that the alliance needs to “send a very strong signal to Vladimir Putin that we’re not going anywhere.”

Asked if, in light of Sunak’s statement and Stoltenberg’s impending visit, Biden was thinking about a renewed push toward Ukraine’s admission into NATO, Jean-Pierre was noncommittal. “Nothing has changed on how we’ve answered this question before,” she said. “An alliance decision is between the 31 allies and the aspirant country. That’s how it’s dealt with. There’s a process, and there’s an open-door policy. That’s what we support.”

One week from today, NATO defense ministers gather again in Brussels, and next month, NATO heads of state meet in Vilnius, Lithuania, for the alliance's annual leader’s summit.

ZELENSKY: WITHOUT SIGNAL, ‘NO POINT’: In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyexpressed frustration that after 15 years, it still doesn’t have a firm commitment to join NATO.

Zelensky told the newspaper he does not expect Ukraine to join while the war is raging but wants security guarantees for now and a firm promise it will be admitted to the alliance in the future.

“If we are not given a signal in Vilnius, I believe there is no point for Ukraine to be at this summit,” he said. Asked whether he thought he would get a signal, he replied: “I don’t know. I honestly don’t know.”

In a Tuesday address at the Bucharest Nine summit, Zelensky argued it’s time for NATO to show it’s not intimidated by Russia.

“At this year's NATO summit in Vilnius, it is time to show that NATO's declared values and real values do not differ. It is time to show that there will be no weakness in Europe,” Zelensky said. “It is necessary to finally establish that Ukraine will be a member of NATO, and this can only be established by an invitation to Ukraine to join.”

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- June 9

 

Important PSA:

Tonight's thread is about positivity and reasurrance that nothing is as bleak as it appears to be, no matter what misleading news articles you've been reading all day, or whatever jerks you've been seeing who are stupidly 'celebrating'.

Watch tonight's videos, and take a load off and relax. (and also, try to keep your dooming to another thread, what reason do you really have to still feel so afraid?) (and also stomp on any troll who is dumb enough to try and come on here to spread trouble).

Enjoy your evening

We Need a New 9/11 Commission to Probe the Rising China Threat

The growing threat from China is evidence of what may be the greatest intelligence failure in U.S. history. It needs to be investigated and addressed before another disaster strikes.

by James E. Fanell & Bradley A. Thayer for American Greatness

The United States depends upon its intelligence community to define the capabilities and intentions of its enemies. The U.S. spends more than any other nation to provide decision-makers with vital information and has developed an intelligence-gathering apparatus with unrivaled abilities, skills, and talents. When major intelligence failures occur, such as Pearl Harbor, the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, before 9/11, and regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion, they always have mighty consequences for U.S. national security interests. More importantly, those events compel an explanation of how such colossal failures could occur and what lessons should be learned to prevent them from happening again. 

As significant as the aforementioned failures were, however, they pale in comparison to the United States’ greatest intelligence failure. That is the rise of China. For a generation, the intelligence community has failed national security decision-makers when it comes to the growth of China’s capabilities and intentions. They missed it year after year. Yet, no one has asked why and how this could occur. 

This failure happened in plain sight. China has grown from about 1.6 percent of the world’s gross domestic product in 1990 to roughly 19 percent today. Every year, its economy grew without warning from the intelligence community of what the consequences would be. China’s economic power has made it a military powerhouse. China’s nuclear capabilities have grown from a modest force to one that will exceed that of the United States by 2030, if not sooner. 

China already possesses more tactical nuclear weapons and theater forces than does the United States. Its conventional capabilities challenge, if not dominate, the U.S. military today in the Indo-Pacific, at sea, in the air, in the cyber domain, and in space. China uses this power to coerce Taiwan and Vietnam, as well as U.S. allies, including Australia, Japan, and the Philippines. Beijing’s diplomacy influences nations on every continent, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Its economic influence is ubiquitous and is prevalent in the United States, where Silicon Valley keeps close ties to Chinese entities and where Wall Street continues to permit Chinese firms to raise capital in U.S. markets. U.S. firms, such as Apple and General Motors, continue to invest in China. China’s capabilities now match its Olympian ambitions. 

Congress and the American people deserve an explanation of how the U.S. intelligence community could permit the rise of a peer competitor without alerting decision-makers and the American people and framing options for a response. Warnings and options to address the China threat should have been provided consistently for decades. And if certain elements of the intelligence community in fact were doing their job, but their warnings and analyses were ignored, we need to understand why senior officials in Washington chose not to act upon these indications and warnings. 

Compelling the intelligence community to explain this failure should be a priority for the Congressional-Exective Commission on China and the Senate and House intelligence committees. But as useful as those committees may be, a new commission modeled after the 9/11 Commission would be better to address the causes of this failure and to evaluate solutions. 

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission was established to understand how that intelligence failure occurred and how the United States could prevent another horrific attack by recommending widespread reforms in the intelligence agencies. Likewise, Congress should examine the failure of the intelligence community and of administrations to identify the China threat. 

The most important step now is to understand how it could have happened; which assumptions were made about the strategic objectives and motivations of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP); what multiple failures occurred; why those failures could not be corrected internally by the intelligence community; what assumptions and biases existed that colored the intelligence community’s reporting on China; who understood the threat but was ignored or punished for accurate assessments of the threat.  

Only a major bipartisan commission can accomplish this as it would have sufficient purview and weight to investigate and comprehend, and to aid the intelligence community as it recovers from this massive failure to provide accurate intelligence regarding the China threat.  

Equally, the intelligence community may be only part of this failure. If the intelligence community was conveying accurate intelligence to policymakers and it was ignored, we need to know why. Explaining each of these bipartisan failures should be a priority of Congress and the Biden Administration.  

The greatest intelligence failure in our country’s history happened in the open. It was clear to all who wished to pay attention and was so year after year. We suspect that this happened because the intelligence community failed to understand the malign intentions of the CCP and made gross errors based upon benign assumptions of the CCP’s strategic goals and objectives. 

The United States and the world are now dealing with the consequences of China’s rise, from the death of Americans from Chinese-sourced fentanyl, off-shoring of American manufacturing jobs, coercion against Taiwan and the South China Sea, exploitation of people and the environment due to its mercenary business practices, and rampant intellectual property theft, to sustained deception about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. The intelligence community’s errors had gargantuan adverse consequences for U.S. national security.  

In the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor and 9/11, the death of thousands of Americans cried out for justice. Today, the American government and people deserve an explanation of how this massive underestimation of China’s capabilities happened, who failed, why they did so, and how it can be urgently corrected. 

The CW to air all 3 Seasons of The Chosen

 

Source: https://tvline.com/news/the-cw-series-order-the-chosen-historical-drama-jesus-1234997872/

The “new” CW‘s ever-evolving slate now will offer a Stateside broadcast home to The Chosen, a drama series “based on the biggest IP of all time” — Jesus.

Hailing from creator, director and producer Dallas Jenkins and set against the backdrop of Jewish oppression in first-century Israel, the seven-season event series — which to date has been available through DVD, Angel Studios’ VidAngel subscription service and currently Peacock and Netflix — promises “an authentic and intimate look at Jesus’ revolutionary life and teachings.”

Three seasons have thus far been produced and a fourth is underway, with Jonathan Roumie playing Jesus. Of note, NCIS: Hawai’i‘s Yasmine al-Bustami since midway through Season 1 has co-starred as Rahmah, a vintner who becomes one of the women helping Jesus’ ministry.

In fact, The CW will air the first three seasons back-to-back-to-back, starting Sunday, July 16 at 8/7c, which lands the Season 3 finale on — awww — Christmas Eve. (As such, the acquired I Am documentary series that was to air on The CW Sundays this fall will be held for Q1 2024.)

‘The Chosen’ (Angel Studios)

“The Chosen is based on the biggest IP of all time and is truly a one-of-a-kind series that tells this historically significant story in a captivating, dramatic and premium way,” CW entertainment president Brad Schwartz said in a statement. “This show has already connected deeply with viewers around the world, and The CW will expand its audience even further.”

Series creator Jenkins added, “The CW has always been bold and unique, which is perfect for us. Plus, Brad Schwartz made it clear a while ago he loves and respects The Chosen, so we know it’ll be in great hands.”

Originally developed as a crowdsourcing project on the Angel Studios app, The Chosen is said to have since reached over 110 million viewers in 175 countries around the world, with plans to make it available in 600 languages.

Who is Really Conducting the Jack Smith Prosecution of Trump? Lawfare’s Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen?

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

On June 2nd former Mueller special counsel and impeachment operative, Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen respectively, published their current Trump prosecution memo [Read Here] using a novel and arcane interpretation of US Code 793. Four days later media began reporting from leaks within the Jack Smith special counsel of the main legal approach they were going to use against President Trump [citation].  What approach is Jack Smith taking, US Code 793!   This is not coincidental. 

[Weissmann to DOJ Prosecution Memo, page 36 – pdf]

Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen wrote this memo last week.  Special Counsel Jack Smith is using it now.

At the time the 186-page Weissmann & Eisen guidance was completed, CTH drew attention to it [HERE] because we track the way the Lawfare operatives work.

In addition to protecting the interests of corrupt former Obama officials, organizing, supporting and coordinating with the Lawfare network is the purpose for Deputy AG Lisa Monaco to exist in current Main Justice operations.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is a tool, vessel and willing participant in one long Lawfare continuum that originates back in the Obama administration when they weaponized the DOJ to target their political opposition.  Andrew Weissmann writing the guidelines for Jack Smith to deploy is simply a visible example of how this operation is being conducted.

Weissmann even sells Trump Prosecution swag on his podcast.  They are not trying to hide their influence and control over the Main Justice operations, they are quite open about it because they sense they have nothing to fear.

However, the intent of the Weissmann and Eisen approach is based on a need to protect the illegal Lawfare activity from sunlight.  The Lawfare continuum is based on a need to protect the weaponized use of government that took place during the Obama administration.

The Obama administration and all of the participants in the agencies involved, use their institutional power to target their political opponents.  The DOJ and FBI targeted Donald Trump in 2016 with these weaponized systems.  The ODNI and CIA also supported.   President Obama, and all the affiliates, aligned ideologues and conscripts used the U.S. government to target their political opposition.  In the aftermath of the 2016 election, all of the foot soldiers took up position to protect the administration from public discovery of what took place.

Inside DC, Democrats and many Republicans are aligned in common self-interested defense against Trump specifically because of the weaponization that took place.  The Jack Smith special counsel is just another system in a long train of government abuse.  That’s why Weissmann, Eisen and the Lawfare group are still operating – still assisting, still helping and still coordinating.

♦ Weissmann-Mueller: Everything that happened inside Main Justice from May ’17 to April ’19, activity that was grabbing every scintilla of media attention, was being done by the Mueller/Weissmann team.  Key word ‘everything.’

There was not a single action from Main Justice that was not controlled by Andrew Weissman and company.  This action includes the revelations of staff and congressional members from the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) having subpoenas for their private emails, phone records, text message and communication.

Andrew Weissmann sent over 2,800 subpoenas for records [See 156-Pages of Examples Here].  Some of those subpoenas were sent to various telecommunications and social media platforms so they could monitor what congress was doing.

In essence, and this is a very important part of the record that is being missed, Weissmann and his team, having been given the primary responsibility of covering up the corrupt DOJ and FBI activity from the 2016 election, needed to know what Devin Nunes and Kash Patel knew.  As a result, Andrew Weissmann and team, using the figurehead of Robert Mueller as a pretext and patina, put members of congress under watch.

DAG Rod Rosenstein was presumably unaware of what Weissmann and team were doing. In the world of the bureaucratic state, willful blindness has benefits and avoids a person taking a position on whether they are directly part of the corrupt activity.  As a man comfortable with the Machiavellian ways of the deep swamp, Rod Rosenstein was the perfect and useful weasel on a leash for this specific role as DOJ liaison.

Again, why does this matter?

This context matters because it is much more of an explosive revelation to realize there were two sets of investigators, each investigating each other.  Devin Nunes was investigating a corrupt DOJ and FBI.  Weissmann and team trying to cover for corruption within the DOJ and FBI.

Chairman Devin Nunes trying to find out what was going on and put the pieces of an opaque puzzle together.  Meanwhile Andrew Weissmann was in the role of blocker to the interest of Nunes, and was a stakeholder is knowing what Nunes was piecing together.

Mueller/Weissmann were on offense against President Trump, and Weissmann/Mueller were simultaneously on defense against the House Intel Committee.

Andrew Weissmann was charged with protecting the prior corrupt activity and shielding it from sunlight.  In order to accomplish this goal, he had to know what Devin Nunes and Kash Patel were doing.  Thus, amid the 2,800 subpoenas and search warrants, Weissmann was investigating the House investigators.

That’s the background for this story:  “DOJ snooped on House Intelligence Committee investigators during Russia probe, subpoenas show”

It wasn’t the generic “DOJ” doing the snooping….

… It was the Mueller team!

.

Shocking, or Inevitable? Gallup Survey Shows Most Dramatic Shift to Social Conservatism in a Decade

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

I’ll first repeat the question in the headline: Are the results of a recent Gallup survey showing the biggest swing to social conservatism in nearly a decade shocking, inevitable, or somewhere in the middle?

Whatever one calls it, it’s a major development — particularly with the 2024 election looming ever closer.

Before we dig into the details of the survey, let’s revisit a football field metaphor I’ve long used to illustrate the U.S. political landscape. The largest portion of the field — say, between the 30-yard lines, for illustrative purposes — is comprised of decent, reasonable people, regardless of political affiliation. The closer we get to the opposing goal lines, the more extreme each party becomes.

Presently, the crazy train leaves the station on the Democrat side of the field farther from its goal line than the crazy train on the Republican side of the field, but you get the overall point.

Given that reality, it’s not a stretch to suggest that the crazier the radical left gets, the greater the number of the aforementioned decent and rational people who begin to reject the left’s insanity — such as the irreversible mutilation of the bodies of confused pre-teen boys who think they’re girls, and vice versa.

Toss in “gender fluidity,” an ever-growing number of self-identifying pronouns, and Democrat lawmakers’ support of on-demand abortion until the moment of birth, and it hardly comes as a shock that Gallup recently found that a greater percentage of Americans in 2023 (38 percent) say they are “very conservative” or “conservative” on social issues than said the same in 2022 (33 percent) and 2021 (30 percent).

Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans who say their social views are “very liberal” or “liberal” has dropped to 29 percent from 34 percent in each of the past two years, while the percentage identifying as “moderate” (31 percent) remains at roughly one-third.

Since 2021, according to the survey, the greatest shift has occurred among middle-aged adults (between the ages of 30 and 64), while older Americans’ views on social issues have remained virtually unchanged.

Among young adults, there has been a modest shift to conservative social ideology — which, although “modest,” any increase in conservative ideology among younger voters bodes well for the future as left-wing morality continues its slippery slide into the abyss.

The bottom line: According to the survey, conservatives now outnumber liberals 40 percent to 26 percent, with the overall percentage of voters who’ve moved to the right enjoying the biggest swing since 2012.

Gallup said on Thursday:

For most of the past eight years, Americans were about as likely to say they were liberal as conservative on social issues. This year, there is a more obvious conservative advantage.

The shift is mostly due to increasing social conservatism among Republicans, at a time when social issues such as transgender rights, abortion, and other hot-button concerns are prominent in the national public debate.

The increase in conservative identification on social issues over the past two years is seen among nearly all political and demographic subgroups. Republicans show one of the largest increases, from 60% in 2021 to 74% today.

Independents show a modest uptick of five percentage points, from 24% to 29%, while there has been no change among Democrats (10% in both 2021 and 2023).

You gotta love that last line: there has been no change among Democrats on social issues — 10 percent in both 2021 and 2023.

Let’s hope the Democrats not only continue their insanity but push their crazy train even farther down the crazy-train tracks. As the late Rush Limbaugh regularly said, the more we allow liberals to talk, the more they show us exactly who they are — and it behooves conservatives to expose them at every opportunity.

From the left’s support of male athletes who pretend to be females kicking the hell out of young women in women’s sports, to the self-anointed “party of children” voting in favor of on-demand abortion until the moment of birth (translation: murder), to defending the irreversible mutilation of pre-teen bodies (see: Joe Biden), is it any wonder that a growing number of non- left-wing Americans, including independents and swing voters, are moving back to the center? No.

And again, let’s hope the crazy train keeps hurtling farther and farther down the Democrat tracks.

Reporter: This Is the Proposed Monologue That Got Tucker Fired From Fox

Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

It was the bombshell media story of the year when Fox News unceremoniously fired top-rated host Tucker Carlson in April. Making that Monday morning even nuttier was the fact that CNN’s Don Lemon was also shown the door after annoying virtually everyone—staff, executives, co-hosts, and even every woman over 40.

Lemon’s firing was predictable, but Tucker’s came as a surprise, and speculation has abounded since on what caused the abrupt termination: was it part of the Dominion settlement? Was it related to a harassment suit (since dropped) by a former booker for the show? Was it because Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch was ticked off at Carlson because he wasn’t suitably critical of the January 6 protesters? The New York Times meanwhile theorized that it was because of an internal email where Tucker was watching a clip of Trump supporters surrounding an Antifa thug and commented, “It’s not how white men fight.”

But many have also thought that it was the contents of his planned monologue that evening that was the final nail in the coffin and that he specifically wanted to talk about Ray Epps. Author Chadwick Moore, who recently penned “Tucker: The Biography,” made essentially that argument in a recent video. Network brass tried to force Carlson to change the opening, the story goes, but Tucker was insistent that he be allowed to deliver it—and boom, he was done.

Now Emerald Robinson, an independent journalist who has had stints as White House correspondent for Newsmax and One American News, says she has the scoop. In an exclusive post Thursday on her Substack, Robinson claims the following is the (abridged) text of what Tucker was going to say. He starts by pillorying Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) and former Press Secretary Jen Psaki, both of who have repeatedly called for Carlson to be canceled:

Members of Congress aren’t allowed to talk like this. The Constitution of the United States prohibits it. American citizens have an inalienable right to critique and criticize their political leaders. Our politicians are not gods. They’re instruments of the public’s will. They serve the rest of us, not the other way around. For that obvious reason, politicians can never censor our speech or try to control what we think. That unchanging fact is the basis of our founding documents, of our political system and our personal freedoms. As a former government official who claims now to be a journalist, Jen Psaki should know this, and defend America’s foundational principle. She refuses. Instead, Psaki nods along like a fan as Sandy Cortez calls for law enforcement to shut down news programming. The White House Correspondents Association and various other self-described advocates of press freedom stay silent too. Apparently they agree with Ocasio-Cortes, or they’re too afraid to say otherwise.

He says more on the subject, but I don’t think this is what the higher-ups objected to. It’s juicy stuff, but probably not enough to get him fired.

What really might have bent Murdoch’s nose out of shape is when Tucker talked about Ray Epps, a man who was filmed at the Jan. 6 riots apparently egging on the crowd but has inexplicably not suffered the wrath of the corrupt Department of Justice as have so many other J6 participants.

Tucker wondered what AOC would say about Ray Epps. He pointed out that Epps was caught on camera encouraging protestors to breach the capitol. Tucker also pointed out that those on the left keep saying it was an “insurrection”: 

January 6th was a violent insurrection they tell us — and on the basis of that claim, they’ve turned the war on terror against America’s own citizens. We believe that is a false characterization.

As we’ve said many times January 6th was not an insurrection, which is why no one has been charged for that crime. No guns were brought into the Capitol. No plans to overthrow the government have ever been found. It was not an insurrection.

We saw similar violence in cities like Kenosha, Chicago, and Ferguson, he added, and yet nobody calls those events “insurrections.”

The next day, as the violence began, Epps was filmed again doing the same.

Was that legal? We can’t say. We do know that any fair person would define what Ray Epps said to the crowd on January 6th as inciting violence. Epps encouraged those around him to break through a cordon of armed police officers and breach a federal building. What Epps told the crowd to do could only lead to physical conflict. By Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes’ standard, Ray Epps should be punished for inciting violence. But Epps hasn’t been punished. Unlike more than a 1,000 other Americans who were not caught on camera encouraging crimes, Ray Epps has never even been arrested.

I know it would be much more interesting to watch Tucker deliver these words than it is to pore over them on a computer screen. I wish I had video to include, but alas, this monologue was never taped as we all know. Tucker is back though, and his brand new Twitter show is receiving massive numbers of views:

New ‘Twitter Files’ Installment Shows The FBI Censoring Journalists For Being Skeptical About Ukraine

Cole Crystal reporting for The Federalist

A new report from Aaron Maté alleges the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations has been assisting the Ukrainian government in its efforts to censor dissent on Twitter by throttling content from Western journalists like Maté. This report follows recent revelations made by Maté in the “Twitter Files,” further substantiating FBI malfeasance at home and abroad.

This information comes as corporate media reckons with the complicated relationship some in the Ukrainian government and military have with imagery associated with Nazi imagery, leftover from the region’s ties to Central Europe and the Soviet Union.

Allegations of corruption within the Ukrainian government are not new. The Ukrainian government’s corruption affects the lives of its people in very tangible ways, like in 2014 when the country moved away from pro-Russian leadership as a result of the 2014 Euromaidan protests.

The Euromaidan protests began in Ukraine with then-President Viktor Yanukovych reneging on a free trade deal arranged between Ukraine and the European Union, resulting in a massive wave of protests against perceived government corruption, oligarchy, and the strengthening of ties to Russia. Corruption was doubly alleged, by skeptics of U.S. intervention and pro-Russian elements in the eastern portions of Ukraine, after leaked calls revealed that Victoria Nuland, an American diplomat, claimed and later demonstrated to have influence over the selection process of the state’s next leader.

Much like the FBI’s involvement in quashing any unsanctioned opinions on platforms such as Twitter, to mention nothing of the Ukrainian government’s targeting of ethnic Russians and religious officials, the United States also played a role in fomenting the Euromaidan protests and formatting the administration that would succeed it which eventually paved the way for President Zelensky to enter office.

According to the new report, the FBI claimed a series of social media accounts “are suspected by [Ukrainian intelligence] in spreading fear and disinformation” and wanted to track those who “disseminate disinformation and fake news to inaccurately reflect events in Ukraine.”

“Of all of the #TwitterFiles stories,” the first Twitter Files reporter, Matt Taibbi, wrote in a post, “this one is perhaps the most damning about the FBI.”

As far as it has been defined in the leaked emails, “disinformation” appears to be nothing more than digital or print media contradicting pro-Ukraine narratives instead of misleading or nonfactual information.

Twitter responded to the FBI by saying that it would review the requested accounts but expressed skepticism over the inclusion of various American and Canadian journalists in the agency’s emails.

“The FBI declined to answer my questions about its aid to Ukrainian intelligence censorship efforts,” Maté wrote in a long Twitter thread exposing the Bureau.

“While we appreciate your inquiry,” a response from the FBI reads, “as a matter of practice we do not confirm, deny, or otherwise comment on specific interactions nor confirm the veracity of correspondence.”