Talk:Mike Pompeo

Mike Pompeo is part of the Deep State? Does this mean we should ignore everything he says about China going forward? RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:31, 14 May 2021 (EDT)

No. But we should take everything he says about China (and Iran, and Russia) with a grain of salt, because he clearly has another agenda.

Is he deliberately exaggerating the threat from China in order to create a pretense for a war that he clearly wants? It's definitely possible, and I personally believe he is. Same goes for Iran and Russia.

You see, people like Pompeo want a unipolar world order, where America is the only truly independent country and all other countries are de facto vassals who must obey or be destroyed. Countries like China, Iran, and Russia have been standing in the way of making that uber-tyrannical pipe dream, so therefore "they must go." It's a truly demented mentality that the Founders would've abhorred, for reasons that should be obvious. --Geopolitician (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2021 (EDT)

That sounds like CCP talking points. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 16:40, 14 May 2021 (EDT)

It's not a talking point. It's the truth.

These people follow the recommendations laid out in the 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, which calls for the exact foreign policy approach I mentioned above. And get this: that book also singles out China, Iran, and Russia (plus India, Pakistan, and Turkey) as being the biggest threats to the unipolar project. All because they are capable of projecting power into, get this: Central Asia. Of course, you won't understand why Central Asia is so strategically important unless you're familiar with the "Heartland" theory of Halford MacKinder. Oh, and guess who wrote The Grand Chessboard? That's right. Zbigniew Brzezinski. Easily his darkest work, in my humble opinion.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2021 (EDT)

Got it. So labeling Pompeo as a deep stater means we should ignore his warning about China, now in his career as Fox news consutlant. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 18:17, 14 May 2021 (EDT)

You're the only one saying that. I already said earlier that we should take it with a grain of salt. That's hardly ignoring. --Geopolitician (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2021 (EDT)

I say we should wait, before tossing him in the same boat with James Comey and Jeffrey Epstein. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 18:51, 14 May 2021 (EDT)

People like Pompeo and people like Comey will never truly be in the same boat, because their agendas are both different and fundamentally incompatible. But then again, there are multiple Deep States. So they don't have to be in the same boat in order to be labeled "Deep Staters." All they have to do is act beyond the scope of their authority, to the point where they are clearly part of a "state within a state."--Geopolitician (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2021 (EDT)

You just put Jeffrey Epstein, James Comey and Mike Pompeo in the same boat. [1][2] RobS^{Free Kyle!} 19:46, 14 May 2021 (EDT)

I kind of did and I kind of didn't. It depends on how you view the Deep State on a conceptual level.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2021 (EDT)

Okay. At a first glance, it would look like I did put them in the same boat. So you do have a valid point there. That being said, I believe it's very important that people understand that there is no single monolithic Deep State. There are multiple Deep States vying for power, and different Deep States are at the forefront at different times.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2021 (EDT)

I would agree with that. Even within the Deep State there are divisions; Liz Cheney for example, certainly is a minority view within the Deep State whom other deep staters would love to be rid of. But for our purposes here, in Conservapedia, both the Deep State article and the Deep State Template don't match up to what is being said here about an alleged "deep state West Point graduate." Patriot? Yes. Neocon? Possibly. Deep Stater trying to currupt public opinion on the Fox news channel in 2021 by spouting anti-CCP talking points? Not hardly. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 00:31, 15 May 2021 (EDT)

I understand that. But with all due respect, that needs to change. Not calling out Deep Staters for what they are just because they don't meet certain ideological check-marks or because they are consistently publicly pro-Trump (Pompeo is perhaps the quintessential example here) will only do a disservice to the American people in the end.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2021 (EDT)

A neocon warmonger is not by defination a deepstater. Neither is a deepstater by definition an neocon warmonger. And there is some question about applying either or both to Pompeo. A West Point grad who spent most of his adult career on the government payroll in one capacity or other is not by definition a deepstater, either. Me personally, I'd measaure a deepstater by who his allies are in the Deep State, and how effective they are in pulling off Deep State objectives of maintaining the Deep State in power. I don't see any of these qualkifiers operational, but am open to examining evidence. For my part, it appeaars the Deep State has tried to disgrace and destroy Pompeo. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:48, 15 May 2021 (EDT)

Your logic assumes that there is only one Deep State, when in fact there are multiple. People like Pompeo obviously can't be classified as a member of the Deep State that you're talking about, but he can definitely be classified as a member of one of the other Deep States. Which begs the question: should this wiki focus on only one Deep State, or all of them?

By the way, Pompeo very much is a neocon warmonger. I've included multiple sources in this article which establishes him as such, and there are definitely others that I can and probably should include as well.--Geopolitician (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2021 (EDT)

The Deep State that is pre-occupied with self-perpetuating survival at the expense of constitutional governance is the one I think most informed citizens are concerned about. Foreign policy questions really is a different matter or only of secondary importance. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 21:33, 15 May 2021 (EDT)

It won’t be that way for long. We’re headed for a major war by the end of this decade, the way things are going. And once it becomes apparent why that was, the informed public will be far less tolerant of people like Pompeo.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2021 (EDT)

Update: HMS Trent entered the Black Sea this morning. [3] All we're waiting on is the CCP moving against Taiwan. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:30, 16 May 2021 (EDT)

This generally is how these things work, when people move simultaneously to settle old scores - Iran against Israel, Russia against Ukraine, PRC against Taiwan. Meanwhile, the US military is engaged in a Great Purge of conservatives. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:34, 16 May 2021 (EDT)

Iran and Russia are not our enemies, despite what the Deep State propagandists claim. China on the other hand is our enemy, although the Deep States have been unnecessarily warmongering against that country as well.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2021 (EDT)

The Iranian regime is an enemy, not the Iranian people. Same with the CCP or PRC, not "China". Simply because an expert speaks on foreign policy and national security (often against the "interagency consensus" to borrow a phrase from Col. Vindman), doesn't make them a deepstater, neocon, or warmonger. I just don't buy the premise of that argument. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:08, 18 May 2021 (EDT)

Did Winston Churchill's warning in 1938 at the time of the Munich Pact make him a warmonger? The parallels of today to the period of 1935-38 are uncanny. One side wants conflict, the other side are pansies who think ignoring the problem will make it go away. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:16, 18 May 2021 (EDT)

In the modern world, with global warming and bioweapons "accidentally" leaking from labs, people think nuclear proliferation is a low priority. Hell, some people think everybody should have them. But totalitarian powers who procure nukes today do it more to maintain themselves in power perpetually, and keep their people enslaved, than to threaten external powers. So are we resigned eternally to maintain trade relations with corrupt slave masters who use the wealth they gain from trade with free people to expand their control and oppress their populations? RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:23, 18 May 2021 (EDT)

Gaddafi and Ukraine are the object lessons here. Reagan, Bush and Clinton admins convinced Gadaffi to give up his bio/chem/nuclear program, and that he had nothing to worry about from having friendship and trade with the West; Bush and Clinton convinced Ukraine to give up its nukes and that the U.S. and NATO would be there johnny-on-the-spot if they ever were threatened by Russia. Then along came stupid, idiotic leaders like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who showed the world that the United States promises weren't worth the toilet paper they were written on. Kim jong un and the Iranian mullahs now are convinced they absolutely need nuclear weapons and will never fall for the b.s. promises of an American administration again.

So what does this policy path commit Americans to? American Walmart shoppers then are forever committed to funding the Chinese military by purchasing their cheap slave-manufactured consumer goods, with the added bonus of funding the American people's own military in an arms race to counter the CCP's rise. But don't you dare talk about it or educate the public, cause someone will call you a deep state neocon warmonger (per CCP propaganda and the interagency consensus). RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:41, 18 May 2021 (EDT)

The Iranian regime is not the enemy, either. In fact, it is a natural ally against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and yes, China. The reason I say that is because (1) al-Qaeda and ISIS harbor genocidal hatred towards Shias like the mullahs; and (2) China's closest ally is Pakistan, a known benefactor of al-Qaeda (and probably ISIS, too) as well as a major enemy of Iran. As China rises and becomes an increasingly formidable geopolitical rival to the US, it will become necessary to switch sides in the Sunni-Shia conflict as our traditional Sunni allies (mainly Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey) gravitate towards China in solidarity with Pakistan. And I say good riddance to those alliances, too. Those countries are not true allies to begin with.

Meanwhile, to answer your Churchill question, I'm not entirely sure how I would've responded to Churchill's (ultimately prophetic) claims about Hitler had I been alive in 1939. You see, while a resurgent Germany posed a genuine national security threat to Britain, in 1939 it was not apparent to most people that the German army was as powerful as it really was. Up until the spring of 1940, the general consensus was that France had a superior army and that Germany would be easily defeated if the Allies decided to launch an invasion. Then the Germans came up with the Blitzkreig, an entirely new form of warfare that the French were completely unprepared for. Consequently, what happened in the spring of 1940 was not just a worst-case scenario, but a beyond-worst-case scenario. If I was calling Churchill a warmonger prior to that, I would've stopped doing so at that point.

As for the rest of your reply, my main concern is that our government is lying about why we need to confront countries like China, Iran, and Russia. The fact that our foreign policy toward Eurasia is heavily influenced by the "Heartland" theories of Brzezinski and before him MacKinder, is especially damning to me. And if our government is lying about that, what else could it be lying about?

One more thing about Brzezinski and The Grand Chessboard. In that book, he makes it very clear that he views the people of countries like China, Iran, and Russia as the enemy, not just their governments. He even goes as far using racist rhetoric, comparing them to the "barbarians" that refused to become vassals of the ancient Chinese empires. That's part of the sick mentality that I believe many neocons subscribe to.--Geopolitician (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2021 (EDT)

Well, the Iranian regime v. the Iranian people is a question that would need more dissection. Suffice it to say both the Chinese and Iranian people are victims of their recognized governments.

In 1938-39 the pacifist movement in Europe was very strong (pushed by the Comintern cause the USSR was grossly unprepared for war). In the U.S. anti-interventionism was very strong. Even KGB agent Alger Hiss served on the Nye Committee investigating WWI "war profiteers" who made money while the national debt exploded (odd combination, Comintern operatives were manipulating, or working hand-in-glove with, nativist anti-interventionists). Churchill in Europe and Bernard Baruch in the U.S. were demonized as warmongers.

A word about Russia: Pompeo does not advocate confrontation with Russia or the Putin regime.

Deep Staters and their propagandists generally try to exacerbate and inflame passions by using junior high school terms like "China" or "Iran" when they are really speaking of the Iranian Revolutionary Council and the CCP - the enemies of the people of China and Iran. That's my litmus test. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 17:12, 18 May 2021 (EDT)

Iran 9/11

We've been over this a thousand times. U.S. DISTRICT COURT RULES IRAN BEHIND 9/11 ATTACKS, December 23, 2011. I am removing the cited reference from mainspace. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 16:38, July 13, 2021 (EDT)

Isikoff

Isikoff is prone to exaggeration. As CIA director, Pompeo approved labeling Wikileaks as an intelligence organization. That's it. That's all. If underlings in the CIA took that to mean they can whack Assange, then that means the swamp needs to be drained.

Since 1976, the CIA can't carry out one of their assassination schemes without a Presidential Finding. Let's not get carried away with leftwing fake news sensationalism and b.s. without informing our readers of facts. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 03:00, September 29, 2021 (EDT)

So what is the real story here? Pompeo signs a piece of paper that labels Wikileaks as an intelligence agency, giving the FBI then legal authority to pursue FISA surveillance on any member. Some low-level GS-10 sitting behind a desk in the Virginia woods gets tasked with identifying all members connected with the organizations. Some other GS-10 then begins drawing contingencies with current place of employment and residence, like they do for the KGB and Chinese intelligence organizations, for the kidnapping or murder of a subject should the day ever dawn with an order coming down to execute such an operation. Again, what is the real story? Rather than spending time identifying and drawing contingencies for Chinese operatives - who outnumber US by a ratio of 5 to 1 - some politically motivated leftwing subversive in the CIA sees an opportunity to attack Pompeo, draws up a plan to kill Assange, never shows it to anyone above his paygrade, tucks it away in a folder, and after Pompeo leaves government service, leaks to Isikoff with the intent to destroy Pompeo's future political ambitions. Typical leftist, Democrat, communist b.s. we've seen over and over and over again for decades.

To leftist Americans, we have no foreign enemies. Only Republicans must be destroyed at all cost. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 03:25, September 29, 2021 (EDT)

Interesting theory, although Wikileaks, Greenwald, and Snowden seem to disagree with it.

Meanwhile, the fact that Pompeo labeled Wikileaks as a hostile intelligence agency at all is both suspicious and reeking of malfeasance.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:17, September 30, 2021 (EDT)

The point is, there is a whole lot more to this story than reported. What has been reported is just another internal hit on Pompeo in the same way low-level operatives like Peter Strzok or Eric Ciaramella attempted to take out President Trump with media leaks. The issue is the same as the leak that reported Hillary Clinton saying, "Can't we just drone him?" While some advocate a pardon or immunity, the "interagency consensus" (to borrow a phrase used by both Vindman and now Milley) is, Assange must be made an example of. If they don't whack him, he'll remain a hunted man his entire life like bin Laden or Eichmann. The problem with arrest and trial is, he's committed no punishable crime.

From Greenwald & Snowden's perspective, I doubt I am saying anything that they would disagree with. And Wikileaks obviously has a conflict of interest in their response. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:52, September 30, 2021 (EDT)

Let's break it down: Hillary wanted the interagency consensus to put him on the Disposition Matrix for final approval by a Presidential Finding; Hillary's successor, Pompeo, took the first step that both the CIA & FBI's counterintelligence unit, as well as FinCEN and other IC agencies need to use the FISA process to get his name on the Disposition Matrix. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 15:07, September 30, 2021 (EDT)

<Digression> Okay, so let's ask again, What is the real story? The real story could actually have nothing to do with Assange, but rather payback by a partisan operative and Hillary Clinton lover for the illegal leak about Hillary Clinton. There's obviously divisions within the interagency consensus (otherwise known as the Deep State) on any matter or subject. It looks like Hillary made a proposal that lacked any legal basis and Pompeo signed onto that proposal by taking the first step to make it legal. But the Isikoff story could also be just partisan payback and not motivated by sympathy for Assange at all. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 15:35, September 30, 2021 (EDT)

But at the end of the day, it is who Pompeo wanted dead that matters. Does it not?--Geopolitician (talk) 13:33, October 1, 2021 (EDT)

Update: What the Yahoo! Assange Report Got Wrong, excerpted:

The reaction to the 7,000-word piece by Yahoo! News on Sunday proves the axiom that until something appears in the mainstream media, it didn’t happen. The thrust of the Yahoo! article is that the Obama administration was good to Assange while elements of the Trump administration plotted the assassination or abduction before taking the acceptable path of making a legal case against Assange. But the legal case is also troubling. The article also sets up a misleading idea that the CIA’s extrajudicial methods, such as assassination and abduction, sometimes as freelance acts without a presidential directive...

There is a whole lot more.

The Yahoo! report provides important new details of facts reported a year ago, but contains several errors, including a fabricated story about Russian operatives ....while at the same time providing important new details about inside-Washington deliberations on how the plot came about.

RobS^{Free Kyle!} 16:20, October 2, 2021 (EDT)

RobS, the same article you cited agrees with Isikoff's contention that Pompeo supported and was involved in efforts to kidnap and/or kill Assange:

The piece offers confirmation of what always appeared obvious: that then CIA Director Mike Pompeo was the mover behind efforts to snatch or kill Assange in retaliation for WikiLeaks‘ 2017 Vault 7 release, the biggest leak of CIA materials in its history.

At the end of the day, what matters is whether Pompeo supported and was involved in efforts to kidnap and/or kill Assange. If the answer to that question is "yes" (and I am confident that it is "yes"), then there should be little remaining doubt as to where Pompeo's loyalties ultimately lie.

That being said, the next question is "how should this wiki respond to this story?" Should it ignore the fact that Pompeo conspired to kidnap and/or kill one of the Deep State's biggest enemies? Because the story, even though credible, happened to be broken by someone who has a left-wing political agenda? And if the answer to that question is "yes," then the final question is "what is the point of this wiki opposing the Deep State, when it is unwilling to call out some of the Deep State's highest-ranking members just because they happen to belong to a faction that is not hard leftist?" Which opponent is this wiki supposed to stand against first, the Deep State or the left? You can't pick both.--Geopolitician (talk) 22:37, October 2, 2021 (EDT)

Well, we're not going to respond to Isikoff misinformation, that's for sure. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 23:12, October 2, 2021 (EDT)

As to Vault 7, that information needs to be incorporated into what we have published on Mark Warner, David Laufman, James Comey and Adam Waldman for context. Apparently, Bruce Ohr, as well. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 23:15, October 2, 2021 (EDT)

Suggestion: the elements of this story need to be written into the Assange article as ==Vault 7==, not simply your anecdotal partisan hit on Pompeo. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 23:20, October 2, 2021 (EDT)

Then how about we do both?

And by the way, if you want to talk about partisanship, the people who are most upset about this revelation are the libertarian right, not the authoritarian left.--Geopolitician (talk) 00:24, October 3, 2021 (EDT)

My point is, the whole story, or what is known of the whole story, needs to be the focus. Heck, we can even get Snowden, Gen. Michael Hayden, and Carlie Fiorina involved. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 00:47, October 3, 2021 (EDT)

The story of Vault 7 does not begin with Pompeo. It begins with Snowden and Guciffer 2.0. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 00:49, October 3, 2021 (EDT)

Vault 7 even relates to Warren Flood, aka Guccifer 2.0, Joe Biden's IT director. So forget using this info as a simply a hit on Pompeo. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 23:42, October 2, 2021 (EDT)

Pompeo still needs to be called out for his antics, regardless of how big or small of a role he played in this story as a whole. After all, this is a man who is a serious potential candidate for 2028, if not 2024, whom we’re talking about here. Those who read this wiki ought to know who such potential candidates are, and what they stand for.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:03, October 3, 2021 (EDT)

Apparently we got William Evanina involved, as well. My impression of Evanina is he is a white hat. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 02:13, October 3, 2021 (EDT)

Lauria

All Isikoff does in his latest article is keep up the myth of Russian hacking, cover up the Murder of Seth Rich, and deliver a partisan hit on Pompeo.

Ok, having gotten only halfway through the Lauria article, I have much to say. To thumbnail it, we have a good example of fake news narrative engineering in its infancy. And I can even provide a motive for why Assange is back in the news.

The Yahoo! story breaks a fundamental rule of journalism by reporting an indictment as fact, rather than allegations that need to be proven in court. Throughout the piece we read sentences like this: “In 2018, the Trump administration granted the CIA aggressive new secret authorities to undertake the same sort of hack-and-dump operations for which Russian intelligence has used WikiLeaks.” [Emphasis added.] In a follow-up Yahoo! piece published Tuesday, headlined, “5 big takeaways from an investigation into the CIA’s war on WikiLeaks,” the language is even more direct: “As U.S. intelligence officials later concluded, these emails were stolen by hackers from the GRU, Russia’s foreign intelligence service, who then provided them to WikiLeaks as part of an effort to help elect Donald Trump president.”

Motive: the indictment of Sussmann resurrects the Murder of Seth Rich. It was Sussmann who denied the FBI access to DNC servers, and Sussmann hired Crowdstrike and Shawn Henry (referenced two more paragraphs down in the Lauria article) who started the "Russians hacked the DNC" hoax. So Isikoff and Yahoo are recycling old hoaxes here. More to follow when I finish reading the article. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 03:42, October 3, 2021 (EDT)

Of course, more Russophobic nonsense from the Democrat establishment media. Because that’s all they know. When in doubt, blame Russia. For everything.

Nonetheless, one must be vigilant when reading such garbage articles. Because sometimes there is a bit of truth hidden in a sea of lies, and ignoring that bit of truth would be at the reader’s detriment, to say the least.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:03, October 3, 2021 (EDT)

One thing Vault 7 did was, provide the ability to hack and cover it with Russian fingerprints - which is exactly what Guccifer 2.0 did - which is most likely exactly why Assange released it - to prove Guccifer 2.0 and the DNC hack was an inside job. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 17:38, October 3, 2021 (EDT)

And yet Pompeo wanted Assange kidnapped and/or killed for revealing that. Go figure!--Geopolitician (talk) 13:13, October 4, 2021 (EDT)

At this point, it would would be sensible to restore the edit you removed, and then expand that edit to include information about Vault 7. Because if Pompeo valued Vault 7 that much to the point where he was willing to have Assange kidnapped and/or killed over it, then that proves the point behind that edit: that Assange is the good guy and Pompeo is Deep State.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:22, October 4, 2021 (EDT)

No way. Isikoff and Yahoo have no credibility. Approving surveillance and recommending murder are two different things. And you are off your nut if your think the Secretary of State or the State Department are involved in assassinations. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:17, October 4, 2021 (EDT)

Much of these counter-intelligence operations began in 2017, when Pompeo was still CIA director. But that aside, even after Pompeo had been promoted to Secretary of State, he still was involved in malfeasant activities that were beyond the scope of his job position, such as this one here.[4][5][6][7]

And this article should erase all doubt that Sundance, like myself, concluded that Pompeo acted outside the scope of his authority during that incident.[8]--Geopolitician (talk) 20:18, October 4, 2021 (EDT)

I know. I've followed everything Sundance has written about Pompeo. You need to update yourself on the latest: Did the intelligence community release covid and try to frame China? It would be a typical Vault 7 operation, trying to frame Russia or China for Deep State operations. And the conspiracy theory goes well beyond Pompeo. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 21:05, October 4, 2021 (EDT)

And your statement "Much of these counter-intelligence operations began in 2017" is either deliberately misleading or incredibly naive. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 21:09, October 4, 2021 (EDT)

When I said 2017, I was referring specifically to the operation to target Assange which was launched in retaliation for his exposure of Vault 7. Although there certainly were other operations prior to that, the specific one I was referring to began in 2017.

On another note, THANK YOU SO MUCH for sharing that Sundance link regarding COVID origins. I actually missed that one, and now I feel vindicated for saying what I've said multiple times before: COVID-19 was an American bioweapon, not a Chinese one.--Geopolitician (talk) 16:41, October 5, 2021 (EDT)

The Yahoo story is total b.s. The Sussmann indictment necessitates bringing back the Russian hacking smears. And Isikoff's anonymous sources toss in a smear at Pompeo for good luck. That's the story. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:23, October 4, 2021 (EDT)

Did I miss something?

I decided to tone down my own edits to this article, and you undid the resulting changes. Did I miss anything which would warrant us keeping the original language I used?--Geopolitician (talk) 11:46, February 7, 2022 (EST)

We've been over this. You have no evidence for the claims you are making. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 14:22, February 7, 2022 (EST)

I toned down the language of a claim I myself made, but I didn't remove the claim entirely (because the claim is backed by evidence, although I'll admit that the evidence is somewhat circumstantial at this time). Then you undid that edit, which restored the original, harsher language of that claim. This gave me the impression that your opinion of Pompeo has changed, so I wanted to discuss. But of course it's now apparent that your opinion of him hasn't changed after all. So if you want to remove the claim entirely, go ahead. I'll appeal it to Andy of course.--Geopolitician (talk) 22:20, February 7, 2022 (EST)