Mass. Hospital Warns It Could Deny Care to Patients Who Use Anti-Woke Language

(Headline USA) A Massachusetts hospital released a video this week warning it might deny care to patients who use “unwelcome words” to talk about race and gender, the Daily Mail reported.

The video from Milford Regional Medical Center’s website features Peter Smulowitz, the hospital’s chief medical officer, announcing that the hospital will be implementing a new code of conduct to guarantee an “inclusive” environment.

“Everyone should expect a safe, caring and inclusive environment in all our spaces,” Smulowitz says.

“Our patient and visitor code of conduct helps us meet this goal,” he continues. “Words or actions that are disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, hostile or harassing are not welcome and will not be tolerated.”

He then specifies what would be considered unacceptable conduct, including:

  • offensive comments about others’ race, ethnicity, accent, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other personal traits
  • refusal to see a clinician or other staff member based on these personal traits
  • aggressive or intimidating behavior, physical or verbal threats and assaults
  • sexual or vulgar words or actions
  • disrupting another patient’s care or experience

After garnering unwanted media attention following its Jan. 3 release, the video was subsequently unlisted from the hospital’s YouTube site but remained embedded and accessible via the website’s code of conduct page. It is now available for public view at Headline USA’s YouTube page. 

As several conservatives pointed out, it was not clear how Milford Regional planned to determine what was and was not “offensive,” making it likely that the policy would be disproportionately biased against speech that did not fall in with the woke agenda.

Smulowitz warned that “body language and tone of voice are also important parts of communication.”

However, patients would be given the chance to “explain” themselves should they be accused of violating Milford Regional’s conduct code.

“If we believe you have violated our code with unwelcome words or actions, you will be given a chance to explain your point of view” he said. “We will always carefully consider your response before we make any decisions about future care at Milford Regional.”

Those found to have violated the conduct code could be denied non-emergency treatments, the hospital said in a post on its website.

“Some violations of this [c]ode may lead to patients being asked to make other plans for their care,” it said. “For serious or repeated violations, future non-emergency care and visitation rights at Milford Regional may require review, though we expect this to be rare.”

Chutkan Gives Anti-Trump Prosecutors a Pass for Ignoring Hold Order

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) The federal judge overseeing the 2020 election indictment against former President Donald Trump declined to hold federal prosecutors in contempt for their ongoing motion filing, despite the case being paused pending appeal. 

On Friday, U.S. Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, ordered Special Counsel Jack Smith to stop submitting court filings without her approval following Trump’s request. However, she refused to hold Smith and his prosecutors in contempt of court, citing no wrongdoing. 

Trump argued that the filing of documents burdens his attorneys, requiring them to determine whether the filings are part of the appeal process, leading to constant negative headlines for Trump. 

Chutkan’s order followed Trump’s claim of presidential immunity from prosecution, asserting that his efforts to question and probe allegations of voter irregularities in the 2020 election were part of his official duties as president.  

Chutkan previously rejected these assertions, prompting Trump to appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Such an appeal ignited Chutkan to pause the case pending the appeals court’s decision. 

In response, Smith unsuccessfully attempted to bypass the appeals court by asking the Supreme Court to determine whether presidents are immune from criminal prosecution, but the justices denied the emergency filing. 

As the appellate court reviews Trump’s defense, Smith persistently submitted documents in the lower court. 

According to New York Times, Chutkan claimed that Smith did not violate the “clear and unambiguous terms” of the order pausing the case. However, she warned prosecutors that the case was paused to relieve Trump “from the burdens of preparing for trial and other pretrial litigation.” 

The appeals court is still weighing the case. 

The federal indictment is part of broader legal troubles facing Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president.

The cases are all led by left-wing prosecutors (Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, New York Attorney General Letitia James) or appointed by Democrats (Smith). 

Trump has long accused these cases of being part of a left-wing plot to undermine his candidacy for president. 

During an interview, Attorney General Merrick Garland, who appointed Smith to investigate Trump, agreed that the cases against Trump must undergo “speedy trials,” likely before the 2024 presidential election.

NYPost: Michelle Obama Gearing Up To Enter 2024 Race

(Headline USA) Former First Lady Michelle Obama could still enter the 2024 presidential race, warned New York Post columnist Cindy Adams this week.

Adams noted that both Michelle and former President Barack Obama have become increasingly outspoken on the state of the 2024 election, with Michelle Obama recently claiming that she was “terrified” of “what could possibly happen” and former aides publicly rebuking the Biden campaign for not having its “s*** together.”

All of this suggests the Obamas are getting ready to force President Joe Biden out, one way or the other, Adams wrote.

“Plans are to grab Michelle for the Democratic presidency choice. Making the music is Barack the orchestra leader,” she said. “The Obamas are now nudging to force SloMo Joe to go. Drop out. It’s like who else is there?”

She added that Barack Obama was personally setting his wife up to enter the race.

“A Joe flop-out offers probability Michelle could wiggle in,” Adams said. “Obama’s negotiating to make that happen.” 

She added that it was not a coincidence the Obama camp was now expressing their frustration with Biden.

“Pay attention to them gurgling and burbling about the election. About concern over Joe’s crappy polling, about bad Trump, about everything but Bad Bad LeRoy Brown. Obamas aren’t into casual statements,” she said.

Sources close to the Obamas said the former president “knows this is going to be a close race” and “feels that Democrats very well could lose” to former President Donald Trump. 

Publicly, Barack Obama has warned that the “alternative” to Biden—Trump—would be “dangerous for democracy.”

Michelle Obama came out and agreed with her husband’s comments earlier this month.

“Those are the things that keep me up because you don’t have control over them and you wonder where are we in this, where are our hearts? What’s gonna happen in this next election?” she said. “I am terrified about what could possibly happen because our leaders matter, who we select, who speaks for us, who holds that bully pulpit. It affects us in ways that I think sometimes people take for granted.” 

Cynics contend that the Obamas have long been pulling strings within the Biden administration, which was stacked from the outset with staffers from the former president’s own brain-trust, including influential players like former national security adviser Susan Rice and former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power.

Biden openly acknowledged in the leadup to the 2020 election that he regarded himself as a “transitional president,” suggesting that he’d already been given marching orders at the time that he was to be a one-term placeholder for the Obamas’ third term, expected to tear everything down so that they could be the ones to build it back up with Barack as the founding father of the newly reborn, thoroughly woke-ified nation.

Headline USA’s Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

DOJ Report: Uvalde Police Response to School Shooting Riddled w/ Failures

(Headline USA) Police officials who responded to the deadly Uvalde, Texas, elementary school shooting waited far too long to confront the gunman, acted with “no urgency” in establishing a command post and communicated inaccurate information to grieving families, according to a Justice Department report released Thursday that identifies “cascading failures” in law enforcement’s handling of the massacre.

The report, the most comprehensive federal accounting of the maligned police response to the May 24, 2022, shooting at Robb Elementary School, catalogs a sweeping array of training, communication, leadership and technology problems that federal officials say contributed to the crisis lasting far longer than necessary. All the while, the report says, terrified students inside the classrooms called 911 and agonized parents begged officers to go in.

“Had law enforcement agencies followed generally accepted practices in active shooter situations and gone right after the shooter and stopped him, lives would have been saved and people would have survived,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday at a news conference in Uvalde after Justice Department officials briefed family members on their findings. The Uvalde victims, he said, “deserved better.”

Even for a mass shooting that has already been the subject of intense scrutiny and in-depth examinations — an earlier report by Texas lawmakers, for instance, faulted law enforcement at every level with failing “to prioritize saving innocent lives over their own safety” — the nearly 600-page Justice Department study adds to the public understanding of how officers failed to stop an attack that killed 19 children and two staff members.

The flawed initial response was compounded in the following days by an ineptitude that added to family members’ anguish, according to the report.

One family member spent hours pulling glass out of an injured son’s body because some of the surviving children had not been screened for medical care. A county district attorney told families that they would need to wait for autopsy results before death notifications were made, prompting some to yell: “What, our kids are dead? No, no!”

Hospital staff “untrained in delivering painful news” told some family members that their loved ones had died, while in other cases, families received incorrect information suggesting that a child had survived when they had not. At one point, an official told waiting families that another bus of survivors was coming, but that was untrue.

“Mirroring the failures of the law enforcement response, state and local agencies failed to coordinate, leading to inaccurate and incomplete information being provided to anxious family and community members and the public,” said Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta.

The law enforcement response was massive, comprising at least 380 personnel from 24 local, county, state and federal agencies.

But the problems began almost immediately with a flawed assumption by officers that the shooter was barricaded, or otherwise contained, even as he continued to fire shots. That “mindset permeated throughout much of the incident response” as police, rather than rushing inside the classrooms to end the carnage, waited more than an hour to confront the gunman in what the report called a costly “lack of urgency.”

The gunman, Salvador Ramos, was killed roughly 77 minutes after police arrived on the scene, when a tactical team finally went into the classroom to take him down.

“An active shooter with access to victims should never be considered and treated as a barricaded subject,” the report says.

In other errors, the report says, police acted with “no urgency” in establishing a command center, creating confusion among police about who was in charge. The then-school district police chief, Pete Arredondo, discarded his radios on arrival, deeming them unnecessary.

Though he tried to communicate by phone with officers in the school hallway, “unfortunately, on multiple occasions, he directed officers intending to gain entry into the classrooms to stop, because he appeared to determine that other victims should first be removed from nearby classrooms to prevent further injury,” the report says.

Uvalde, a community of more than 15,000 about 85 miles southwest of San Antonio, continues to struggle with the trauma left by the killings and remains divided on the issue of accountability. Uvalde County District Attorney Christina Mitchell has said she’s still considering whether to bring criminal charges.

President Joe Biden said in a statement Thursday that the report identified “multiple points of failure that hold lessons for the future” and that “no community should have to go through” what Uvalde did.

In Texas, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott initially praised the officers’ courage, saying the reason the shooting was “not worse is because law enforcement officials did what they do” and that they had been brave in “running toward gunfire for the singular purpose of trying to save lives.”

But that narrative crumbled under scrutiny, as a report from a panel of state lawmakers and investigations by journalists laid bare how a mass of officers went in and out of the school with weapons drawn but didn’t enter the classroom where the shooting was taking place.

“The actions of the responding officers, combined with the ‘heroic’ storyline that started with (a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Public Safety) and continued the next day during the Governor’s and director’s news conference, dealt a serious blow to public confidence in local and state law enforcement,” the report states.

The city of Uvalde said in a statement that it had requested the federal investigation and fully cooperated with it and had “already implemented changes in leadership, new personnel, new training, and new equipment.”

The report intentionally omits the identity of the gunman or any explanation of a possible motive. But it does include page-long remembrances of each of the victims, including 10-year-old Jose Flores Jr., who loved cars and the Houston Astros, and Amerie Jo Garza, who on the morning of the shooting had celebrated her appointment to the honor roll.

And it highlights anguished and panicked quotes from a 911 call by students trapped in the classroom — “Help!” “Help!” “Help!” “I don’t want to die. My teacher is dead” — experiencing “unimaginable horror” while officers stood just outside in the hallway.

“I hope that the failures end today,” said Kimberly Rubio, whose daughter Lexi Rubio was killed in the shooting. “My child, our children are named in this report because they are dead.” Of the officers who failed, she said: “They should be named.”

Velma Lisa Duran, whose sister Irma Garcia was one of the teachers killed, said before the release of the report that she was daunted by the prospect of reliving the circumstances of her sister’s death and what she really wanted was criminal charges.

“A report doesn’t matter when there are no consequences for actions that are so vile and murderous and evil,” said Duran. “What do you want us to do with another report? … Bring it to court,” she said.

The federal review was launched just days after the shooting. Since then, how police respond to mass shootings around the country has come under closer scrutiny.

The families of some of the Uvalde victims have blasted police as cowards and demanded resignations. At least five officers have lost their jobs, including two Department of Public Safety officers and the on-site commander, Arredondo.

No one has been charged with a crime.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Family of Woman Murdered by MS-13 Illegal Sues Biden Admin for $100M

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) The family of a 20-year-old autistic woman murdered by an MS-13 gang member from El Salvador is suing the Biden administration for $100 million, suggesting that the president’s open-border and catch-and-release policies led to her death.

 

In addition to restitution, Kayla Marie Hamilton’s mother, Tammy Nobles, has also been on a crusade to demand an explanation for how and why the 2022 attack on her daughter was ever allowed to happen in the first place, according to her lawyer, Brian Claypool.

“We bring this landmark lawsuit in honor of Kayla to get answers on how this catastrophic failure occurred and help prevent another senseless murder,” Claypool said.

The alleged murderer, a 17-year-old “unaccompanied minor,” had crossed the border in March of 2022, along with a massive surge of illegal immigrants from El Salvador.

After the Biden administration reportedly caught and released him, he raped the autistic girl, then proceeded to strangle her with a phone cord, the New York Post reported.

“She was brutally murdered and raped in her room, and he strangled her with the phone cord,” Nobles said during a recent appearance on Fox and Friends. “And then he just robbed her of $6, and he just left her on the floor like trash and went to lunch with his half brother like nothing happened.”

Upon comparing DNA evidence from the crime scene, authorities were able to take the suspect into custody, and realized based off his gang tattoos and criminal record that he was an MS-13 gang member.

For Nobles, the laziness and laxity of the federal government led directly to her daughter’s death.

“All they had to do was make one phone call to pull up his criminal record in El Salvador to find out… he was on the list for and listed as a known gang member of MS-13,” she said. “Those two things should have kept him from entering the country.”

Illegal Immigrants Allowed to Vote in Upcoming Arizona Election

0

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state has paved the way for illegal immigrants to vote in the state’s upcoming election, according to numerous reports.

Elon Musk first brought attention to the issue last week when someone posted on Twitter an updated elections procedures manual, which states that people without proof of citizenship can still vote on “federal-only” ballots.

According to an analysis from Hayden Ludwig, the director of policy research for Restoration of America, the language in the new election procedures manual paves the way for illegal immigrants to vote in the March 2024 primary.

“True, federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections … “Federal-only” voters, however—individuals registered using the federal voter registration form, which is different from the state forms most of us are familiar with—are “eligible to vote solely in races for federal office in Arizona (including the Presidential Preference Election),” he said in an article for The American Conservative.

“In other words, the March 2024 primary.”

Arizona Democrats have pushed back on the notion that illegals are allowed to vote in their state, noting that Arizona is the only state to require any proof of citizenship.

However, those who fail to provide proof of citizenship are still allowed to vote in federal elections, according to Voter Reference Foundation executive director Gina Swoboda.

“With Fontes’ new elections procedures manual, those individuals will be able to vote in the Presidential Preference Election, selecting the presidential nominee for the Republican Party,” she reportedly said.

Republicans in Arizona have responded to the recent development by introducing legislation that would guaranteeing that only qualified registered voters who are U.S. citizens and at least 18 years old “may vote in an election in this state.” However, that legislation won’t be considered until the November 2024 elections.

Ludwig said passing that legislation is absolutely crucial for the state’s future.

“Come November, Arizonans have a chance at restoring their right to vote,” he said. “With the way things are going in America, it may be their last shot.”

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/jd_cashless.

Legendary Who Frontman Thinks Big Pharma Sabotaging Cancer Cure

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) Roger Daltrey, the legendary frontman for The Who, suggested that Big Pharma corporations were sabotaging studies and concealing findings that could lead to cancer-curing breakthroughs, Louder Sound reported.

“I don’t think they’ll ever find a cure for cancer,” said the classic rocker.

Daltrey, who has aided the United Kingdom’s Teenage Cancer Trust for over two decades, expressed skepticism about the idea that pharmaceutical companies had the best interest of customers in mind.

“I’m being cynical here, but scientists look after the science but they also look after themselves,” he said. “You do imagine if they did find a cure tomorrow it would be fabulous for the country, but there’d be an awful lot of scientists out of work.”

His reasoning was that researchers and pharmacologists did not want to find a cure, because it could jeopardize their livelihoods.

“It’s just human nature, isn’t it?”, he said. “You’re not going to invent something that’s going to put you out of work.”

The “Baba O’Riley” singer is not alone among rock icons in distrusting modern science.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, two other prominent rock stars from the United Kingdom—Van Morrison and Eric Clapton became some of the most outspoken figureheads in the anti-lockdown movement, even releasing a single together that addressed the issue.

Meanwhile, top Big Pharma officials, like Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, have pressed more and more booster shots in the name of safety.

Daltrey—who, along with guitarist Pete Townshend, managed to avoid the band’s famous wish to “die before I get old,” unlike drummer Keith Moon and bassist John Entwistle—was, in fact, an outspoken supporter of the COVID vaccine, according to The Scotsman.

But after losing the band’s entire rhythm section to drug overdoses, it would be understandable that the singer might be a bit apprehensive about the ongoing opioid crisis, caused in part by the greed of the pharmaceutical industry.

Headline USA’s Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

Trump Vows to Block Central Bank Digital Currency Schemes

In this week’s Money Metals’ Weekly Market Wrap update with Mike Gleason, the podcast covers several key financial topics

Stock Market Trends 

The S&P 500 index is approaching record highs, suggesting a bullish trend in the stock market.

Precious Metals Market 

There has been a rally in the gold and silver markets, partly due to escalating conflicts in the Middle East that have driven safe-haven buying. However, reluctance from the Federal Reserve to cut rates aggressively has negatively impacted the metals market this month.

Gold Prices 

Despite a challenging start in 2024, gold remains above the crucial $2,000 mark, currently standing at $2,035 an ounce, though down by 1.2% for the week.

Other Metals’ Performance: Silver reported a 2.9% weekly loss with prices at $22.69 per ounce. Platinum and palladium also faced declines, with prices at $908 and $967 per ounce, respectively.

Political Landscape and Economic Policies 

The podcast discusses the potential impact of the upcoming election on financial markets. Former President Donald Trump, who recently won the Iowa caucuses, has criticized the Biden administration for rising living costs. Trump has also voiced opposition to the creation of a central bank digital currency, promising to prevent it if re-elected, citing concerns over government control over personal finances.

Critique of Fiscal Policies 

The discussion highlights bipartisan support for maintaining the status quo at the Federal Reserve and continued high levels of federal deficit spending. Despite Trump’s pledge to reduce deficit spending, it ballooned during his presidency, particularly due to pandemic-related emergency spending.

Current Fiscal Challenges 

The United States is facing a soaring deficit, expected to exceed $2 trillion, without any national emergency or major war. Efforts to address these fiscal challenges through legislation are met with resistance from both parties.

Outlook on Monetary Solutions

Mike Gleason suggests that with political solutions being unfeasible, the focus may shift to monetary solutions, involving the Federal Reserve enabling large-scale government borrowing at low or negative interest rates. However, such measures could undermine the Fed’s credibility in maintaining price stability.

The episode provides a comprehensive overview of current financial markets, highlighting concerns about monetary policies, political influences, and the broader economic challenges facing the United States.

Summary of Mike Maharrey’s Interview with David Morgan on Money Metals’ Midweek Memo with Mike Maharrey

Introduction

Mike Maharrey interviews David Morgan, a renowned analyst in the precious metals industry and author of “The Silver Manifesto.”

Discussion on Inflation

Morgan makes a bold claim on his website stating that inflation has reached 3000%. He explains this figure by comparing the value of the dollar in terms of silver from 1913 to the present. According to Morgan, while officially the dollar has lost significant value, the real rate of inflation is much higher when considering goods and services.

Fiat Currency and Economic Outlook

Morgan discusses the failures of fiat currency, emphasizing that all fiat systems eventually collapse. He critiques the current economic narrative, highlighting the artificial nature of fiat currencies and the eventual rejection of such currencies by the market.

Psychology of Inflation

The conversation touches upon how the psychological impact of inflation affects people’s spending habits and their trust in the government’s economic policies. Morgan observes that as inflation continues, people lose faith in the government’s rhetoric and start taking individual actions, like stockpiling essential goods.

Monetary System and Control

Morgan discusses the end game of the current monetary system, suggesting a shift in people’s trust from fiat currencies to more stable assets like gold, silver, and potentially cryptocurrencies. He also raises concerns about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and the potential for increased government control.

Empowerment and Self-Reliance

The interview concludes with Morgan advocating for personal freedom, self-reliance, and critical thinking. He encourages listeners to take charge of their own lives, be aware of the global and economic realities, and make informed decisions, especially in spending and supporting community-based initiatives.

Closing Remarks

Maharrey concludes the interview, expressing appreciation for Morgan’s insights and encouraging listeners to tune in to the Money Metals Midweek Memo for further discussions on similar topics.

The interview offers a deep dive into the issues of inflation, the reliability of fiat currency, and the psychological effects of economic policies on the general population. Morgan’s perspective suggests a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we view money and economic systems.

Hawaii House to Reconsider Ending Sales Tax on Sound Money

(Money Metals New Service) Representatives in the Ahola State have reintroduced legislation to end the sales tax on purchases of gold and silver.

Introduced by Representatives Diamond Garcia, David Alcos, Lauren Matsumoto, Elijah Pierick, and Gene Ward, House Bill 1724 removes general excise tax on purchases of gold and silver coins and bullion in Hawaii. This measure was considered in 2021, and passed out of multiple House committees before running into a deadline at the end of the session.

Under current law, Hawaii citizens are discouraged from insuring their savings against the devaluation of the dollar because they are penalized with taxation for doing so. Passage of this measure would remove disincentives to holding gold and silver for this purpose. HB 1724 is important for a few reasons:

  • Levying taxes on precious metals is inappropriate.  Precious metals are inherently held for resale, making the application of taxes on the purchase of precious metals inappropriate.
  • Studies have shown that taxing precious metals is an inefficient form of revenue collection. The results of one study involving Michigan show that any tax proceeds a state collects on precious metals are likely surpassed by the state revenue lost from conventions, businesses, and economic activity that are driven out of the state.
  • Taxing gold and silver harms in-state businesses. It’s a competitive marketplace, so buyers will take their business online, thereby undermining Hawaii jobs. Levying taxes on precious metals harms in-state businesses.

In total, 43 states have reduced or eliminated taxes on the purchase of monetary metals.

  • Taxing precious metals is unfair to certain savers and investors. Gold and silver are held as forms of savings and investment. Hawaii does not tax the purchase of stocks, bonds, ETFs, currencies, and other financial instruments.
  • Taxing precious metals is harmful to citizens attempting to protect their assets. Purchasers of precious metals aren’t fat-cat investors. Most who buy precious metals do so in small increments as a way of saving money. Precious metals investors are purchasing precious metals as a way to preserve their wealth against the damages of inflation. Inflation harms the poorest among us, including pensioners, Hawaiians on fixed incomes, wage earners, savers, and more.

The national backlash against inflation caused by federal spending, debt, and money printing is growing. State legislators this year have already introduced an unprecedented number of bills to remove government impediments to buying, saving, and using gold and silver.

The Aloha State is currently ranked tied for 45th in the 2024 Sound Money Index. By passing HB 1724, Hawaii can vastly improve its Sound Money Index ranking, as well as become the 44th state to end sales taxes on precious metals.

More than a dozen states have introduced pro-sound money legislation in 2024 so far, including Alaska, Indiana, Iowa, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Cheating Nikki? New Witnesses Allege That Neocon Presidential Candidate Had Multiple Affairs

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) The Daily Mail published an exclusive story Friday, resurfacing allegations that GOP presidential candidate and virulent neocon Nikki Haley had multiple affairs before she became governor of South Carolina.

The allegations that Haley cheated on her husband were made by two of her alleged ex-lovers, Will Folks and Larry Marchant, who both outlined their allegations in affidavits in 2010. Haley’s alleged affairs were reported on at the time, but the Daily Mail’s Friday exclusive marked the first time the affidavits were published by a major media outlet.

According to Folks’s affidavit, he and Haley “engaged in an inappropriate physical relationship that included numerous instances of inappropriate sexual contact.”

“Representative Haley and I shared our first kiss while sitting in her parked car outside of MacDougal’s restaurant and bar in downtown Columbia, SC,” Folks wrote in the October 2010 affidavit.

“This kiss took place in early 2007 following an evening with friends at the nearby Liberty Taproom. After this first kiss, Rep. Haley drove us to the parking lot behind the neighborhood center at Emily Douglas Park where we parked for approximately forty-five minutes. There we slid back the seats of her Cadillac SUV so that Rep. Haley could climb on top of me,” he added.

Marchant’s affidavit said he had dinner, drinks and sex with Haley in her hotel room at a Salt Lake City conference in June 2008.

“After a night together of dinner and drinks with other participants of the conference, Rep. Haley and I returned to the hotel together. We went back to her room where we had sexual intercourse and I spent the remainder of the evening. I left her room at approximately 6:00 am,” Marchant said.

“I came forward publicly on this matter only after being contacted by the press and after hearing Rep. Haley claim that she had been One Hundred Percent faithful to her husband in response to the Folk’s allegations when I knew her statements were absolutely false.”

As for the Daily Mail’s new witnesses—identified by the outlet only as “multiple GOP insiders”—they said Haley’s affairs were an open secret.

One South Carolina GOP insider told the Daily Mail they knew about Haley’s alleged affair with Marchant at the time.

“She was in [Marchant’s] office all the time, she’d be there at 11 or midnight, the two of them would be drinking,” the former associate of Haley reportedly said.

Another witness, one of Haley’s former campaign staffers, told the Daily Mail he had no doubt about the nature of her relationship with Folks and Marchant.

“When she was having the affairs, she and her husband were having a lot of problems and were on the verge of divorce,” the ex-staffer reportedly said. “There’s no question she and Will were having an affair.”

The Daily Mail claimed to have four sources in total who corroborated allegations of Haley’s infidelity.

Haley has denied having the affairs in the past, but she reportedly didn’t respond to requests for comment before the Daily Mail published its scoop.

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/jd_cashless.