megashill, fuck off with the constant virtue signaling
Exopolitics is hit or miss sometimes imo.
They do great stuff on Q though, and a lot of their info is great.
Graphic on Laura Ingraham possibly posting on /qresearch/
Here’s the likely whistleblower — and the questions he should answer
In the middle of Russia fever, the liberal press took a hectoring tone to any outlet that showed a glimmer of doubt. How dare any journalist not believe that President Trump is an agent of Vladimir Putin! Who would question the upstanding virtues of the FBI?
Of course, we now know that the conspiracy theories were wrong. There was no Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.
And, moreover, the inspector general report proves that the FBI trampled over civil liberties and common sense in pursuit of the case. While idle conversation during a meeting with George Papadopoulos and an Australian official may have sparked the inquiry, Crossfire Hurricane, it was only because of outlandish gossip in a Democrat-funded opposition report, the Steele dossier, that the FBI was able to land a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Even as the agency found that Steele’s sources did not back up the dossier, that facts did not back up the dossier, they continued the red scare. When it came out that Page was an informant for the CIA, an FBI lawyer lied about it.
Every suspicion of FBI agents was leaked to the press and printed without skepticism. Few questioned their methods.
It is only now that the New York Times begrudgingly publishes an “analysis” that, oops, maybe this was “A Disturbing Peek at U.S. Surveillance.”
Forgive us, then, for the sense of déjà vu when it comes to the impeachment hearings. This time, the press is near united in arguing that you shall not question the narrative of how this whole thing got started. Don’t you dare name the whistleblower. Don’t ask how Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) might have helped him write his complaint. Or even that Schiff is lying when he says he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. Or why Schiff is subpoenaing the phone records of his colleagues.
This is the same Schiff, by the way, who in 2018 said that the Department of Justice’s warrants for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISAs, met “the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed.”
Schiff had the same information as Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who found the exact opposite. So we know Schiff is a liar.
Two years from now, will we find out the real story? It may not change either side’s view of impeachment, but isn’t that what the press does — try to find the truth?
The whistleblower is most likely CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella.
Journalist Paul Sperry reported his name in late October, saying that sources inside the closed-door impeachment hearings identified him. Ciaramella has put out no statement denying these reports. Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps. In a sign of how farcical this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats angrily denounced the “outing.” If you don’t know the man’s name, how do you know the man’s name?
Politico’s Jack Shafer has eloquently argued that the press should name the whistleblower. It is not against the law — whistleblower protections are to prevent retaliation in the workplace and apply to his superiors, not the media. Yet while the press eagerly tried to out Deep Throat or the anonymous author of “A Warning,” they suddenly lack curiosity.
They’ve also been hypocritical. In September, the Times reported the whistleblower was a male CIA officer who worked at the White House and was now back at the CIA. Why? Executive editor Dean Baquet said, “We wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.” A cynic might say they were trying to argue that the whistleblower was credible.
But if that’s the argument, and if Ciaramella is the whistleblower, isn’t it also relevant that he, according to Sperry, previously worked with CIA Director John Brennan, a fierce critic of Trump, and Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s political opponent and the crux of the impeachment inquiry? That he’s a registered Democrat and that he was — again, according to Sperry — accused of leaking negative information about the Trump administration and that’s why he was transferred back to Langley?
What, if anything, did he leak? Did he work with Biden on Ukraine, apparently Ciaramella’s area of expertise? Did he know about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Who told him about the call, and why did that person not complain instead of him? How did Schiff’s staff help him tailor the complaint?
https://nypost.com/2019/12/12/heres-the-likely-whistleblower-and-the-questions-he-should-answer/
That was Gohmert, and it was intentional.
Been saying this for weeks now.
<hur dur we will >introduce evidence in da senate so we don't need to go on the meme offensive!!!!!!!11 inbeechmintz iz part of da plan!
'End this': Republicans poised to call no witnesses during Trump impeachment trial in Senate
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/end-this-republicans-poised-to-call-no-witnesses-during-trump-impeachment-trial-in-senate
The Defense Rests: GOP Leaders Reportedly Considering Not Calling a Single Witness in Trump Senate Impeachment Trial
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/the-defense-rests-gop-leaders-reportedly-considering-not-calling-a-single-witness-in-trump-senate-impeachment-trial/
Republicans may directly acquit Trump at Senate trial, not call witnesses
https://nypost.com/2019/12/10/republicans-may-directly-acquit-trump-at-senate-trial-not-call-witnesses/
Senate Republicans Push Back Against Trump's Impeachment Show Trial
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/senate-gop-pushes-back-against-trump-impeachment-show-trial.html
Senate GOP Not Expected to Call Hunter Biden to Testify in Impeachment Trial
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/melanie-arter/senate-gop-not-expected-call-hunter-biden-testify-impeachment-trial
Republicans consider skipping witnesses in Trump impeachment trial
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/474002-republicans-consider-skipping-witnesses-in-trump-impeachment-trial
Graham Promises No Witnesses: "When This Comes To The Senate, I'm Going To Treat It As The Sham It Is"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/12/graham_promises_no_witnesses_when_this_comes_to_the_senate_im_going_to_treat_it_as_the_sham_it_is.html
Impeachment trial: Trump wants drama, but GOP wants it over
https://apnews.com/65ce42372714323a32f809448e087819
Republicans Say They May Call No Witnesses During Senate Trial
Graham says he won't call any impeachment witnesses in Senate committee: 'It's a crock'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/lindsey-graham-senate-impeachment-inquiry-timeline
>Q is the propaganda arm of the Republicans
<Republicans
You should lurk more if you actually think that.
They're saying there will NOT be a trial at all.
So basically, Trump will be impeached, then the senate will just vote to acquit without any trial.
Bullshit. Read the article about what he said and implied:
<He explained that the articles of impeachment would be different from ordinary legislation that makes its way from the House, in that: "We have no choice but to take it up. But we'll be working through this process hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel's office and the people who are representing the president, in the way all of the Senate."
<The majority leader declined to elaborate on what a Senate trial might look like or whether Republicans would call witnesses such as former Vice President Joe Biden, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., or the intelligence community whistleblower, whose complaint about Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky touched off the impeachment inquiry.
>"I'm going to take my cues from the president's lawyers," said McConnell, who added that a trial would likely take place early next year if the House voted to impeach Trump before its members went home for the holidays.
<"My hope is that it will be a shorter process rather than a long, lengthy process."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannity-exclusive-senate-majority-leader-mcconnell-says-theres-no-chance-president-trump-is-removed
Exactly. And if they're not going to do that, the impeachment should be stopped by the dems in Trump districts.
There are many thinking about not voting for it, but it might be too late for a meme campaign.
I haven't seen the video, but I do respect Victor Davis Hanson is a really sober and clear voice and has good opinions. He's impressive on Tucker imo.
VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT, GET VOTED OUT
>Rep. Tom O’Halleran (AZ-01)
>Rep. Lucy McBath (GA-06)
>Rep. Lauren Underwood (IL-14)
>Rep. Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
>Rep. Abby Finkenauer (IA-07)
>Rep. Dave Loebsack (IA-02)
>Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03)
>Rep. Jared Golden (ME-02)
>Rep. Elissa Slotkin (MI-08)
>Rep. Haley Stevens (MI-11)
>Rep. Angie Craig (MN-02)
>Rep. Collin Peterson (MN-07)
>Rep. Susie Lee (NV-03)
>Rep. Chris Pappas (NH-01)
>Rep. Jefferson Van Drew (NJ-02)
>Rep. Andy Kim (NJ-03)
>Rep. Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05)
>Rep. Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)
>Rep. Xochitl Torres Small (NM-02)
>Rep. Max Rose (NY-11)
>Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (NY-18)
>Rep. Antonio Delgado (NY-19)
>Rep. Anthony Brindisi (NY-22)
>Rep. Kendra Horn (OK-05)
>Rep. Matt Cartwright (PA-08)
>Rep. Conor Lamb (PA-17)
>Rep. Joe Cunningham (SC-01)
>Rep. Ben McAdams (UT-04)
>Rep. Elaine Luria (VA-02)
>Rep. Abigail Spanberger (VA-07)
>Rep. Ron Kind (WI-03)
VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT, GET VOTED OUT
EXACTLY!
That's why I'm so surprised and don't understand why Graham is going around saying they won't call witnesses.
Legitimately makes no fucking sense.
>A long trial
The thing is, I don't think it even needs to be more than a week or two at most.
Just call a few witnesses over a week, then vote to acquit.