America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by Brewha. 16 replies replies.
Flo-Rida, can ya blow my whistle baby...
MACS Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,599
https://tinyurl.com/tu44spm

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.
MACS Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,599
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?

The inspector general's report makes Jim Comey's FBI look terrible
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?

This is only the fourth time in our history that a president has faced impeachment. Shouldn’t we know the answers to these questions now, and not in two or three years when the inevitable official reports and tell-all books come out? Why must we wait for the truth?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,309
And how do we know the name? The Shifty Schiff $hitty Sham Show didn't redact the name from documents and leaked to the press.

You can go online and find pics of this guy with the upper (or lower) echelon of the DNC.

Trump should've fired everyone working in the WH and all other top positions. Would've sucked from an outsider to come up with effective people but you can't live with vampires either. I firmly believe he actually thought that these people would do the same job for him as they did Obama. Welcome to the Swamp.

There is only one place where people like Comey, Brennan, McCabe and the others like them. Prison. That or a case for Treason could be aptly made. Accountability needs to happen.
fishinguitarman Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
Too early 2 cipher all dat
Gene363 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,680
The swamp dwellers are going to attack anyone that keeps them from getting more power and more money.

If they do not get the message they need to get the blade, French style.
Brewha Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,147
NEXT UP ON FOX AND FRIENDS;
Why liberals should be forced to reproduce, but not allowed to vote.
tailgater Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
NEXT UP ON FOX AND FRIENDS;
Why liberals should be forced to reproduce, but not allowed to vote.


That's quite funny.

But not to worry. The cons know that the ghey virus will eventually squelch liberal reproduction.

Whistlebritches Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
Brewha wrote:
NEXT UP ON FOX AND FRIENDS;
Why liberals should be forced to reproduce, but not allowed to vote.


Just curious...…..what part of anything posted above are you in denial about?

Or is this another one of your "since I don't believe the facts it must be fake news" moments?
fishinguitarman Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
What Ron said
Whistlebritches Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
fishinguitarman wrote:
What Ron said



Brewha is still doing opposition research...…...Might be a very tough assignment this time.
Mr. Jones Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,359
#3 DMV

+1000 TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH...

COMEY DESERVES TO BE IN JAIL..

HE IS A PREMEDITATED 1ST DEGREE MURDERER WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE FBI : SPECIAL SURVEILLANCE GROUP OF AGENTS WHO ARE ALL FELON CRIMINAL MURDERER'S.
Brewha Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,147
Whistlebritches wrote:
Just curious...…..what part of anything posted above are you in denial about?

Or is this another one of your "since I don't believe the facts it must be fake news" moments?

It’s just another “my opinions are fact” piece.
Some don’t think the Russia tried to influence the election. But above, “we all know the conspiracy theory is wrong”.

Selling opinion as fact is dishonest, damaging, and people just eat it up.

Enjoy your opinion piece.
Whistlebritches Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
Brewha wrote:
It’s just another “my opinions are fact” piece.
Some don’t think the Russia tried to influence the election. But above, “we all know the conspiracy theory is wrong”.

Selling opinion as fact is dishonest, damaging, and people just eat it up.

Enjoy your opinion piece.


I'm sorry facts scare you...….I'll pray for you
Brewha Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,147
Whistlebritches wrote:
I'm sorry facts scare you...….I'll pray for you

Why WB, that is right kind of you. Not many God fearing men would pray for one of “them”.

But to be clear - I debate that these are opinions, not facts. Or is there no difference?
Whistlebritches Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
Brewha wrote:
Why WB, that is right kind of you. Not many God fearing men would pray for one of “them”.

But to be clear - I debate that these are opinions, not facts. Or is there no difference?



Praying for "them' is where I am a good Christian...…….in most other areas I fall severely short
Brewha Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,147
Yes, well....perfect people sux.
Users browsing this topic
Guest