Posted on 10/27/2019 2:45:27 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It’s 99.999% sure that “The Whistleblower” is Eric Ciaramella, who was on the NCS under McMaster.
But he was just a cog in a much larger operation to take out Trump via impeachment this time.
The Ukraine hoax was and still is a full espionage job by Schiff’s intel committee plus never-Trumpers and Obama holdovers.
This video explains it all in detail.
If you want to understand what’s really going on, this is the best 14 minutes you will ever spend.
WhistleBlower: Ciaramella? - InPursuiteOfTruth Presents - 10.23.19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VKzO7CnaEk
Lynchpeachment
I should have scrolled down before I posted...:>(
Excellent point about Sherlock Holmes and the “curious incident of the dog in the night-time”. Hence, the meetings in secret - they have no evidence.
To call for an impeachment inquiry vote would mean demokraps would have to present the reason (some strong evidence) on which to cast their votes. There is no evidence. Not holding the vote, but holding the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, allows them to satisfy their delusional base while looking for the goods on Trump ... something beyond “he said Biden in a phone call, hearsay whistleblower said “quid pro quo.” Surely the source to the whistleblower has been identified, no?
Whether Trump is in the clear, I wouldn’t put it past the demokraps to manufacture “evidence” of some kind that may be totally unrelated to the missing evidence.
It amazes me that no major media figure or politician has asked why Red Eye Biden’s patent Ukraine admission “fire him or else” is not a quid pro quo? Was that illegal? impeachable? Both? Once that question is answered, then any allegation of quid pro quo discussion alleged against POTUS would be put in proper context.
Like the Mueller investigation, the longer this goes on the less likely there will be even a scintilla of evidence to bring a vote by the House. But the demokraps don’t see a downside to even that. It is important, like Mueller to keep this controversy going, using the power of one branch of government to use secret investigations, subpoenas, etc to run against Trump. Some say this tactic worked with Mueller and the 2018 House elections. Gotta keep their base angry and motivated.
Enough damn INQUIRY already!
This is an example of why it is impossible to predict the future. There are so many variables and we are only presented with one such variable.
At this time we do not know what the President knows.
We do know the President has a way of “shaking the box” as Scott Adams would say just to see if things change.
So far this farce is doing little to enhance the Democrats or win them any support outside of their base.
It is my opinion the purpose of this entire “IMPEACHMENT” charade is two fold, one to distract the public and two to create a shield if and when the DOJ begins charging the co-conspirators in the Coup attempt.
So far none of the toys that the Democrats bought from the ACME joke company have worked against President Trump so I will wait and see how the President responds to their games.
This would be a most opportune time to bring up Hillary’s total moral failure in an impeachment inquiry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJDBge1rCbQ
No.
I thought the way our justice system worked was someone commits a crime, then it is investigated, not the other way around looking for a crime. Shouldn’t a judge shut that down?
Perhaps not so much backfire as evanesce, become irrelevant as things start to pop with Grand Juries and the like.
They have already eld three votes, which went down in flames. If they would have done a fourth vote so close on the heels of the third, it would have failed spectacularly as well. This is why a handful of power-hungry DemocRATs have decided to go forward with their farce and will not vote.
I think Nancy Pelosi dug herself into a corner when she announced an impeachment inquiry timed right after the “news” of a “whistleblower” hit the MSM. She and Schiff-for-brains had counted on the transcript of the phone call remaining secret. They did not count on the President releasing it. How can they back down from their fake narrative without losing face?
An odd factiod:
Swalwell, Schiff are BOTH former federal prosecutors in California.
It may just be a coincidence, but I believe the character of the persons selected to such positions is severely lacking.
Their experiences as federal prosecutors and the tactics they employed there are the basis for their current actions. It speaks to the shoddy and unjust manner in which federal prosecutors are directed to operate.
Locally, Clinton fired the Federal prosecutor and hired a well known alcoholic who lived his life drunk but Democrat
A+ Post of the Day.
I'd argue with the author, but one would achieve more by trying to tell a pig it shouldn't walk around in a pen full of manure.
It may be their strategy to impeach, but not convict. Then they can campaign on “Trump was impeached and shouldn’t be allowed to be President”. Of course, conviction would be the icing on the cake.
Maybe they know they won’t get 20 Republican Senators to cross the line. So they’ll take half a cake.
We have no idea if anything being said in these secret meetings is the truth or not. None of it should be trusted. It’s a partisan witch hunt.
The lawyer whose name you were trying to recall was Jerome Zeifman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.