Posted on 02/04/2020 11:48:48 AM PST by EyesOfTX
Late Tuesday morning, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky delivered one of the great speeches in American history. In the course of just five minutes, Paul exposes the whistleblower who served as the catalyst for this impeachment scam, a coup d’etat on American soil. He exposes the Chief Justice of the United States and Adam Schiff and several Schiff staffers as co-conspirators. And he exposes not one, but two Vindman brothers as also serving as willing co-conspirators in this coup attempt.
This speech is brilliant for its content, its courage, its timing and its delivery. Below is a clip, and a transcript of the key first five minutes of the speech, something I was unable to find anywhere else.
Greg Price ✔ @greg_price11 This is a based Rand Paul speech that everyone needs to see
Embedded video 199 12:31 PM - Feb 4, 2020 Twitter Ads info and privacy 115 people are talking about this
Here’s the Transcript of the first 5 minutes – the final 90 seconds end up being repetitive:
During the proceedings, I asked a question that was disallowed, and I’m going to ask that question again this morning. Because the Constitution does protect debate, and it does protect the asking of questions.
I think they made a big mistake now allowing my question. My question did not talk anybody who is a whistleblower; my question did not accuse anybody of being a whistleblower; it did not make a statement believing someone was a whistleblower. I simply named two peoples’ names, because I think it’s very important to know what happened.
We are now finding out that the FISA investigation was predicated upon 17 lies by the FBI, by people at high levels who were biased against the President, and it turns out it was an illegitimate investigation. Everything they did to investigate the President was untrue, and it involved people using the government to do things that should have never been done in the first place.
So I asked this question, and this is my question: Are you aware that the House Committee staffer, Sean Misko, had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while they were at the National Security Council together? How would you respond to reports that Ciramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?
Why did I ask this question? Because there are news reports saying these two people, one of whom works for Adam Schiff, and one of them who worked with this person at the NSC, that they knew each other and had been overheard talking about impeaching the President in the first month of his office. In January of 2017, they were already plotting the impeachment.
And you say, well, we should protect the whistleblower, and the whistleblower deserve anonymity. The law does not preserve anonymity.
His boss is not supposed to say anything about him, he’s not supposed to be fired – I’m for that. But when you get into the details of talking about whistleblowers, there’s a variety of opinions around here.
The greatest whistleblower in American history in all likelihood was Edward Snowden. What do people here want to do with him? Half the people here want to put him to death; the other half want to put him in jail forever. So, it depends on what you blow the whistle on, whether or not they’re for the whistleblower statute. [TRUE]
I’m not for retributions on the whistleblower. I don’t want him to go to jail, I don’t want him to lose his job. But if six people who all worked together at the NSC knew each other and gamed the system, knowing that they would get these protections, they gamed the system in order to try to bring down the President, we should know about that.
If they had extreme bias going into the impeachment, we should know about that.
So, I think the question is an important one, and I think we should still get to the bottom of it.
Were people plotting to bring down the President? They were plotting in advance of the election – were they plotting within the halls of government to bring down the President?
Look, these people also knew the Vindman brothers, who are still in government. So, you’ve got two Vindman brothers over there who know Eric Ciaramella, who also know Sean Misko, who also knew two other people now working on Adam Schiff’s staff.
And Adam Schiff throws his hands up and says, ‘I don’t know who the whistleblower is, I’ve never met him. I have no idea who he is.’
So, if he [Schiff] doesn’t know who he is, the President’s counsel doesn’t know who he is, how does the Chief Justice of the United States know who the whistleblower is? I have no independent confirmation from anyone in the government as to who the whistleblower is.
So, how am I prevented from asking a question, when nobody seems to know who this person is?
My point is, that by having such protections, such overzealous protection, we don’t get to the root of the matter how this started. Because this could happen again.
When the institution of the bureaucracy, the intelligence community with all the power to listen into every phone conversation you have, has political bias and can game the system to go after you, that’s a real worry.
It’s a real worry that they spied on the President, but what if you’re just an average American? What if you’re just a supporter of President Trump, or you’re a Republican or you’re a conservative? Are we not concerned that secret courts could allow for warrants to listen to your phone calls, to tap into your emails, to read your text messages? I’m very concerned about that.
So, we’re going to have this discussion go on. It really isn’t about the whistleblower so much, it’s about reforming government. It’s about limiting the power of what they can do as secret courts.
[End]
Epic. Fantastic. It’s impossible to overstate what a tremendous service Senator Paul did for our country today.
But even after this, after Senator Paul has repeatedly said Ciaramella’s name on the floor of the U.S. Senate, you can count on our corrupt, fake news media to continue its despicable pretense of not knowing the whistleblower’s name.
A pox on all their houses.
That is all.
Yes - going forward you’re on my ignore list.
I already have, you just been drinking too much Hater-Aid to see it.
This dude wants his butt kissed for rehashing what you read yesterday.
HE is the one offending you, not me.
Poor deluded thing you.
Oh crap, I'm well and truly hosed now.
As the old timers used to say, “You’re tetched in the head”.
And while we’re here...
Have you ever stopped to notice how often this great blogger
deigns to make a comment? How frequently he interacts with us?
Almost never, right? Doesn’t that indicate anything to you?
Like maybe he sees himself as high above you, dropping blog
turds of wisdom for you laborers to enjoy?
You laud him, though..
Why, I wonder?
He posted the transcript of a speech given this morning.
Did you read it yesterday? I didn’t. First i saw of it, and I appreciate being able to read it verbatim instead of having it paraphrased by others.
I, and others on this thread, are thankful he did what he did.
Well...after considering the comments here, I do have to ask:
Here, it seems you copied the transcript of Rand Paul’s speech (out 15 hours ago per a quick search), added a couple paragraphs before and after, and posted it on your blog. Is that your typical format? Then, you posted that blog article here a few hours ago.
I can now see the gist of blog pimping complaints here, if FR is just another place to advertise your blog. I checked, and your posts are mostly all Post 1; that’s not much interplay by you. I wonder how many other sites you post your blog articles to. Is your DBDU blog done primarily for ad revenue?
If you profit from your blog, I must assume that you contribute well and often to FR. I’m sure you do :)
My error - this was not out 15 hours ago, search engine assigned wrong time to several hits listed.
Bullshit. I searched for the transcript, was unable to find it, and transcribed it myself. Not sure how the transcript was available 15 hours ago when the speech was made about 7 hours ago.
He posted the transcript of a speech given this morning.
Did you read it yesterday? I didn’t. First i saw of it, and I appreciate being able to read it verbatim instead of having it paraphrased by others.
I, and others on this thread, are thankful he did what he did.
You’re welcome.
I see that he listed himself as the author.
Do you believe he is the author of the speech?
This dude thinks far too highly of himself.
If I can kick at least a couple of bricks out from under him
then I’m happy, haters be damned.
See post 88.
The author of the speech was stated in the first two words of the title.
Nobody was confused about authorship of the speech.
The name listed as you indicate is obviously the author of the additional surrounding content.
We’re capable of discerning the difference without you defending us from such insidious evils.
OK. Since you’re cursing at me...How about my questions?
Yet amazingly, the only link provided was to the blogger’s blog.
Almost as if he wanted to score all the traffic.
For something he just copy & pasted.
Crazy.
Why haven’t the moderators put a stop to it?
Why do they allow it?
Are they derelict in their duty?
There's no law against saggy pants. Decent folks know not to do it though.
Why do they allow it?
Freedom.
Often decent people will discourage saggy pants. Without a law.
Are they derelict in their duty?
Should not a community strive to police itself?
Bloggers are a bunch of saggy-pants pimps.
Well, people will continue to treat you like they do now and most will ignore you.
You’re wasting your time and breath. The bloggers will go on bloggin’.
And it looks like that bothers me a lot, huh?
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.