Posted on 01/10/2023 7:34:14 PM PST by ransomnote
Loathing Matt has come to fruition in a surprising turn, but it is here.
I recall as well, Mercedes (Schlapp), the Trump White House Comm Director for an interminable two years, making half-hearted news clips and interviews on the subject of Trump, look dull and half-hearted without fail. CPAC, my foot. Someone’s path to a bit of notoriety.
~~~
” The Matt Schlapp story is very real and the people running cover for this clown have done a deal with the SOROS-funded devil. “
— RaheemKassam.com
~~~
Yeah, you're right. You are the second FReeQer to mention that recently. It is the stuff the media stays away from that becomes important. Something about this whole Bitem classified documents dust up just doesn't add up.
And why is AG Mary Garlic flagrantly applying an obvious ridiculous double standard: raid Trump's residence as a crime scene while allowing Bitem's lawyers to search out and handle classified documents like an old time paper drive. Garlic seems to want people to know: it pays to be on the correct side.
Is that our future? š
Much appreciated, peteyp. Iāll make the suggestion and he can decide for himself. He feels desperate at this point.
ššš
OMG she still doesnāt even know what myocarditis is!!! Talk about blind trust in Fauciā¦ these people are SO stupid!
Yes indeed. Oh drat, I must be in festival.
X22 Report episode 2975B has an interesting section in about 16:00 to 18:00 min that discusses the FAA flight exam article that Countrecount posted yesterday along with the link to the following link:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-faa-has-very-quietly-tacitly
last night I was visiting with a dr friend of mine who had been the regional FAA medical examiner for years until his retirement just prior to the holidays in 22.
I shot him a text of countrecount’s link to the kirsch link.
after reading the piece, he said he knows that guy.
I said: steve kirsch?
he said no, he knows tom levy who is a cardiologist quoted in the kirsch piece. they met at seminars.
he retired just prior to the new EKG regs going into effect.
anyway, my friend is an antivaxer & his wife said “they are killing people with this vaccine”
The Brandon documents are from the Hussein administration,yet there is no mention of that fact, no articles have been written about the Hussein response that I can find, and we havenāt heard a word from Hussein about how these docs got to Brandonās garage.
Why is that?
_____________________________
Maybe something like this: (from patriots.win)
https://media.patriots.win/post/D5ahREEiComl.png
Thanks!
Also...
Biden Held āStolenā Classified Docs at His Delaware Home AND the Secret Service Kept No Records of Visitors While They Were There
Steve Bannan asked Davis to clarify the word āstoleā. He noted that no one has ever āaccused President Trump of stealing records.ā
From the article.
Davis replied:
The former Vice President Joe Biden did not have these same privileges as Vice President as Presidentās do. Vice Presidents, like anyone else, cannot take government records. They canāt take Vice Presidential records when they leave office and they certainly canāt take classified records.
The President can take Presidential records when he leaves office, whether theyāre classified or not. No one else can and so thatās the issue.
Vice President Joe Biden absolutely stole government records. He absolutely stole classified records when he left office by the mere fact that they are in his possession. He moved them at least once when he left office, on January 20, 2017. He moved them again when he moved into the Biden Penn Office at 101 Constitution Avenue in February of 2018.
He apparently has other stolen records at another location.
Steve has great material, but heās got to spell and grammar check this stuff more. You canāt forward this to so called āintellectualsā without them fixating on passages like ānone arenāt liableā as the pathway to ādebunkingā ā¹ļø.
“90% of online content could be ‘generated by AI by 2025’ expert says”
That includes the prognostication of “experts”.
This clown should look for a job.
Cleaning out toilets.
Ā
This type of spousal privilege has been recognized throughout history and pre-dates our Constitution and even our country. It arises from the notion that married spouses are one entity and so are not competent to testify against themselves through their other (if not better) half. Under this type of spousal privilege, one spouse cannot be compelled to give testimony against his or her spouse who is a defendant in a criminal trial or the subject of a grand jury proceeding. The accused spouse may claim the privilege or the other spouse may claim it on behalf of the accused spouse. The spouses must be married at the time that the privilege is asserted; so an ex-spouse can be compelled to give testimony about a defendant to whom he or she was previously, but is no longer, married.
Exceptions to the spousal testimonial privilege exist where a spouse:
In each of these situations, even current spouses may be compelled to testify against an accused spouse in a criminal trial or grand jury proceeding.
Neither spouse can be compelled to testify as to private, confidential communications between them in either criminal or civil proceedings. But, only communications that the spouses intend to be, and maintain as confidential are protected. Not every statement between spouses is confidential or a communication. The same exceptions listed above apply to this type of spousal privilege. With respect to the marital communications privilege, as long as there was a valid marriage at the time of the confidential communication between the spouses, the privilege may be raised by either spouse even after the marriage has ended.
Either spouse may assert the spousal privilege. But the privilege protects only"communications." Statements that are not communications between the spouses, such as observations by one spouse about the conduct of the other, are not privileged. For example, a court ruled that an ex-wife's testimony that there had been a verbal agreement for a drug sale between her husband and another man that she overheard during the marriage was not a "communication" as the ex-husband argued, but rather the ex-wife's observation about events. As a result, her testimony was not privileged.
And, another court ruled that a defendant's act of hiding drugs in his ex-wife's underwear during the marriage was not a "communication" and, thus, not privileged. The ex-wife was allowed to testify about her ex-husband tucking a bag of cocaine into her bra over his objections. In both of these cases, the spouses were no longer married at the time the testimony was offered. The spousal communication privilege continues after a marriage ends, but it only covers confidential communications during the marriage. The court in each case ruled that there was no "communication."
A privilege objection will likewise fail if either spouse fails to keep the communication confidential. Where one spouse shares a previously confidential communication with his best friend, he has destroyed the confidentiality required to claim the spousal communications privilege.
I think the Pelosi attack was a planned hit on Paul Pelosi, not Nancy. The false story the attacker gave, claiming that he was looking for Nancy, is meant to provide deniability to Nancy.
I don't believe Paul Pelosi was supposed to wake up before he wasĀ beaten to death with a hammer, nor that anyone would ever call the police.
The police didn't know it was the Speaker's house. Why? Because Nancy's SS or security service would normally detect and detain the man. The police had probably never been there before.
Nancy was 3rd in line to the presidency (*shudder*). Wouldn't the Pelosi's have substantial security, including a 'panic button' to summon help from their security service?
If Paul used a panic button, he probably waited for Nancy's security, gave up on them when they didn't arrive, and then calledl 911 for the first time ever. Note how long that must have taken from the time Paul heard someone in the house, to the time police arrived. While I think Paul was targeted, I think his killer was not in a hurry and had reason not to fear interruption. I suspect Nancy's Security service was tasked with making sure he had all the time he needed.
While it's possible for nutso people to kill whomever they find when hunting, I think the fact that the assailant attacked Paul in front of a group of police indicates he was trying to complete his assigned task.
Looking at the Cover Story that Nancy was targeted: Why would the assailant or his handlers believe he could locate and kill Nancy and Paul so easily? What made them believe he could get past camera security systems, break in, and still have time to use a hammer in a fight that could mean trying to kill, not just injure Nancy while possibly contending against both Mr. and Mrs Pelosi. Wasn't he concerened they may possibly access private weapons of their own inside the house? Wouldn't a gun have given the assailent better chances of succeeding?
Breaking in, delaying long enough for Paul's 911 call to render results, allowing Paul to answer the door - the assailant never seemed to be in a hurry or fearful of arrest, as if 'knew' no one would interupt him. It's as if the assailant was confident he would not be interupted and expected to find and quietly kill a man sleeping alone in his bed at night.
Paul (awake and moving) caught him off guard, and then SFPD caught him off guard. Perhaps the guy 'had' to use a hammer because if he used a gun, the sound of gunfire would risk an uncontrolled public response (a neighbor calls 911) and require Nancy's private security to explain how they 'missed' the sound of gunshots. It must have been hard for the Deep State to resist making this event a 'gun grab' justification. Really, why would they miss an opportunity to make this about the need to confiscate guns?
Maybe the assailant was MKUltra controlled or otherwise programmed. He casually looked around at the officers standing in the doorway and pieces together that the privacy and protection of Nancy's Security services, assured him in advance, was not happening.Ā Paul was awake and resisting, police at the door - it all meant the mission was in pieces. Seconds left, he decided to complete his mission to kill Paul before it was 'too late'.
The weird NBC story seems to be the MSM's overreaction to a specific goal, known in advance. I suspect it was deniability, a critical objective of this incident was to ensure no one would be able to say there was evidence the assailant was there to kill Paul. If people were to realize he was targeted, they would wonder, "Who would want to killĀ Paul?" and that would turn eyes toward VERY few people (*cough* Nancy *cough). With a specific goal of making sure Paul was not seen as the original target, NBC'a creeps overreacted by implying the attack on Paul started off as something consensual between the two men. It was THAT important that Paul not look like the target.
Someone notified NBC that the interception was NOT made by Nancy's Private security and instead, by officersĀ wearing bodycams. This makes me wonder if live SFPD, and all PD body cams, are accessible to DOJ or off record deep staters. Maybe it was just Nancy's security service making that call.Ā
The NBC reporter never realized there was bodycam footage, so he did as he was told, and lied about both men being in their underwear etc. They tried too hard - since when dooes the MSM make up a sex story to conceal the truth about a Dem leader attacked at home alone at night by a supposed conservative? Especially since they would miss the opportunity to portray the assailant as an inherently violent conservative by suggesting Paul was 'partying' with him? They tried too hard to misdirect.
Realizing their NBC reporter's story could be refuted with bodycam footage, the reporter was abruptly removed. The other MSM jumped in with knowledge bodycam footage existed and didn't attempt to play the same deflection game. Pre scripted assailant content flowed out - "he was angry conservative man gone wild, trying to take down the Speaker of the House, wants to purge the land etc."
So who would want Paul dead? I think Nancy is the only obvious choice. Nancy probably should be worried Paul will be enticed to testify against her (make a deal) as he was in no way the primary criminal.Ā Newsom is related to the Pelosi's, so both Newsom and Nancy may be feeling vulnerable right about now. I think Newsom was/is being groomed as a possible POTUS via the VP's office.
I just looked up 'Spousal Privilege' and found it interesting. I put a section on an old, abandoned Festiva here in case anyone else is interested. I'll put a line or two of that content below:
Privilege protects only confidential "communications"
Either spouse may assert the spousal privilege. But the privilege protects only"communications." Statements that are not communications between the spouses, such as observations by one spouse about the conduct of the other, are not privileged.
I believe Paul was supposed to die and the assailant was prepped in advance to say he was looking for Nancy and to roll out his 'crazy talk' to falsely imply all conservatives are violent insurrectionists. If Paul suspects he was the original target, he could proactively offer testimony in exchange for protection from his 'loving wife'. He must know what she's capable of; perhaps that's why he wasn't sleeping well the night the attacker enterred his house?
Ā
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.
