Posted on 11/22/2019 10:39:07 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
#BREAKING: The Ukraine whistleblower reached out to the ICIG on October 8th to clarify the nature of their contact with Democratic majority staff of the House Intel CMTE before the complaint was filed.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Everything you say is true.
He MISSED seeing the box. BS.
wow, what happens to us if we lie in a federal document? Do we get to refresh and redo?
>> I’ve got a bridge to sell them. <<
Demand cash. Just saying.
Why is this IGs decision getting a pass? He should be held to account.
Isn't it better to verify stuff before just throwing it out there... like you just logged on yesterday?
Parody. Much more accurate than Schiff’s.
Of course he isn't immune.
Only Biden himself, the media and the democRATS think he is immune from investigation.
Everybody else in the country and in the Ukraine knows he's guilty as hale of corruption.
The democRATS playbook instructs their members to deny, deny, deny after they have lied, lied, lied.
Ciaramella is sitting next to Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American activist and Democratic consultant who was probably the trigger of the Steele Dossier and did the footwork for the origins of the Russian Hoax in Ukraine. A black Op DNC Operative, who has probably engineered dozens of false flags on the behalf of the Democrats.
She meant “Deep State” Obama book - no holds barred.
It’s not her. It’s Victoria Nuland. Still don’t know who the other guy is
First, they had to change the definition of a whistleblower as someone with first-hand knowledge to someone who may have heard something 2nd hand or heard rumors, hearsay or gossip. This allowed for the whistleblower, who was picked for the part by Brennan, to come forward after being coached by Schitt on what to say.
Next, Schitt decided to hold super secret hearings in the basement of the capitol so he could extract bits and pieces of his hand-picked witnesses' testimony that were damaging to Trump to leak to the media.
Then the clamor for public hearings forced Pelosi and Schitt to bring the sham out into the daylight for only a week, with rules stifling the Republicans from asking questions or calling their own witnesses.
So now the media has all of the testimony damaging to Trump but publicize nothing that clears Trump.
The whistleblower was just the first actor picked to start this scripted scam.
I keep telling people they're getting that wrong.
Proceed normally! Buy the book.
He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”
Watch what a period and proper spelling does...
He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would. Buy the book.
See?
(hey...if Democrats can do it I can too {;^))
But Schiff says he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. . .
The most glaring thing to me about the text is not even if the meeting took place, it’s that Judge Rudy Contreras wanted it, and suggested it not be one on one, but arranged at a social event (cover for action).
It was not just a push by Strzok toward Contreras, it was a pull. If one member of the FISC is an ideologically corrupt SJW using his black robe for camouflage, why should we assume there are not others?
The entire upper floors of CIA, FBI, DOJ etc are infested by SJWs, who use their power to promote their own up into power.
I went back and reread the texts of July 25, 2016. I think the text message "I did. We talked about it before and after. I need to get together with him" refers to Mitch about CI training for the judicial branch.
Later in the text stream Strozk comments "Generally he does know what I do. Not the level or scope or area. But he's super thoughtful and rigorous about ethics and conflicts. M suggested a social setting with others would probably be better than a one on one meeting."
Strzok and Page definitely think the judge has a potential conflict of interest. I guess you can read this a bunch of different ways. Strzok and Page know more about the potential conflict than the judge. That is clear in the text messages. It looks like Strzok consults with M (Mitch) for advice since he is some sort judicial branch liaison. We would have to find out from Mitch why he gave Strzok that advice. My take is Mitch should have told Strzok to talk to an ethics officer.
We don't know the judges side of the story. He is still on the FISC court and hearing cases. If there is potential misconduct they will yank their cases until it is resolved.
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.