Time at the Ω point, or make that ∇, or just [D]

I have considerably revised the last Universal Copy Desk post. If you wish to keep track of changes, you might try a free page monitor service.

https://universalcopydesk.blogspot.com/2019/11/time-at-point.html

Universal Copy Desk

That's the name of another new blog of Ye Olde Copy Reader

https://universalcopydesk.blogspot.com/

New blog

Θ theta Θ
Random bits of math, logic and philosophy.
There is no claim to expertise with respect to the musings on this page.

https://thetaman.blogspot.com/2019/11/proto-integers-and-very-naive-sets.html

Just letting you know what I am up to. I am sure most of you will give these musings a big yawn.
No problem.

Judicial Watch breaks CIA gag order; YouTube bars video

Tom Fitton, head of the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, violated a gag rule that has gripped official Washington and the nation's press: the ban on naming the CIA officer who many believe is the so-called whistleblower.

As Fitton, an experienced lawyer, said, anonymity for a whistleblower is not guaranteed except possibly with respect to his or her immediate superiors. There is no requirement that members of the media, government officials not directly connected with a whistleblower or persons such as himself must avoid naming the CIA officer -- who is not a covert operative -- publicly.

Yet YouTube barred Fitton's video in which he names Eric Ciaramella as the apparent "whistleblower." Ciaramella has not stepped forward to deny that he is the "whistleblower." Fitton argues that the CIA officer is not covered by whistleblower protections, because he leaked his second-hand story to the House Intelligence Committee before filing a whistleblower complaint.

Fitton names 'whistleblower'
https://vimeo.com/372092613

Not only have Democrats insisted that the whistleblower's identity is top secret, but the person's lawyers, who are anti-Trump activists, say their client should remain anonymous. The "real CIA" (AKA Deep State), however, seems to be behind the lid on the American press. It is bizarre that, once the officer's name was published and after he refused to deny being the "whistleblower," no one else in the media followed the story, asking questions and mentioning the name.

Fitton contrasted that with the media's treatment of Linda Tripp, who provided recordings of Monica Lewinsky that spurred Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings.

Even Fox News, which for the most part supports President Trump, is under orders not to mention Ciaramella's name. Who would have the power to impose such a gag order on virtually the entire media system, other than the CIA -- which no doubt is arguing that it is protecting one of its officers? The fact that Fox News is honoring the gag order points directly to CIA intervention.

The reason for this vast gag order is not only to protect the real CIA's push to oust Trump. There is more to it than that. The real CIA is anxious to show that it is boss of our media, and that no one may defy it. That is why YouTube caved and blacked out the Judicial Watch video.

'Yes, yes' means 'Oh no! Go, go!'

Cal Thomas warns Trump
to hire 'no' men or be impeached
https://calthomas.com/columns/no-yes-men

Fundamentally I agree with Thomas. But a problem with this advice is that Donald Trump is often intuitively far ahead of anyone around him as to what is going to sail.

Even so, the President would do well to heed the contrarians among his advisers. Even long-winded, repetitive and annoying people may have something valid to say.

Biden bragged of using aid to get Ukrainian prober fired

Joe Biden's boast does seem to give off a whiff of corruption, though the Democrats, and Joe Biden in particular, argue that there was nothing corrupt going on. Biden was using the foreign aid stick to have someone he considered corrupt fired from his position as a top Ukraine prosecutor. Biden does not mention in the video (link below) that the booting of the prosecutor meant his son Hunter could continue profiting from his gravy train courtesy of Ukraine's Burisma oil company.

In any case, when President Trump purportedly used aid as a cudgel to spur Ukraine to investigate the Biden Burisma corruption case, Democrats cried foul and are pushing impeachment. Yet they are curiously silent when Biden, acting on the authority of President Obama, used aid as a bludgeon in a manner that benefited his son, and by extension, himself.

Interesting how "Ukrainegate" only targets Trump but not Biden, though unlike Trump, Biden actually used aid for political meddling.

Here is a transcript of Biden at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018:

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

YouTube video of Biden boasting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3110&v=Q0_AqpdwqK4

RealClear report on Biden boast
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html

Burisma probe timeline and questions on the Bidens
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/29/timeline-of-the-burisma-investigation-doesnt-exculpate-hunter-biden-it-just-leads-to-more-questions/

---

'Whistleblower' lawyers try 'nonpartisan' ploy
Republicans were invited to submit written questions to the lawyers representing the "whistleblower," it was reported yesterday.

Though a copy of the specific offer has been pulled from online circulation, The Invisible Man can report that the lawyers said they were not subject to partisan House rules and that they should not be viewed as siding with Democrats. In their offer, they said that they were willing to have their client answer written questions from House Republicans under pain of perjury prosecution for false answers.

The offer, by two men who have been highly active in targeting President Trump and chiding Republicans, appears designed to undermine the Republican complaint that the "whistleblower" is being held incommunicado by Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who heads the House Intelligence Committee.

But as any lawyer knows, written questions are much easier to contend with than on-the-spot oral questioning. Unlike the President, whistleblowers and other federal workers are not ordinarily entitled to such consideration. Eric Chiaramella, a CIA officer, has declined to deny that he is the "whistleblower."

The attorneys, Mark Zaid and Andrew P. Bakaj, are both specialists in intelligence matters.

A check of  Zaid's Twitter feed shows that he has long been anti-Trump.

His partner, Bakaj, is a former CIA officer who worked for the agency inspector general, work that included development of a whistleblower reprisal investigation program. His Twitter feed shows that, like Zaid, he is very much an activist in the current "whistleblower" case.

An obvious question about this offer: What kind of lawyers would put their client under threat of perjury jeopardy merely for political reasons?

An Oct. 9 statement from their law firm, Compass Rose, shows that Chiaramella fits the description given by the "whistleblower" lawyers. An excerpt:

First, our client has never worked for or advised a political candidate, campaign, or party. Second, our client has spent their entire government career in apolitical, civil servant positions in the Executive Branch. Third, in these positions our client has come into contact with presidential candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials – not as candidates.

In other words, the CIA analyst came in contact with Hillary Clinton while he was on Obama's national security council and she was secretary of state and with Donald Trump when the analyst was on the lameduck Obama national security council and Trump was president-elect. On the other hand, the lawyers say nothing  about their client being a holdover who worked for Trump's national security council.

---

Author Lee Smith: spooks, press in plot against Prez
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvkmJsTk9RQ  

Spike that exposé!

---

Conservative sites report:
Clinton operative tried to stifle
book exposing anti-Trump plot

---

'Sid Vicious' Blumenthal
says he was defamed,
a source told Fox News

---

So it seems Sidney Blumenthal tried prior restraint rather than filing a defamation lawsuit against the author and publisher of a book he doesn't like, having peeked at it in advance of publication. Though as a public figure Blumenthal ordinarily wouldn't get far in a libel or defamation case, the Deep State's determination to retake control of America means that Blumenthal might very well wind up in front of a sympathetic judge with such a civil action.

Blumenthal is a onetime journalist and well-known propaganda operative for Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was so notorious that President Obama denied Hillary Clinton's bid to give him a job at the State Department. The hacking of his emails may well have led to the compromising of Clinton's poorly secured emails on her private server.

The book by journalist Lee Smith that reportedly alarmed Blumenthal is The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History, which has just been released by Center Street, Hachette Book Corp.

Smith argues that though the behavior of federal operatives is important, it should be borne in mind that the purpose of the conspiracy to derail Trump was to bolster Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Fox News was told by a source familiar with the attempt to block Smith's book that Blumenthal had claimed defamation. Whether Blumenthal was worried that the book would destabilize the Democrats' effort to impeach Trump can only be a matter of conjecture.

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said "the Clinton machine," having failed to stop publication, is now "trying to get it taken off the shelves, making sure it never gets to the shelves."

Smith, who once worked for the Village Voice, became a correspondent for the conservative Weekly Srandard after the Sept.11 attacks. At present, he is a columnist for RealClearPolitics and a fellow of the conservative Hudson Institute.

Blumenthal did not respond to a Fox inquiry. No response from Blumenthal was found in a check of Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo search engines.

Interesting that a man with a journalistic background would apparently wish to throttle public discussion of a very public issue, even if he does find it embarrassing. It is also noteworthy that he somehow obtained an advance copy or manuscript, although it is possible the publisher or author sent Blumenthal an advance copy as a courtesy.

Federal pension fund bankrolls Communist China's state firms

Time to cut financial ties to Communism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzgeCe4Y2oQ&list=PLzG9jR3r9rIBbGk1CnBLmXHrIrIuAU4FX

Red China's strangulation of rare earth market
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94fna4dvY88&list=PLzG9jR3r9rIBbGk1CnBLmXHrIrIuAU4FX&index=2

Trump administration lauded as aiding rare earth battle.

Ciaramella refuses to deny that he is Schiff's 'whistleblower'

Impeach 'process' more like covert op than real inquiry

From RealClearInvestigations we learn that Eric Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the President.

A reporter's attempts to reach Ciaramella were unsuccessful. Though a reporter reached Ciaramella's father, the CIA analyst did not get back to that reporter. Neither did Ciaramella get back to a reporter from his office at CIA headquarters in suburban Washington.

As the CIA employee is not a covert operator, there is no particular need for him to avoid answering press inquiries. In light of the virtual certainties that Ciaramella knew his name was being widely discussed and that a reporter had tried to contact him, it follows that, if he was not the "whistleblower," a straightforward denial should have been a simple matter.

But Ciaramella's deliberate reticence is proof that he prefers not to deny his "whistleblower" role. He has had plenty of opportunity to issue a denial but has not done so. Thus: Ciaramella refuses to deny that he is the "whistleblower."

Further, we can conclude that Ciaramella's refusal, which has no obvious personal benefit, is a result of the desire of Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and other key Democrats to keep Ciaramella's political ax-grinding from reaching the ears of the American public. Similarly, those in the media who decline to air Ciaramella's name are playing into the hands of Democratic Party leaders. If Ciaramella is not the "whistleblower," let him step forward and deny it rather than hiding behind his CIA badge and Schiff's penchant for idiosyncratic "covert ops."

---

Please see RealClear's expose at:
https://invisiblepaul.blogspot.com/2019/10/report-cia-whistleblower-sought-dirt-on.html