though Paul did not call him 'whistleblower'
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., tweeted after Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read his question at the Senate trial of President Trump that his question never named any "whistleblower."
Tweet 1
See previous post in which we repeated the idea that Paul had specifically named the whistleblower, which he did not.
But Roberts and the media extended the muzzle order to a senator's question in which he never named the whistleblower. How is it not relevant that the intelligence committee staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Cal., huddled with a Democrat NSC staff member in a probable maneuver to bring about President Trump's impeachment?
The fact that the chief justice would muzzle a U.S. senator in order that American viewers not learn a name of someone that Roberts evidently connects to the "anonymous" whistleblower appears to indicate that Roberts is part of a conspiracy to keep Americans in the dark about someone with whom he is evidently familiar. It also indicates that he is liable to tilt the table in favor of spookdom.
Tweet 1
My exact question was: Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council togetherTweet 2
and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.Tweet 3
My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.Tweet 4
If nobody knows the name of the whistle-blower, how can Roberts refuse to read the question?Roberts' decision to muzzle Paul implies that Roberts has in fact now outed the "whistleblower." In addition, when Paul was interviewed about this matter on Fox News, he was cautioned not to name the person in his question, implying that Fox News is following some hidden agenda here, especially in light of the fact that he did not specify that Ciaramello was the "whistleblower."
See previous post in which we repeated the idea that Paul had specifically named the whistleblower, which he did not.
But Roberts and the media extended the muzzle order to a senator's question in which he never named the whistleblower. How is it not relevant that the intelligence committee staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Cal., huddled with a Democrat NSC staff member in a probable maneuver to bring about President Trump's impeachment?
The fact that the chief justice would muzzle a U.S. senator in order that American viewers not learn a name of someone that Roberts evidently connects to the "anonymous" whistleblower appears to indicate that Roberts is part of a conspiracy to keep Americans in the dark about someone with whom he is evidently familiar. It also indicates that he is liable to tilt the table in favor of spookdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment