Tuesday, December 3, 2019

Paul Sperry Totally On Fire This Evening

Paul Sperry

Where are the public-interest law firms who will sue FaceBook and Google/YouTube for denying voters their First Amendment right to share information relevant to the impeachment of their president?

How is this different than the Soviet Union where one party controlled everything? In effect, Democrats control the media, the secret federal police, the intelligence agencies, the bureaucracy, the academy, the arts. Hell, Democrats even police the Internet!

"[AG] Barr has conveyed to others his belief that [IG] Horowitz has not been critical enough."

Ya think?

We r witnessing tyranny in slow motion. Presidential candidates being spied on. Journalists being monitored. Postings being censored. Voters potentially being disenfranchised by witch hunts,coups & now phony impeachment. If people dont wake up soon,the tyranny will hit full speed

Why is the House Intelligence Committee monitoring journalists?

Apparently Republicans are more afraid of an ethics investigation -- or a nasty write-up in the WaPo -- than they are of a coup against the president

Instead of making the case Obama did it (solicited foreign interference in the 2016 election), Republicans are being forced to make the case Trump didn't do it

BREAKING: Schiff in new impeachment report seems to spend more time investigating a journalist--ex-asst. AP bureau chief John Solomon--than Trump, inclg exposing Solomon's phone records & smearing him as "author of articles promoting debunked conspiracy theories about the Bidens"

Schiff's 300pp report is DOA; fails to provide evidence to back up his "key finding of fact." Absence of witness testimony & evidence to support his central charge warranting impeachment is a major hole in Dems' overall case for impeachment. POTUS lawyers will drive truck thru it

War Is Peace.

Freedom Is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.

Ciaramella Does Not Exist.

BREAKING:In his Impeachment Report,Schiff insists Congress cannot publicly name the "whistleblower" b/c IDing him would put his personal safety @"grave risk."Yet Schiff can cite no actual threats made against WB anywhere in his 300pp report,even tho his name was published wks ago

BREAKING: As part of his "impeachment inquiry," Schiff investigated not just President Trump but his own committee vice chairman GOP Rep. Devin Nunes and Nunes' committee aide Derek Harvey, and even obtained Nunes' and Harvey's phone call records

BREAKING: Schiff's just-released "Impeachment Inquiry Report" confirms that Eric Ciaramella's former NSC allies and fellow Obama holdovers "Sean A. Misko" and "Abigail C. Grace" are part of Schiff's "Impeachment Inquiry Investigative Staff" and "Oversight Staff," respectively.

BREAKING: Following complaints by Schiff & Dems re outing the "whistleblower," Google has joined Facebook & YouTube in censoring the identity of the WB. Google is now banning the placement of ads on stories naming Eric Ciaramella b/c they contain "dangerous or derogatory" content

BREAKING: Judicial Watch suing DOJ for internal comms of Michael Atkinson when he was a sr DOJ official to see if he was involved in 2017 discussions to impeach Pres Trump or remove him from office under the 25th Amendment. Now ICIG, Atkinson facilitated "whistleblower" complaint

BREAKING: GOP investigating if DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa provided info to Schiff or his staff. In Aug 28 tweet, after Schiff alleged US military aid to Ukraine tied up w Ukrainian investigations, Chalupa replied to Schiff that she had “a lot of information on this topic.”


  1. On Nunes' and Harvey's phone call records, Ristvan (of CTH) predicts that Ratcliffe and Jordan will be able to eat Schiffhead alive, (I gather) for getting these records illegally.
    Any thoughts?

    1. I don't know that he obtained the records illegally. It's hard to believe that he would have revealed his actions if that were the case.

      Still, the fact that he revealed his actions--legal or illegal--speaks volumes about his mental state. One wonders, for example, how many of his colleagues were aware of what he was doing? Pelosi? I suspect there will be considerable shame among Dems--and fear for the future. This will certainly work against impeachment.

    2. Not being contentious Mark, but it would be a hard sell to convince me that it's possible for a Dem to feel shame about anything, certainly not remorse, unless you're talking about getting caught.
      Someone asked a couple of months ago if I thought we might actually have a civil war; my question is what evidence is there that we are not already in one?
      Tom S.

    3. " would be a hard sell to convince me that it's possible for a Dem to feel shame about anything, certainly not remorse, unless you're talking about getting caught."

      What might be possible, though, is for 31 Democrat reps in districts Trump won, some by substantial margins, to feel immense regret that their zealot leadership has decided to end their Congressional careers with absolutely nothing to show for them...

    4. Not shame, but it will do.
      Tom S.

  2. CTH commenter PS writes:
    "FBI Director Wray is the only one who can authorize phone log requests via National Security Letter (NSL), which matches the format of these logs. These logs seem to focus on Parnas, who is currently being investigated by SDNY. If these logs were pulled from Parnas’s campaign finance case into Schiff’s investigation, then it violates (1) a non-disclosure of NSL by SDNY and (2) NSL are for terrorist surveillance, not white-collar campaign crimes, which points a finger at Wray."
    So Schiffty is legally OK, but SDNY and Wray may not be?
    One more thing to bug Schiffty under oath on?

    1. That's very interesting. One slight correction--the Director doesn't personally approve all NSLs; that's process is delegated downward, as you can see from the example of the Wiki article on NSLs.

      That's an interesting question, and one which I can't answer: Can the FBI disclose info gained by an NSL to Congress? The provisions I've seen seem to envision info sharing with other "agencies" of the US Government: DoJ and the WH. I haven't seen mention of Congress.

      Here's an example from the AG Guidelines:

      Information obtained through the use of National Security Letters under 15 U.S.C. 1681v may be disseminated in conformity with the general standards of this Part. Information obtained through the use of National Security Letters under other statutes may be disseminated in conformity with the general standards of this Part,subject to any applicable limitations in their governing statutory provisions: 12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)(B); 15 U.S.C. 1681u(f); 18 U.S.C. 2709(d); 50 U.S.C. 436(e).

    2. The Congressional Research Service doesn't mention dissemination to Congress, either. First question, then, is: Can Congress receive such information, and second question: Who authorized this?