What's to say?
Makes you think whether Lindsey dropped these largely useless docs as a decoy while he tries to persuade Trump not to declassify the juicy ones. https://t.co/QalRRqU8jM— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) January 16, 2021
This just isn't serious. For example:
If it is not there then 1) it was never created, or 2) it was removed.— shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) January 16, 2021
Hoax narratives, hoax investigations--the only thing real is the coverup. The samples I've seen go on and on in the same vein. Relevant questions not asked, no challenges of patent obfuscation. The witnesses were clearly not afraid to mislead or even lie to the Senate. Bear in mind, many of these witnesses were not powerful people or people with powerful friends. In the DC scheme of things they were basically the little people who had done what they were told to do. They're protecting people above them.
At this point, I wouldn't rule out any explanation. But is it possible that until the declass order, the transcripts--largely meaningless though they seem to be--could not be released? I.e., Graham just released them on the first day that he could? Andy S.ReplyDelete
If I recall Mark, you suggested the same thing SWC suggests relative to the Woods file several months ago. At least that's what I recall. So this revelation by SWC is nothing new.ReplyDelete
You've got a good memory. That's true, but the reminder is good. You wonder, how stupid could the questioners possibly be to accept answers like that in this day and age.Delete
Stupid like foxes?Delete
If you know better than to ask the question or follow up with an intelligent question you can avoid anything sticky.ReplyDelete
That was the game being played here.
When you think about it, disrupting the planned presentation of evidence of credible election fraud and irregularities by GOP legislators and thus insuring that the evidence would not be covered in the MSM, while at the same time inculpating Trump, absolutely served the interests of Biden and the Democrats, and not at all the interests of Trump.
The disruption, which cannot remotely be characterized as a credible coup attempt, had to be the strategy of Biden and the Democrats, not Trump.
Its the only possible explanation.
Totally agree. It was designed to remove even the smallest of chances that a commission WITH POWER TO FORCE EVIDENCE PRODUCTION and willing to use it. That would be the chink that would bring down the whole fraud scheme.Delete
What a shock it will be when the hard core QANON supporters realize they helped elect Joe Biden
Trump's game plan depended on Cruz succeeding, not on some fantasy coup. There was no intent.Delete
There are numerous videos emerging showing police acquiescence, if not out right collusion, with individual and groups of young white (Antifa recruitment poster mat'l) "protesters" in the Capitol.Delete
Most odd, or not.
Or so Paul Craig Roberts thinks:ReplyDelete
If memory serves, he's no Trump fan.Delete
Lindsay is just virtue signaling to show what a good gop he is...ReplyDelete
Lindsey-Dearling is the most useless preener in the entire Uniparty.Delete
James Howard Kunstler decorates his powerful indictment of Biden and the Dems with a handful of $5 words. Hebephrenic? And also leaves a tease that Trump might not be finished:ReplyDelete
Highly entertaining, but I was dumbfounded that he believes the military is somehow trustworthy.Delete
Right. He asserts it, but offers no credible basis for the assertion or any credible course of action.Delete
If I had to say...I would say...that there's no telling what's coming.
In different words than Lee Smith, Paul Craig Roberts, and Jim Kunstler, J.E. Dyer also sees clearly the corruption of the hard Left. She predicts the truth will eventually come clear to all. She turns to God for understanding and support but warns that in the days ahead (following Biden's inauguration) we will "be witness to appalling revelations". An excellent read.ReplyDelete
Dyer is excellent on the Old Consensus Right. I continue to be flabbergasted by the delusional screeds we're seeing from people who should know by now that the old consensus is no more and that, as Dyer says, the Left feels unbound by any of it.Delete
Don't you think the end of delusion for them, when it comes, will be a very painful event?Delete
FWIW, for me the end of delusion was what they did to Kavanaugh. If they would do that, they will do anything.
Kav, and then a 16-year old's "punchable smirk".Delete
Very good observation, the delusional screeds are about the only thing keeping the rubble pile intact. The second they stop pretending the sharade is over.
I'm pretty sure there are a number of them that realize this and are going to tow that load just for for coin. Otherwise watch how fast publishers stop publishing them the second they don't.
I think this is why were seeing so many articles out there where, no way forward is given, and no real conclusions are made. Too few are brave enough so they just keep with the new level of normal.
Some I'm sure are blithering party addicts as well but either way it is highly unpopular to say you can't recover from this point in history.
I begin with a quote: "The many lawsuits that Trump and his supporters filed were doomed from the beginning. Whether their allegations were true or false was a complicated fact question that could not possibly be sorted out in 60 or 90 days. This fact was obvious to anyone familiar with litigation..." Think that over. That grand conclusion comes from a Republican: Paul Hinderaker of Power Line. And you wonder why Republicans keep losing, seemingly to some perverse enjoyment? Can you imagine any Democrat saying or writing something like that? Me neither. 74 million people voted for Donald Trump. Well, we actually don't know how many voted for him, but we'll go with that number. Paul, you just told 74 million people that their votes will never, ever count as long as Democrats control the elections in key swing states. And the legislative branch and courts, up to and including SCOTUS, are in on the fix. I do not accept that and I will never accept that! I might not be able to win today, but I will find a way - with the help of others - to win tomorrow. Neil in SD.ReplyDelete
And like so many other GOPe he seems willing to accept Biden Inc. as a legitimate regime.Delete
Neil, I believe you meant John Hinderaker. John is sounding as though he’s hedging his bets. Like the sports announcers in a close game who seesaw their support back and forth, play by play, hoping to end up seeming to be on the winning side. How easy it is for these spectators like Hinderaker to expound based upon 20/20 hindsight and a desire to not really offend the new guy...Delete
"Willing"? Mark, it seems to me to be something sicker. I'll go with "...eager to embrace..." Paul's Power Line column today was deeply disturbing. Read it all, as they say, if you really want to see deeply into the GOPe. We need to chose our words carefully here to describe the GOPe. Quisling? Vichyite? Turncoat? Neil in SD.ReplyDelete
The Establishment is plenty scared of what happened on January 6th. No, not the faux riot, but the simple fact that Trump brought 500,000 to 1,000,000 people to Washington during a pandemic, on a bitter cold Wednesday morning. They know we the people...will be back.ReplyDelete
The latest on the “experimental” vaccine. Seems it could be very hard on those it is supposed to protect:ReplyDelete
Very Frail "Should Probably NOT Be Vaccinated,”
Says Top Norwegian Doc After 13 Elderly Deaths
Linked to Pfizer's Experimental Concoction
Those elderly who are in nursing homes are most often “very frail”...
Right. I saw something about 55 deaths in the US associated with the vaccine. Going by the stats, you could say: It's hard on the only people who are actually at risk.Delete
VACCINE TESTING FOCUSES ON KIDSDelete
Clinical trials underway to ensure COVID-19 inoculations are safe for children
Moderna is recruiting in several states for a vaccine trial involving children ranging in age from 12 to 17. In California, that includes La Mesa, with plans to recruit in Banning as well.
“Our goal is to generate data in the spring of 2021 that will support the use of (Moderna’s vaccine) in adolescents in advance of the 2021 school year,” said Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, in a statement last month. “(This) adolescent study will help us assess the potential safety and immunogenicity of our COVID-19 vaccine candidate in this important younger age population. We hope we will be able to provide a safe vaccine to provide protection to adolescents so they can return to school in a normal setting.”
Eventually, Moderna plans to study its vaccine in kids aged 1 to 11.
Separate from the whole question of the political weaponizing of Covid, is a more strictly medical science issue: The spectacular success of vaccines against certain deadly diseases has led to a lack of perspective in some in the medical profession--and Fauci is a prime example. When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. They think vaccines are the solution to every disease. The reality is--not so much. The flu vaccine is a perfect example, and the failure to come up with vaccines for upper respiratory diseases that are comparably effective to the earlier big successes also demonstrates that vaccines are not a universal solution.Delete
Why the big push to immunize the least vulnerable part of the population? On the other hand 12 - 17 is the most effective demographic to center on for population control.Delete
While that may seem like tinfoil hat territory how can any "official" source be trusted after the verifiable lies that have been promulgated over the last 4 years and longer. Exhibit A: unidentified aerial (and submersible) phenomenon we discover are real and no more ascribable to an even general origin than they were 75 years ago when first encountered by sober, trained, and experienced military pilots and the gov't started lying about them.
By what possible yard stick can either gov't or industry be considered trustworthy. This goes back to the legitimacy of gov't, authority, and credentials.
I wouldn't call that tinfoil hat territory. I mean, population control.Delete
Not exactly OT:ReplyDelete
This is literally sedition. Members of the Surratt group were hung on less evidence of conspiracy than this.
Buried in the Lindsay Graham document drop:ReplyDelete
Stephen McIntyre digs through the Pientka interview by Graham's Senate Committee:
>> https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1350637446468431873 <<
You should read the entire thread.
He requested the independent enhanced validation of Steele's intel, and it was shut down, NOT "denied."
Pientka makes it clear he was not happy with the normal validation being done by CI people at FBI.
Quit CH and went back to WFO in protest, Jan 2017.
I agree, McIntyre and Mahncke are doing a good job reviewing this stuff. What happened to those Friday indictments?Delete
I figure Durham has a couple days left before the Inauguration to drop them; if he doesn't, then I do not see how he avoids being shut down soon thereafter.Delete
The lack of prosecutors bailing out from his probe suggest he's still got something up his sleeve, but IMHO he's running out of time to act on it to inoculate himself to some extent from Biden admin just shutting him down, claiming lack of indictments reflect nothing to be investigated.
Q: Why are you telling me "You should read the entire thread" when McIntyre says the whole point of it is to show "the abject uselessness and failure" of Graham's process? I already knew that. And if McCabe was the driver of it all, that tells me there will be no pros of any importance because he knows too much about Hillary.Delete
But I did read it. I'm not stupider, but I'm not smarter, either.Delete
"...because he knows too much about Hillary."
And your theory is that he can't be prosecuted because he'll rat out Mrs Clinton? And this will stop Durham? Because he'd rather not be Arkancided?
I read it, too. Made me wonder who told Priestap to 'shut it down'.Delete
I doubt they'd frame it quite like that. Probably something high minded like national reconciliation or something like that--like the supposed reason they didn't release anything before the election, and still haven't. However, I think the strategy is to play it out and let the new regime shut it down. Then they can say, well, it's up to the public to make them pay.Delete
I guess I was kidding about the Arkancide thing...Delete
But I'm left with the sinking feeling that, for reasons I still don't understand (after thousands of hours of reading), neither Mrs Clinton's crimes nor FBI misconduct in investigating Trump are prosecutable. If this is the case, I hope Durham explains why. I appreciate that non-prosecution decisions are normally not explained, but here confidence in the DoJ (among many Americans) is already so low.
Regarding who told Priestap to tell Pientka to shut the enhanced source validation review down, shipwreckedcrew says it was Strzok, although strictly speaking Priestap outranked Strzok.Delete
So presumably it was MCabe who told Strzok to tell Priestap to tell Pientka. The reason was that they needed Steele to be viable to use the Dossier for a FISA to spy on Carter Page and then the two-step, etc.
PS While I appreciate his insights, I'm old fashioned enough to be really put off by shipwreckedcrew's misspelling of Pientka's name. There are good reasons why people who want to be taken seriously should be careful.
What I'm wondering about is why Barr actually came back?Delete
He did stop Mueller, but then...?
Was stopping Muller just an initial play so it looked like he was going to do something, but then he would sit on his hands afterwards?
Did he get cold feet when he finally saw what he was up against?
Maybe he knows something. 'Pietka' is his name without the diacritical marks that are present in Polish. In Polish I assume Pientka is Piętka (pronounced the same, the 'ę' being a nasal vowel) which comes from Pięta. It means a heel of bread. Many peasant names in Polish are whimsical like that. I originally thought it might come from the Polish word for Friday, Piątek ('fifth' day of the week) so his name would mean Joe Friday, but I think now Piętka is it.Delete
@ Frank, that's all I can think--cold feet.Delete
@ Cassander, SWC's article is interesting on a number of levels--especially re internal workings at the FBI. My bottom line, however, is this: I don't think that Pientka was as high minded as SWC would like to believe. If, as SWC very plausibly argues, Pientka was the affiant on the Carter Page FISA application and was as competent as he appears to have been, he would have known that that application was BS. Thus his refusal to answer questions about 'predication'. The specific question there was in re Flynn, but the same principle applies across the CH board. His attorney would not want him running his mouth off about predication because that could wind up implicating him in running an illegal investigation. If he was as competent as he seems to have been, he would have known back in August that this was a politically motivated investigation with nary a shred of predication. If he somehow missed that in August, he would have known soon afterwards. But they can't prosecute him unless they prosecute the people above him, and that leads at least to McCabe, who took big money for his wife's campaign from Terry McCauliffe and who knew all about the Hillary email investigation.Delete
Possibly, after all the drama, Mueller couldn't figure out how to get off the stage without looking like a bigger clown than he was, so Barr was inserted to help out.Delete
Of all the villains in the piece, Mueller (who certainly is one) occupies a strange place. Seemingly, everybody dissembled with abandon in an attempt to bring Trump down: Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Halper, Clapper, Brennan, Schiff...many others...but not Mueller. While he ran a bogus investigation for two years at a cost of tens of millions, he failed to find one example of Russian Collusion with Trump. Surely, given the pressure he was under by the Deep State to deliver he could have found the existence of one little act of collusion to hang Trump, but, no, he didn't. And then, when collusion turned up snake eyes he and Weissmann were off on the obstruction gambit, but, again, at the end of the day, Mueller could not find a single act of obstruction by Trump which he deemed prosecutable.Delete
Given what must have been his marching orders, very strange.