ID of whistleblower all but confirmed by Chief Justice Roberts

As the Schiff show in Washington moves into its final (thank goodness) day of Q&A, the identity of the whistleblower whose complaint provided the Democrats with the excuse to begin this charade has been identified, through the refusal of Chief Justice Roberts to read aloud a simple and relevant question submitted by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). This was the question:

"To the Manager Schiff and counsel for the President:
Manager Schiff and Counsel for the President, are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together, 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?"

Why did Judge Roberts refuse to read the question? Because, he said, he would not read questions that reveal the name of the whistleblower. That can only mean that either Shawn Misko or Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower.

Here's what Senator Paul had to say about the issue:
"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. [A]nd 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."

It would not be uncharitable to construe the Chief Justice's refusal to allow valid questions, from a member of the "jury" in this impeachment trial, as an attempt to rig the trial against Still-President Trump. To refuse to respond to, or even hear a juror's question is contrary to a very basic principle of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

It is also a violation of the Sixth Amendment of the American Constitution to not allow the president to face, question and cross-examine his accuser. How can a jury make a fair decision without knowing who the accuser is and understanding his motives? As Walt told you in "Eric-Ciaramella -- whistleblower?" (WWW 28/12/19), Eric Ciaramella is a CIA analyst and raging anti-Trumper, who has a history of working with former Vice President Joe Biden, and might well have had his own agenda in wanting to cover up the corruption in the Ukraine of Old Slow Joe and his opportunistic son.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter. Just about everyone who isn't wilfully blind had heard of Mr Ciaramella and his role in this sordid affair over a month ago. And tonight or early tomorrow, the balls-aching Schiff show will come to an end (see "Impeachment: The Fat Lady is warming up in the wings", WWW 30/1/20), leaving the decision about President Trump's actions to the American people, just over 11 months from now. Lifetime pct .990.

Impeachment: The Fat Lady is warming up in the wings

The impeachment trial of Still-President Trump is all but over. That's according to third-most senior Republican Senator John Barrasso, who told Thomson-Reuters it was possible the trial could end on Friday without witnesses being called, as urged by the Democrats.

"The momentum is clearly in the direction of moving to final judgment on Friday," he said. "That vote will be Friday. We still have a couple of members who said they want to listen to the answers to questions, but that's where the momentum is."

Yesterday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who's in charge of the persecution of the President, tried to convince the Senate that it had to subpoena more witnesses and documents because... wait for it... it could not "rely on what was investigated in the House."

Cazart! Did he really mean to admit that the House investigation was insufficient, even as fellow House impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) claimed that the impeachment case had already been "proven beyond any doubt at all. See "Senate refuses Dem motions to delay hearing their 'unassailable case'", WWW 21/1/20.

Mr Schiff claimed that it would be unprecedented to hold a Senate trial without witnesses. He had previously denied all Republican requests for new witnesses in the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs, but this is different, see, because this is the Senate and, errr, we haven't had a chance to bring forward all the important new evidence which we suddenly manufactured... errr, discovered.

In the marathon question-and-answer sessions which are expected to wrap up today, the Democrats repeatedly stressed the need to call former National Security Adviser John Bolton. But Republicans noted that Mr Schiff did not want to have the so-called "whistleblower" (Eric Ciaramella?) testify, and had hidden a key transcript that could reveal details about how the complaint against the president had been launched.

When asked why the Senate should call more witnesses and documents if the House Intelligence Committee would not release the testimony of the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Mr Schiff dodged the query, saying that whatever deficiencies the House may or may not have brought to the Senate were not "sufficient to relieve the Senate of the obligation to have a trial." Mr Schiff reported channelled Vince offer, exclaiming "But wait! There's more!"

During a break in the Q&A, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) was asked if the Dumbocrats' fight for witnesses was lost. "I don't know that for sure one way or the other," he said, but called the tone and questions of senators "not encouraging." The Schiff show continues. Stay tuned...

UPDATED: Thoughts on the death of Kobe Bryant

So, farewell then, Kobe Bryant. News of your death in a helicopter crash has pushed the Wuhan corona virus down to second place in both the USA and China. Jack Nicholson thought you were great, but you were really the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time). You once scored 81 points in a game against the Toronto Raptors. And you inspired P.K. Subban to be the "transcendant defenceman" that Dave Stubbs thinks he is. [Isn't that another sport? Ed.]

Between now and Groundhog Day, Walt expects to hear "Amazing Grace" sung (badly) many many times. But you won't hear it. Rest in peace.

UPDATE ADDED 28/1/20. The Washington Post has suspended typist Felicia Sonmez for tweeting the link to "Kobe Bryant opens up about how rape charges changed him", originally posted on the NBC Sports website, 16/7/12. De mortuis nil nisi bonum, eh, WaPo?

The good old days - a short rant

We turn our attention, today, from impeachment trials, Harry and Floozie, and other matters of great import, to small everyday concerns, like carrying your groceries home from the store.

Back in the good old days, before the world was covered in plastic, the grocery store (later, supermarket) packed your groceries in sundries in paper bags, like those worn here by Mr and Mrs Walt. Yes, they packed the bags for you. And they were free, even when the heavy stuff needed to be double-bagged. The store would carry them to your car too! And the bags were useful for other things, like putting your garbage in, or hiding your face if you were a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs. All for free.

Then came plastic bags. Merchants liked them because they were cheaper, lighter, and easier to handle. Shoppers liked them because they had handles, and were less likely to tear under the weight of groceries or wet garbage. They were more reusable (as kitchen catchers, for instance) than the paper bags. And they were free too, in the good, not-so-old days.

A couple of years ago, however, the stores, under pressure from the eco-weenies and climate alarmists, started to charge for the plastic carrier bags. Instead, they wanted us to use bigger, heavier, reusable shopping bags aka tote bags, available for purchase for a mere 99 cents. This was ostensibly to protect the environment by reducing the incredible amount of plastic littering the countryside and going into landfills or (worse) the sea. Fair enough. We (Mrs Walt and YVT) use the nickel bags [referring only to the carrier bags! Ed.], most of the time, and don't object to paying 5 cents when we forget to take the tote bags to the store.

But the climate activists remain unsatisfied. They have now succeeded in pressuring at least one major supermarket chain to discontinue selling plastic bags. Instead, if you fail to bring your own bag, you will have to pay ten (10) cents (plus tax!) for a paper bag! And not the good ones, with handles, but the plain, old-fashioned paper bags shown in the picture.

Why have the supermarkets been so quick to co-operate in the scheme to shut down Big Oil? (You knew, eh, that the plastic bags are made from oil.) For the answer, follow the money! I've done some pricing, and find that the cost to the supermarkets for one paper bag is about 2 or 3 cents, depending on whether they want them to carry advertising or not. So that's a profit to the merchants of, say, 7 cents per paper bag, compared with a lousy 3 or 4 cents on a plastic bag. Geddit?

And never mind that paper bags are made from, errr, paper, which comes from trees. Paper manufacturers are doubtless happy to see the prospect of increased sales, after a steady decline in consumption of low-end paper products, such as newsprint and, yes, paper bags. Good news for all concerned, except of course for us consumers, who are being nickel and dimed to death, one bag at a time.

A trenchant comment on the "gun problem"

No comment needed. Thanks to Agent 35 for sending this.

“Death, Judgment, Hell and Heaven” - Lenten Mission - Fr Isaac Relyea Saint Catharines, Ontario - 20-23 February

February 26th is Ash Wednesday. What better way to get ready for this season of reflection and repentance than by hearing a soul-stirring Catholic mission -- "Death, Judgment, Hell and Heaven" -- preached by Father Isaac Mary Relyea. This series of four powerful talks will be given at Holy Face of Jesus Church (SSPX) in Saint Catharines ON, from February 20th to 23rd.

Father Relyea is a traditional Franciscan priest from New York. After a successful secular career, Father entered religious life following a reversion to the Catholic Faith.

He is well known as a powerful speaker, who has travelled internationally since ordination to preach traditional missions and speak at conferences, particularly on the Four Last Things. Father has not given this Mission since 2013. It's definitely one you don't want to miss!

"Death, Judgment, Hell and Heaven" is a stirring wake-up call to modern society, which has desensitized itself to the realities of sin, death, man's immortal soul, and the life hereafter! Father Relyea follows the wisdom of saints such as St. Alphonsus de Liguori and St. Leonard of Port Maurice. Attending this Mission has helped many people. It has brought about conversions, changed life-styles, increased fervor, and helped people commit themselves to living a life centered on Christ.

Holy Face of Jesus Church
181 Lake Street
St. Catharines, Ontario
120 km from Toronto and
45 miles from Buffalo.

Thursday, February 20th - Rosary 7:00 pm, Conference 7:30 pm
Friday, February 21st - Rosary 7:00 pm, Conference 7:30 pm
Saturday, February 22nd - Rosary 10:30 am, Conference 11:00 am
Sunday, February 23rd - Rosary 12:30 pm, Conference 1:00 pm

"Death, Judgment, Hell and Heaven" is sponsored in part and promoted by the Fatima Center, founded by Father Nicholas Gruner+. For more information, including information on accommodations at special rates, visit the Fatima.org website.

Astounding! CNN writer accuses Adam Schiff of abetting Putin

Ed. here. Incredible as it may seem, the Clinton News Network has published an op-ed piece by Scott Jennings in which the writer veers from the party line that the Dumbocrats are protecting democracy, and indeed the Republic, from the evil machinations of Still-President Trump. We trust CNN won't mind us reposting here a slightly truncated (but not edited) verion of

Adam Schiff is the one helping Vladimir Putin

destabilize US democracy

On the floor of the US Senate, in full view of the American people, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff finished what Russian President Vladimir Putin started.

"The President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won," Schiff thundered this week, arguing for President Donald Trump's removal.

That comment stopped me in my tracks (and rankled many in the Senate GOP conference) because the conclusion of the US intelligence community was that Russia's interference in the 2016 election was designed "to undermine public faith in the US democratic process," an assessment backed up by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

What could possibly be more fulfilling of Putin's desire to sow discord and mistrust than for a senior member of Congress to stand in the well of the Senate and declare the 2020 election is already illegitimate before a single ballot has been cast?

Putin himself couldn't have scripted a better finale for his operation.

There is something revealing -- and chilling -- in Schiff's views on Trump's retrospective and prospective illegitimacy vis-à-vis the Republicans he routinely pillories for supporting the President. Schiff argues that Trump undermines our political institutions, but what could be more undermining to the Office of the Presidency than for his opposition to seemingly never accept the legitimacy of the person who occupies it?

Despite Schiff's promises, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report flatly stated that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." But that has never stopped Schiff from indulging the Democratic myth that the 2016 election was stolen by the Trump campaign conspiring with a foreign government.

A majority of Republicans did not support Trump in the 2016 primary. In fact, GOP leaders raged and schemed to resist him until the end, but Trump overcame the establishment to win the nomination. Respecting the will of the voters, Republicans, unlike Democrats, ultimately accepted Trump's nomination and then his ascension to the White House.

To them, Trump won fair and square. They may not have liked it, but the system produced a result, and they respected it.

Schiff's reckless statements in the runup to the Mueller report and now this week's impeachment arguments were a continuation of the Democratic emotion to never concede the 2016 election -- and to never acknowledge the legitimacy of a man they detest. Schiff is, in effect, arguing that America's political institutions have already failed and will fail again unless a singular individual is no longer allowed to exist in the system.

As Republican Sen. Josh Hawley told Tucker Carlson, if Schiff's argument is that Trump's 2016 election isn't valid -- and 2020 is likely to be no different -- "and therefore you have to protect democracy by overturning elections... it's no wonder that they [Schiff and fellow Democrats] don't actually want to have this trial."

Schiff exudes the faithlessness of Democrats who are sure that the basic pillars of American democracy, which have stood like immovable rocks in a stormy world for nearly 250 years, crumbled on the night that Trump was elected and cannot be rebuilt unless he is banished from the public square.

One man, they seem to say, is enough to destroy all of the faith in democracy that sprang from the genius of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.

Schiff's passionate floor speeches essentially suggest that Democrats don't want to toss Trump over the Ukrainian matter, but rather over the larger question of his whether he was or could ever be legitimately elected.

If Schiff is right, and this Democrat-only impeachment is overwhelming and righteous, shouldn't he be supremely confident that Trump will lose in a landslide, no matter what levers the President pulls?

Americans are being told by a major political party that, effectively, our democracy no longer works. We are on the cusp of an election in which most experts agree that voter turnout will reach historic levels, and yet Democrats would have us believe that, because Trump is a candidate in that election, we may as well cancel it.

"Can you have the least bit of confidence he'll stand up and protect our national interest over his own? You know you can't, which makes him dangerous to this country," Schiff argued.

But what's more dangerous? Predicting what Trump may or may not do, or fulfilling Putin's wish to project a belief that American democracy failed four years ago and is guaranteed to fail again? Putin won't need a pittance of Facebook ads this time around; he's got Schiff.

Further reading: "Democrats Warn That American People May Tamper With Next Election", Babylon Bee, 23/1/20. Those not familiar with the Bee should take note that the publishers say that they are posting "fake news that you can trust". The photo above was scraped from the Bee article.