Satan worshiper?
Posted on 10/23/2019 10:21:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The unidentified whistleblower whose bombshell complaint is at the center of the Democrat’s impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump has suggested they may be accused of political bias for a third, unreported reason.
The whistleblower acknowledged to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) that bias against President Trump might be alleged against him or her for a reason that was previously unreported, sources familiar with the ICIG investigation revealed to Fox News.
However, the nature of that third reason has not been disclosed.
Two previous reasons for potential political bias against the mystery whistleblower have been reported - firstly, that they are a registered Democrat and secondly, that they failed to disclose meeting with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Maybe he/she don’t exist, Maybe it’s Shifftheads invisible friend and there’s no such person. “A bunch upon a times, I lied.”
Because the whistleblower is Adam Schiff?
Now as is evident, the purpose and functionality in the information-blitherization is to generate more and more talking points. The Whistleblower. The first reason for the whistleblower, The second whistle blower but his/her first reason. The second reason for the first WB. The third reason for the second WB, notwithstanding the 2nd reason for the first WB, unless the third WB had an identical reason to the first WB. Who was drinking buddies with the second WB.
The purpose of this is to generate conditions where multiple pronouns can be used so that nobody knows quite whom is being referred to. Next, we will have the second reason dated October 23, while the third WB’s second reason was issued prior to the first WB’s third reason. That is, until it becamse clear from the first WB’s initial statement that the third WB’s second reason was contingent upon the send WB’s cooperation the inquiry.
I call it blitherization.
This makes it so that idiot newsanchors can talk about this without anyone knowing what they are referring to unless that wish to look stupid by asking “WTF are you talking about?”, creating a situation that anyone who has to ask is simply not informed.
Gee I wonder what that could be in this all out media war on the President???
About a dozen need their necks stretched, and a few hundred doing lengthy prison terms.
Yup. Definitely.
They’re ALL that crazy.
Satan worshiper?
I thought they already knew the WB worked for a current RAT candidate ?
“ However, the nature of that third reason has not been disclosed.”
OK, let me guess.
Uhh, sedition?
Whistleblower is Obama eh!
I think your analysis while properly confusing, is quite accurate. This applies especially to the Clintons. Their language is perfectly confusing to allow them to change the story as needed.
For example, Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian “asset”. But Hillary never said Tulsi worked for the Russians, she’ll claim she meant something about Tulsi helped the Russians in some way. But of course she really did accuse Tulsi. Or did she?
The Clinton Gang’s most serious crime is corruption of language.
The “whistle-blower” was on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation. ;-)
Third reason:::: ::::
Schiff air brushing the testimony....witness Throuple.
Hahahahaha!
The only people who believe there is an ACTUAL “whistleblower” at this point in this whole ridiculous “investigation” are likely composing their letters to Santa right now. Gotta send ‘em early!
You said it better than I could.... I was just going to say... Somebody said something to someone who can say anything about something else to do with the something else who can might have something to do with said something.
Wow thank you autocorrect!!!
All your internet are now belong to us.
My response was meant to be properly confusing. This is deliberate. It’s designed to create anti-clarity, anti-coherence in/of language. Blitherization. Every point of information is divided, then sub-divided, then sub-sub divided. It depends upon what the meaning of “is” is. Until the salient facts are reduced to a level where even if and when one gets their mind around it/them, they have by then become only 1/8th of the picture. Ergo, nothing is probative, nothing is definitive. And as you imply, even if we agree on 7/8ths of the story, it’s never too late to change that last eighth.
Honestly, 2ndDV, I think you’re bonkers and have gone around the bend! I can go with blatherization, and I can even go with blizterization, but blitherization is a bridge too far, you blundering bumbler of blooperization! Bumfuzzler! Blistering is too good for you! :D
Is it Hillary?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.