By Mark Dice – 11/11/2019
Fecesblock sucks and Epstein didn’t kill himself.

by Cristina Laila
Ciaramella’s lawyers sent the Senate Intel Committee a letter stating they were anxious and eager to come in and speak to congressional investigators — and now they are backing out.
Burr insisted he would protect the identity of the ‘whistleblower’ even though investigative reporter Paul Sperry published the snitch’s name — Eric Ciaramella.
Perhaps this is why the pajama boy is backing out — he can’t take the heat after the conservative media outed him, his liberal bias and orchestrated coup with Schiff and other Trump haters.
The fake news liberal media however continues to protect the CIA leaker by refusing to say his name.
“We protect whistleblowers. We protect witnesses in our committee,” Burr told reporters.
The Senate Intel Committee chaired by the worthless RINO Richard Burr and his Vice Chair Mark Warner are currently reviewing the process behind the handling of the whistleblower complaint that was filed in August.
As part of his committee’s investigation, Burr wants to talk to the ‘whistleblower’ but Eric Ciaramella’s lawyers have clammed up.
“I think they were disingenuous when they sent us a letter that they were willing to come before the committee,” Burr said.
Ciaramella’s lawyers offered congressional investigators written answers to questions under oath, however Burr said this is “not acceptable.”
Ciaramella and his fellow coup plotters can only thrive in the shadows. Sunlight is the best disinfectant which is why he is now hiding from congressional investigators.

By ALLUM BOKHARI 11/8/2019

For example, on Wednesday evening, Facebook removed Breitbart posts reporting on the fact other respected news outlets have reported the identity of the alleged whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. Any Facebook user who attempts to click on that article on Facebook is now given a message that says, “this content isn’t available at the moment.”
To be clear, Breitbart did not “out” the alleged whistleblower but did provide additional relevant reporting about him; he is, after all, a public figure, having served on the National Security Council. Moreover, his name has been used in the Mueller report (p283) and Ambassador Bill Taylor’s testimony.
Administrators of Breitbart News’ Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday evening stating that Breitbart’s page is “at risk of being unpublished” but were not given any details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue.
Yesterday afternoon, however, in response to questions from Breitbart, a Facebook spokesman issued the following statement:
Any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content “outing of witness, informant, or activist.” We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.
Breitbart News is currently the 68th-most visited site in the United States according to Alexa, and the 13th most-engaged Facebook publisher in the world according to NewsWhip.
Multiple other publishers have named the alleged whistleblower or reported on outlets naming him, including Heavy.com, the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, and the Western Journal. Saagar Enjeti, Chief Washington Correspondent for The Hill, also tweeted the alleged whistleblower’s name.
Radio hosts Mark Levin and Glenn Beck, Students for Trump co-chair Ryan Fournier, former Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza, One America News host Jack Posobiec, and TownHall.com senior columnist Kurt Schlichter are among the other public figures and major media personalities who have also named the alleged whistleblower.
It isn’t only conservatives reporting on Ciaramella. New York Magazine and HuffPost contributor Yashar Ali identified Ciaramella as the alleged whistleblower in a since-deleted tweet. Ali claimed to have confirmed the identity with three sources. Facebook’s requirement to revise its policy on Ciaramella appears to already have been met.
Other publishers that have named the alleged whistleblower on Facebook have reported that their posts have been taken down as well.

By Shane Trejo
Social media is taking cues from the fake news, which steadfastly refuses to disclose Ciaramella’s name. Twitter is even restricting and temporarily banning accounts that mention Ciaramella as the Big Tech giant grows desperate to prevent the truth from going viral.



Unfortunately for Twitter, the name is already widely circulating despite their best efforts. The fake news freaked out after Donald Trump Jr. posted Ciaramella’s name on his Twitter account earlier today.

Stunning incompetence at the hands of the Democrats has also put the reported name of the whistleblower out there for the public to see. House Intelligence Committee staffers, led by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), apparently forgot to redact Ciaramella’s name when they publicly released a transcript of acting U.S. Ambassador for Ukraine Bill Taylor’s testimony on Wednesday.

The story started to gain traction last week after Ciaramella was named as the likely whistleblower in a report published by journalist Paul Sperry at Real Clear Investigations (RCI). This has been largely ignored by the fake news and is now being censored by social media platforms, as the coordinated suppression effort rears its ugly head yet again.
Tom Kuntz, who works as editor of RCI, compares what he is seeing from the establishment to a mafia code of silence.
“The silence has been deafening,” he told The Week. “It’s almost like there’s a code of omerta [the Mafia vow of silence] about what media organizations can report. . . . There’s a herd mentality and a reluctance to cut against the grain.”
The fake news defends their right to stifle the truth from being known to the public.
“I’m not convinced his identity is important at this point, or at least important enough to put him at any risk, or to unmask someone who doesn’t want to be identified,” said Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times. “Pretty much everything has now been discussed or confirmed on the record, multiple times, by others in the administration. So I’m not sure I see the point of unmasking someone who wants to remain anonymous.”
Of course, the whistleblower’s identity is newsworthy because of Ciaramella’s extensive ties to the Democratic Party, which reveals that he is a partisan operative rather than a legitimate whistleblower acting in the public interest. It was reported on Wednesday that Ciaramella worked intimately with individuals who were influential in circulating the infamous and debunked Steele dossier to kick off the Russian collusion investigation that ultimately yielded nothing on the President.
Ciaramella also worked closely with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA director John Brennan. He also took orders from Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice. He is a deep state operative with an ax to grind, and biased fake news reporters and social media providers will not be able to obfuscate the truth from the public for very much longer.

Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date November 8, 2019
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Do you see the process as possibly ending in the removal of the president of the United States? Is that a live possibility in your mind?
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): I think it is a possibility. I don’t know how to estimate the possibility, but I would certainly say it’s not a zero possibility. … I think it’s possible, depending how strong the evidence is, and depending on other political considerations, that maybe the Senate will act to remove the president. But I’m not going to give an estimate, and I can’t estimate that, but I will say I don’t think it’s a zero possibility. That’s a very cynical view that it’s a zero possibility. I also, to be political about it, I think some Republican senators may take a look at the election results the other day and start thinking, maybe I should be a little more fair and not dismissive.
By Fleccas Talks
By Tyler Durden – 11/5/2019
Robach added in a statement “I was caught in a private moment of frustration,” and was “upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence.” (Somehow the Miami Herald got the job done, however.)
O’Keefe suggests this is a ‘cover your ass, lawyer-speak response.’
A new undercover video from Project Veritas reveals that ABC News knew of Jeffrey Epstein‘s sex crimes, yet decided to ignore it according to undercover footage from Project Veritas.

Amy Robach, ‘Good Morning America’ Co-Host and Breaking News Anchor at ABC, explains how a witness came forward years ago with information pertaining to Epstein, but Disney-owned ABC News refused to air the material for years. Robach vents her anger in a “hot mic” moment with an off-camera producer, explaining that ABC quashed the story in it’s early stages. “I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (Now Virginia Guiffre) [alleged Epstein victim]. We would not put it on the air. Um, first of all, I was told “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein. No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.”
She continues, “The Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.” -Project Veritas
“…[T]here will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known,” said Attorney Brad Edwards.
According to Robach, “I had it all three years ago.”
Watch:
This is far from the first time Epstein’s crimes have been covered up, minimized, or ignored.
Perhaps most famously, former US Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta negotiated a ‘sweetheart deal’ for Epstein in 2008 after he pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor. The pedophile financier was able to ‘work’ outside of prison most days, during which time he reportedly continued to abuse girls.
Additionally, the Manhattan DA’s office headed by Cyrus Vance Jr. had ‘graphic and detailed evidence’ of Epstein’s crimes when a prosecutor argued for leniency during his 2011 sex offender registry hearing, according to an April report in the New York Post.
In advance of the hearing, then-deputy chief of Sex Crimes, Jennifer Gaffney, had been given a confidential state assessment that deemed Epstein to be highly dangerous and likely to keep preying on young girls, the DA’s office admitted in its own appellate brief eight months after the hearing.
…
Manhattan prosecutors were aware the state board had assigned Epstein a risk assessment of 130, a number that is “solidly above the 110 qualifying number for level three,” with “absolutely no basis for downward departure,” the brief notes.
Nevertheless, Gaffney argued that he should be labeled a level one offender, the least restrictive, which would keep him off the online database. –New York Post
While Acosta lost his job in the Trump administration over his actions in 2008, will anyone be held truly accountable for enabling Epstein’s decades-long pattern of abuse?