TRANSPARENT? C-SPAN DISABLES CHAT DURING PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARING

CAP

Americans now mere spectators instead of participants in their own government

11/13/2019

C-Span has blocked viewers from chatting on its YouTube livestream of the public impeachment hearings, a move which crystallizes the age-old complaint that Americans don’t have much voice in their government:

While the move was ostensibly intended to stop trolls, that’s what moderators are for, and frankly speaking something as big as the attempted removal of a US president who was duly-elected by millions of Americans should be in public discourse.

By being blocked from chatting about the ongoing impeachment process, Americans are now mere spectators of their government instead of active participants, something that would probably make Edward Bernays proud, but not the Founding Fathers who drafted the impeachment process.

Case in point, Facebook has been banning people for stating the name of the alleged “whistleblower” even though, per federal law, only the intel inspector general is required to not reveal who he is.

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society,” Bernays believed. “Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

“…We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”

Matt Bracken breaks down the whistleblower Eric Ciaramella as the key to understanding the coup against Trump.
The Black Friday sales have arrived early! Get up to 70% off our hottest products as well as free-shipping and double Patriot Points while the sale lasts!

“And You’re Their Star Witness?” – BOOM! Jim Jordan RIPS TO SHREDS Schiff’s Star Witness Anti-Trumper Ambassador Taylor (VIDEO)

 

“I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this!”

— Rep. Jim Jordan.

BOOM! Jim Jordan just destroyed Schiff’s star witness Ambassador Taylor.

OMG! SOOOOOO GOOD!

Jim Jordan got Ambassador Taylor to admit that everything he has said in his testimony is based on second-hand, third-hand and fourth-hand information!

Facebook Removes Any News Reporting On – or Even Mention of – Who the ‘Whistleblower’ Is Alleged to Be

CAP

By ALLUM BOKHARI 11/8/2019

See the source image

Facebook is removing any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name and is cracking down against Facebook publishers that mention any allegation of the potential whistleblower’s name, claiming they are violating Facebook’s Community Standards and Policies.

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 ExaminerThe 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.

Nadler: “Possibility” Senate Will Vote To Remove Trump From Office

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/08/nadler_possibility_senate_will_vote_to_remove_trump_from_office.html?jwsource=cl

CAP

Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date November 8, 2019

In an interview on Thursday night on MSNBC, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) told host Chris Hayes there is a “possibility” that the Senate will remove President Trump from office given the results of the off-year elections earlier this week.

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.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑