90 Miles From Tyranny

Sunday, February 14, 2021

‘Where’s the short, fat guy?’: Sen. Cruz tweets out hilarious list of rejected impeachment questions

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas tweeted out a hysterical thread that revealed a number of actual questions that were submitted to be asked at former President Trump’s impeachment trial. They were, of course, rejected by the Democrats.

On Saturday, Trump’s impeachment trial was thrown into chaos when it looked like witnesses would indeed be called to testify from both sides of the political aisle, extending the trial by weeks. The Senate originally voted 55-45 to allow witnesses to testify. The leaders managed to come to an agreement that there will be no witnesses but they will receive testimony from GOP Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler concerning a phone call between Trump and Rep. Kevin McCarthy. It’s allegedly hearsay evidence.

In the meantime, Cruz started a Twitter thread that had entertainment value.

He first noted: “Thread: Chaos at the impeachment trial. Dems had agreed to know witnesses, then House Managers changed their mind this morning. Schumer blindsided. Pandemonium. They’re negotiating now to figure out next steps.”

Then Cruz proposed: “2/x While we’re waiting to figure out what’s next, I thought I’d share some of the Qs in the pile that DIDN’T make the cut to be asked yesterday. (These are all real, from various senators, who will remain anonymous.)”

Here is the list of tweeted questions in order:

Question 1: “Where’s the short, fat guy?”

Question 2: “Can we build the Keystone Pipeline if we add Hunter Biden to the board?”

Question 3: “To Manager Swalwell: Tell us about Fang Fang.”

Question 4: “(generic) Have any of the House Managers had sexual relations with a Chinese communist spy? Please explain.”

Question 5: “If we put him in a burlap sack & throw him in the river, and he does not float, must we convict?”

It is no wonder that presiding judge Sen. Pat Leahy decided these questions were inappropriate. They are far too revealing.

The hilarious thread went viral on Twitter. Both sides jumped in… some thought it was laugh-out-loud funny and others chastised Cruz for the thread questioning everything from his law degree, to his constitutional creds, to his mental stability.

Joe loved it: “OK, this shouldn’t be an anonymous question, I want to vote for them. Hopefully it was one of the Texas Senators that asked it.” He continued: “That would be a pretty cheap solution. $500k/month to Hunter, $100k/month to “the big guy”. Build the pipeline. Maybe take the money from pipefitters union dues.”

Marta Lisle simply stated: “This Cruz thread is hysterical.”

Cruz weighed in when it looked like witnesses would be called for the trial. He said Saturday in an interview that Republicans should consider calling Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a witness. But he said it was very unlikely that would happen.

“Nancy Pelosi is clearly a relevant witness to this matter. Speaker Pelosi can testify as to when she knew about the threats on the Capitol and what she knew specifically,” Cruz stated.

“And in particular, she can testify that we heard already that the House Sargent at Arms turned down National Guard protection for the Capitol on January 6, because...

China Is Creating a New Master Race

China's regime does not have ethics or decency, is not bound by law, and does not have a sense of restraint. However, with its rapid weaponization of biotechnology, it does have the technology to start a whole new species of genetically enhanced, goose-stepping humans. Pictured: Soldiers of the People's Liberation Army march on October 1, 2019 in Beijing, China. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

"U.S. intelligence shows that China has conducted human testing on members of the People's Liberation Army in hope of developing soldiers with biologically enhanced capabilities," wrote then Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, in a December 3 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "China Is National Security Threat No. 1."
All these Chinese moves are meant to obtain "biological dominance." "There are," as Ratcliffe noted, "no ethical boundaries to Beijing's pursuit of power."
The experiment evoked the eugenics program of the Third Reich to create a "master race."
Shenzhen's He [Jenkui], after an international uproar caused by news of his dangerous and unethical work, was fined and jailed for "illegally carrying out human embryo gene-editing," but in the Communist Party's near-total surveillance state he obviously had state backing for his experiments.... Beijing's prosecution of He, therefore, looks like an attempt to cool down the furor and prevent the international scientific community from further inquiry into China's activities.
"What is most disturbing about these endeavors is that China has gleaned access to CRISPR and advanced genetic and biotech research, thanks to their relationship with the United States and other advanced Western nations. American research labs, biotech investors, and scientists have all striven to do research and business in China's budding biotech arena... because the ethical standards for research... are so low." — Brandon Weichert, author of The Weichert Report and Winning Space, interview with Gatestone Institute, February 2021.

Bing Su, a Chinese geneticist at the state-run Kunming Institute of Zoology, recently inserted the human MCPH1 gene, which develops the brain, into a monkey. The insertion could make that animal's intelligence more human than that of lower primates. Su's next experiment is inserting into monkeys the SRGAP2C gene, related to human intelligence, and the FOXP2 gene, connected to language skills.

Has nobody in China seen Planet of the Apes?

Or maybe they have. "Biotechnology development in China is heading in a truly macabre direction," writes Brandon Weichert of The Weichert Report in an article posted on the American Greatness website.

In a communist society with unrestrained ambition, researchers are pursuing weird science. What happens when you mix pig and monkey DNA? Chinese experimenters can tell you. How about growing human-like organs in animals? Yes, they have done that as well.

Moreover, Beijing may already be engineering "super soldiers." "U.S. intelligence shows that China has conducted human testing on members of the People's Liberation Army in hope of developing soldiers with biologically enhanced capabilities," wrote then Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, in a December 3 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "China Is National Security Threat No. 1."

It is not clear how far Chinese military researchers have gone. They are, however, advocating use of the CRISPR gene-editing tool to enhance human capabilities, and the Communist Party's Central Military Commission is "supporting research in human performance enhancement and 'new concept' biotechnology."

The People's Liberation Army has gone all-in on gene editing of humans. As leading analysts Elsa Kania and Wilson VornDick report, there are "striking parallels in themes repeated by a number of PLA scholars and scientists from...

Jeff Flake Stars In: SWAMP THING!

The Man At The Center Of the World’s Biggest Story Has A Conflict Of Interest. Why Won’t The Media Report It?

One of the key members of the World Health Organization (WHO) team looking into where COVID-19 originated has a lengthy history suggesting he may hold a vested interest in determining the virus did not leak from a lab – and the media is hardly talking about it.

Much reporting on the WHO’s recent visit to Wuhan has done little to characterize Dr. Peter Daszak, the sole U.S. citizen on the team, and his background. Daszak has a long financial history with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), previous reporting shows. He even organized a PR campaign in early 2020 to paint the lab leak hypothesis as a “conspiracy” in order to relieve the lab and Beijing of any potential scrutiny.

WHO’s investigative team recently ended its mission and declared it unlikely that the virus originated from a lab, only to flip flop on the assertion hours later. By then, dozens of pro China headlines echoing Beijing’s talking points had already been published.

Members of the press widely covered the WHO’s findings, with publications like The New York Times declaring that “China Scores a Public Relations Win After W.H.O. Mission to Wuhan.”

NBC reported the news, too, and cited “Chinese researchers working at the lab” as among those who have dismissed the theory that the virus leaked from the lab. Business Insider wrote that the WHO experts were so sure of the lab theory post-investigation that they were able to take the “hypothesis off the table” entirely.

Other publications, like BBC News and the Associated Press, even cited Daszak in their reporting, but not his direct financial ties in the lab and its research. The AP noted that Daszak said the team “enjoyed a greater level of openness than they had anticipated, and that they were granted full access to all sites and personnel they requested.”

That level of “openness” Daszak bragged about was actually the exact opposite, we found out later. China withheld key information from the WHO team, according to the Wall Street Journal.

CNN’s Becky Anderson spoke with Daszak about the investigation, too. Over the course of about five minutes, Anderson did not ask Daszak any questions regarding his history with the Wuhan lab and his open condemnation of the lab theory from the very start of the pandemic.

The hypothesis contends that COVID-19 might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China. Members of the media, along with Chinese operatives on Twitter, dismissed the theory as a “baseless” conspiracy for nearly a year.

On Wednesday, just after the WHO team’s announcement pushed back on the lab leak theory, Daszak criticized the State Department and U.S. intelligence for not blindly trusting the group. State Department spokesman Ned Price said Tuesday that it won’t draw a conclusion regarding the findings until the department reviews the WHO’s report.

Daszak tweeted in response to Price’s comments and suggested people not “rely too much on US intel.” He also wrote that the White House should “TRUST” the panel first and only later “VERIFY” the information.

President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, disagreed Saturday in no uncertain terms.

“We have deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of the COVID-19 investigation were communicated and questions about the process used to reach them,” Sullivan said in a statement released by the White House.

Daszak’s Wednesday comments are just the latest in his effort to exclude the very real probability the virus leaked from a lab, despite the fact that...

Sad Valentine's Day?

Senate Acquits Trump For Second Time, Just One Year After First Impeachment Attempt

Senate lawmakers acquitted former President Donald Trump for a second time Saturday, marking the end of a five-year campaign by Democrats to achieve the top item on their agenda before, during, and after Trump’s one-term presidency.

The weekend vote acquitted Trump on charges of “incitement of insurrection,” passed by the lower-chamber last month in a snap impeachment featuring no hearings and no witnesses, exactly one week after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Ultimately seven Republicans joined with 48 Senate Democrats and two Independents in voting to impeach Trump, bringing the final tally to 57-43, ten votes short of the 67 needed to convict.

Trump’s second acquittal by the Senate comes almost exactly a year after the upper chamber dismissed two articles passed by Democrats in a soap opera show trial over charges of abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

This year’s impeachment, pursued by Democrats even after the president left office, focused on the January riot at the Capitol that featured a horde of Trump supporters interfering with congressional certification of the electoral college vote. Democrats in the House were joined by 10 Republicans in their impeachment vote over Trump’s alleged incitement, despite the former president’s explicit call for his supporters to protest peacefully before the riot.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” Trump told his supporters gathered near the White House. “Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections.”

“We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” the former president said in the same speech.

A timeline of events compiled by the New York Times determined rioters launched their assault on the Capitol a full 20 minutes before Trump even finished speaking that day.

Nevertheless a handful of Republican lawmakers, led by Liz Cheney of Wyoming, joined the Democrat impeachment effort, which would have barred Trump from ever holding public office again. Cheney’s vote provoked backlash on two fronts, with Republicans in Congress and voters at home.

Cheney’s statements were frequently quoted by Democrats and their progressive allies in legacy media, even being prominently featured at the top of House Democrat impeachment manager Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin’s closing argument.

“The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” Cheney claimed of the Capitol riots. “Everything that followed was his doing.”

While last year’s impeachment trial lasted several weeks, this year’s lasted only several days, opening on Tuesday and concluding with a Saturday vote just before 4:00 p.m. Earlier that morning, the trial threatened to go longer as confusion gripped the upper chamber over whether there would be witnesses.The Democrat impeachment managers won a procedural vote offering the green light to...