Partial answer: They’re not mutually exclusive at all.
Corbell has better sourcing than me here, I imagine (cause you’ve heard what I know from Congress, basically).
But Intel & Pentagon top brass maintain close relationships with party leaders (across the ideological spectrum, mind you) and chairs of powerful committees on Capitol Hill.
I’ve sensed their — whoever they are — presence since THEY FUCKIN GUTTED SCHUMER’S UAPDA. 2. Times. Now.
Someone who’s powerful, in the shadows and who really cares about the topic has yet to reveal themselves…
According to Corbell “they” were manipulating the hearing in real time, and Burchett was aware of it as it was happening. Not mutually exclusive at all. But in this case the strings were being pulled directly by the puppet masters, whoever they are. The Gatekeepers are powerful indeed. Immaculate Constellation was not, Corbell implied, a DOD USAP. So technically Susan Gough was “truthful” in her denial. Whose was it? The answer to that seems to be the key.
Yes, it could. I don’t know why I interpreted it to mean inside Congress, and I might be wrong. Matt was there and asking the question. He doubtless has a better sense of what was meant.
I agree with Matt here, they need not be mutually exclusive. If we’ve learned anything about the Control Group, it’s that they try to never do the dirty work themselves so as to maintain plausible deniability. “They” exert pressure on Comer or whoever, and he then pressures the UAP caucus to cancel the hearing, or uninvite the 1st hand whistleblowers.
Moskowitz seemed to be saying that the obstacles were “internal” (I read “internal” to mean Congress); but Jeremy says that the pressure came from “agencies” (without specifying yet whether that means DoD, IC, or DoE). I hope we find out soon.
You and I, both!
Partial answer: They’re not mutually exclusive at all.
Corbell has better sourcing than me here, I imagine (cause you’ve heard what I know from Congress, basically).
But Intel & Pentagon top brass maintain close relationships with party leaders (across the ideological spectrum, mind you) and chairs of powerful committees on Capitol Hill.
I’ve sensed their — whoever they are — presence since THEY FUCKIN GUTTED SCHUMER’S UAPDA. 2. Times. Now.
Someone who’s powerful, in the shadows and who really cares about the topic has yet to reveal themselves…
According to Corbell “they” were manipulating the hearing in real time, and Burchett was aware of it as it was happening. Not mutually exclusive at all. But in this case the strings were being pulled directly by the puppet masters, whoever they are. The Gatekeepers are powerful indeed. Immaculate Constellation was not, Corbell implied, a DOD USAP. So technically Susan Gough was “truthful” in her denial. Whose was it? The answer to that seems to be the key.
Yes, it could. I don’t know why I interpreted it to mean inside Congress, and I might be wrong. Matt was there and asking the question. He doubtless has a better sense of what was meant.
No doubt. Care to weigh in, Professor?
*can we tag each other here? Cause if not that’s a f’n flaw!
I'd say not
@matt Laslo
I agree with Matt here, they need not be mutually exclusive. If we’ve learned anything about the Control Group, it’s that they try to never do the dirty work themselves so as to maintain plausible deniability. “They” exert pressure on Comer or whoever, and he then pressures the UAP caucus to cancel the hearing, or uninvite the 1st hand whistleblowers.
Moskowitz seemed to be saying that the obstacles were “internal” (I read “internal” to mean Congress); but Jeremy says that the pressure came from “agencies” (without specifying yet whether that means DoD, IC, or DoE). I hope we find out soon.
Internal, in this case, could just mean within USG?