The Congressional Intelligence Committee hearing today was everything we anticipated it would be. Which is to say it was: insufferable political posturing, pandering and circular parseltongue swirling the drain of non-intellectual gobbledygook.

These types of congressional hearings are perfect feed pellets for media pundits to blather endlessly, wax philosophically, and engage in long-winded academic esoteric analyses contrasting the implied meanings of stop signs. However, they are ridiculous for all other purposes.

That said, against the backdrop of the espoused intention, and with full acceptance of the historic UniParty Benghazi hearings driven intentionally into the pit of nothingness, prayerfully I’m not the only person who noted that not a single congressional panelist asked Director James Comey or NSA Mike Rogers if they personally were the person who unmasked the identity of General Mike Flynn in the “intelligence intercepts”.

Yes, that’s correct. There is only ONE KNOWN Factual and CRIMINAL activity currently identified: the unmasking and leaking of Mike Flynn’s name to the media.

Yet not a single congressional intelligence committee member would ask Rogers or Comey -under oath- if they were the source of: A) “The Unmasking”, and/or B) “The Leaking”.

Stop for a moment and think about that glaring an intentional non inquiry against the expressed intention of the purpose of the committee.

UniParty.

Bat-Sh!t-Crazy-Frustrating.

The Deep State doesn’t exist they say. Skynet is not self-aware they say. Malware is only harmful if the Russians have it they say. Pay no attention to the embed data code on your gadgets…

FBI Director Comey states his organization is “investigating”. Fair enough, however – not a single congresscritter asked HIM if he’s the source of the unmasking or leaks.

♦ How can a congressional committee conduct an investigation if they don’t know if the primary witness, the lead investigator, is the source of the leaks?

♦ Wouldn’t the very first step, the actual basis of the foundation for the investigation itself, be to ensure the person conducting the investigation did not participate in the illegality of the conduct being investigated?

Think.

Avoid the shiny things.

Why wouldn’t congress ask this simple question?

Admiral Mike Rogers answers that approximately 10-20 people within his NSA organization had the potential to unmask and/or leak to the media. Fair enough.

♦ Wouldn’t the first question as follow-up be to ask Admiral Mike Rogers if he is one of those numbered possibilities?

♦ Wouldn’t the second follow-up question, in an authentic inquiry, be to ask Mike Rogers if he is one of the possibilities with access to that information, then was he actually the person who unmasked or leaked?

If both Mike Rogers and James Comey admit they are in charge of two of the possible source organizations for activity that is expressly admitted to have engaged in illegal behavior,… then what affirmative confidence has either person expressed to congress to ensure the inquiring body that they personally were not the originating source?

Think.

There is NO PEA in this shell game of distraction. Pay no attention to the google van driving down your neighborhood taking pictures. It has emoji faces and stuff… and they won’t give that stuff to the NSA types. Promise. Swear.

Now, oh yeah… the shiny things:

.

.

.

.