Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on October 31, 2019, 05:09:22 PM
-
Report: 'Whistleblower' Identified as CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella
KRISTINA WONG 31 Oct 2019
RealClearInvestigations on Wednesday published the name of the person they believe is most likely the “whistleblower” against President Trump: Eric Ciaramella, an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency.
The outlet reported that Ciaramella’s name has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, as well as at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry.
RealClearInvestigations also reported that House Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking questions about Ciaramella and “intend to redact his name from all deposition transcripts.”
The outlet said:
RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official’s status as a ‘whistleblower’ is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has ‘some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate’ — as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.
It said Ciaramella is 33-years-old, a registered Democrat who began working at the White House during the Obama administration and previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.
Ciaramella left the Trump administration’s National Security Council in mid-2017 over concerns about negative leaks to the media and then returned to the CIA, the outlet reported.
“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” a former NSC official told RealClearInvestigiations .
The outlet also reported that Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), including former NSC colleagues who now work for Schiff.
Ciaramella also worked with a Democratic National Committee operative, Alexandra Chalupa, who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, and he invited her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues told RealClearInvestigations.
“He knows her. He had her in the White House,” one former co-worker told the outlet.
A handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on Ciaramella, which has been circulating on Capitol Hill, the outlet reported.
“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” Fred Fleitz, former CIA analyst and NSC chief of staff, told RealClearInvestigations.
“They’re hiding him,” he added. “They’re hiding him because of his political bias.”
Ciaramella is reportedly a CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine who was detailed over to the National Security Council in the summer of 2015, working under former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice. He also reportedly worked closely with Biden.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/30/realclear-investigations-suggests-whistleblower-likely-33-year-old-cia-analyst-eric-ciaramella/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
How 'Whistleblower' May Be Outed: Ties to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's Staff, Etc.
By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations
October 30, 2019
(http://assets.realclear.com/images/49/492869_5_.png)
Eric Ciaramella as a class of 2004 Connecticut prep student: He later moved on to Yale and the White House. Now he could be at the center of an impeachment storm.
Chase Collegiate School, Waterbury, Conn./The Magpie
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html
-
Personally, I do not care if he is the whistleblower or not. What I don't agree with is all this speculation as if it is a foregone conclusion. You all cry foul when someone is tried in the media and then you jump on something like this? Why? Do you want to seem like a soothsayer who knew what was up before anyone else did? Guess the rules are different for different people, huh?
-
Personally, I do not care if he is the whistleblower or not. What I don't agree with is all this speculation as if it is a foregone conclusion. You all cry foul when someone is tried in the media and then you jump on something like this? Why? Do you want to seem like a soothsayer who knew what was up before anyone else did? Guess the rules are different for different people, huh?
What you are all worked up about? Some of us believe in transparency. And fairness. And motives. And context.
-
Personally, I do not care if he is the whistleblower or not. What I don't agree with is all this speculation as if it is a foregone conclusion. You all cry foul when someone is tried in the media and then you jump on something like this? Why? Do you want to seem like a soothsayer who knew what was up before anyone else did? Guess the rules are different for different people, huh?
LOL, this guy is trying to bring down the President of the United States. Do you really think he was going to stay anonymous forever?
-
Alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella was Biden guest at State Department banquet
by Daniel Chaitin & Jerry Dunleavy
November 07, 2019
Eric Ciaramella, the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, was a guest of Vice President Joe Biden at a glitzy lunch in October 2016 to honor the prime minister of Italy.
. . .
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-was-biden-guest-at-state-department-banquet?fbclid=IwAR28YvLPxreNjvFLcKkM3684wqTPcNn9EFshO0kM8XsDEizMzXNjtyC9epI
-
This guy's lawyer was calling for a coup in 2017. I'm sure it's all okay.
Also...
https://noqreport.com/2019/11/07/eric-ciaramellas-name-appears-testimony-transcript-released-adam-schiff/
-
Please stop calling this piece of shit a whistleblower, he is not a whistleblower under the legal definition.
-
This guy's lawyer was calling for a coup in 2017. I'm sure it's all okay.
Also...
https://noqreport.com/2019/11/07/eric-ciaramellas-name-appears-testimony-transcript-released-adam-schiff/
Smoking gun.
-
Two whistleblowers:
One whose identity privacy is fiercely defended by Democrats, despite all evidence pointing to his ties to the prior administration, his political bias, and his lawyer's questionable statements.
The other exposed ABC having the goods on a pedophile ring and not running the story years ago. He moved to CBS, where ABC gave up his identity, and he was fired. Countless sexual assaults could have been prevented had ABC run the story. Nobody gives a shit about him.
-
Please stop calling this piece of shit a whistleblower, he is not a whistleblower under the legal definition.
That's why I put quotation marks in the thread title.
-
That's why I put quotation marks in the thread title.
Thank you Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
-
Thank you Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
Thank you. :)
-
Facebook Removes News Reporting, Mention of Alleged ‘Whistleblower’s’ Identity
ALLUM BOKHARI8 Nov 2019
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 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.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/11/08/facebook-removes-any-news-reporting-on-or-even-mention-of-who-the-whistleblower-is-alleged-to-be/
-
His name has been on the internet for weeks.
Even in a Drudge article headline.
Then Trump Jr. tweet the article.
And gets accused of "outing" the whistleblower, even though it was.....out there.
Democrats are fucking imbeciles.
-
As her father demands whistleblower's identity, Ivanka Trump says it's "not particularly relevant"
Ivanka Trump expressed some disagreement with her father on one aspect of the impeachment inquiry during an interview with the Associated Press published on Friday morning.
The First Daughter and top White House adviser disagreed with her father — and boss — about the importance of naming the whistleblower who complained about his July 25 call with the Ukrainian president. Ivanka Trump said that the whistleblower's identity is "not particularly relevant" to the inquiry.
"The whistleblower shouldn't be a substantive part of the conversation," she said. "This is a third party who was not privy to the call and did not have firsthand information. That is what was the catalyst for all of this discussion. But to me, it's not particularly relevant aside from what the motivation behind all of this was."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whistleblower-identity-not-particularly-relevant-says-ivanka-trump-in-a-break-from-her-father/
-
It's idiotic that Trumptards think the name of the whistleblower matters
It doesn't change the facts of what Trump did (not only Trump but all his stooges like Sondland and Guiliani, Mulvaney)
We really don't need anything more than the notes from the phone call that Trumptard himself released (apparently against the advise of many people the White House)
We also have a long list of witnesses....many of whom are Trump appointee's....who have all said the same thing which is that Trump was holding up Congressionally mandated funds in order to extort a foreign leader to produce dirt on his political opponent.
The whistleblower could have been Hillary Clinton and it would make ZERO DIFFERENCE
-
His protection and annonymity is based on a 30 yr old federal law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
a law that has always had bi-partisan support and still does with most Republican senators
-
It's idiotic that Trumptards think the name of the whistleblower matters
It doesn't change the facts of what Trump did (not only Trump but all his stooges like Sondland and Guiliani, Mulvaney)
We really don't need anything more than the notes from the phone call that Trumptard himself released (apparently against the advise of many people the White House)
We also have a long list of witnesses....many of whom are Trump appointee's....who have all said the same thing which is that Trump was holding up Congressionally mandated funds in order to extort a foreign leader to produce dirt on his political opponent.
The whistleblower could have been Hillary Clinton and it would make ZERO DIFFERENCE
With Trump's base it is simply a matter of them echoing their leader who wants the whistleblower's identity revealed. When it comes to Trump and his base following the law isn't necessary.
-
Obama’s Ukraine ambassador lied under oath in impeachment inquiry, according to new email evidence
milnenews.com ^ | November 8, 2019 | MilneNews
Posted on 11/8/2019, 1:21:39 PM by ransomnote
According to new email evidence, it appears as though Obama’s Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, perjured herself under oath during her closed-door testimony in House Democrats’ secret impeachment inquiry.
Marie Yovanovitch – appointed U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine by former President Barack Obama – allegedly made false statements under oath during her October 11 closed-door testimony in House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
Fox News’ Tucker Carlson exclusively broke the story saying: “Before the contents of the whistleblower complaint were known publicly, a Democratic congressional staffer contacted the former American ambassador to Ukraine to discuss what the staffer described as ‘quite delicate and time-sensitive questions,’”
“This show has obtained exclusively an email for that Democratic staffer for the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent by private email to the former American ambassador Marie Yovanovitch,” Carlson continued. “Yovanovitch, you know, is a key player in the Democrats’ impeachment probe and was recalled from her post in Ukraine by President Trump in May 2019 following allegations of serious partisanship and political bias.”
The email Tucker Carlson obtained says:
I’m writing to see if you would have time to meet up for a chat — in particular, I’m hoping to discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions we are exploring. I’d appreciate the change to ground-truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are quite delicate/time-sensitive and, thus, we want to make sure we get them right.
“That email was sent on August 14, that was two days after the whistleblower complaint was filed and a month before that complaint became public,” Carlson stated. “The whistleblower, however, went to Adam Schiff’s team before filing the complaint.”
MORE AT LINK
-
What link?
-
What link?
https://milnenews.com/2019/11/08/obamas-ukraine-ambassador-lied-under-oath-in-impeachment-inquiry-according-to-new-email-evidence
-
https://milnenews.com/2019/11/08/obamas-ukraine-ambassador-lied-under-oath-in-impeachment-inquiry-according-to-new-email-evidence
Thanks.
(https://i0.wp.com/milnenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Facebook-has-censored-our-page-for-no-reason.png?w=680&ssl=1)
-
His protection and annonymity is based on a 30 yr old federal law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
No.
You are incorrect.
This piece of shit is not a whistleblower by legal definition and is not afforded anonymity.
You are a liar.
-
His name has been on the internet for weeks.
Even in a Drudge article headline.
Then Trump Jr. tweet the article.
And gets accused of "outing" the whistleblower, even though it was.....out there.
Democrats are fucking imbeciles.
True story. And we're talking about educated adults in many instances.
-
His protection and annonymity is based on a 30 yr old federal law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
Please quote the part of the link you posted that precludes this "whistleblower" from being publicly identified.
-
No.
You are incorrect.
This piece of shit is not a whistleblower by legal definition and is not afforded anonymity.
You are a liar.
Proving it time and again.
-
His name has been on the internet for weeks.
Even in a Drudge article headline.
Then Trump Jr. tweet the article.
And gets accused of "outing" the whistleblower, even though it was.....out there.
Democrats are fucking imbeciles.
Truly unbelievable how insane the TDS inflicted have become
-
No.
You are incorrect.
This piece of shit is not a whistleblower by legal definition and is not afforded anonymity.
You are a liar.
How so?
Legal Definition of whistleblower
: an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency and who is commonly vested by statute with rights and remedies for retaliation
-
This whistleblower has already been shamed into nothingness for his and his attorney's partisanship. No use for him by the press or Schiff so they continue to act like we don't know his name or motivation.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/11/08/facebook-removes-any-news-reporting-on-or-even-mention-of-who-the-whistleblower-is-alleged-to-be/
So it goes on...not sure which is more dangerous - limit of free speech being okay for some or the willingness of these platforms to do it.
-
How so?
Legal Definition of whistleblower
: an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency and who is commonly vested by statute with rights and remedies for retaliation
The so-called whistleblower is not a whistleblower at all. The complaint he filed against President Trump does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the ICWPA. That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community. This was meticulously explained in an 11-page opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) when it issued the following opinion: "The president is not a member of the intelligence community, and his communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or other activity aided at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence." The OLC opinion made it clear that the complaint by the so-called "whistleblower" regarding Ukraine was so deficient that Congress should never have been notified. The acting director of national intelligence agreed with this assessment. The legal analysis and reasoning was sound. In our constitutional form of government, the president is a unitary executive. He is not a member of any department or agency - they report to him.
To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government. Article II of the Constitution gives the president sweeping power to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, make requests or solicit information. The Constitution does not grant the power of review, approval or disapproval to bureaucratic employees. Indeed, the whistleblower law explicitly excludes a complaint involving "differences of opinion concerning public policy matters.
Now both of you lying cocksuckers can fuck off and die.
-
Please quote the part of the link you posted that precludes this "whistleblower" from being publicly identified.
Nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) is anonymity even mentioned. Nor is it found in Presidential Policy Directive 19, which also provides specific whistleblower protections.The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else. Under this framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements. However, identity protection is neither provided for, nor contemplated, anywhere in the language.
-
Nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) is anonymity even mentioned. Nor is it found in Presidential Policy Directive 19, which also provides specific whistleblower protections.The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else. Under this framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements. However, identity protection is neither provided for, nor contemplated, anywhere in the language.
Thanks. How did Howard "I fact check everything" miss this?
-
The so-called whistleblower is not a whistleblower at all. The complaint he filed against President Trump does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the ICWPA. That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community. This was meticulously explained in an 11-page opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) when it issued the following opinion: "The president is not a member of the intelligence community, and his communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or other activity aided at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence." The OLC opinion made it clear that the complaint by the so-called "whistleblower" regarding Ukraine was so deficient that Congress should never have been notified. The acting director of national intelligence agreed with this assessment. The legal analysis and reasoning was sound. In our constitutional form of government, the president is a unitary executive. He is not a member of any department or agency - they report to him.
To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government. Article II of the Constitution gives the president sweeping power to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, make requests or solicit information. The Constitution does not grant the power of review, approval or disapproval to bureaucratic employees. Indeed, the whistleblower law explicitly excludes a complaint involving "differences of opinion concerning public policy matters.
Now both of you lying cocksuckers can fuck off and die.
To put it plainly, legal counsel for the Administration, which includes Trump, are representing their clients. They issued an opinion on the matter of the validity of the whistleblower. Joseph Maguire assumed the role of Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on Aug. 16, 2019.
The whistleblower, who has not been identified publicly, filed the complaint Aug. 12 to the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, who found it credible and urgent. Maguire and the Justice Department blocked Atkinson from passing the complaint to Congress immediately as required by law.
-
Thanks. How did Howard "I fact check everything" miss this?
Probably Howard missed this because the source wasn't cited by JPJ. So here you are: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-whistleblower-not-entitled-to-anonymity-hes-an-informant-acting-as-a-democratic-operative
Note: www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett
-
Probably Howard missed this because the source wasn't cited by JPJ. So here you are: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-whistleblower-not-entitled-to-anonymity-hes-an-informant-acting-as-a-democratic-operative
Note: www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett
Howard missed it for two reasons:
1. The contention that the whistleblower statute prohibits public disclosure of the person's name by anyone is absolutely false.
2. Howard likely doesn't read past the title of links that pop up on Google searches.
-
To put it plainly, legal counsel for the Administration, which includes Trump, are representing their clients. They issued an opinion on the matter of the validity of the whistleblower. Joseph Maguire assumed the role of Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on Aug. 16, 2019.
The whistleblower, who has not been identified publicly, filed the complaint Aug. 12 to the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, who found it credible and urgent. Maguire and the Justice Department blocked Atkinson from passing the complaint to Congress immediately as required by law.
You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.
There are two requisite conditions to be a IC whistleblower and that lying piece of shit (the fake whistleblower, not you) meets neither condition.
Both you and Howard are lying liberal cocksuckers. I realize that is redundant.
-
Thanks. How did Howard "I fact check everything" miss this?
He has turned into quite a constitutional scholar recently. I'm surprised he's not (yet) advising the Supreme Court Justices on these issues.
-
Thanks. How did Howard "I fact check everything" miss this?
Maybe he was making fart noises through his rolled up PhD ???
-
It is interesting that mainstream media still seems to be maintaining the whistleblower's anonymity.
-
It's nonsense and only proves the media is in the tank for a Schiff brand of partisan impeachment. It also shows they can't stand to think that everyone has already heard from other sources. Walter Cronkite is rolling over in his grave.
-
It is interesting that mainstream media still seems to be maintaining the whistleblower's anonymity.
It’s not interesting, it’s a corrupt MSM.
And the liberal lemmings lap it up.
Their hopes and dreams are based on inaccurate polls and sham investigations.
Their crushing defeat in 2020 will be a thing of beauty.
-
Shifty Schiff released the name of the
"Whistle blower" leaker, but the Left is fake outraged because Don Trump Jr. tweeted the guy's name. ::) ::)
-
Shifty Schiff released the name of the "Whistle blower" leaker, but the Left is fake outraged because Don Trump Jr. tweeted the guy's name.
The name has been out in public for a week. Schiff released it in a transcript.
More fake outrage by the libidiots.
I’d fucking subpoena Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, the Bidens, Nadler, Rice, Holder, Schiff and every crooked liberal in their Party and put them under oath in public in the impeachment inquiry
-
ERIC C I A RAM ELLA
ERIC C I A R A M E L L A
Eric C i a r a m e l l a
E R I C C I A R A M E L L A
-
ERIC C I A RAM ELLA
ERIC C I A R A M E L L A
Eric C i a r a m e l l a
E R I C C I A R A M E L L A
George Papadapoulos is about to go down for having sex with underage girls.
The Epstein fallout will include Bill Clinton.
Liberals losing is the gift that never stops giving.
-
Liberals losing is the gift that never stops giving.
(https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/gettyimages-495845075.jpg?w=730&crop=1)
-
ERIC C I A RAM ELLA
ERIC C I A R A M E L L A
Eric C i a r a m e l l a
E R I C C I A R A M E L L A
The Washington Examiner
Daniel Chaitin & Jerry Dunleavy - November 07, 2019 12:53 PM
Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid, lawyers for the whistleblower, refuse to confirm the identity of their client even as such high-profile figures as Donald Trump Jr. have named Ciaramella as the whistleblower.
"Identifying any suspected name for the whistleblower will place their family at risk of serious harm. We will not confirm or deny any name that is published or promoted by supporters of the president. Disclosure of any name undermines the integrity of the whistleblower system and will deter any future whistleblowers," they said in a statement Wednesday. "We will note, however, that publication or promotion of a name shows the desperation to deflect from the substance of the whistleblower complaint. It will not relieve the president of the need to address the substantive allegation, all of which have been substantially proven to be true."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-was-biden-guest-at-state-department-banquet
-
Howard missed it for two reasons:
1. The contention that the whistleblower statute prohibits public disclosure of the person's name by anyone is absolutely false.
2. Howard likely doesn't read past the title of links that pop up on Google searches.
if the IG determines the whistleblower followed the proper procedure and his/her claims are validated then the IG makes the decision to protect their identity which is EXACTLY what the IG determined to be the case.
that is what the law says
Also, one of the guys who sponsored and wrote the law says the WB followed the law
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/grassley-whistleblower-followed-the-law-and-should-be-heard/
-
The Washington Examiner
Daniel Chaitin & Jerry Dunleavy - November 07, 2019 12:53 PM
Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid, lawyers for the whistleblower, refuse to confirm the identity of their client even as such high-profile figures as Donald Trump Jr. have named Ciaramella as the whistleblower.
"Identifying any suspected name for the whistleblower will place their family at risk of serious harm. We will not confirm or deny any name that is published or promoted by supporters of the president. Disclosure of any name undermines the integrity of the whistleblower system and will deter any future whistleblowers," they said in a statement Wednesday. "We will note, however, that publication or promotion of a name shows the desperation to deflect from the substance of the whistleblower complaint. It will not relieve the president of the need to address the substantive allegation, all of which have been substantially proven to be true."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-was-biden-guest-at-state-department-banquet
FFS ::) >:( ::)
He's not a 'whistle blower'. He's nothing more than a leaker with 3rd hand gossip. Adam Schiff released his name last week in a transcript - BEFORE Trump Jr. RE-tweeted.
Get your head out of your a$$. Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is.
-
FFS ::) >:( ::)
He's not a 'whistle blower'. He's nothing more than a leaker with 3rd hand gossip. Adam Schiff released his name last week in a transcript - BEFORE Trump Jr. RE-tweeted.
Get your head out of your a$$. Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is.
FFS ::) >:( ::)
I did not call him a whistleblower, the article I posted from the Washington Examiner did. Oh, and then there is everyone else, including Lars Larson who spilled the beans during a FOX interview when he referred to this person as the whistleblower. Trump has also called this person as a whistleblower several times including at the beginning of this video.
https://katu.com/news/local/lars-larson-names-impeachment-whistleblower-on-fox-news
My head is not up my ass, but I think yours might be up your bumm.
-
FFS I did not call him a whistleblower, the article I posted from the Washington Examiner did. Oh, and then there is everyone else including Lars Larson who spilled the beans during a FOX interview who is referring to this person as the whistle blower. Trump has also referred to this person as a whistleblower several times including at the beginning of this video.
My head is not up my ass, but I think yours might be.
https://katu.com/news/local/lars-larson-names-impeachment-whistleblower-on-fox-news
Spilled what beans? ::) Schiff was the one who originally "outed" him. ::) So what. ::) He's not a "whistle blower" with firsthand knowledge.
Larson said "so-called whistle blower"
-
Spilled what beans? ::) Schiff was the one who originally "outed" him. ::) So what. ::) He's not a "whistle blower" with firsthand knowledge.
Larson said "so-called whistle blower"
First you rant that he's not a whistleblower and now you are qualifying that by posting, "with firsthand knowledge."
The ICIG’s office did, however, accurately note that the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) does not require “first-hand knowledge.”
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/02/the-key-point-about-whistleblowers-first-hand-knowledge-isnt-the-law-its-the-shady-regulation-changes/
-
The ICIG’s office did, however, accurately note that the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) does not require “first-hand knowledge.”
Is it true they rewrote that for this particular person?
-
Is it true they rewrote that for this particular person?
Could be. Anything is possible. Who are they?
-
Is it true they rewrote that for this particular person?
Absolutely, only a liberal idiot would believe otherwise
-
All this fake rage from the left building up to these "gotcha" moments only to be let down, AGAIN, has to be taking it's toll on the lefts ego and public image. Aren't any of you left leaning getbiggers interested in beating Trump with policies? Or are you going to continue to waste taxpayers money and time chasing some bullshit story your representatives dreamt up to get Trump out of office at any cost?
As far as this whistleblower bullshit, it's not holding water, the guys named has been leaked and he's been outed as a far left supporter with a far left supporting lawyer that has been crying about impeachment since the day Trump took office. ::)
-
Absolutely, only a liberal idiot would believe otherwise
No matter. It has been written into law and until someone changes that, it stands.
-
All this fake rage from the left building up to these "gotcha" moments only to be let down, AGAIN, has to be taking it's toll on the lefts ego and public image. Aren't any of you left leaning getbiggers interested in beating Trump with policies? Or are you going to continue to waste taxpayers money and time chasing some bullshit story your representatives dreamt up to get Trump out of office at any cost?
As far as this whistleblower bullshit, it's not holding water, the guys named has been leaked and he's been outed as a far left supporter with a far left supporting lawyer that has been crying about impeachment since the day Trump took office. ::)
Liberal Policy:
$52,000,000,000,000 for healthcare
$97,000,000,000,000 for New Green Deal
$30,000,000,000,000 for Illegal Immigrants
Yeah.....probably better run on “Hate Trump”.
-
Liberal Policy:
$52,000,000,000,000 for healthcare
$97,000,000,000,000 for New Green Deal
$30,000,000,000,000 for Illegal Immigrants
Yeah.....probably better run on “Hate Trump”.
They push the idea of a utopian society while hiding the truth about the personal freedoms that would be lost and the cost to the normal citizens pocketbook. Democrats are scum.
-
Only Illegal for Intel IG to Name ‘Whistleblower’: ‘No Overarching’ Identity Protection
Whistleblowers: What does US law say about them?© AFP/File Brendan Smialowski
EDWIN MORA
11 Nov 2019
The law does not explicitly prevent anyone other than the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) who received the complaint that triggered the impeachment inquiry from outing the identity of the so-called “whistleblower,” several mainstream media outlets have conceded in recent days.
Even left-wing mainstream media outlets—CNN, the New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), and Reuters — determined that, certainly, no law prohibits President Donald Trump or members of Congress from disclosing the name of the leaker who sparked the impeachment inquiry.
CNN acknowledged on November 8, “It is true no law explicitly prevents anyone, other than the IG [inspector general] and their staff, from revealing the name of a whistleblower.”
On November 6, National Public Radio (NPR) added:
In recent days, President Trump and his allies have amplified their calls for the whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry to be identified, presenting the question of whether it would be a crime for the president to unmask the anonymous whistleblower.
According to four former top federal government officials who worked in intelligence and national security [even under former President Barack Obama], the answer is no. …Similarly, if a news outlet, member of Congress or member of the public outed the whistleblower, legal experts said, no criminal law would be violated.
“There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal law,” said Dan Meyer, a lawyer and the former executive director of the intelligence community whistleblower program. “Congress has never provided that protection.”
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) acknowledged that much, threatening via Twitter on November 6 to introduce legislation to make identifying the “whistleblower” illegal.
Rep. Eric Swalwell
✔
@RepSwalwell
In the future, you will go to jail if you out a whistleblower. Legislation coming.
110K
6:42 PM - Nov 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
38K people are talking about this
“It is completely clear that no one else has any legal obligation to protect the whistleblower’s identity at all. Such would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment even past the lack of statutory requirement,” Red State noted.
On October 3, the New York Times acknowledged:
The legal prohibition on disclosing the [“whistleblower”] name applies only to [Intelligence Community IG Michael] Atkinson. It does not bar Mr. Trump and his allies from trying to identify him or disclosing his name if they figure it out. (It would be illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for any official to disclose his name if he is a covert agent, but no one has suggested that he is.)
The Times goes on to note that the officials who gave information to the “whistleblower” are “probably not” guaranteed anonymity or protected from reprisals.
Although it is not illegal to name the leaker behind the impeachment probe, there could be some repercussions for those who out the “whistleblower,” NPR warned, adding:
A member of Congress who reveals the whistleblower’s identity could be removed from committees or face other legislative sanctions; a member of the public risks a civil lawsuit from the whistleblower’s legal team, which has threatened to hold anyone who reveals the name personally liable if the disclosure results in harm to the whistleblower or the person’s family.
Workplace retaliation against the whistleblower following disclosure would constitute a federal crime.
The bottom line is, Trump and members of Congress are exempt from criminal charges from revealing the “whistleblower’s” name, but Donald Trump Jr. may not.
“Once the [‘whistleblower’] complaint is out of the inspector general’s hands the law does little to guarantee the whistleblower anonymity, said McClanahan, the executive director of National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm,” according to Reuters.
Trump outing the “whistleblower” could be considered a form of retaliation. Still, it would not violate any laws, Robert Litt, the former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under Obama, told NPR.
In 2014, American lawmakers formally put into law a directive from former U.S. President Barack Obama that supplemented the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 to protect IC “whistleblowers” from workplace retaliation.
However, John Cohen, a former official in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), recently told Reuters the directive “does not necessarily prevent disclosure of the identity of the whistleblower, which may subject the individual to retaliation from others.”
On August 12, the “whistleblower” lodged a complaint with IG Atkinson about a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate corruption allegations against his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, in exchange for aid, the leaker claimed.
The Bidens, Trump, and Zelensky have all denied any wrongdoing.
Left-wing mainstream media outlets are refusing to release the name of the “whistleblower.”
On October 30, however, Real Clear Investigations suggested that anti-Trump CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella is the “whistleblower” behind the complaint at the heart of the impeachment probe.
The Washington Examiner noted, however, that no one has been able to provide a definitive confirmation that Ciaramella is indeed the leaker, adding that other names have surfaced as possible suspects.
Ciaramella’s name appears in at least one of the transcripts of closed-door testimony provided by impeachment probe witnesses.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/11/only-illegal-for-intel-ig-to-name-whistleblower-no-overarching-identity-protection/
-
If a whistleblower worked for the opposing party historically, had only second hand knowledge, worked with the opposing party beforehand, and had to have the whistleblower rules changed to even warrant "whistleblower" status, it becomes a unique case.
The outrage is ludicrous, and false.
-
If a whistleblower worked for the opposing party historically, had only second hand knowledge, worked with the opposing party beforehand, and had to have the whistleblower rules changed to even warrant "whistleblower" status, it becomes a unique case.
The outrage is ludicrous, and false.
Amazing how they took the entire country through the Russia hoax and are doing it again with this nonsense. Crazy.
-
Amazing how they took the entire country through the Russia hoax and are doing it again with this nonsense. Crazy.
They kind of have to, since they've overplayed their cards.
They know it's done after the House inquiry.
This way they "save face" with their party.
Think about how many Democrats were talking impeachemnt BEFORE this whistleblower thing.
A rational mind would see it for what it is.
Think about it another way - if it DID get through the Senate, and Pence was President, would, in the lens of the Democrats, the country be better off? Nope. This is all hoping it influences 2020.
-
Think about it. They have to do something to "resist" for their hard left base. They have a whole year to try and keep Trump from a SCOTUS nominee among other policy advancements. If they completely sit out or pass something bipartisan those looking to revenge vote may not show up at all.
-
Knowing who the whistle blower is changes nothing if there is enough other evidence to rule on impeachment. Whether it is against the law to reveal a whistle blower's identity or not, doing so is wrong.
If my neighbors were engaging in a clearly violent domestic battle that seems likely to end badly, I would anonymously call 911. I wouldn't want my identity revealed to violent people who lived in such close proximity, for fear of retaliation.
-
Knowing who the whistle blower is changes nothing if there is enough other evidence to rule on impeachment. Whether it is against the law to reveal a whistle blower's identity or not, doing so is wrong.
If my neighbors were engaging in a clearly violent domestic battle that seems likely to end badly, I would anonymously call 911. I wouldn't want my identity revealed to violent people who lived in such close proximity, for fear of retaliation.
You are not thinking outside the context of the call itself.
If he's coordinated with Schiff before "whistleblowing" it shows more behavior by the Democrats of a concerted effort to remove this president by any means possible. That can have massive ramifications on the voting public.
-
They kind of have to, since they've overplayed their cards.
They know it's done after the House inquiry.
This way they "save face" with their party.
Think about how many Democrats were talking impeachemnt BEFORE this whistleblower thing.
A rational mind would see it for what it is.
Think about it another way - if it DID get through the Senate, and Pence was President, would, in the lens of the Democrats, the country be better off? Nope. This is all hoping it influences 2020.
I agree.
-
Knowing who the whistle blower is changes nothing if there is enough other evidence to rule on impeachment. Whether it is against the law to reveal a whistle blower's identity or not, doing so is wrong.
If my neighbors were engaging in a clearly violent domestic battle that seems likely to end badly, I would anonymously call 911. I wouldn't want my identity revealed to violent people who lived in such close proximity, for fear of retaliation.
It isn't against the law for anyone other than the IG to reveal Eric Ciaramella's name.
There is nothing wrong about revealing Eric Ciaramella's name, particularly when he is a lying hack.
-
It isn't against the law for anyone other than the IG to reveal Eric Ciaramella's name.
There is nothing wrong about revealing Eric Ciaramella's name, particularly when he is a lying hack.
(https://ourfuturesucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/giphy-2.gif)
-
You are not thinking outside the context of the call itself.
If he's coordinated with Schiff before "whistleblowing" it shows more behavior by the Democrats of a concerted effort to remove this president by any means possible. That can have massive ramifications on the voting public.
The call is the issue. Had Trump never made it, we'd not be discussing Trump's impeachment. The witnesses' testimony will determine whether Trump committed an impeachable act, not the whistle blower.
-
The call is the issue. Had Trump never made it, we'd not be discussing Trump's impeachment. The witnesses' testimony will determine whether Trump committed an impeachable act, not the whistle blower.
I've explained the call.
This doesn't counter the point I made about the bigger picture. Whether you want to believe there is more to this than the call or not, it doesn't matter - it certainly exists.
There are multiple issues here - if the whistleblower wasn't partisan, didn't circumvent the process, and the Democrats didn't change the rules to allow this, fine. But they did, and it shows a very disturbing pattern, one that could fall flat outside the never trumper base.
-
I've explained the call.
This doesn't counter the point I made about the bigger picture. Whether you want to believe there is more to this than the call or not, it doesn't matter - it certainly exists.
There are multiple issues here - if the whistleblower wasn't partisan, didn't circumvent the process, and the Democrats didn't change the rules to allow this, fine. But they did, and it shows a very disturbing pattern, one that could fall flat outside the never trumper base.
You and I can go around and around about this an yet never find a mutual resolution. You explained the call which is fine, accept your explanation is based on your perception, just as if I explained the call, it would be based on my perception. Perceptions can be less than accurate.
I'll say no more about the whistle blower, at this time. I am anxious to hear the witnesses' testimony. Perhaps they will provide some clarity and maybe not. We won't know until we've heard them. It is possible we won't know anymore than we do now after all is said and done.
-
(https://ourfuturesucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/giphy-2.gif)
;D
-
The call is the issue. Had Trump never made it, we'd not be discussing Trump's impeachment. The witnesses' testimony will determine whether Trump committed an impeachable act, not the whistle blower.
No they won't. Who the heck cares what people's opinions of the call are?? We have the transcript. And the president of Ukraine said he was never pressured and had no idea aid had been withheld. There is nothing there.
But we definitely need to hear from the "whistleblower" so we can expose how corrupt this entire episode is.
-
No they won't. Who the heck cares what people's opinions of the call are?? We have the transcript. And the president of Ukraine said he was never pressured and had no idea aid had been withheld. There is nothing there.
But we definitely need to hear from the "whistleblower" so we can expose how corrupt this entire episode is.
In the Democrat world, a fake whistleblower with third-hand information is more believable than the actual two people having the discussion.
-
Knowing who the whistle blower is changes nothing
Absolute bullshit. It changes everything.
-
Can someone post the transcript of the July 25th call and underline the exact sections where specifically the withholding of aid money is discussed?
-
Can someone post the transcript of the July 25th call and underline the exact sections where specifically the withholding of aid money is discussed?
Not the July 25th call but it shows what you describe:
"You're not getting a billion, I'm gonna be leaving here, I think it was what, 6 hours, I looked I said I'm leaving in 6 hours, if the prosecutor is not fired you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch, he got fired"
-
In the Democrat world, a fake whistleblower with third-hand information is more believable than the actual two people having the discussion.
Yep. Pretty stupid.
-
The name has been out in public for a week. Schiff released it in a transcript.
More fake outrage by the libidiots.
I’d fucking subpoena Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, the Bidens, Nadler, Rice, Holder, Schiff and every crooked liberal in their Party and put them under oath in public in the impeachment inquiry
Lying sack of Schiff
-
Lying sack of Schiff
Amazing how he can lie to the entire country with a straight face and both his party and the media do nothing about it.
-
the original white house whistleblower. ::)
-
All these years I have been following politics and I never realized until now that Democrat Party Presidents don’t set foreign policy, they actually leave that up to paper pushing, pencil neck, geek, career ambassadors.
I could see that for someone as completely incompetent as Barry Sotero.
Now I’m 100% certain the stolen aid money from the Ukraine has a trail right back to the Obamas, Clintons, and Bidens.
-
Not reporting this guy's name at this point is just as dishonest as Schiff saying he doesn't know who he is after his staff met with the guy. Like Schiff didn't review all this beforehand.
The guy's name is out there. Leaked even by Schiff's office on docs. Silly.
-
Really?
So the fed law states he is ,but JPJ of get big forums disagrees? I'm shocked they don't use that defense in court. ::)
Lawyer-Your honor, JPJ and some other get big regulars posted disagreement on this whistle blower protection status.
Judge - That's pretty good evidence. Release his ID immediately :o
Question:
Ok, so if Coach farts in your face, but a getbigger posts that he didn't fart, do you still smell it? Just curious... ::)
Federal law does not state under these circumstances that the leaker is a whistleblower.
Howard, how do you know with certainty the whistleblower is a male?
You’re talking out your ass.
-
Dos, c'mon now this isn't a close call.
Trump tried to "shake down" the UK Pres .
FYI, every defense and conspiracy theory Trumps on this forum have tried , has been shot down numerous times
by the testimony and evidence . I lack the energy and inclination to go back and forth with people who are already convinced.
I'd rather watch the actual testimony and learn the facts.
Thanks
::)
-
LOL, ok, fair enough. :D
But seriously, I know how most Trumpers will excuse this UK bribe deal, REGARDLESS of the evidence.
I've dealt with this kind of attitude before in everything from judging bodybuilders to girl/guy interactions.
It's clear to me that no reasonable amount of evidence will ever be enough for some true believers.
This has become more an issue of faith in Trump and his supporters. I don't think you'd have the same blind faith
for most other political figures. To me, this is as clear and obvious as a solved physics problem. ;)
Believe it or not, I've heard, read or seen the counter to EVERY defense the GOP has on this.
First they said, nobody was on record who had first hand knowledge of the call. So they has Lt Col Vidman testify , who was listening to the call. Then they claimed they only had the one call. So they brought in Amb Taylor ( and others) that gave testimony into the action of this Pres to shake down Ukraine. Now we have the testimony of amb Yovanovich as well, etc ad nasuem.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ousted-ambassador-felt-big-threat-trump-assails-her-anew/ar-BBWMA09?ocid=spartanntp
Oh shut the heck up already. You haven't looked into anything. You read headlines on links that pop up in Google searches. You are always full of crap.
There is nothing here. We have the transcript. We have the president of Ukraine and the Ukraine ambassador saying it didn't happen. But none of that matters to hacks like you. So go on and be the good little sheep and regurgitate what the media and Congressional Democrats tell you.
-
Really?
So the fed law states he is ,but JPJ of get big forums disagrees? I'm shocked they don't use that defense in court. ::)
Lawyer-Your honor, JPJ and some other get big regulars posted disagreement on this whistle blower protection status.
Judge - That's pretty good evidence. Release his ID immediately :o
Question:
Ok, so if Coach farts in your face, but a getbigger posts that he didn't fart, do you still smell it? Just curious... ::)
High protein farts are the worst!
-
LOL, ok, fair enough. :D
But seriously, I know how most Trumpers will excuse this UK bribe deal, REGARDLESS of the evidence.
I've dealt with this kind of attitude before in everything from judging bodybuilders to girl/guy interactions.
It's clear to me that no reasonable amount of evidence will ever be enough for some true believers.
This has become more an issue of faith in Trump and his supporters. I don't think you'd have the same blind faith
for most other political figures. To me, this is as clear and obvious as a solved physics problem. ;)
Believe it or not, I've heard, read or seen the counter to EVERY defense the GOP has on this.
First they said, nobody was on record who had first hand knowledge of the call. So they has Lt Col Vidman testify , who was listening to the call. Then they claimed they only had the one call. So they brought in Amb Taylor ( and others) that gave testimony into the action of this Pres to shake down Ukraine. Now we have the testimony of amb Yovanovich as well, etc ad nasuem.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ousted-ambassador-felt-big-threat-trump-assails-her-anew/ar-BBWMA09?ocid=spartanntp
Thanks for the link. Very interesting reading.
-
How many times did you hear Schiff say that the "Whistleblower" has a statutory right to anonymity? He was lying each and every time he said it.
WaPo gives Schiff three Pinocchois on whistleblower anonymity claim
BY JOE CONCHA - 11/20/19
The Washington Post gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) three Pinocchios on Wednesday for his claim that the whistleblower in the impeachment process against President Trump "has a statutory right to anonymity."
The Post's fact-checker applies Pinocchios ranging from one to four, with three and four being reserved for what the column considers the more egregious statements.
Schiff has said repeatedly, including during impeachment hearings on Tuesday, that the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine has a statutory right to remain anonymous.
“The whistleblower has the right, a statutory right, to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower," Schiff said Tuesday.
The Post fact-checker disagreed, stating "it's not a right spelled out in any statute."
The analysis also cites the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act in coming to its conclusion to award Schiff three Pinocchios.
"The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community," it reads. "The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. And what good is a statutory right anyway if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?"
"We found the case for Three Pinocchios more compelling. Schiff says the whistleblower has a 'statutory right' to anonymity, and it apparently, in Schiff’s understanding, extends to congressional hearings and settings that don’t involve the inspector general," the fact-check concludes. "That’s debatable at best."
The three Pinocchios comes after Schiff was given four Pinocchios in October for claiming his panel had "not spoken directly with the whistleblower," with the paper calling the claim "flat-out false."
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/471256-wapo-gives-schiff-three-pinocchois-on-whistleblower-anonymity-claim
-
Rep. Ratcliffe suggested Monday that the “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella committed perjury by making false statements in his written forms filed with the ICIG and that Adam Schiff is hiding evidence of Ciaramella’s crimes to protect him from a criminal investigation.
Note for history: When the President of the United States attacks a whistleblower publicly, endangering that whistleblower's life, he has crossed another line into authoritarianism. Yet one more reason the @GOP is derelict in addressing this menace to democracy.
The media is just pretending the entire establishment and most of America didn't already know CIA asset ERIC CIARAMELLA was the guy Adam Schiff colluded with to take out Trump.
Eric Ciaramella's name was released by Adam Schiff in a sloppily redacted document release of witness testimony. His name has been known for weeks. Don't blame @realDonaldTrump
Mitch McConnell should release a statement that he will not consider moving forward with a senate trial until ALL transcripts from the House inquiry have been made public, including damning testimony exposing Adam Schiff's fake whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella.
One of the reasons I like President Trump is because he says what everyone knows to be true. The CIA guy, Eric Ciaramella is just doing what the CIA has done since 2015; trying to get rid of Trump.
-
I really hope they put this guy under oath.
Senate braces for fight over impeachment whistleblower testimony
BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 02/16/20
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/483196-senate-braces-for-fight-over-impeachment-whistleblower-testimony
-
I really hope they put this guy under oath.
Senate braces for fight over impeachment whistleblower testimony
BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 02/16/20
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/483196-senate-braces-for-fight-over-impeachment-whistleblower-testimony
There's never a dull moment.
-
There's never a dull moment.
You post daily ???
-
You post daily ???
Seems like it. Probably so. Not to be rude. But, how is what I spend my time doing your concern?