Is The Rumorblower Relevant Anymore?

[Care4all]

The IC IG is the only one prohibited from disclosing the WB's identity, no one else is. Read it yourself.

Again, interpreting it that way,

Does that make any sense?

Saying the IG can not reveal them and shall keep them anonymous, so to protect them from future abuse/retaliation/intimidation of superiors or those involved in the alleged wrong doing...or future job prospects... which it is suppose to protect....

YET it would be okay for any senator or Congressman, or President to reveal them? That's just silly, and a waste of a law for just the ICIG to follow???

It's a shame people like Rand and the others playing on revealing the WB, wouldn't just follow, the spirit of the Whistle blower protection act, instead it seems we need a law for every little thing or someone like him will say they can do it, because it does not specifically mention them by name.... simply a technicality, that goes AGAINST the entire purpose and spirit of the WB Protection act law...

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[WEATHER53]

It’s another fading fakery
Next up-Duke lacrosse players conspired with Russians.

 

[OldLady]

I don't see it that way with the whistleblower.... because the alleged wrong doing was reported through higher ups twice before WB, and nothing was done.... and the WB law says to whistleblowers, if they get no action on their complaint, they can go to congress.... a half dozen people within the administration went to this WB after they got no action thru going thru the higher ups and their higher ups got no action from the DOJ... and obviously chose him because they trusted him... and maybe it was because he was a Democrat... but that matters naught.

I think it is actually good for America to have people of both parties working for our gvt, because it IS A CHECK on our gvt.... dems report wrong doings of repubs and repubs report wrong doings of the Dems.... it keeps our gvt a bit CLEANER....

the media is unhinged maybe, and some of the left wing posters here on this site, and a handful of congress critters on the left, but overall it is more about the president running roughshod over the rules and regs and ethics and laws and norms guiding our gvt from one admin to the other.... and the separation of powers and co equal branches of gvt, which Dems see the president continually spitting on.... and they believe if they do not stop Trump from doing or not doing all of these things, then from here on out, that would mean congress doesn't matter, and it does matter in our democratic Republic.... congress is THE ONLY representatives we the people have in our gvt... and if they are shut out, we the people have no representation at all....

Do you think the president is King and above the law in all cases, or do you think the presidency is one part of three equal branches of govt, is the argument.

As far as I could figure this out, you're mostly on the right track.

But then, you declare it doesn't matter whether the whistle-blower was a Democrat, and then you explain it's actually good he was a Democrat. When, in fact, all we know about career civil servants points to the fact they are either a-political or at least leave their D- or R-hat at home when showing up for work, ensuring regulations and procedures are properly followed. You are feeding into the slanderous narrative that the whistle-blower is a liberal hack - which they use to undermine both the fact-finding and the process.

You then move to declare the media "is unhinged"... "maybe". Feeding into the "enemy of the people" narrative. Where did that come from, anyway?

While acknowledging that the whistle-blower is irrelevant as far as fact-finding is concerned - we have better, first-hand witnesses confirming his or her account, and expanding on it - and arguing that spitting on Congress and the Separation of Powers and (I guess) the press is a bad thing, you actually undermine all that.

When, in fact, all we know about career civil servants points to the fact they are either a-political or at least leave their D- or R-hat at home when showing up for work, ensuring regulations and procedures are properly followed. You are feeding into the slanderous narrative that the whistle-blower is a liberal hack - which they use to undermine both the fact-finding and the process.
While I agree with you about calling the whistle-blower a liberal hack, let's not go too far in the direction of giving the guy a halo. Since the formation of Mueller team, when everyone's political leanings were investigated and bemoaned til the end, there has been this troubling tendency for the rightwingers to sound like a bunch of Stalinists wanting to send everyone to the Gulag if they aren't Trump ass kissers. If I hear "Strozk" one more time I swear I'm going to puke. It's very unwelcome in a Democracy where people are invited to have different opinions.
I think we have to meet these goddamned fools where they live though, and if there is a certain amount of exaggeration and even some stacking the deck involved, it shouldn't surprise you. Care4All comes here well informed and fair. I don't think she's feeding into the narrative that the whistle blower is out to get Trump, but he might be.

 

[Care4all]

But then, you declare it doesn't matter whether the whistle-blower was a Democrat, and then you explain it's actually good he was a Democrat. When, in fact, all we know about career civil servants points to the fact they are either a-political or at least leave their D- or R-hat at home when showing up for work, ensuring regulations and procedures are properly followed. You are feeding into the slanderous narrative that the whistle-blower is a liberal hack - which they use to undermine both the fact-finding and the process.

Well it does not matter that he was a Democrat, but having the steady state govt a mixed brew is important, in my opinion, because it would in some cases, keep it cleaner than it would if everyone were in the same "lock step, think"... doesn't mean in this case the whistleblower did this particular complaint because he was being political of some sorts, I see no evidence of such....and nothing was made up out of the clear blue, in any kind of nefarious way.... so no sir-ee, I am not saying and did not mean to imply this whistleblower did this for political reasons, looks like real constitutional abuses of power to me...

You then move to declare the media "is unhinged"... "maybe". Feeding into the "enemy of the people" narrative. Where did that come from, anyway?

I think they have gone a little crazy, and I am not meaning to imply that they are making anything up or producing fake news....

but I do see them as a little gleeful for having this impeachment story and imho, that diminishes the real importance of it....they could handle it better, a little more somber and professional... on the opinion shows... again imho.

While acknowledging that the whistle-blower is irrelevant as far as fact-finding is concerned - we have better, first-hand witnesses confirming his or her account, and expanding on it - and arguing that spitting on Congress and the Separation of Powers and (I guess) the press is a bad thing, you actually undermine all that.

The Press (with credentials), is a good thing... when and if they make a mistake, they report retractions and they have to have a minimum of two or three sources or it does not go to print... in most cases....

it's more on the opinion show air times that I am referring to on cable, as far as the "media" and certainly not the Press, the Press has done an outstanding job in their investigative reporting, pulitzer prize winning work this past year...

 

[Care4all]

Seems like when ever one investigates an event, whether it is a fire, a break-in, or any other human endeavor, exploring the initiation of that event is crucial to understanding what has happened.

How is this Rumorblower any exception?

The MOLE, Eric Ciaramella?

Yes, he's more important than ever. We know why Adam Schitt and the coup plotters of the American Communist party hid the identity of this CIA hack. This is Biden's boi, the one who helped launder American foreign aid and move it back into the hands of democrats.

{The whistleblower’s ties to Democrats, including Biden, Schiff, former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of Intelligence James Clapper and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, have created controversy, with Trump and Republicans using his past work with them in an attempt to discredit him. Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told a local radio station in his home state of Texas that many in Washington D.C. knew the whistleblower’s identity, calling him a “staunch Democrat,” and former “point person on Ukraine,” who never called out corruption in the Eastern European country.

Ciaramella has been in the crosshairs of Republicans previously, after some on the far right tied him to the Obama-associated “deep state” in 2017, accusing him of undermining Trump while he was working in the White House.}

{Ciaramella was also accused of being a major leaker while working with McMaster. Several far-right personalities waged an open war on social media and on pro-Trump websites against McMaster during his time as national security adviser, constantly claiming he was undermining Trump and had too many former Obama aides on his team. McMaster also worked with Abigail Grace and Sean Misko, both also Obama holdovers. Grace and Misko are now aides to Rep. Schiff. McMaster’s staffers were frequently accused of being behind leaks of embarrassing details about Trump’s calls to foreign leaders. }

Eric Ciaramella: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Ciaramella blows the lid off of the democrat coup.

Doesn't matter who the whistle blower was, because he was not a first hand witness on most of his complaint.

The ICIG is who matters and he found FIRST HAND evidence to support the claims in the WB complaint and the IG determined the complaint was credible and met the Urgent designation.

IF the IG had found no supporting evidence to the complaint, in his investigation, then the complaint would have been dismissed and not moved forward to congress intel committee.

simple as that....

Are you suggesting the Repub appointed IG is in on your imaginary coup?

Lot of Never Trumpers in the Republican party.

I think that President Trump wants you to believe that... for his own personal benefit, and is likely untrue...in the sense of 'why this keeps happening to poor little him', when it is clear as day, he is the one, getting himself in his own trouble.... his problem is thinking everyone else should be following his reckless and lawless ways.... and their oaths are NOT to him or any President, they are to the Constitution.

(That excuse of his is getting a little tired and old, that old doggy needs to learn a new trick!)

 

[RealDave]

Seems like when ever one investigates an event, whether it is a fire, a break-in, or any other human endeavor, exploring the initiation of that event is crucial to understanding what has happened.

How is this Rumorblower any exception?

Their whistlblower is a fraud. An Obama Administration spy.
They used him to open this investigation.
They're committing fraud and perpetrating yet another hoax.....and the media is trying to make it all seem legit.

I think it's time the DOJ start investigating the ties between Democrats, the media, and foreigners that are trying to influence out elections and install socialism in the United States.

Sure he is. You're just pissed off he brought to light your fat assed orange hero's attempted extortion of the President of the Ukraine.

 

[Care4all]

IF the IG had found no supporting evidence to the complaint, in his investigation, then the complaint would have been dismissed and not moved forward to congress intel committee.

Lol, yeah, because Schiff always plays by the book, roflmao

what does Schiff have to do with the ICIG's investigating of the complaint and saying it appeared to be credible, and urgent???

 

[flack]

Seems like when ever one investigates an event, whether it is a fire, a break-in, or any other human endeavor, exploring the initiation of that event is crucial to understanding what has happened.

How is this Rumorblower any exception?

Their whistlblower is a fraud. An Obama Administration spy.
They used him to open this investigation.
They're committing fraud and perpetrating yet another hoax.....and the media is trying to make it all seem legit.

I think it's time the DOJ start investigating the ties between Democrats, the media, and foreigners that are trying to influence out elections and install socialism in the United States.

Sure he is. You're just pissed off he brought to light your fat assed orange hero's attempted extortion of the President of the Ukraine.

Same old RealDave.

 

[flack]

Seems like when ever one investigates an event, whether it is a fire, a break-in, or any other human endeavor, exploring the initiation of that event is crucial to understanding what has happened.

How is this Rumorblower any exception?

Their whistlblower is a fraud. An Obama Administration spy.
They used him to open this investigation.
They're committing fraud and perpetrating yet another hoax.....and the media is trying to make it all seem legit.

I think it's time the DOJ start investigating the ties between Democrats, the media, and foreigners that are trying to influence out elections and install socialism in the United States.

Sure he is. You're just pissed off he brought to light your fat assed orange hero's attempted extortion of the President of the Ukraine.

Hey Dave Serious question. You ever see anybody from the old Topix other than me?

 

[Olde Europe]

Care4All comes here well informed and fair. I don't think she's feeding into the narrative that the whistle blower is out to get Trump, but he might be.

My impression entirely. Which is why I don't understand why she does exactly that.

 

[Ame®icano]

Seems like when ever one investigates an event, whether it is a fire, a break-in, or any other human endeavor, exploring the initiation of that event is crucial to understanding what has happened.

How is this Rumorblower any exception?

The MOLE, Eric Ciaramella?

Yes, he's more important than ever. We know why Adam Schitt and the coup plotters of the American Communist party hid the identity of this CIA hack. This is Biden's boi, the one who helped launder American foreign aid and move it back into the hands of democrats.

{The whistleblower’s ties to Democrats, including Biden, Schiff, former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of Intelligence James Clapper and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, have created controversy, with Trump and Republicans using his past work with them in an attempt to discredit him. Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told a local radio station in his home state of Texas that many in Washington D.C. knew the whistleblower’s identity, calling him a “staunch Democrat,” and former “point person on Ukraine,” who never called out corruption in the Eastern European country.

Ciaramella has been in the crosshairs of Republicans previously, after some on the far right tied him to the Obama-associated “deep state” in 2017, accusing him of undermining Trump while he was working in the White House.}

{Ciaramella was also accused of being a major leaker while working with McMaster. Several far-right personalities waged an open war on social media and on pro-Trump websites against McMaster during his time as national security adviser, constantly claiming he was undermining Trump and had too many former Obama aides on his team. McMaster also worked with Abigail Grace and Sean Misko, both also Obama holdovers. Grace and Misko are now aides to Rep. Schiff. McMaster’s staffers were frequently accused of being behind leaks of embarrassing details about Trump’s calls to foreign leaders. }

Eric Ciaramella: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Ciaramella blows the lid off of the democrat coup.

While we're at it, is it possible that this Ciaramella is someone that Strzok and Page were referring to in their text messages as their plant in the WH? Since there is no "Charlie" working in WH, and pronunciation of Ciaramella is kinda close to it.

 

[Olde Europe]

But then, you declare it doesn't matter whether the whistle-blower was a Democrat, and then you explain it's actually good he was a Democrat. When, in fact, all we know about career civil servants points to the fact they are either a-political or at least leave their D- or R-hat at home when showing up for work, ensuring regulations and procedures are properly followed. You are feeding into the slanderous narrative that the whistle-blower is a liberal hack - which they use to undermine both the fact-finding and the process.

Well it does not matter that he was a Democrat, but having the steady state govt a mixed brew is important, in my opinion, because it would in some cases, keep it cleaner than it would if everyone were in the same "lock step, think"... doesn't mean in this case the whistleblower did this particular complaint because he was being political of some sorts, I see no evidence of such....and nothing was made up out of the clear blue, in any kind of nefarious way.... so no sir-ee, I am not saying and did not mean to imply this whistleblower did this for political reasons, looks like real constitutional abuses of power to me...

You then move to declare the media "is unhinged"... "maybe". Feeding into the "enemy of the people" narrative. Where did that come from, anyway?

I think they have gone a little crazy, and I am not meaning to imply that they are making anything up or producing fake news....

but I do see them as a little gleeful for having this impeachment story and imho, that diminishes the real importance of it....they could handle it better, a little more somber and professional... on the opinion shows... again imho.

While acknowledging that the whistle-blower is irrelevant as far as fact-finding is concerned - we have better, first-hand witnesses confirming his or her account, and expanding on it - and arguing that spitting on Congress and the Separation of Powers and (I guess) the press is a bad thing, you actually undermine all that.

The Press (with credentials), is a good thing... when and if they make a mistake, they report retractions and they have to have a minimum of two or three sources or it does not go to print... in most cases....

it's more on the opinion show air times that I am referring to on cable, as far as the "media" and certainly not the Press, the Press has done an outstanding job in their investigative reporting, pulitzer prize winning work this past year...

Good. Thanks for the clarification. Let me just note that what makes whistle-blowers from the ranks of career civil servants so valuable is not their allegiance to D or R, but their professionalism. Also, it's of value to be precise, namely, not to confuse some hysterical opinion "shows" with "the press," or "the media". Words matter, and to be careless with them opens the door to the smear and slander machines we see at work right now. I think, we can effortlessly agree on all of that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

what does Schiff have to do with the ICIG's investigating of the complaint and saying it appeared to be credible, and urgent???

Schiff handled the complaint first and helped write it up, apparently.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The IC IG is the only one prohibited from disclosing the WB's identity, no one else is. Read it yourself.

Again, interpreting it that way,

Does that make any sense?

Saying the IG can not reveal them and shall keep them anonymous, so to protect them from future abuse/retaliation/intimidation of superiors or those involved in the alleged wrong doing...or future job prospects... which it is suppose to protect....

YET it would be okay for any senator or Congressman, or President to reveal them? That's just silly, and a waste of a law for just the ICIG to follow???

It's a shame people like Rand and the others playing on revealing the WB, wouldn't just follow, the spirit of the Whistle blower protection act, instead it seems we need a law for every little thing or someone like him will say they can do it, because it does not specifically mention them by name.... simply a technicality, that goes AGAINST the entire purpose and spirit of the WB Protection act law...

Lol, yes, because a normal WB is defying the Establishment bureaucrats, but this Rumorblower is actually serving their interests instead, so normally the IG is not to reveal the guys identity if it is legit, but none of that applies to Congress critters or the media or the President, not at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think the law governing the IG's part in the WB process, explicitly protects a WB... it says the WB SHALL NOT be revealed unless the WB gives the IG permission.

The law and an explanation of all WB protections in the IntelCommunity are here

50 U.S. Code § 3033 - Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
and summarized here

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R43765.pdf

The IC IG is the only one prohibited from disclosing the WB's identity, no one else is. Read it yourself.

Also this Rumorblower is outside of that law and its protections anyway because
1) that law only applies to intel community personnel, and that does not include the President.
2) it is not direct knowledge, only hearsay and so he didnt 'have the goods' anyway. His complaints amount to 'I dont like what I heard people say about the Presidents phone call.' Big Woop.
3) he went to the House intelligence Committee BEFORE he went to the IC IG and the agency head, so he did not follow that law anyway. This is likely Schiff's theatrics and it will get him into trouble,, little doubt. Schiff is a clumsy dunce, a walking piece of proof against ideological promotion.

1- nope, the president is not excluded
2- He didn't need the goods, that's up to the IG and then Congress to find the goods or discredit the goods or dismiss them as not being a problem.
3-It does not matter that the whistle blower went to the intel committee staffer to ask what to do and how to handle.... they had clearance, and really, the WB considering the action can ask questions....

You are missing the entire point and are trying to skate on very thin ice by attacking the whistleblower....Instead of showing any evidence to support Trump did not do what the credible by the IG, complaint alleged. Defend his actions, IF YOU CAN....

I personally see him as trying to cheat again.... I viewed hiding his porn star relationship and not reporting the money, and taking STOLEN EMAILS from a USA adversary and using them several hundred times in all of his rallies, was cheating.... and sending his internal polling data to the Russians interfering on the 3 states that he "unexpectedly won" in the electoral college, as cheating and also influencing in our election by a foreign adversary.


and see what he is doing now, as cheating as well....abusing his power... I wish he would just try to win, fair and square for a change.

Of course h e is.

Opposing the Democrats in their march to save the WORLD is the only true and just political movement in the world and to oppose them is stupid, corrupt, evil and unworthy of Mr Rogers neighborhood.

roflmao

 

[Olde Europe]

what does Schiff have to do with the ICIG's investigating of the complaint and saying it appeared to be credible, and urgent???

Schiff handled the complaint first and helped write it up, apparently.

Liar.

 

[Olde Europe]

The IC IG is the only one prohibited from disclosing the WB's identity, no one else is. Read it yourself.

Again, interpreting it that way,

Does that make any sense?

Saying the IG can not reveal them and shall keep them anonymous, so to protect them from future abuse/retaliation/intimidation of superiors or those involved in the alleged wrong doing...or future job prospects... which it is suppose to protect....

YET it would be okay for any senator or Congressman, or President to reveal them? That's just silly, and a waste of a law for just the ICIG to follow???

It's a shame people like Rand and the others playing on revealing the WB, wouldn't just follow, the spirit of the Whistle blower protection act, instead it seems we need a law for every little thing or someone like him will say they can do it, because it does not specifically mention them by name.... simply a technicality, that goes AGAINST the entire purpose and spirit of the WB Protection act law...

Lol, yes, because a normal WB is defying the Establishment bureaucrats, but this Rumorblower is actually serving their interests instead, so normally the IG is not to reveal the guys identity if it is legit, but none of that applies to Congress critters or the media or the President, not at all.

The ICIG is supposed to protect the whistle-blower's identity. That doesn't depend in any way on who is the target of the whistle-blower. What Care did was quite witty, actually: While she acknowledged the law binds the ICIG, she made a case that decency and honor would bind other government officials to respect the spirit of the law protecting whistle-blowers. She's right in that. Also, not surprising at all is that the point went right over your pointy head. The notion that whistle-blower protections serve the Republic, safeguard citizens, and ensure that executive corruption cannot run rampant, and that everyone having take an oath of office should be able to agree with that, is so alien to you as to be incomprehensible. That's pathetic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Seems like when ever one investigates an event, whether it is a fire, a break-in, or any other human endeavor, exploring the initiation of that event is crucial to understanding what has happened.

How is this Rumorblower any exception?

YOU my friend are ABSOLUTYLY CORRECT and that is exactly what was done. No exception was made.

The Whistleblower Complaint Has Largely Been Corroborated. Here's How.

When the House impeachment inquiry began more than a month ago, much of the focus was on a complaint from a whistleblower that drew attention to a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, during which Trump asked for investigations into potential political rivals.

Trump has spent weeks questioning the whistleblower's motives and slamming the account for being inaccurate. But as this annotation shows, most of the complaint has been corroborated during closed-door depositions of administration officials, through public statements and from a rough transcript of the call itself, released by the White House.

Excerpts from the complaint:

I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.

Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid.

There is much more but you get the idea. This person has done their job and so, no, he or she is not relevant anymore. Have a nice day.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Democrats started talking about impeachment even before Trump was elected, and actively working on it ever since.
One ploy after another, they all failed, and Democrats, hand in hand with the media kept fabricating scandals, with hopes something will finally work for them.
This latest ploy also started three years ago, and we can see that from "rumorblower" lawyer's tweets.

Has anyone notice how Democrats and their media always talk about hypothetical as is somehow truth. They come up with "what if" than after few days of analysis, with their always ready "experts", that "what if" they try to turn into "is", and in absence of proof, they have to fabricate it. It's always the same play.

"What if" there is Trump collusion with Russia? There must be collusion. Let's prove there is. No proof.
"What if" there is obstruction of justice? The experts confirm there must be obstruction. The evidence proves otherwise.
"What if" there is quid pro quo? Second, third and fourth hand witness think there is. Transcripts show no evidence.

Gish Gallop!!

And your blather changes nothing He made the call, we know what he said, and the dumb fuck admitted it.