Rand Paul Unleashes LIVE On Senate Floor – Names Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella 5 Times

[IM2]

the WB met every standard.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

Exactly. The IG checks it for credibility. Checks and balances. Therefore it wasn't based solely on unsubstantiated or second hand information. It was deemed credible enough to go forward.

It sure was. The WB himself admitted it. I don't know how it was checked since it was 90% wrong.

Just admit that you'll say anything to further the narrative on this smear campaign.

More than 10 witnesses collaborated the whistleblowers story after the situation was investigated by the IG and deemed an urgent concern. So all this him hawing by the trump butt lickers is just a bunch of halitosis filled hot air.

None of those were first hand witnesses either.

They all had hearsay and feelings.

trump blocked witnesses that were more directly involved. Until you can say that STFU.

 

[playtime]

Again again, serves no other purpose than to try to get the whistleblower killed

He’s going to be killed?? Huh

Why else would Paul consider it necessary to reveal who he is?

Sends a message to future whistleblowers

He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.

Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.

.

the WB met every standard.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

You mean, the standards that were changed after he submitted his report so that he would qualify?

are you saying that a trump appointee fudged the rules?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

Exactly. The IG checks it for credibility. Checks and balances. Therefore it wasn't based solely on unsubstantiated or second hand information. It was deemed credible enough to go forward.

It sure was. The WB himself admitted it. I don't know how it was checked since it was 90% wrong.

Just admit that you'll say anything to further the narrative on this smear campaign.

More than 10 witnesses collaborated the whistleblowers story after the situation was investigated by the IG and deemed an urgent concern. So all this him hawing by the trump butt lickers is just a bunch of halitosis filled hot air.

How is speculation and assumptions confirming anything? Try that in a court of law and see what happens. The only one to confirm he talked to Trump directly was Sondland. And Sondland testified that Trump told him no quid pro quo; he wanted nothing from Zelensky.

It wasn't speculation or assumption, that's why.

Try blocking subpoenaed witnesses in a court of law and see what happens motherfucker.

Because that's what trump did and you seem unable to talk about that. Until you can, your argument amounts to nothing.

Trump did that? Okay, who did Schiff Face subpoena that Trump blocked? Schiff Face "asked" for those witnesses, and Trump said no. Subpoena them and then take it to court the right way and let the courts decide.

 

[bripat9643]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

He never saw anything wrong occur, he simply repeated a version of something someone told him. The fact that the FBI had already lied and falsified information to get warrants previously in the Russian Collussion investigation, warrants looking into the actions of all these people.
There also needs to be checks and balances on a certain segment of the intel-community that has been trying to take down a sitting president from the very beginning. When a President can be taken down by an unknown CIA operative based on second hand info, you have entered into a Soviet style of governing.

the IC IG investigated the info & it was found to be credible.

The IG is a neverTrumper and is also a dumbass. How was it credible? It was 90% wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Paul should get hit with an ethics violation and a censure.

Try it. Then this whole scheme will come out in the open.

 

[bripat9643]

Other than bring retribution to this whistleblower and intimidate future whistleblowers

What is Rand Paul trying to do?

Ingratiate himself to those that can grant him power. It seems counterintuitive to the libertarian ideal.

No, he's simply trying to unmask a coup.

 

[Coyote]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

He never saw anything wrong occur, he simply repeated a version of something someone told him. The fact that the FBI had already lied and falsified information to get warrants previously in the Russian Collussion investigation, warrants looking into the actions of all these people.
There also needs to be checks and balances on a certain segment of the intel-community that has been trying to take down a sitting president from the very beginning. When a President can be taken down by an unknown CIA operative based on second hand info, you have entered into a Soviet style of governing.

Except the President isn't being "taken down" by an unknown operative.

He reported, legally, what he had heard. The checks and balances lie in the IG who checks to make sure it is credible, not just malicious. If it is deemed credible, by law it must go to Congress to handle. There is nothing nefarious - the checks and balances are right there.

What you seem to be saying is that - despite the fact that what he reported has been independently corroborated - he shouldn't have done it.

So essentially - you are not allow to report on any wrong doing by the President if you are a whistle blower?

99 times out of a hundred you might be right but this whole process in trying to take down Trump has been so suspect from the beginning, that it needs to be looked into if this 'whistleblower' had coordinated with Schiff prior to the report being made. There is way too much previous bias against Trump for any hidden second hand whistle blower to be trusted. Sorry if you cant see that.

It doesn't affect the material in the report - if it's factual, which it was, it doesn't erase the deeds.

It is also common for whistleblowers to contact to contact the appropriate congressional committees for guidance on how to proceed with a complaint. According to the GAO report: (top of the page)... "whistleblowers who contact the Congress typically reach out to oversight committees, the offices of their own representatives or senators, or authorizing committees.”

In fact Devin Nunes (when he was chair of the House Intelligence Committee) received dozens of whistle blower complaints each year from the Intelligence Community and from individuals who approached the committee directly. So why is it somehow different in this case? It isn't.

 

[Jitss617]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

But the question he asked never labeled him as the whistle blower, just as a person who was caught talking about impeaching trump with a Adam schiff staff member. Who’s also friends with the vindermans... it’s a legit question.. why was Adam schiff satff talking about it and is schiff aware.

got an unbiased credible link?

Do I have facts that will make you feel better ?? No

 

[playtime]

Why else would Paul consider it necessary to reveal who he is?

Sends a message to future whistleblowers

He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.

Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.

.

the WB met every standard.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

did you read the rest, ray ray & chose not to post it?

Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? I never said he couldn't file a complaint. Of course he or anybody else can. But that doesn't make them an official whistleblower by definition.

yep. it did.

 

[bripat9643]

How did John Roberts know that CIAramella was the whistleblower? This is the worst kept secret in the world.......Fauxtrageous!!

any name given would have had the same response given by roberts.

Really? How would Roberts know that he shouldn't read the question?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.

You are referencing what it takes to file a report while ray is referencing what will happen if the filed report has no first hand knowledge, in other words the two taken together say that you can file a report without firsthand knowledge but it cannot be processed due to the lack of firsthand knowledge.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Did he offer even one tiny bit of evidence to support who he claims in the WB?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.

Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.

.

the WB met every standard.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

did you read the rest, ray ray & chose not to post it?

Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? I never said he couldn't file a complaint. Of course he or anybody else can. But that doesn't make them an official whistleblower by definition.

yep. it did.

English your second language or something? Again, second page, and I even copied and pasted it for you. What does it say there?

 

[playtime]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

He never saw anything wrong occur, he simply repeated a version of something someone told him. The fact that the FBI had already lied and falsified information to get warrants previously in the Russian Collussion investigation, warrants looking into the actions of all these people.
There also needs to be checks and balances on a certain segment of the intel-community that has been trying to take down a sitting president from the very beginning. When a President can be taken down by an unknown CIA operative based on second hand info, you have entered into a Soviet style of governing.

the IC IG investigated the info & it was found to be credible.

The IG is a neverTrumper and is also a dumbass. How was it credible? It was 90% wrong.

so you got nuthin but yer ankle grabbing for donny.

 

[playtime]

How did John Roberts know that CIAramella was the whistleblower? This is the worst kept secret in the world.......Fauxtrageous!!

any name given would have had the same response given by roberts.

Really? How would Roberts know that he shouldn't read the question?

because he said he wouldn't read it as it was worded. apparently it contained a name & was worded in a way that would out him.

 

[bripat9643]

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

He never saw anything wrong occur, he simply repeated a version of something someone told him. The fact that the FBI had already lied and falsified information to get warrants previously in the Russian Collussion investigation, warrants looking into the actions of all these people.
There also needs to be checks and balances on a certain segment of the intel-community that has been trying to take down a sitting president from the very beginning. When a President can be taken down by an unknown CIA operative based on second hand info, you have entered into a Soviet style of governing.

Except the President isn't being "taken down" by an unknown operative.

He reported, legally, what he had heard. The checks and balances lie in the IG who checks to make sure it is credible, not just malicious. If it is deemed credible, by law it must go to Congress to handle. There is nothing nefarious - the checks and balances are right there.

What you seem to be saying is that - despite the fact that what he reported has been independently corroborated - he shouldn't have done it.

So essentially - you are not allow to report on any wrong doing by the President if you are a whistle blower?

99 times out of a hundred you might be right but this whole process in trying to take down Trump has been so suspect from the beginning, that it needs to be looked into if this 'whistleblower' had coordinated with Schiff prior to the report being made. There is way too much previous bias against Trump for any hidden second hand whistle blower to be trusted. Sorry if you cant see that.

It doesn't affect the material in the report - if it's factual, which it was, it doesn't erase the deeds.

It is also common for whistleblowers to contact to contact the appropriate congressional committees for guidance on how to proceed with a complaint. According to the GAO report: (top of the page)... "whistleblowers who contact the Congress typically reach out to oversight committees, the offices of their own representatives or senators, or authorizing committees.”

In fact Devin Nunes (when he was chair of the House Intelligence Committee) received dozens of whistle blower complaints each year from the Intelligence Community and from individuals who approached the committee directly. So why is it somehow different in this case? It isn't.

The report was 90% wrong. Get that through your skull before you continue with your idiocies.

The WB previously worked for Biden, and he was given his position on the Security Counsel by Brennan. Schiff's staff composed his complaint. This whole thing is a well coordinated conspiracy to bring down Trump. No one is fooled by your claims of innocence.

 

[playtime]

the WB met every standard.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

did you read the rest, ray ray & chose not to post it?

Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? I never said he couldn't file a complaint. Of course he or anybody else can. But that doesn't make them an official whistleblower by definition.

yep. it did.

English your second language or something? Again, second page, and I even copied and pasted it for you. What does it say there?

what does it say further down that i c/p & underlined?

 

[Jitss617]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

He never saw anything wrong occur, he simply repeated a version of something someone told him. The fact that the FBI had already lied and falsified information to get warrants previously in the Russian Collussion investigation, warrants looking into the actions of all these people.
There also needs to be checks and balances on a certain segment of the intel-community that has been trying to take down a sitting president from the very beginning. When a President can be taken down by an unknown CIA operative based on second hand info, you have entered into a Soviet style of governing.

Except the President isn't being "taken down" by an unknown operative.

He reported, legally, what he had heard. The checks and balances lie in the IG who checks to make sure it is credible, not just malicious. If it is deemed credible, by law it must go to Congress to handle. There is nothing nefarious - the checks and balances are right there.

What you seem to be saying is that - despite the fact that what he reported has been independently corroborated - he shouldn't have done it.

So essentially - you are not allow to report on any wrong doing by the President if you are a whistle blower?

There is evidence that he was talking impeachment with schiffs staff.. he is an unnamed operative.. well not today lol

 

[Yarddog]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

He never saw anything wrong occur, he simply repeated a version of something someone told him. The fact that the FBI had already lied and falsified information to get warrants previously in the Russian Collussion investigation, warrants looking into the actions of all these people.
There also needs to be checks and balances on a certain segment of the intel-community that has been trying to take down a sitting president from the very beginning. When a President can be taken down by an unknown CIA operative based on second hand info, you have entered into a Soviet style of governing.

the IC IG investigated the info & it was found to be credible.

“Statements made by the president during the call could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in violation of campaign-finance laws,” the inspector general found

Intel IG Found Whistleblower Has 'Arguable Political Bias' against Trump, But Complaint Is Still 'Credible' | National Review

Statements by the President in the Phone Call could also be viewed as acting in the interest of the United States, if a sitting Vice President was involved in a quid pro quo for the benefit of a family memeber.
It's all about which way you want to look at it. The phone call was not a crime and the IG also said there was evidence of possible political BIAS as well in regards to the whistle blower.

 

[playtime]

um... Nostra ... the report wasn't revised to allow the WB to make a compalint.

this, from the report.:

The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018,