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

[Jitss617]

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

PolitiFact |

Left wing opinion site? I Prefer facts

you prefer a bloated draft dodging oxy addicted hypocrite.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Schiff tweeted on August 28 allegations similar to what the whistleblower claimed, before the complaint was delivered to Congress:

Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent.

It doesn’t take a stable genius to see the magnitude of this conflict.

Or how destructive it is to our national security.


Interesting

 

[Nostra]

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.

Trump challenged invalid subpoenas. YOUR House Clowns ran away from that challenge, Dope.

Why did they do that, Mental Midget?

The subpoenas were not invalid and trump lost the cases in court where the democrats did challenge him.

The fact is that trump's challenges were invalid and if his punk ass had been innocent he doesn't worry about subpoenas.

More lies by you.

They didn't take any of the subpoenas issued in the impeachment to court.

You are a mental midget. No challenge at all

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Trump challenged invalid subpoenas. YOUR House Clowns ran away from that challenge, Dope.

Why did they do that, Mental Midget?

The subpoenas were not invalid and trump lost the cases in court where the democrats did challenge him.

The fact is that trump's challenges were invalid and if his punk ass had been innocent he doesn't worry about subpoenas.

There was no challenge. The commies never fully submitted the subpoenas. If they submitted them and Trump then refused, it would have went to court and the judges would have decided.

 

[Coyote]

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.

You're the one who is trying to push an WB complaint that was 90% wrong as "credible."

What specifically was wrong?

 

[Jitss617]

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

PolitiFact |

Left wing opinion site? I Prefer facts

you prefer a bloated draft dodging oxy addicted hypocrite.

Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.

Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.

If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.

Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective. Sketchy!

why not investigate?

 

[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?

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

What evidence?

 

[The Purge]

www.citizenfreepress.com ^ | February 4, 2020 12:36 pm | Kane

Fantastic Video — Rand Paul Takes Revenge On Democrat Coup Plot

This just unfolded on Senate floor in the past 30 minutes… Shitte has a heart attack!!! ROTFLMFAO

Rand Paul has always been an asshole.

You mean he acts just like you do....glad you see it!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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.

I just watched the video and from what I can tell no one named the whistleblower [which is different from mentioning the whistleblowers name]...Paul mentions/references Ciarmella several times but I don't believe he ever called him the whistleblower, the video also shoots down the notion that the information was verified because those that verified the information had or may have had access to one another to get their story straight...should the media be allowed to mention his name as the whistleblower? or would that be too free of a media?

 

[playtime]

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?

I see. So your claim is that the so-called whistleblower had first hand knowledge? That's a lot different than all the reporting of this story. So what we really needed was the whistleblower to testify under oath to Congress that he indeed had this first hand knowledge.

i'm not claiming anything. it's in the report.

Then I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying that direct knowledge is first hand information? Because if it is, then the WB had to check that box that stated he did. That would mean either all the reporting is wrong, or that the WB lied on his application.

Now if direct knowledge is not the same as first hand information, as outlined in the first paragraph of page two, then he still isn't considered a whistleblower by definition.

So which are you claiming here?

i am not claiming anything other than what is in the report. the ICIG deemed him a WB.

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.

In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.

 

[Coyote]

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

PolitiFact |

Left wing opinion site? I Prefer facts

you prefer a bloated draft dodging oxy addicted hypocrite.

Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.

Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.

If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.

Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective. Sketchy!

why not investigate?

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

PolitiFact |

Left wing opinion site? I Prefer facts

you prefer a bloated draft dodging oxy addicted hypocrite.

Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.

Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.

If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.

Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective. Sketchy!

why not investigate?

Sketchy? No stretching is more like it.

Got a source for that? And how specifically does it invalidate the report that has been independently substantiated?

That's the tricky part. The only way you seem to be able to fix it is with conspiracy theory.

 

[Crepitus]

www.citizenfreepress.com ^ | February 4, 2020 12:36 pm | Kane

Fantastic Video — Rand Paul Takes Revenge On Democrat Coup Plot

This just unfolded on Senate floor in the past 30 minutes… Shitte has a heart attack!!! ROTFLMFAO

Except we don't really know it's him.

So it's just Paul making a lot of meaningless noise as usual.

 

[Coyote]

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.

I just watched the video and from what I can tell no one named the whistleblower [which is different from mentioning the whistleblowers name]...Paul mentions/references Ciarmella several times but I don't believe he ever called him the whistleblower, the video also shoots down the notion that the information was verified because those that verified the information had or may have had access to one another to get their story straight...should the media be allowed to mention his name as the whistleblower? or would that be too free of a media?

I don't think there is any restriction on the media. Just on who tells the media.

 

[Bush92]

www.citizenfreepress.com ^ | February 4, 2020 12:36 pm | Kane

Fantastic Video — Rand Paul Takes Revenge On Democrat Coup Plot

This just unfolded on Senate floor in the past 30 minutes… Shitte has a heart attack!!! ROTFLMFAO

Ciramella is a piece of shit.

 

[Harry Dresden]

here is a picture of the whistle blower.....

 

[Crepitus]

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.

The report was 90% lies. The idea that any Republican is going to assassinate this douchebag doesn't pass the laugh test. Democrats do that kind of thing, not Republicans.

When did Obama protect whistleblowers reporting on his administration?

Answer: never.

There was only one lie in the Mueller report.

"Does not rise to the level of criminal conspiracy".

Unfortunately it was told over and over.

 

[San Souci]

Other than trying to get the guy killed, what possible purpose does it serve?

For crying out loud, you people were bitching for five years because McConnell stated he wanted to see DumBama as a one-term President. Here you have a guy trying to undermine the Trump presidency, and no problem at all. Why? Because he's a Republican.

I could only imagine if we did anything like this to Obama. There would have been riots in the street.

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.

Precedents? Those got thrown out the window after they violated Trump's lawyer/client confidentiality. Now anything goes

Anything.

Seems like THAT is what happened. There was no "Original Crime" here to merit the Muller farce. With Nixon there was a burglary. With Whitewater there was a Land Fraud deal. Here? Nothing.

Investigations don't start out with the assumption of a crime - they start out to investigate whether or not a crime took place or, for that matter, wrong doing of some sort. Given that Russian interference was confirmed, multiple times, and weakness' in our electoral systems and that of other nations, exposed - an investigation was absolutely merited. It did not have to find a crime, but it did need to occur.

What about the Mexican interference? You think the illegals posted pro Hillary posts on Facebook?

No.They just voted for her.

 

[playtime]

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

PolitiFact |

Left wing opinion site? I Prefer facts

you prefer a bloated draft dodging oxy addicted hypocrite.

Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.

Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.

If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.

Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective. Sketchy!

why not investigate?

a trump appointee. d'oh!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

I see. So your claim is that the so-called whistleblower had first hand knowledge? That's a lot different than all the reporting of this story. So what we really needed was the whistleblower to testify under oath to Congress that he indeed had this first hand knowledge.

i'm not claiming anything. it's in the report.

Then I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying that direct knowledge is first hand information? Because if it is, then the WB had to check that box that stated he did. That would mean either all the reporting is wrong, or that the WB lied on his application.

Now if direct knowledge is not the same as first hand information, as outlined in the first paragraph of page two, then he still isn't considered a whistleblower by definition.

So which are you claiming here?

i am not claiming anything other than what is in the report. the ICIG deemed him a WB.

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.

In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.

This is not what we are debating. It has nothing to do whether his complaint is credible or not. There is a transcript of the phone call. What's being debated here is if this person is an actual whistleblower by definition. Apparently he is not. A report filed under the whistleblower statue has to have first hand knowledge. He had second hand knowledge. Now, that doesn't preclude him from filing the complaint, but he can't file it as a whistleblower.

 

[playtime]

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

I see. So your claim is that the so-called whistleblower had first hand knowledge? That's a lot different than all the reporting of this story. So what we really needed was the whistleblower to testify under oath to Congress that he indeed had this first hand knowledge.

i'm not claiming anything. it's in the report.

Then I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying that direct knowledge is first hand information? Because if it is, then the WB had to check that box that stated he did. That would mean either all the reporting is wrong, or that the WB lied on his application.

Now if direct knowledge is not the same as first hand information, as outlined in the first paragraph of page two, then he still isn't considered a whistleblower by definition.

So which are you claiming here?

i am not claiming anything other than what is in the report. the ICIG deemed him a WB.

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.

In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.

This is not what we are debating. It has nothing to do whether his complaint is credible or not. There is a transcript of the phone call. What's being debated here is if this person is an actual whistleblower by definition. Apparently he is not. A report filed under the whistleblower statue has to have first hand knowledge. He had second hand knowledge. Now, that doesn't preclude him from filing the complaint, but he can't file it as a whistleblower.

the ICIG says otherwise.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I don't think there is any restriction on the media. Just on who tells the media.

I didn't ask that. for your opinion cuz of the dangers you feel are involved...btw, to my knowledge, no one has yet offically identified this guy [Ciarmella [sp]] as the whistleblower...Paul put the name out there and for some reason folks are coming to his defense.