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

[Ray From Cleveland]

Please list his "direct and first hand knowledge" Coyote

Has the report been released?

The report is out there but not the actual application that the WB filled out. I can't find that anywhere, and that's what we would need to see to figure out WTF is going on with this complaint.

I can't imagine the complaint would be available unredacted because of confidentiality and classified concerns, but maybe.

I think you can if the names are redacted. I would just like to see both boxes checked off and what his own words are.

Here is what I can find:

Whistleblower complaint, annotated

Trump whistleblower complaint: Read full declassified document


Edited to add: the whistle blower states this

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.

That would certainly seem to state he was as direct witness to some of the events, thus first hand.

Problem: There were no event(s), there was only one, the phone call.

I don't see where this direct witness (or first hand information) came in that you see. What he said is that he trusts the account of the people he worked with, that were people with first hand information. Therefore he's still a person with second hand information. Given the fact that we are talking about one phone call here, I don't see where he claims "most" of the events from.

 

[JusticeHammer]

A very wrong thing to do.

Only in a retarded libs mind.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How does Rand Paul know ?

And if it was through official channels, isn't he obligated to keep it a secret.

Otherwise...isn't he just speculating ?

I think it's kind of like the pregnant unmarried woman at the party. Everybody knows, but nobody talks about it.

Unless there is a court order of some kind or regulation that prohibits anybody releasing the identity, I believe Paul can speculate, or say whatever he damn well pleases.

 

[Coyote]

Has the report been released?

The report is out there but not the actual application that the WB filled out. I can't find that anywhere, and that's what we would need to see to figure out WTF is going on with this complaint.

I can't imagine the complaint would be available unredacted because of confidentiality and classified concerns, but maybe.

I think you can if the names are redacted. I would just like to see both boxes checked off and what his own words are.

Here is what I can find:

Whistleblower complaint, annotated

Trump whistleblower complaint: Read full declassified document


Edited to add: the whistle blower states this

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.

That would certainly seem to state he was as direct witness to some of the events, thus first hand.

Problem: There were no event(s), there was only one, the phone call.

I don't see where this direct witness (or first hand information) came in that you see. What he said is that he trusts the account of the people he worked with, that were people with first hand information. Therefore he's still a person with second hand information. Given the fact that we are talking about one phone call here, I don't see where he claims "most" of the events from.

If you read the report (I just skimmed) - it covers more than the phone call but events surrounding it as well.

I don't see anything questionable and again, neither did the IG. I don't see at all why it's an issue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is about the phone call only. You either heard the phone call yourself of you didn't. I'm sure he didn't listen to part of the call and walk out of the room.

If he had legal access to a transcript of the phone call that is direct evidence sufficient to warrant looking into.

Seriously - this is ridiculous. You are essentially saying if you came across an official recording or memo that detailed something that seemed wrong, you couldn't report it because you weren't there when the memo was created? I've never heard such parsing before when it comes to whistle blowers. We have a system in place to check and verify - it met each of the requirements. You keep ignoring that.

You and Playtime keep telling me that, and I keep responding this has nothing to do whether he could file it or not, it's what it was filed under. In other words, an intelligence agency agent can file a complaint and not be the person with first hand information. Therefore that person is not actually a whistleblower, they are an informant, and therefore, not covered under any specific protections or regulations.

Well the IG specified he met the requirements. I see no reason for him to say otherwise when it could be easily disproved.

I must have missed that part. What you showed me is he met the requirements to submit a complaint, nothing about if he was a defined whistleblower.

Further on in the report, here is what he says:

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. Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations. The Complainant followed the law in filing the urgent concern complaint, and the ICIG followed the law in transmitting the information to the Acting Director of National Intelligence on August 26, 2019.​

In addition - he is referred to, specifically, as a whistle blower, in the report.

He is? Where? Because what you posted only states that they found his information as credible. That's a no-brainer since the transcript of the call was made public. So they accepted his account of what he knew. But since he had no first hand knowledge, page 2 of the link provided states his report cannot be processed as a whistleblower report. Again, that doesn't mean he couldn't report it because he was not a whistleblower.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The report is out there but not the actual application that the WB filled out. I can't find that anywhere, and that's what we would need to see to figure out WTF is going on with this complaint.

I can't imagine the complaint would be available unredacted because of confidentiality and classified concerns, but maybe.

I think you can if the names are redacted. I would just like to see both boxes checked off and what his own words are.

Here is what I can find:

Whistleblower complaint, annotated

Trump whistleblower complaint: Read full declassified document


Edited to add: the whistle blower states this

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.

That would certainly seem to state he was as direct witness to some of the events, thus first hand.

Problem: There were no event(s), there was only one, the phone call.

I don't see where this direct witness (or first hand information) came in that you see. What he said is that he trusts the account of the people he worked with, that were people with first hand information. Therefore he's still a person with second hand information. Given the fact that we are talking about one phone call here, I don't see where he claims "most" of the events from.

If you read the report (I just skimmed) - it covers more than the phone call but events surrounding it as well.

I don't see anything questionable and again, neither did the IG. I don't see at all why it's an issue.

It's an issue because our stance is that he is not an actual whistleblower, he's merely an informant.

 

[Coyote]

I can't imagine the complaint would be available unredacted because of confidentiality and classified concerns, but maybe.

I think you can if the names are redacted. I would just like to see both boxes checked off and what his own words are.

Here is what I can find:

Whistleblower complaint, annotated

Trump whistleblower complaint: Read full declassified document


Edited to add: the whistle blower states this

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.

That would certainly seem to state he was as direct witness to some of the events, thus first hand.

Problem: There were no event(s), there was only one, the phone call.

I don't see where this direct witness (or first hand information) came in that you see. What he said is that he trusts the account of the people he worked with, that were people with first hand information. Therefore he's still a person with second hand information. Given the fact that we are talking about one phone call here, I don't see where he claims "most" of the events from.

If you read the report (I just skimmed) - it covers more than the phone call but events surrounding it as well.

I don't see anything questionable and again, neither did the IG. I don't see at all why it's an issue.

It's an issue because our stance is that he is not an actual whistleblower, he's merely an informant.

Well that isn't what the IG thinks, I tend to go with their assessment especially since they have all the first hand material.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?

That's what really needs to be known. Was he part of the cabal or wasn't he? I believe he is. If this is the true informant, then it's obvious he was in a meeting about how to get rid of Trump, and his actions were not on behalf of the country, but on behalf of the cabal he is part of.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think you can if the names are redacted. I would just like to see both boxes checked off and what his own words are.

Here is what I can find:

Whistleblower complaint, annotated

Trump whistleblower complaint: Read full declassified document


Edited to add: the whistle blower states this

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.

That would certainly seem to state he was as direct witness to some of the events, thus first hand.

Problem: There were no event(s), there was only one, the phone call.

I don't see where this direct witness (or first hand information) came in that you see. What he said is that he trusts the account of the people he worked with, that were people with first hand information. Therefore he's still a person with second hand information. Given the fact that we are talking about one phone call here, I don't see where he claims "most" of the events from.

If you read the report (I just skimmed) - it covers more than the phone call but events surrounding it as well.

I don't see anything questionable and again, neither did the IG. I don't see at all why it's an issue.

It's an issue because our stance is that he is not an actual whistleblower, he's merely an informant.

Well that isn't what the IG thinks, I tend to go with their assessment especially since they have all the first hand material.

If the IG considers him a whistleblower (which I didn't see any evidence of) then he's part of the conspiracy, and should be removed immediately. Because the article clearly states that only a person with first hand information can be a whistleblower.

 

[Coyote]

How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?

Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.

 

[Nostra]

How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?

Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.

Everything in has been independently corroborated,
Lies.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Did he call him the whistleblower ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?

Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.

Everything in has been independently corroborated,
Lies.

That is what I have not been able to sort out in the limited time I've cared to care about this.

 

[Coyote]

Here is what I can find:

Whistleblower complaint, annotated

Trump whistleblower complaint: Read full declassified document


Edited to add: the whistle blower states this

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.

That would certainly seem to state he was as direct witness to some of the events, thus first hand.

Problem: There were no event(s), there was only one, the phone call.

I don't see where this direct witness (or first hand information) came in that you see. What he said is that he trusts the account of the people he worked with, that were people with first hand information. Therefore he's still a person with second hand information. Given the fact that we are talking about one phone call here, I don't see where he claims "most" of the events from.

If you read the report (I just skimmed) - it covers more than the phone call but events surrounding it as well.

I don't see anything questionable and again, neither did the IG. I don't see at all why it's an issue.

It's an issue because our stance is that he is not an actual whistleblower, he's merely an informant.

Well that isn't what the IG thinks, I tend to go with their assessment especially since they have all the first hand material.

If the IG considers him a whistleblower (which I didn't see any evidence of) then he's part of the conspiracy, and should be removed immediately. Because the article clearly states that only a person with first hand information can be a whistleblower.

That makes no sense.

It's all part of a "vast conspiracy" - and everyone who doesn't walk in step becomes part of it.

The IG outlined what they found - and I see no reason to doubt it that he had direct knowledge (which the IG seems to consider the same as first hand) of at least some of what he reported and that was all that was required.

All of this really distracts from what was in the report and what has been corroborated as factual.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?

Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.

Subject him to harm is pure speculation. Other whistleblowers have come out front and center in the past, and nothing happened to them. What's really happening is that this is a plot, and this guy is part of their club. They can't allow him to testify because it would prove that Schiff was in on the entire thing. That's why the 18th witness (which you avoid talking about) was also not part of the clown show, and his testimony in the basement hearings is not allowed to be disclosed.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?

Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.

Subject him to harm is pure speculation. Other whistleblowers have come out front and center in the past, and nothing happened to them. What's really happening is that this is a plot, and this guy is part of their club. They can't allow him to testify because it would prove that Schiff was in on the entire thing. That's why the 18th witness (which you avoid talking about) was also not part of the clown show, and his testimony in the basement hearings is not allowed to be disclosed.

Did anything happen to the woman who lied about Kavennaugh (after 100 years....) ?

 

[Nostra]

How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?

Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.

Everything in has been independently corroborated,
Lies.

That is what I have not been able to sort out in the limited time I've cared to care about this.

Let me help you sort it out.....Coyote is a lying sack.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Problem: There were no event(s), there was only one, the phone call.

I don't see where this direct witness (or first hand information) came in that you see. What he said is that he trusts the account of the people he worked with, that were people with first hand information. Therefore he's still a person with second hand information. Given the fact that we are talking about one phone call here, I don't see where he claims "most" of the events from.

If you read the report (I just skimmed) - it covers more than the phone call but events surrounding it as well.

I don't see anything questionable and again, neither did the IG. I don't see at all why it's an issue.

It's an issue because our stance is that he is not an actual whistleblower, he's merely an informant.

Well that isn't what the IG thinks, I tend to go with their assessment especially since they have all the first hand material.

If the IG considers him a whistleblower (which I didn't see any evidence of) then he's part of the conspiracy, and should be removed immediately. Because the article clearly states that only a person with first hand information can be a whistleblower.

That makes no sense.

It's all part of a "vast conspiracy" - and everyone who doesn't walk in step becomes part of it.

The IG outlined what they found - and I see no reason to doubt it that he had direct knowledge (which the IG seems to consider the same as first hand) of at least some of what he reported and that was all that was required.

All of this really distracts from what was in the report and what has been corroborated as factual.

So what you're saying is that if it is a conspiracy, just move along? Nothing to see here folks. And what if this was happening to Obama by the Republicans? You know, keeping these people secret, not allowing factual witnesses that would prove the conspiracy to testify, hiding their previous testimony, you would be just fine with forgetting about all that?

 

[Coyote]

How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?

Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.

Subject him to harm is pure speculation. Other whistleblowers have come out front and center in the past, and nothing happened to them. What's really happening is that this is a plot, and this guy is part of their club. They can't allow him to testify because it would prove that Schiff was in on the entire thing. That's why the 18th witness (which you avoid talking about) was also not part of the clown show, and his testimony in the basement hearings is not allowed to be disclosed.

I think you are spinning it from pretty thin thread.

I don't know of many - maybe not any - whistle blowers from the Intellegence community that have come out front and center by choice. Can you think of any?

I think it's risky on many fronts both to them, to their jobs, and to their families. That's a big reason why there is confidentiality. Trump is also well known for retaliation.

And - again - there is still the matter of what he reported, the actual facts of the case.