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

[Siete]

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.

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.

So you agree Quid Pro Joe and his crackhead son need to be investigated for the millions crackhead was paid for a no-show job he was unqualified for while Quid Pro was in charge of billions of our tax dollars going to the corrupt regime in the Ukraine, right

Or are you a ginormous hypocrite?

IF there is evidence to support an investigation, go for it. But do it legally through appropriate channels (Congress, DoJ). Just like any normal investigation is done outside of Trumpworld.

expect nothing but kindergarten rhetoric from classless rw pricks ......

 

[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.

 

[iceberg]

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.

This from the side that doxes gun owner (media) and staff of republicans (yeah Schiff release staffers info).
But he cant blow the whistle on something he's not working in. Its spying not whistleblowing.

Yea hard to complain when "the left" does this all the time.

 

[IM2]

The faggot is a "whistleblower" in the sense that "whistle" = "stiff c*ck"

Here's the message: You're not going to take down a sitting president and thwart the will of 63 million voters while hiding behind your blankie.

The message was well delivered by Rand Paul and hopefully the c*ckblower will continue to have uncontrolled, ill-timed bowel evacuations until it is locked up with its own kind for treason/sedition.

Did 63 million voters vote to allow Trump to extort foreign governments in return for personal favors?

extortion is not one of the impeachment charges. If the House wasn't ready to impeach, they should have held off with their vote. We know they only wanted to extend the circus into the Senate proceedings. Good for the Republicans not allowing them to play their games.

The only game is being plated by republicans. This trial has been a pathetic show by republicans. They have shown the nation how they willing to cover up the corruption of a president just as long as he's from their own party.

 

[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.

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.

So you agree Quid Pro Joe and his crackhead son need to be investigated for the millions crackhead was paid for a no-show job he was unqualified for while Quid Pro was in charge of billions of our tax dollars going to the corrupt regime in the Ukraine, right

Or are you a ginormous hypocrite?

IF there is evidence to support an investigation, go for it. But do it legally through appropriate channels (Congress, DoJ). Just like any normal investigation is done outside of Trumpworld.

There's nothing illegal about what Trump did. The DOJ is infested with coup plotters. You would scream bloody murder if Trump did exactly what you propose.

Time for Trump to FIRE everyone in DOJ who was appointed before he got elected. Now THAT would be draining the swamp.

 

[playtime]

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.

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.

So you agree Quid Pro Joe and his crackhead son need to be investigated for the millions crackhead was paid for a no-show job he was unqualified for while Quid Pro was in charge of billions of our tax dollars going to the corrupt regime in the Ukraine, right

Or are you a ginormous hypocrite?

IF there is evidence to support an investigation, go for it. But do it legally through appropriate channels (Congress, DoJ). Just like any normal investigation is done outside of Trumpworld.

expect nothing but kindergarten rhetoric from classless rw pricks ......

rw pricks loyal to a defective orange man baby instead of the country & constitution

 

[IM2]

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.

This from the side that doxes gun owner (media) and staff of republicans (yeah Schiff release staffers info).
But he cant blow the whistle on something he's not working in. Its spying not whistleblowing.

Yea hard to complain when "the left" does this all the time.

Another right wing lie.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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.

That wasn't the point. The point was is the so-called WB is not a WB at all. He got his information second hand.

 

[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.

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.

 

[IM2]

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.

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.

So you agree Quid Pro Joe and his crackhead son need to be investigated for the millions crackhead was paid for a no-show job he was unqualified for while Quid Pro was in charge of billions of our tax dollars going to the corrupt regime in the Ukraine, right

Or are you a ginormous hypocrite?

IF there is evidence to support an investigation, go for it. But do it legally through appropriate channels (Congress, DoJ). Just like any normal investigation is done outside of Trumpworld.

There's nothing illegal about what Trump did. The DOJ is infested with coup plotters. You would scream bloody murder if Trump did exactly what you propose.

Time for Trump to FIRE everyone in DOJ who was appointed before he got elected. Now THAT would be draining the swamp.

Wrong. Electing a new president would drain the swamp.

 

[Coyote]

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.

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.

So you agree Quid Pro Joe and his crackhead son need to be investigated for the millions crackhead was paid for a no-show job he was unqualified for while Quid Pro was in charge of billions of our tax dollars going to the corrupt regime in the Ukraine, right

Or are you a ginormous hypocrite?

IF there is evidence to support an investigation, go for it. But do it legally through appropriate channels (Congress, DoJ). Just like any normal investigation is done outside of Trumpworld.

There's nothing illegal about what Trump did. The DOJ is infested with coup plotters. You would scream bloody murder if Trump did exactly what you propose.

That part largely opinion. Abuse of power is not explicitly defined in any laws. Nor are "high crimes and misdemeanors".

What you are hanging your hat on is that if didn't commit a technical "crime" he did nothing wrong. Really? That is a dangerous path to go.

Are you going to be happy when some future Dem Prez scoundrel attempts to strong arm a foreign government into investigating his personal political rival in an upcoming election? I don't think so. And I wouldn't be either.

That is what makes you guys so dangerous. You are willing to accept this.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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.

 

[IM2]

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.

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.

That wasn't the point. The point was is the so-called WB is not a WB at all. He got his information second hand.

Bullshit.

 

[Nostra]

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.

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.

So you agree Quid Pro Joe and his crackhead son need to be investigated for the millions crackhead was paid for a no-show job he was unqualified for while Quid Pro was in charge of billions of our tax dollars going to the corrupt regime in the Ukraine, right

Or are you a ginormous hypocrite?

IF there is evidence to support an investigation, go for it. But do it legally through appropriate channels (Congress, DoJ). Just like any normal investigation is done outside of Trumpworld.

Um, apparently you have not read the transcript of the call where Trump said he would have out AG contact Zelensky.

Your complete ignorance of this subject is astounding.

 

[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.

 

[Nostra]

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?

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

So, what's his name?

 

[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.

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.

That wasn't the point. The point was is the so-called WB is not a WB at all. He got his information second hand.

Bullshit.

Can't you read IM2? It's right there in front of you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

 

[Nostra]

To call out your phoney assholes in congress and their ILLEGAL, unconstitutional acts you dumbass, why the hell else.

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?