The "Whistleblower"

[bellisarius]

Let's start with the fact that Eric Ciaramella is NOT a whistleblower. Under US law the term "whistleblower" has a very specific definition, a definition that Ciaramella does not meet.

Eric Ciaramella, while at Yale, was a campus radical who organized protests in support of a pro-Palestinian, pro-Muslim Brotherhood professor. Hardly the neutral analyst the dems and the press have painted him to be. Post graduation he was recruited by the CIA (Ivy league schools being the favored hunting ground for new recruits as I covered in another thread) and was subsequently "fast tracked."

Brennan either appointed Ciaramella to the NSC in the Obama White House or endorsed his appointment. Not totally unheard of for someone so young and inexperienced, but still note worthy. While at the NSC he was the Ukranian "expert.

Here's where it gets interesting. After Biden getting the nod as the point man for all things Ukranian Ciaramella accompanied Biden on his trips to the Ukraine. He was present for damn near all of the meetings that Biden had while in the Ukraine. That would make him a witness of fact to any investigation regarding the Biden's activities while in country.

And that brings into question his motives for blowing. Was it because he's such a concerned citizen and patriot, or was it to inoculate himself AND Biden from any investigation before the fact? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Adre]

Since everything that a whistleblower claimed has been corroborated and expanded upon, often by multiple sources, your questions about his motives, while perhaps interesting, are largely irrelevant at this point. Bribery is bribery—illegal and specifically impeachable as stated in our Constitution.

 

[Ramone45]

Since everything that a whistleblower claimed has been corroborated and expanded upon, often by multiple sources, your questions about his motives, while perhaps interesting, are largely irrelevant at this point. Bribery is bribery—illegal and specifically impeachable as stated in our Constitution.

What bribery?

 

[Adre]

What bribery?

Already asked and answered fifty times, but thanks for your question.

 

[icanhelp1]

Since everything that a whistleblower claimed has been corroborated and expanded upon, often by multiple sources, your questions about his motives, while perhaps interesting, are largely irrelevant at this point. Bribery is bribery—illegal and specifically impeachable as stated in our Constitution.

Corroborated by who? SCHIFF? LMAO!!! HE NEEDS TO TESTIFY in an open hearing and motives cross examined. Schiff should testify, he's a fact witness, he should also recuse himself from the chair for lying to congress and the american people.

 

[bellisarius]

Corroborated by who? SCHIFF? LMAO!!! HE NEEDS TO TESTIFY in an open hearing and motives cross examined. Schiff should testify, he's a fact witness, he should also recuse himself from the chair for lying to congress and the american people.

^^^ All quite true.

 

[Pookie]

NotIsh wants to know why the NotWhistleblower (who may or may not be the whistleblower) blew the NotWhistle.

NotIsh is whistling past the graveyard.

 

[icanhelp1]

Already asked and answered fifty times, but thanks for your question.

You don't know the difference between policy enforcement and bribery.

COLLUSION
EXTORTION
BRIBERY
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WHAT'S NEXT

 

[jaF0]

Ican't and belldinger seem to know a lot about blowing whistles.

 

[Pookie]

Ican't and belldinger seem to know a lot about blowing whistles.

They're just master baiters at getting you to focus on irrelevant things.

 

[Conager]

His apparent conflict of interest about Joe Biden's apparent conflict of interest about Hunter Biden's suspect remuneration would certainly be asked if he gets on the stand which is why they don't want him on the stand.

The fact they don't want him on the stand looks worse than what they thought it would look like when they could claim that the call was something that it wasn't because they assumed that the call memorandum would never see the light of day. They were going to claim why is he invoking executive privilege? Why is this memorandum on a secure sewer or unavailable to State Department employees? What is he hiding?.

Now the shoe's on the other foot what are the Democrats hiding?

 

[bellisarius]

Considering Ciaramella has no real protection under the law one has to wonder why the Senate hasn't acted? My gut feeling is that they're going to let the House do it's thing and then pummel the dog shit out of Ciaramella if the House does send articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.

I don't think the actors thought this through very well.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Since everything that a whistleblower claimed has been corroborated and expanded upon, often by multiple sources, your questions about his motives, while perhaps interesting, are largely irrelevant at this point. Bribery is bribery—illegal and specifically impeachable as stated in our Constitution.

So, this just happened:

According to a copy of his opening statement obtained by CBS News, Mr Holmes said: "Sondland told Trump that [Ukrainian President] Zelensky 'loves your ass.'"

"I then heard President Trump ask, 'So, he's gonna do the investigation?'

"Ambassador Sondland replied that 'he's gonna do it', adding that President Zelensky will do 'anything you ask him to'."

The aide said Mr Trump had asked about "investigations" and Mr Sondland had replied that Ukraine was ready to move forward.

According to Mr Taylor, Mr Sondland then told the aide that the president cared more about the investigation of the Bidens than anything else involving Ukraine.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/david-holmes-statement-impeachment-inquiry-full-opening-statement/

 

[Adre]

Why did Trump and his Three Stooges need to get rid of a known and trusted anti-corruption diplomat exactly when a new inexperienced leader was set to take office? WE KNOW WHY.

 

[Conager]

Since everything that a whistleblower claimed has been corroborated and expanded upon, often by multiple sources, your questions about his motives, while perhaps interesting, are largely irrelevant at this point. Bribery is bribery—illegal and specifically impeachable as stated in our Constitution.

No it hasn't been corroborated since refuted is the opposite of corroborated. The only corroboration is from vidman and vidman is the source. You can't corroborate something with the source.

Already asked and answered fifty times, but thanks for your question.

No, you haven't. Neither has anyone else.

Why did Trump and his Three Stooges need to get rid of a known and trusted anti-corruption diplomat exactly when a new inexperienced leader was set to take office? WE KNOW WHY.

"Trusted" by whom?

 

[Ramone45]

You don't know the difference between policy enforcement and bribery.

COLLUSION
EXTORTION
BRIBERY
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WHAT'S NEXT

Yeah that's what I thought. He doesn't know.

 

[Ramone45]

No it hasn't been corroborated since refuted is the opposite of corroborated. The only corroboration is from vidman and vidman is the source. You can't corroborate something with the source.




No, you haven't. Neither has anyone else.





"Trusted" by whom?

Precisely

 

[Adre]

Corroborated by Mr. Holmes. First person witness.

 

[bellisarius]

Corroborated by Mr. Holmes. First person witness.

You're jesting Shirley, right?

 

[Adre]

Queefager is so generous to instruct us on word meanings.

 

[zipman]

So, this just happened:



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/david-holmes-statement-impeachment-inquiry-full-opening-statement/

So far everything the whistleblower has said has been confirmed.

EVERYTHING!

It is kind of fun watching the cries of "hearsay" and "secondhand information" blow up in their faces.

And now Trump is directly linked to all of this.

Trump IS the swamp.

 

[Aglaopheme]

So far everything the whistleblower has said has been confirmed.

EVERYTHING!

It is kind of fun watching the cries of "hearsay" and "secondhand information" blow up in their faces.

And now Trump is directly linked to all of this.

Trump IS the swamp.

And they’ll just move right on to the next talking point ignoring the ashes that are raining down upon them.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No it hasn't been corroborated since refuted is the opposite of corroborated. The only corroboration is from vidman and vidman is the source. You can't corroborate something with the source.




No, you haven't. Neither has anyone else.





"Trusted" by whom?

https://media3.giphy.com/media/3r2EDpVr1rRaE/giphy.gif

 

[Adre]

Corroborated by Mr. Holmes. First person witness.

You're jesting Shirley, right?

So you have evidence Holmes did not personally hear a phone conversation between Trump and his flunkie? Are you claiming it wasn’t Trump on the phone?

 

[zipman]

And they’ll just move right on to the next talking point ignoring the ashes that are raining down upon them.

Yup. And they will just continue discussing "alternative facts" in the "alternative reality" they are trying to create.

The bottom line is Trump was sold a conspiracy theory which he chose to believe over all of the intelligence that disproved it. Although Ish still believes Crowdstrike gave Hillary's server to the Ukraine.

Trump is completely corrupt and an utter embarrassment and every day more and more of it is exposed.