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

[Jitss617]

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.

The IG needs to be asked when he came in contact with schiffs office

 

[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?

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.

Paul read it out loud outside the hearing. We know exactly how it was worded. There's nothing that would indicate the whistleblower was mentioned unless you knew who he was. Only an imbecile would believe what you just posted.

 

[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.

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 |

 

[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.

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

When was IG first contact by schiffs office?

 

[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.

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."

 

[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.

Paul read it out loud outside the hearing. We know exactly how it was worded. There's nothing that would indicate the whistleblower was mentioned unless you knew who he was. Only an imbecile would believe what you just posted.

go whine to roberts then. i wouldn't trust rand paul.

 

[Nostra]

The ****** 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.

They used the same rules that governed the Clinton trial, idiot.

**** you retard. Clinton testified before congress and did not refuse documents. Understand? So shove the "they used the same rules they used for Clinton" up your candy ass.

Clinton didn't testify before Congress, you Mental Midget.

The rules for the Clinton impeachment trial were the same rules they used for the Trump trial, Chowderhead.

You lose again, Idiot.

 

[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.

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?

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.

 

[playtime]

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."

prove it was 90% wrong... although you know you can't.

 

[Nostra]

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 ************.

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

Trump did block subpoenas that should have gone to a court of law for a ruling, Mental Midget.

Schifferbrains withdrew the subpoena, tucked tail, and ran away, Dope.

 

[Jitss617]

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

PolitiFact |

Left wing opinion site? I Prefer facts

 

[playtime]

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?

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.

 

[Nostra]

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.

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

Why did they do that, Mental Midget?

 

[MaryL]

I voted for Clinton and most of us of us lived through THAT little drama, the invalid impeachment overreach of the Republicans. But this Democratic led ongoing putsch to remove Trump over the span of 3 years has gotten out of hand. Schiff conspiring with a hidden hidden unnamed source we all KNOW is tied to the Biden's. But its time to end this, investigate Schiff, Nunes or Graham. They like facts so much, it might even exonerate or prove they are right.

 

[playtime]

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

PolitiFact |

Left wing opinion site? I Prefer facts

you prefer a bloated draft dodging oxy addicted hypocrite.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He must been one hell of a snitch

Flashbacks of junior high?

Grow up

 

[RealDave]

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.

 

[IM2]

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.

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.

 

[Harry Dresden]

A very wrong thing to do.

bullshit....a whistleblower aint shit unless they come forward.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

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?