Posted on 01/30/2020 4:25:57 AM PST by dontreadthis
There were some “irregularities” with the adoption of his two kids.
He was compromised by that. The threat to have his kids deported due to the irregularities was all it took.
Keep in mind that Ciaramella’s name DID come up in one of the House hearings. And the witness who was asked about him (by Rep. Ratcliffe, I think) responded by saying he never heard of the guy.
“...thank that incredible Constitutional scholar mark Levin...”
!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The guy who thinks Anwar al-Awlaki’s kids, born in Yemen to one citizen parent, are natural born citizens eligible to be President?
If Ted is, they are.
Bump.
I never bought that argument as to why Roberts ruled “oddly” on Obamacare.
If those irregularities would have come out at the time of the court review. I don’t think it would have been a “big deal” if revealed. Embarrassing to some extent, force him to resign, devastating enough to make him be blackmail-able ? No! Reasons:
A) It would have obviously what someone was trying to do - influence he decision. That’s PR that could have easily blown back negatively on ZeroWorld.,
B) Sympathy - the would have been a great deal of public sympathy for Roberts & wife. “They’re trying to have a family and this is the only way they could do it.” would have a been a great PR case to make.
Anyway now those kids are pretty much adults and don’t think such information would have much more currency.
I think his odd reasoning is due to something else. I have no idea what!
Sure that’s the way it goes from what we are hearing. But the Democrats were continually arguing the idea that Roberts could intervene with various decisions as to witnesses, documentation, etc.
I love how Democrats want John Bolton to testify, but not the whistle blower.
thanx. I get it. So this really isn’t following the “Clinton” impeachment model.
““You hide and watch.” == “Wait and see.””
Ah, thanks for the translation.
You can’t protect someone that has no need to be protected if they can’t be identified. I could step forward and say I’m the whistle blower (as I can guess a number of people off the street have already done). And what does a whistle blower need protection from in his job with all the protection already in place and such a high profile?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is a law that protects federal government employees in the United States from retaliatory action for voluntarily disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities occurring in a government organization by the organization in focus.
Are they saying his/her life or limb are being threatened and by who? It’ll be simple to identify him/her when they go on record putting this person, if he/she exists, on the witness protection program, which is not part of the Act. And secrets will not be kept, they will identify this person if they exist because they will have to so Trump can be faced by his accuser. Otherwise the action will be considered a complete fraud and will toss them in the bin in 2020.
This is one of the point they are concerned about as they have committed to this to try to hammer Trump in 2020 and they are already scrambling.
rwood
Eric Ciramella is not technically a whistleblower, but even if he is, he is not protected in legal proceedings like this. Once the NYT wrote about the connections to Schiff and the WB, he shut it down. And not just for that, but as we see now, Ciramella was meeting with Ukraine in early Jan-2016 about Bidens and Burisma. New reports are also saying he played a role in the Russia collusion narrative. So they really need to hide his history.
As much as I’d like Rand to shout his name on the floor today, we don’t need that distraction right now. McConnell seems to have everything lined up to end this on Friday. Don’t give the dems another shiny object right now to delay this even more. There will be time for all of this to come, especially if Biden is the nominee. If the presidents team were to try and out the WB right now, the Dems would do another article of impeach for witness tampering or something.
Nailed it!
The reason they “had to hurry” to impeach in the House, before the holiday recess, was they didn’t want a possible RBG event to go ahead of them.
This is all to cast a shadow on Supreme Court appointments!
The Dems have been trying, and succeeding with help from their lapdogs, the press, to keep his name under wraps. But, everybody knows it, as you have shown by using it. I'm a housewife out in the Seattle are and I know his name. This is really beyond ridiculous.
They want to keep his name out of it because if you look into this name you find that he is not a "whistleblower" but a DNC hack who, at one time, worked for Joe Biden.
John Roberts - A real POS is he. Just one more gift from the Bush tribe. Ever notice how he and Comy and Wray have that same s**t eating grin perpetually plastered across their face?
Roberts wants nothing to do with this food fight
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.