Paul . . . Drops . . . Ciaramella’s Name on Live Broadcast – Demands Testimony

Gateway Pundit ^ | Nov. 13, 2019 | Christina Laila

[libstripper]

Full title:

"Rand Paul Goes There – Drops ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella’s Name on Live Broadcast – Demands Testimony (AUDIO)"

Excerpt:

Rand Paul finally went there — after threatening to out the CIA whistleleaker, the Kentucky Senator dropped Eric Ciaramella’s name during an interview on DC-based WMAL.

“I think Eric Ciaramella needs to be pulled in for testimony, and then I think it will be ultimately determined at that point,” Rand Paul said.

“But I think he is a person of interest in the sense that he was at the Ukraine desk when Joe Biden was there when Hunter Biden was working for the Ukrainian oligarch. So simply for that alone, I think he’s a material witness who needs to be brought in.”

[TexasGator]

Only he didn’t name him.

[Dogbert41]

I’m sorry I don’t know how:(

[SecAmndmt]

I assume they cannot unless the Chairman allows it.

I hope conservatives have learned a few things from this mess. We paleocons have been opposed to the national security state for a long time. Many of us got attacked for being opposed to the Patriot Act and other other such pieces of arguably unconstitutional legislation. We cannot give this much power to executive agencies with black budgets. As long a people are involved, power like this will always attract people of the Macchiavellian mindset. It is a good thing we still have the 2A! Or I fear there would simply be no check on the power of these people. As it is, there may yet be a very limited check.

[Theo]

And I quote:

“I think Eric Ciaramella needs to be pulled in for testimony, and then I think it will be ultimately determined at that point,” Rand Paul said.

So ... yeah, there’s that.

[Theo]

He did, idiot. I sincerely don’t understand why you are so blind to the obvious.

[Theo]

Here’s the full transcript:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/13/rand_paul_ukraine_whistleblower_is_a_material_witness_and_must_testify.html

Read is slowly. You’ll see that he in fact *did* name him.

[TexasGator]

SLOWLY .,. RAND PAUL DID N.O.T. NAME THE ‘WHISTLE BLOWER’.

RAND PAUL SAID HE DID NOT NAME THE ‘WHISTLE BLOWER’.

[adorno]

Schiff doesn’t even know if Rand named the right guy as the whistle-blower, according to today’s testimony. Schiff said he did not know the identity of the whistle-blower.

Obviously, Schiff was lying. (I'm sure you knew that and were being facetious).

So, perhaps committee hearings should be run with swearing in those being deposed... AND!!!!!!!

Those doing the questioning. In fact, it should be something that's automatic with congresscritters, who would be advised that, they too cannot lie or deflect or be dishonest or deceive to save their own skins. Far too many of those in congress are more crooked than the people they pass judgement against.

[Subcutaneous Fishstick Blues]

I’m going to be obnoxious.
Ciaramello,Eric Ciaramello, Eric Ciaramello,Eric Ciaramello, Eric Ciaramello...

Maybe you could sing it to the following tune:

https://youtu.be/XihLS-jA_Dg?t=149

[drSteve78]

Senator Rand Paul named Eric C as a person of interest to testify since Eric C was working the Ukraine desk with Biden when son Biden was working with Ukraine company. We can all agree that is what Sen. Paul said; but you and many others have now assumed that Sen. Paul used the words whistleblower and Eric C in the same statement. He did not say that. So TECHNICALLY Senator Paul did not “Name the whistleblower” , he only said his name Eric C in reference to needing testimony. And everybody goes crazy.
Only because you and everyone else, myself included, think, deduce, and therefore know that Eric C is in fact the whistleblower. Except that Eric is a leaker and a spy, not a whistleblower.

[Pearls Before Swine]

You think Schiff was lying, and I think Schiff was lying.

But, he may have maintained a figleaf of plausible deniability by having a staffer talk to “him” (i.e., Ciarmella) because it should have been clear this would be a hot issue if discovered.

He may be denying in the sense of not telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; just a very narrow version of it.

But I think he’s just lying. Doesn’t make much difference. Everybody seems to know who “Charlie” is, and every Dem seems to have known he was planted there at the beginning. Do you remember the picture of the glum Obama staff lined up to greet the Trumps as the new occupants of the WH? There were three rows of people, with ValJar in the front row. There in the back right corner, was Ciarmella.

[Theo]

And I quote, verbatim, Sen. Rand Paul:

"I think Eric Ciaramella needs to be pulled in for testimony ... he is a person of interest in the sense that he was at the Ukraine desk when Joe Biden was there and Hunter Biden was working for Ukrainian oligarchs. Simply for that, I think he is a material witness and needs to be brought in, the other question is, while the whistleblower is protected from being fired or from retaliation in court proceedings, the whistleblower is not protected from being asked who gave him the information, because we can't have a country where the private contents of the president's phone calls are leaked to people who are not supposed to be in that loop.

"I think all these questions have to be asked. I don't think the whistleblower statute was never intended to have criminal trials and people put before the penalty of criminal justice without being able to hear from their accusers. So I think ultimately, he should testify. Adam Schiff is going to prevent it in the House. In the Senate, I will be advocating that if it comes to the Senate, we haven't had a vote yet of what the rules should be. By a simple minority, we should make the rules that the president is allowed to call all his witnesses, and then it is up to the president who he wants to call as his witnesses."

In this context, it is obvious to clear-headed people that Rand Paul is connecting "Eric Ciaramella" with "the whistleblower." If Rand Paul is *not* fingering Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower, why is he mentioning Eric Ciaramella's name? There's only one logical reason why RP mentions EC: Because RP considers EC to be the whistleblower.

Context, context, context.

[TexasGator]

LOL! Nowhere did Rand Paul name Eric as the ‘whistleblower’.

If you say he did you are calling Paul a liar as he specifically said he did not name the whistleblower.d