p
Time is not on their side, and the Democrats are wasting it.
Lawrence Tribe’s advice was good... for us.
The 5th Amendment gives PDJT the right to face his accusers and Schitt used the blower to launch his circus. Schitt is up Schitt Creek. All whistleblower protection grants is he cannot be fired for blowing the whistle. But perjury in his official blow is fair game.
>>To dignify Ciaramella with the term “whistleblower” misrepresents what he did.<<
So why is referred to in the article as a whistleblower? Eric CIAremlla is a spy.Words do have meaning.
Do I get a prize?
bump
Well since he doesn’t know the name of the whistleblower, how will he know if anyone talks to him or her.
There, just a bold correction to the headline.
To dignify Ciaramella with the term “whistleblower” misrepresents what he did. Sure, he filed what is technically called a whistleblower complaint. But he had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s controversial July 25 phone call or motivations. Every allegation in the complaint begins with “I learned from multiple US officials,” or “multiple officials told me,” or “officials with direct knowledge informed me.” Just gossip. He never names any sources. Ciaramella acted as the anti-Trumpers’ front man. As for courage, not an ounce: He is cowering from public view.
Ping for your attention, article from the NY Post. Proves exactly what I was trying to get through to you in that previous thread. . . ICIG Atkinson could not have "proved" that Ciaramella’s complaint contained "direct knowledge" because, as cited above, "Every allegation in the complaint begins with ‘I learned from multiple US officials,’ or ‘multiple officials told me,’ or ‘officials with direct knowledge informed me.’”. . . nothing in his allegations was confirmable. For ICIG Atkinson to even investigate the actions of the President of the United States he was going rogue, acting completely outside his statutory jurisdiction. Atkinson had no authority at all to investigate anyone outside the Intelligence Community and he knew it.
Eric Ciaramella was not at any time accusing anyone in his allegations of wrongful actions over whom the Intelligence Community Inspector General has statutory jurisdiction for which the ICIG could legally open an investigation for any reason, even to determine if Ciamarella’s allegations were credible or not, because his accusations named no one covered in the statute. In fact, the statute specifically excluded the person so named from ICIG Atkinson’s jurisdiction under several provisions that Atkinson could not possibly have been ignorant, given that statute was specifically one that empowered his position.
By proceeding as if the complaint were just an ordinary routine action against a member of the Intelligence Community, when it was statutorily anything but routine, failing in his duty to determine that difference the law required by his oath of office to make, ICIG Atkinson’s actions proved his anti-Trump bias and demonstrated abuse of his office. Atkinson continued that abuse when he chose to ignore the three independent legal rulings by career legal counsels about his complete lack of statutory jurisdiction and then unilaterally, arrogantly, and illegally overruled three levels of his own superiors to transmit the case to Congress. I think that makes him complicit in the plot.
If Republicans re-take the House, every scrap of paper schiff’s committee manufactured for the impeachment, and every email he, AND his staffers sent and received, should be released for public scrutiny. #Transparency
Come on. Everyone knew Clinton’s whistleblower.
What’s Schiff got to hide, a cigar ?
ID’ing the whistleblower is only step one. Then you have to find the leakers who leaked the flawed info to him (Trump pressed the Ukrainian 7 times in the call?). Then you drill into them for their connections.
If a whistle blower has complete protection from retaliation, then why does he/she need to be kept secret? No one si allowed to harm them.
Or could it be that if a person went into a room to talk to this whistle blower, he’s be the only person in the room?
rwood
"The letters he (ICIG Michael Atkinson) sent to Schiff and Nunes were sent because the whistleblower complaint had not been transmitted to Congress."
I see you finally admit, after repeatedly denying it, that ICIG Atkinson did indeed send the complaint to the Chairmen of both the House and Senate Intelligence Oversight Committees. I’m amazed. You were so insistent that he had not. Now you agree he did, and the reason he did is, as I’d been telling you was his superiors had determined he had no jurisdiction to do so. He complained they did it for politics, to protect President Trump.
Do you recall me telling you that the meta data evidence on his letter transmitting Eric Ciamarella’s complaint to the Congressional Intelligence Committees was dated on August 12, 2019, the same day he received the whistleblower’s spy’s complaints hearsay allegations, and also two calendar weeks before he even submitted his findings that Eric Ciamarella was a liar credible, to the DNI, for his determination of whether the issue was appropriate to submit to Congress oversight or not. Yet, as I told you, and as the meta data clearly proves, Atkinson had already written his letter of transmission to the Congressional Intelligence Committees before he did one lick of investigative effort to check Eric Ciamarella’s credibility, or could possibly know the DNI’s Congressional referral decision!
Now, do you ALSO recall me telling you that it was determined by multiple career legal counsels (three to be exact) that it was, first: NOT an urgent Intelligence Community matter, and was secondly:, not at all under the ICIG’s or DNI’s Jurisdiction because the person being reported was not a member of the Intelligence Community, and thirdly: the person is a member of a class of persons who are statutorily excluded from being under ICIG’s jurisdiction, and fourthly, the matter being reported was one of political policy, which was also statutorily excluded from the ICIG’s Jurisdiction, and fifthly, due to all of the fore-going legal determinations, it thus was not an urgent Intelligence Community concern required to be reported to Congress, and, in fact, by statute and several Constitutional reasons, prohibited from such disclosure? But, of course, you likely don’t recall that.
Do you perhaps ALSO recall me informing you these three career legal counsels, one for the ICIG’s office, another in the office of the Director of National Security, and the third at the Department of Justice, all stated that Legally, and Constitutionally, that what was raised in the allegations were a matter of Executive Privilege, which are not matters ever subject to Congressional oversight.
Further, being a discussion between two Heads of State, it is a matter of Foreign Policy within the President’s Constitutional Foreign Policy domain and therefore, also not an area over which the Intelligence Community Inspector General, or even the DNI, or DOJ have any jurisdiction. Ergo, it is not in their authority to report anything to Congress on the President’s Diplomatic conversations! The President must have free rein to have i]open conversation about any topic that comes up, regardless what other officials may be listening in, without fear they may "report" what’s said to Congress. This has been held inviolate for over two centuries for privileged conversations at the Executive level. To break it requires SCOTUS intervention, and evidence of egregious misconduct.
Just because something was not reported by the ICIG’s superiors, especially when he has been told the legal and Constitutionally valid reasons why it cannot be, non-reporting to Congress does not give ICIG Atkinson any authority to break the very law that created his office, which is what he did! Read the damn law.
In your response, try to use Eric Ciamarella’s given name, not WB, or Whistleblower. I know you prefer not to reveal in context who and what he is, but just try. OK?
He is not a whistleblower. He is a leaker of classified information and is a traitor worthy of death.
_____________________________________________________________
Yes, and on the other hand, Eric Ciaramella is a cowardly functionary for the LEFT. He seems but a fetid, noxious stain who may dissipate over time.
Some day in the near future Eric and his pencil-necked Hollywood creator, "SLEAZY SCREENWRITER SHIFFTY SCHIFF", will be exposed, and the 2020 Presidential Election will bring joy to all MAGA hat wearing thugs in frozen wintry Chicago ... chasing after diminutive gay males of color/pink punks/sissy boy fags.
..... bring some rope and some bleach.
***********************************
(btw) --- and more importantly:
Tom Fitton (of Judicial Watch) is one of the YUGE heroes of our nation, FReepers!
ANY MONITARY HELP THAT ANY OR ALL OF US COULD OR WOULD DIRECT TO JUDICIAL WATCH MAY HELP RID ALL OF US OF THIS DECADES-LONG CRIPPLING EFFORT OF THE ANTI-AMERICA DEEP STATE.
****
We haven't much time to wise up the voters. We even have LESS TIME to "educate" our younger voters.
Please turn yourselves to the efforts of Brad Parscale. He is a key to a Trump win in 2020.
Love the America in which you wish to live? Then please work a little for it.
HAPPY NEW YEAR .... AND HAPPY NOVEMBER 3, 2020.
*********
The simple reason that Schiff doesn’t want anyone talking to the supposed “whistleblower” is that Schiff is a LYING SKUNK, who deserves to be removed from the HoR & banned from seeking any future office.
Personally, I think that the DIMocRATS Party should have to repay ALL of the taxpayer’s money that they have wasted on this WITCH HUNT & FISHING EXPEDITION.
Yours, TMN78247
Do you think the whistleblower is a real person? How do we know he/she is not a Democrat committee? [seriously]. The Democrats will [and have] made up stories to promote their silly theories, why not this one?