1st Whistle Blower Outed?

[BrooklynGuy]

Looks like this is the guy, will be interesting to get the full report on him.

The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name

For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous “whistleblower" who triggered impeachment proceedings against President Trump — even though his identity is an open secret inside the Beltway. More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that’s known publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House and is now back working at the CIA. But the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings.

Read more:  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

 

'Pinnacle of irresponsibility': Attorneys decline to confirm CIA officer Eric Ciaramella is whistleblower

Attorneys for the whistleblower who submitted a complaint about President Trump's July 25 call with Ukraine's president, prompting the impeachment process to begin, declined to confirm or deny that their client was Eric Ciaramella, a career CIA officer. RealClearInvestigations reported Wednesday that Ciaramella was the whistleblower. The Washington Examiner has established, however, that there was at least one significant factual inaccuracy in the report, which was written by Paul Sperry, a partisan pro-Trump figure who had released Ciaramella's name via Twitter earlier this month and whom critics accuse of trading in disinformation and conspiracy theories.

Read more: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/pinnacle-of-irresponsibility-attorneys-decline-to-confirm-cia-officer-eric-ciaramella-is-whistleblower

[Robotic Jew]

Glad we are now just outing the names and putting peoples lives in danger. What a wonderful country we live in.

[BrooklynGuy]

23 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Glad we are now just outing the names and putting peoples lives in danger. What a wonderful country we live in.

Good point RB, since the guy turned out to be a dud for the Dems, Schifty and his partners in crime might try to revoke his membership to Costco.  

[ExpandMyMind]

10 minutes ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Good point RB, since the guy turned out to be a dud for the Dems

His report literally led to Trump's impeachment.

[BrooklynGuy]

7 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

His report literally led to Trump's impeachment.

 Goodness gracious you are naive, good luck with that. 

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

Glad we are now just outing the names and putting peoples lives in danger. What a wonderful country we live in.

All jokes aside... who, do you imagine, would try to kill this guy for giving his OPINION of what he heard or was told by someone else who heard, of a conversation?  I mean, you do grasp the fundamental difference between a true whistleblower that uncovers criminal activity or hidden malfeasance versus someone who is just stating an opinion of what he heard when nothing is being hidden and in fact is covered with an actual transcript that has been made public, right?  As an aside, did you feel a similar concern for Nick Sandmann when he and his family were doxxed and he was receiving death threats and threats against his school and classmates?  Did that bother you?  I would hope that it did.

I'd really like to understand the mindset that believes that the testimony of any of these people somehow carries more veracity or credibility than the record of the actual words spoken by the two men.  BOTH of which deny any pressure was exerted.  Were you also aware that at the time of the conversation, Zelinsky and his aides were not even aware of the administrative hold on those funds?  If he wasn't aware of this and he made no promise or any attempt to begin or to restart an investigation then it seems to be you'd be missing both sides of the "this for that" equation, wouldn't you? 

I'm far more interested, at this point, in who's on deck warming up for the next assault after this one finally is acknowledged as DOA.  They'll never stop, after all.  As the Durham/Barr inquest gains traction in the media - as it WILL do - what will they use next to distract the voters they want to convince that "Orange Man sufficiently Bad to remove from office"?  It's becoming a fascinating study into the contortions they will go through out of desperation.  

Question... when they finally vote to Impeach and send the charges (Articles) over to the Senate, what will you do if they are either summarily dismissed or McConnel imposes a time limit on deliberations and demands the trial be carried out expeditiously and the vote for removal/acquittal be finished by a set date - as is his prerogative as Senate leader? 

The bottom line is that Schumer will be quite fortunate to get all of his block of Dem Senators to vote guilty and even if he does, he won't get more than a handful of RINOs to vote guilty.  The sure ones will number around 5 and there might be a couple more who feel they can escape serious impacts to their electoral future.  On the flip-side, Dems like Manchin in W. Virginia and as many as three other Democrats may refuse to vote guilty because it would end their career when the folks back home learn of it.

It will essentially play out as a futile gesture by hate-obsessed Dems who are just keeping promises to their hate-obsessed constituencies back home.  All of the Sturm and Drang will pass, Trump will still be president and the most likely long term impact will be the strengthening of his base and even a growth in support from unbiased Independents that become sick of the blatant inequities they see in the process.  What will you do when he's acquitted, then re-elected?  Have you thought this whole thing through or are you operating strictly on emotion?

[BrooklynGuy]

No wonder Schifty dropped this guy like a bad habit. I must say I'm very disappointed in Mr. Ciaramella, usually people of Italian decent are upstanding citizens. I'll bet Schifty got that Mafia bit from watching The Godfather with Mr. Ciaramella while the two of them were hatching their fake impeachment scheme. 

More on the story:

Anti-Trump Whistle Blower Worked With DNC Operative Who Sought Dirt On Trump From Ukrainian Officials 

A new report from Real Clear Investigations reveals that the anti-Trump “whistle blower” who prompted the current impeachment proceedings against President Trump is a registered Democrat who worked with a Democratic National Committee opposition researcher who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Federal documents reveal that the whistle blower, Eric Ciaramella, previously worked in the Obama administration with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. 

Read more: https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/30/anti-trump-whistleblower-worked-with-dnc-operative-who-sought-dirt-on-trump-from-ukrainian-officials/

[+OverSword]

44 minutes ago, BrooklynGuy said:

No wonder Schifty dropped this guy like a bad habit. I must say I'm very disappointed in Mr. Ciaramella, usually people of Italian decent are upstanding citizens. I'll bet Schifty got that Mafia bit from watching The Godfather with Mr. Ciaramella while the two of them were hatching their fake impeachment scheme. 

More on the story:

Anti-Trump Whistle Blower Worked With DNC Operative Who Sought Dirt On Trump From Ukrainian Officials 

A new report from Real Clear Investigations reveals that the anti-Trump “whistle blower” who prompted the current impeachment proceedings against President Trump is a registered Democrat who worked with a Democratic National Committee opposition researcher who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Federal documents reveal that the whistle blower, Eric Ciaramella, previously worked in the Obama administration with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. 

Read more: https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/30/anti-trump-whistleblower-worked-with-dnc-operative-who-sought-dirt-on-trump-from-ukrainian-officials/

No kidding?  Who would have thought such a thing.  I'm still sticking with my guillotine idea.  That's our best solution as far as these DC dirt bags go. 

[+and-then]

42 minutes ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Federal documents reveal that the whistle blower, Eric Ciaramella, previously worked in the Obama administration with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. 

I believe that details like this will be the undoing of these efforts against Trump.  I still believe that even in this time of hysterical hatred being stoked by the Demedia, Americans of all political leanings have an abiding belief in FAIRNESS in the process and what the D's are doing is blatantly unfair in every way.  They're going to pay a price next year.  I don't believe their leadership isn't aware of this, they are just in a corner and HAVE to make a distraction before Durham takes Horowitz report and begins to start tying slip-knots...

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, and then said:

I believe that details like this will be the undoing of these efforts against Trump.  I still believe that even in this time of hysterical hatred being stoked by the Demedia, Americans of all political leanings have an abiding belief in FAIRNESS in the process and what the D's are doing is blatantly unfair in every way.  They're going to pay a price next year.  I don't believe their leadership isn't aware of this, they are just in a corner and HAVE to make a distraction before Durham takes Horowitz report and begins to start tying slip-knots...

Agreed.  This is exactly why whistle blowers should not remain anonymous forever....vested interests and prejudice.

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, and then said:

I believe that details like this will be the undoing of these efforts against Trump.  I still believe that even in this time of hysterical hatred being stoked by the Demedia, Americans of all political leanings have an abiding belief in FAIRNESS in the process and what the D's are doing is blatantly unfair in every way.

IDK the dems have done a pretty good job of pointing out that the rules you guys are complaining about were implemented by you guys.

[BrooklynGuy]

It's official Schifty's 1st Fake Whistle Blowhard has been outed

BREAKING, Whistleblower Has Been Outed, Worked For Obama, Biden And Brennan

Democrats are in a panic as the secret identity of their fabled whistleblower has been revealed and it shows they are not unbiased. The identity of the whistleblower has been referred to as an “open secret” in Washington, D.C., but now that name could be known to everyone, Real Clear Investigations reported. “He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” a former National Security Council official said. “Also, Ciaramella huddled for ‘guidance’ with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC,” it said.

Read more: https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/breaking-whistleblower-outed-worked-obama-biden-brennan

 

[ExpandMyMind]

Who the whistleblower is or the political affiliations he holds have nothing to do with the inquiry anymore. His second hand information has been confirmed multiple times through first-hand witnesses. 

I don't think Republicans are quite grasping just how serious an issue this now is. Once these witnesses' testimony become televised there's a very good chance that public opinion will sway enough to leave Republicans with no option but to vote on the evidence. This is what happened with Nixon. In fact, support for Trump's impeachment is much higher now than it was at the same stage of Nixon's impeachment.

[BrooklynGuy]

When asked to comment on his 1st Fake Whistle Blowhard being outed Schifty had this to say:

 

[+OverSword]

Notably this is not being discussed on MSM websites as of yet.  Why would that be?

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I don't think Republicans are quite grasping just how serious an issue this now is. Once these witnesses' testimony become televised there's a very good chance that public opinion will sway enough to leave Republicans with no option but to vote on the evidence. 

Very possible.  That's what I've been saying the whole time.  Once public impeachment hearings begin it may not be possible for everyone to simply vote partisan and may have to actually respect the law and ethics. 

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Very possible.  That's what I've been saying the whole time.  Once public impeachment hearings begin it may not be possible for everyone to simply vote partisan and may have to actually respect the law and ethics. 

Twenty Republican Senators voting AGAINST the wishes of their constituencies in a purely, blatantly political hit job.  But hey, let them keep the dream alive.  Nancy's having a probem just getting her people to vote in a "safe" manner.  Imagine that many Senators taking a vote that they KNOW will likely end their careers - not to benfit the country, but just to vindicate their opponents.  Don't drink the Kool Aid 

ETA - I think, our Scottish resident critic aside, the folks who aren't respecting or grasping their peril here are the Dems.  The backlash against this could be monumental.  The campaign raised nearly a million dollars in a day since this vote and most of the recent-record-breaking donations have been the small, under 50 dollar types.  Let the party roll on!  It truly is amazing to see people so self-deluded that they can keep trying the same things over and over while failing abjectly, every time.

The polls still show him losing to every Dem candidate AND their pool boys and the faithful believe them just as they did in 2016.  I guess that's to provide ammo to say he cheated again when he wins decisively...AGAIN  

Edited November 1, 2019 by and then

[Timothy]

People should be able to report things they think are being done wrong with anonymity and impunity, that is if not reported solely with malicious intent.

If something’s being done wrong, it should be fixed. If nothing’s wrong, the person gets educated and clarifications are made. 

I have experience mainly with a couple processes in Australia, whereby a freedom of information request etc. would never result in a persons name being released. Whistleblower protection is extremely important.

Only by court order if they needed the name would it be released to the courts, but never publicly unless the individual wanted their identity released. Or if they’ve actually done something criminally wrong to be made public.

People should respect cases like this and not cream their pants over thinking they’re woke and releasing an individuals identity.

Whistleblowers need protection. It is a fundamental requirement for things to work justly.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Tiggs
3rd Para, corrected "isn't" to "is", at posters request.

[+and-then]

19 minutes ago, Timothy said:

that is if not reported solely with malicious intent.

And how is that guaranteed?  Who makes the determination?  That's the problem with the blatant and overt partisanship we see today in our public institutions.  A very good example that we see in the U.S. is this move toward "Red Flag" laws that allow anonymous individuals to express an opinion on their view that another citizen is dangerous to society, even when that person has taken no action against anyone.  I'm not trying to derail or shift this into a pointless gun control debate but it is a clear example of where anonymous, unaccountable reporting can lead to inappropriate or even criminal actions by government, all in the guise of "helping to secure the people".  

I totally agree that a mechanism needs to be in place to allow people within organizations that have gone amok, to report dangerous situations.  The question is where do we draw the line and how much emphasis should be placed on verifying the need for action based on an anonymous report?  In this particular instance, a couple of weeks prior to the whistleblower's report, the government voted in committee to change fundamental rules about the WB needing to have FIRST HAND knowledge of the situation they are complaining of.  Ultimately, once a transcript of the offending phone call was published, every witness so far has just been giving their personal OPINION of their take on the meaning of the exchange.  Since the two primary participants have expounded on what they said and meant, what difference should those other, dissenting opinions matter to anyone?  

[Timothy]

@and then, simply: Protection and anonymity has to be first granted for the system to work. 

It can be unfortunate if an individual is then obligated to prove their innocence.

It feels like ‘guilty until proven innocent’.

But it is: ‘Sorry, we just have to make sure you’re innocent as we have received information’.

I 100% understand your sentiment. And whistleblowers can abuse the rights. But if they do, they should face the full force of the law. Fraud, compensation, defamation etc. 

But there does need to exist a safe avenue for anyone in any position to report if they feel there are indiscretions. It has to exist. 

[Robotic Jew]

14 hours ago, and then said:

All jokes aside... who, do you imagine, would try to kill this guy for giving his OPINION of what he heard or was told by someone else who heard, of a conversation?  I mean, you do grasp the fundamental difference between a true whistleblower that uncovers criminal activity or hidden malfeasance versus someone who is just stating an opinion of what he heard when nothing is being hidden and in fact is covered with an actual transcript that has been made public, right?  As an aside, did you feel a similar concern for Nick Sandmann when he and his family were doxxed and he was receiving death threats and threats against his school and classmates?  Did that bother you?  I would hope that it did.

I'd really like to understand the mindset that believes that the testimony of any of these people somehow carries more veracity or credibility than the record of the actual words spoken by the two men.  BOTH of which deny any pressure was exerted.  Were you also aware that at the time of the conversation, Zelinsky and his aides were not even aware of the administrative hold on those funds?  If he wasn't aware of this and he made no promise or any attempt to begin or to restart an investigation then it seems to be you'd be missing both sides of the "this for that" equation, wouldn't you? 

I'm far more interested, at this point, in who's on deck warming up for the next assault after this one finally is acknowledged as DOA.  They'll never stop, after all.  As the Durham/Barr inquest gains traction in the media - as it WILL do - what will they use next to distract the voters they want to convince that "Orange Man sufficiently Bad to remove from office"?  It's becoming a fascinating study into the contortions they will go through out of desperation.  

Question... when they finally vote to Impeach and send the charges (Articles) over to the Senate, what will you do if they are either summarily dismissed or McConnel imposes a time limit on deliberations and demands the trial be carried out expeditiously and the vote for removal/acquittal be finished by a set date - as is his prerogative as Senate leader? 

The bottom line is that Schumer will be quite fortunate to get all of his block of Dem Senators to vote guilty and even if he does, he won't get more than a handful of RINOs to vote guilty.  The sure ones will number around 5 and there might be a couple more who feel they can escape serious impacts to their electoral future.  On the flip-side, Dems like Manchin in W. Virginia and as many as three other Democrats may refuse to vote guilty because it would end their career when the folks back home learn of it.

It will essentially play out as a futile gesture by hate-obsessed Dems who are just keeping promises to their hate-obsessed constituencies back home.  All of the Sturm and Drang will pass, Trump will still be president and the most likely long term impact will be the strengthening of his base and even a growth in support from unbiased Independents that become sick of the blatant inequities they see in the process.  What will you do when he's acquitted, then re-elected?  Have you thought this whole thing through or are you operating strictly on emotion?

Any number of the extremely violent and evil that reside in the trump cult. That's who. Somebody like this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/nyregion/cesar-sayoc-sentencing-pipe-bombing.html

Or this guy:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/10/el-paso-walmart-mass-shooting-suspect-pleads-not-guilty/3935362002/

You DO KNOW that  Zelinsky is a newly elected leader of a country and can't just come out and say "Yeah I was pressured into doing something by the americans." because it could hurt his image and ability to govern his own people right? The same reason an american president would never say the same thing. Several people have no testified UNDER OATH that it was known that a PRECONDITION to getting a meeting with trump would be announcing publicly that they were opening an investigation into biden and the dnc. I don't know if you know, but that's pressure to investigate a political opponent IN EXCHANGE FOR ASSISTANCE.I know there's no reaching you on this so I'll save my fingers the exertion. Just know, I will be here when a democrat is in office and reminding you of these days when you're up in arms about them asking a foreign government to investigate a republican political opponent in exchange for assistance. 

It's pretty telling that holding somebody accountable for wrongdoing even if they're in your own party means somebody isn't a "true republican" in your eyes. 

I'm on record stating multiple times here that trump won't be removed from office for this. It's not because he shouldn't be though. It's because the spineless and corrupt repubs will never go against him and risk being tweeted at even if it means doing what's right. I have no hate for anyone that doesn't deserve it. I've made peace with the fact that our corrupt government will not be successful in holding this man accountable for his violations of ethics and his moronic ineptitude. All I can do is what I'm currently doing. Sitting back and shaking my head as hate filled cultists scream and cry about people who actually care about morality and decency try to make the world a better place and accuse those people of being the ones filled with hate. 

I've wasted enough time typing and I know nothing I say will ever get through to you. You've proven time and again that you're incapable of rational thought or changing your mind about anything. If you truly see nothing wrong with ANYTHING that is going on in your party right now then I feel absolutely sorry for you.

 

[Farmer77]

9 hours ago, and then said:

In this particular instance, a couple of weeks prior to the whistleblower's report, the government voted in committee to change fundamental rules about the WB needing to have FIRST HAND knowledge of the situation they are complaining of.  Ultimately, once a transcript of the offending phone call was published, every witness so far has just been giving their personal OPINION of their take on the meaning of the exchange.  Since the two primary participants have expounded on what they said and meant, what difference should those other, dissenting opinions matter to anyone?  

What you posted here is patently false. Remove the media filters and read it for yourself

No, ‘Firsthand Knowledge’ Was Never Required Of Whistleblowers

Quote

To be clear, Davis’ claim that there was a firsthand knowledge requirement for filing a complaint is false. It simply does not exist in the statute that lays out the requirements of a successful “urgent concern” report. The controlling statute is 50 U.S. Code § 3033(k)(5)(G), which lays out the following requirements, none of which are firsthand knowledge:

(G) In this paragraph, the term “urgent concern” means any of the following:

(i) A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.

 

(ii) A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity.

 

(iii) An action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under subsection (g)(3)(B) of this section in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern in accordance with this paragraph.

Even the WH OLC doesnt argue that its required

Quote

Another way to see that there is no such requirement is to look at an opinion issued by Trump’s Department of Justice that attempted to push back against a determination by the inspector general for the intelligence community that the whistleblower complaint did indeed qualify as an “urgent concern.” On September 24, the Office of Legal Counsel — a DOJ entity that “provides legal advice to the President and all executive branch agencies” — issued an 11-page complaint detailing arguments against the determination. Notably, there is no discussion of a firsthand knowledge requirement. If there was, the OLC opinion would undoubtedly have simply stated that the complaint was prima facie inadequate for “urgent concern” status.

Bottom line is The Federalist has gone from a center right publication to a lie filled Trumpian propaganda mouthpiece.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Farmer77

[RoofGardener]

I'd agree that the whistleblowing law does not forbid hearsay evidence. However, the media presented this as the "smoking gun". When people hear that it is hearsay - especially if it is not properly corroborated - they may start to distrust the accusation. 

18 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

His report literally led to Trump's impeachment.

Is it just me that gets annoyed at this incorrect use of the term "literally" ? 

OBVIOUSLY the report did NOT "literally" lead to Trumps impeachment, for the simple reason that President Trump hasn't BEEN impeached yet ! Jeeez Louise ! 

[Robotic Jew]

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I'd agree that the whistleblowing law does not forbid hearsay evidence. However, the media presented this as the "smoking gun". When people hear that it is hearsay - especially if it is not properly corroborated - they may start to distrust the accusation. 

Is it just me that gets annoyed at this incorrect use of the term "literally" ? 

OBVIOUSLY the report did NOT "literally" lead to Trumps impeachment, for the simple reason that President Trump hasn't BEEN impeached yet ! Jeeez Louise ! 

No one ever said it was a "smoking gun" or presented it as such. It was focused on as it should have been because it pointed to possible impropriety on the part of the president and his staff. It got more attention when it was revealed that the complaint was being withheld as part of further cover up. Further testimony has shown that A LOT of people who aren't beholden to trump by their TCSS were uncomfortable and disturbed by the actions being taken by the president and his demented lawyer puppet. 

[Setton]

16 hours ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Eric Ciaramella, previously worked in the Obama administration with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. 

A CIA employee worked with the CIA director???!!! 

Conspiracy, I tell you! It's all lies! A plot to remove the cross between Jesus and Ghandi that is Supreme Leader Trump!! 

 

 

 

 

This is actually how you guys sound at the moment. 

And this, I believe, is what you would call a 'nothing burger'. 

Ridiculous expression.