Lets Talk About the Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella ***POLL***

The question is, do you think Eric Cairamella is traitor? Were his actions treasonous in nature? First, I want to provide a little background information.

Eric Ciaramella, whom Real Clear Investigations suggests is the likely so-called whistleblower, was part of an Obama administration email chain celebrating the eventual signing of a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine.

In my opinion, Eric Ciaramella has betrayed his nation and the American people. This man should be protected from physical violence or threats on his life, but our president should have the right to cross examine his accuser. The circus that is going on right now between the liberal politicians and the media has reached a fever pitch. They are hellbent on impeachment at all costs because the liberal ideology (democratic party) is already in ruins, and if Trump get's back in in 2020, that will be the death blow.

The media ignores the fact that there is a serious dispute as to whether Ciaramella even qualifies as a whistleblower under the law. The hysteria over Rand Paul’s threat to disclose Ciaramella’s identity, and Donald Trump, Jr.’s retweet of a story on the topic, was not warranted or based on law. This person should be questioned about his knowledge and activities while having motive and credibility tested. A whistleblower statute is no prohibition on cross-examining a witness.

Very serious political activism is going on right now. The liberal politicians are colluding with the mainstream media to prevent Trump from examining his accuser. And they are denying to the American people what they deserve to know.

You want to see political activism at work? What happened to objective journalism?

-Mainstream media withholding any and all information on Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
-Fox News bans hosts from using name of alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
-Twitter has started disabling accounts that name the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella.
-Facebook has scrubbed all references to the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella

What else do we know about this "so called" whistleblower?

Traitor and fraudulent whistleblower, this man has been part of the rebellion against Trump since day one. Emails show that Ciaramella interfaced about Ukraine with individuals who played key roles in facilitating the infamous anti-Trump dossier produced by Fusion GPS and reportedly financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

According to the Washington Examiner, Ciaramella is currently detailed by the CIA to the National Intelligence Committee, where he works as a deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. He reports to Trump’s acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire. He likely works closely with Alexander Vindman, the impeachment inquiry witness who is now Ukraine director for the NSC, Ciaramella’s former role.

A former Trump official told the Examiner, “It is close to a mathematical certainty that (Vindman and the whistleblower) know one another and that (the whistleblower) is being used to provide analytical support to the National Security Council on the topics of Russia and Ukraine. And that is where they would have crossed paths. They would know who one another are.” Another former Trump official said Vindman and Ciaramella both spent time at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine during the Obama administration. And they have both been working on Ukraine issues for several years.

Ciaramella has worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for several years (member of the deep state) and was assigned to the White House during the end of the Obama administration. He worked closely with Biden in his role as an expert on Ukraine. Ciaramella also has ties to Sean Misko, a former NSC co-worker who now works for Representative Adam Schiff and the Intelligence Committee.

Full sources here:
https://heavy.com/news/2019/10/eric-ciaramella/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...name-of-alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...I8o2woMFabPyTUVmlUcQJdb5771YaO7KkULzOiQyGNG-4

Who else thinks this impeachment attempt is looking more and more like a partisan hack job? Could this be a desperate hail Mary from the liberal democrats?

Question: All that being said, do you think Ciaramella's actions were treasonous in nature?

 

Trump is not a legal professional and can't cross examine the witness..Easy as pie to determine that, plus someone doesn't have the right to face their accuser until a trial is held at that time Trump will see who the fellow is until then it's time to wait no matter what you or any other non-legal beagle thinks..

 

i'll wait til the investigation is done

 

Except this guy Eric Ciaramella was not a first hand source. Nothing on that phone call is impeachable. He blew the whistle because this plan has been in the works since Trump was elected. This entire case is fully synthetic, stinks of collusion and strikes me as a partisan hack job.

When I refer to Trump Im referring to his lawyers, not him directly.

 

Did OUR CONGRESS PASS LAWS PROTECTING WHISTLEBLOWERS????????Do we pass theses laws just for fun????

 

Likely is not synonymous with actually.

Prediction of what Trump and his supporters will say once the identity of the whistleblower is revealed.

1) If the whistleblower is a Democrat they will say that a Democrat cannot be objective thus is biased.

2) If the whistleblower is a Republican they will say he/she is a disloyal RINO.

3) If the whistleblower is an Independent they will say he/she is a never Trumper, something that will likely be said about a Democrat or a Republican too.

It matters not what the whistleblower is as they will be smeared no matter who they are. A tactic I would expect from those who have something to hide as opposed to those who are innocent and have nothing to fear.

 

If the firefighters have the fire under control because someone sounded the alarm I would want to know his identity only to thank him for his service.

 

Well put and 100% correct. Also The Washington Examiner er al., are hardly reputable sources with credible evidence.

 

Oh, and no... Eric Cairamella is not a traitor.

 

When did Trump's lawyers get elected?

 

Unless of course he is the one that started the fire in the first place.

 

Trump started the fire...


To Trump supporters, we say:

 

The Whistle-blower used proper channels to question an action. If he took that information to the Russians or asked the Russians to expose the transcript ... that would be treasonous.

Bottom line - if you see something, say something ... let the investigators and Congress decide if it actionable or not.
We don't crucify someone in the airport for reporting a suspicious package, even when it turns out to be a bag of baby clothes. If we crucify this whistle-blower, then no other whistleblowers will ever come forward, fearing they will be tried for treason if it turns out to be a bag of baby clothes. Republicans are being ignoramuses about this.

 

The call happened and a great number of people, including army brass and CIA and retired intelligence think it was suspicious.

 

Not elected, appointed
Ever heard of Pat Cipollone?

The Democrats believe (as they do) that they could establish their case for articles of impeachment without summoning the so-called whistleblower as a witness, the president and his Republican defenders would have no right to call the whistleblower merely to cross-examine him on the statements made in his hearsay complaint.

 

I suppose there is nothing more to go on but suspicions? We are looking for high crimes and misdemeanors.

In your opinion, should we impeach Trump even if it is found that no laws have been broken?

 

Doesn't matter since first hand witnesses have come forward. Not in the least. The whistleblower said their was a call that he felt was questionable. He took it to the proper authorities. Trump released a transcript that a number of people in government and the military felt was questionable. It's up to Congress to decide if it's actionable.

 

No. But how do we know without an investigation? All investigations start with suspicions. You seem to be saying that a person has to be convicted before they can be investigated.

 

You are almost implying this is a non partisan investigation? That the dems are being objective here? The whistleblower is linked to Obama and Biden. We know both of those people want Trump out of the White House yesterday. Is there any part of your rational that sees this as a partisan hack job and an effort to remove Trump before 2020?

I get that but to accuse the president of something like this and then remain hidden from the public eye is asking too much. Do you think it's fair and just what Twitter and Facebook (and likely google) are doing by whitewashing any links or posts that contain the whistleblowers name?

And I would be all for an investigation if it was a bi-partisan impeachment inquiry. NOT like the soviet style closed door investigations we had going on earlier in the process. Every single person who is accusing Trump are liberal democrats. It is undeniably partisan.

I have a very bad, sinking feeling that our nation may not make it past 2020 at the rate we are going....

 

Generally an investigation is based from compelling evidence of wrongdoing. Even if the president did make a quid pro quo, that is not illegal. Especially in the context, as Trump's ultimate goal was to weed out corruption. The aid put together for Ukraine was free, in fact The Trump administration was under no obligation to deliver the goods at all.

Not sure what else there is to investigate?

 

Every President gets investigated and every president has had partisan calls for impeachment. What do think Republicans were hoping for with the Fast and Furious and Benghazi investigations. The went nowhere and disappeared the day Hillary lost the election.


We'll survive this one just like all the others.

 

And you are emotionally invested in Trump, so you would never see anything he has done as in any way questionable.
The context is that Trump talked about specific political opponents - not general corruption. If he had not mentioned the Bidens by name, he might have a defense. As it is, the call is questionable.

 

I don’t like whistler-blowers nor the law protecting them. You have an accusation, stand up, stand tall.

 

Sorry, that doesn't work here. The guy who started the fire rolled over and admitted it. So did his office staff.

 

He's a scummy, left-wing, America-hating socialist.