Rand Paul Blows the Roof off Rally Last Night

The whistle blower has performed his patriotic duty, much like dropping-a-dime to alert authorities to suspicious behavior.

After multiple witnesses have testified, whoever first brought the crimes to their attention, is of no legal import.

If someone wishes to bestow a Good Citizenship Award, that would be nice, I suppose.

 

He has no principles. He pretends to be a "libertarian", hems and haws about whether he'll vote for some POS legislation, but always ends up being a toadie anyway.

He makes a pretense of having principles. Look at his actions, not his acting job.

 

So now you WANT his to reveal it? LOL...it aint even a secret T. Everyone knows it was Ciamerlla.

 

No, I do not think his name should be revealed so long as he wants his name to remain confidential. He provided second hand information and we now have the first hand information as sworn testimony. So why do you want his name out in the public?

What reason beyond trying to intimidate and harassment?

 

Maybe because I think the whole thing was a sham hit job, and WB needs to answer a few questions about that. I don't want him fired or anything right now.

 

You have sworn testimony from the individuals with first hand knowledge and they confirmed the reports contained in the WB complaint.

So why do you believe it was a sham hit job? Is Giuliani a deep state agent or something?

 

If you indeed feel the whistleblower laws should be ignored for your entertainment and desires, even after all the testimony that not only confirms but expands upon the initial complaint then you clearly have alterior motives and do not respect our justice system....you are little more than a political hack.

 

*LOL*

One of Bonespurs' toadies---a clown who donated $1 Million to his campaign!---and was appointed to be US Ambassador to the EU (a post he was unqualified to hold), just amended his testimony to be in line with every other piece of evidence, and the other deponents' testimony, that Bonespurs tried to withhold military aid to Ukraine in return for an investigation into the DNC and Biden's son!

You have to have your head deep in the sand to call that a "sham". Un-****ing-believable.

 

Of course, you're right, steveo. The reported identity of the so-called "whistleblower" and his ties to Democrats and their "insurance agents" in the Derp State are probably the worst kept secrets in Washington, if not the entire country...



HUGE! CIA “Whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella Worked with DNC Operative Alexandra Chalupa in Creation of Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax

(Little wonder Dems are nervous about prosecutors snooping around Ukraine)

...but I think Rand was just belaboring the obvious when he called out the LW MSM's selective unwillingness to identify Ciaramella, his collaborators and their activities. In the past they've had no problem exposing people when it suited their ideological and political interests:

The New York Times Just Outed The CIA’s Top Iran Spy
https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/02/new-york-times-just-outed-cia-chief-iran/

 

That's what you're going to hang your hat on?

Are you trumpers under some magical spell?

 

Cite the law.

 

What's the source?

 

The source of what?

 

Everyone on this board knows who's FOS and who's not. To help you here's the direct checkbox you have to check before signing.

*I understand that in handling my disclosure, the ICIG shall not disclose my identity without my consent, unless the ICIG determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosure is made to an official of the Department of Justice responsible for determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken.
☐

 

Which one?
https://www.whistleblower.org/metho...m-ZMrA3McaAqf4EALw_wcB#LegislativeInitiatives

 

the one that says its illegal for the press to release his name? You do know that some media has already printed his name right?

The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name
https://www.realclearinvestigations...biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

 

That is the same citation that I provided to you as well.

So tell me, did the ICIG determine that the disclosure of his name was unavoidable during the course of the investigation or did the DoJ determine that they needed to know the name in order to undertake a prosecution?

 

No you don't have that you have people that said I presumed, I thought and even some that said something not on the call. You have the transcript as proof and there isn't any quid pro quo. You have witnesses that said the President told them absolutely no quid pro quo. You have text that were real time that said President Trump said no quid pro quo. The desperation of the left is funny. If you guys think you'll have great support by impeaching a President based on testimony that someone thought something or because the we wanted them to read a statement confirming fighting corruption then you've lost your mind. Everyone saw the call, everyone knows quid pro quo in every day government business, everyone one knows the left investigated Trump with foreign intelligence, everyone knows you've being saying impeachment from day one and are looking for anything and everyone knows there's an election in 12 months and this is beyond a waste of time.

 

Yesterday, the man that Trump cited as proof positive that no quid pro quo took place amended his testimony to explicitly say that a quid pro quo took place. Even in your post of what "everyone knows," you claim that no quid pro quo took place AND that a quid pro quo took place.

So which is it hawgs? Did Trump have a quid pro quo or not?

"Everyone knows" that Trump abused his power when he sought campaign assistance from a foreign government in the form of an investigation against his domestic political rival while he simultaneously and unilaterally held up hundreds of millions in military aid, a requested meeting, and a restoration of trade rights. "Everyone knows" that Trump then obstructed justice by attempting to hide, lie about, and actively obstruct the investigation by ordering all current and former employees to not cooperate.

The impeachment inquiry continues!

 

Hmm let's see an Impeachment of a duly elected President is probably the biggest event possible in American government business. To insure the complaint isn't a political hack job the identity needs to be know and needs to who that person is, their background insure there wasn't corruption with a political adversary to change the will of people period. There is no chance this meeting with Shiffy a month before the complaint goes unchallenged, there is no way that the American people will accept a HIGHLY political person starting this investigation with shady meetings with Schiff and the Rose law firm. It looks like this person even worked on opponents campaigns and it needs to be known so we can judge the authenticity.

 

He said he perceived it as a quid pro quo and he also testified Trump told him no quid pro quo. If that's all you got then your going to lose this battle in the election.

 

Yea...you are dodging my question. Here it is again:

So tell me, did the ICIG determine that the disclosure of his name was unavoidable during the course of the investigation or did the DoJ determine that they needed to know the name in order to undertake a prosecution?

You are answering a different question (i.e. why you think his identity should be known) and that's fine. But you now have first hand testimony, sworn under oath, from the individuals involved in Trump's shadow diplomatic campaign. So why do you still want or need testimony from the second hand guy? When are you going to demand testimony from Trump himself?

 

Why do you trust Donald Trump's statement when it was not made under oath? Hell, you are citing to Sondland's hearsay testimony of what Trump said. Why don't you demand that Trump make that statement under oath?

 

He has to do your research for you?

Uh, no. Find it yourself and read it.

 

He's fake exonerated again!?