Whistleblower identified

[JimL]

Sure, that's possible. I just can't see Schiff doing that, knowing the way he has played fast and loose with other matters.

I suspect he got the information, then it was more like, "ok, this conversation never happened, take this complaint to ...."

I'm just not very trusting of partisan politicians.

Tell us why outing the whistleblower makes a difference, CP.

[Cow Poke]

I'm glad as well, I appreciate honest ethical leaders like Schiff

This explains a lot about your character, and why you like to repeat whoppers.

as opposed to the liars, hypocrites, and propagandists like Trump, Moscow Mitch, Jim Jordan, and the Lindsey Grahams of the world that you look up to.

Jim, you really don't know what what I think about these individuals, so this just more foolish prattle on your part. You seem to be getting worse.

Now, let's go back to when you claimed you can behave like an adult.

Let's see if you can give straight answers to the following questions.

Do you think the Democrats will actually call for a floor vote on articles of impeachment?
If so, do you think ALL of the Democrats will vote to impeach?

Let's start with those two.

[Cow Poke]

Tell us why outing the whistleblower makes a difference, CP.

He's already "out", Jim. Schiff is the only person on the planet who doesn't know his identity.

[Watermelon]

Sure, that's possible. I just can't see Schiff doing that, knowing the way he has played fast and loose with other matters.

I suspect he got the information, then it was more like, "ok, this conversation never happened, take this complaint to ...."

I'm just not very trusting of partisan politicians.

I know what you mean, I don't trust fat politicians. I don't know exactly why because I don't have any issues with fat people in general but when I see a fat politician I get irrationally angry and I don't trust anything they say. My therapist thinks I might have associated them as some sort of personification of corruption or greed or unfairness in general in the past caused the image to link with the negative feelings I get. Watching the impeachment hearings there was a fat democrat who would yell about how upset he was and angry he was and I just couldn't trust anything he said. I can't remember the name but I just hate him.

[JimL]

He's already "out", Jim. Schiff is the only person on the planet who doesn't know his identity.

That doesn't answer to what I asked you.

[Cow Poke]

I know what you mean, I don't trust fat politicians. I don't know exactly why because I don't have any issues with fat people in general but when I see a fat politician I get irrationally angry and I don't trust anything they say. My therapist thinks I might have associated them as some sort of personification of corruption or greed or unfairness in general in the past caused the image to link with the negative feelings I get. Watching the impeachment hearings there was a fat democrat who would yell about how upset he was and angry he was and I just couldn't trust anything he said. I can't remember the name but I just hate him.

I don't hate any of them, but I think I know who you mean. Somebody had already made kabuki theater by saying something like "I know we're not supposed to be emotional, but I'm angry!!!!" It was quite a bit of theatrics, then subsequently, another Democrat played off of that, and he did his little drama rant, claiming to be angry also.

It's kinda like the note in the preacher's sermon --- "weak point - yell louder".

I think you're talking about this guy...

heck.jpg

"I'm very angry," Heck said at today's hearing.

"About how it is the most powerful person on the face of the Earth would remove you from office after your stellar service and somehow feel compelled to characterize you as 'bad news' and then to ominously threaten that you're 'going to go through some things.' So I am angry. But I'm not surprised."

[JimL]

This explains a lot about your character.

I should hope so, as those who you admire, like Trump, explain a lot about your character. That was the point, CP.

Jim, you really don't know what what I think about these individuals, so this just more foolish prattle on your part. You seem to be getting worse.

Oh, I have a pretty good idea what you think of them, CP.

Now, let's go back to when you claimed you can behave like an adult.

I'll take you seriously about behaving like an adult in civil conversation when you stop being an arrogant jackass with statements like the above.

Let's see if you can give straight answers to the following questions.

Do you think the Democrats will actually call for a floor vote on articles of impeachment?

Afaik, they have to call for a vote, how else would they do it.

If so, do you think ALL of the Democrats will vote to impeach?

At this point I couldn't tell you, but it also doesn't matter.

[Cow Poke]

That doesn't answer to what I asked you.

It was a goofy question that had nothing to do with what I said, Jim. I had said...

Sure, that's possible. I just can't see Schiff doing that, knowing the way he has played fast and loose with other matters.

I suspect he got the information, then it was more like, "ok, this conversation never happened, take this complaint to ...."

I'm just not very trusting of partisan politicians.

To which you replied...

Tell us why outing the whistleblower makes a difference, CP.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

A) Who's "us"
2) Where did I say anything about "outing the whistleblower" making a difference?

Talk to your boy Schiff who seems to be the only guy on the planet who doesn't know who he is.

[Cow Poke]

I should hope so, as those who you admire, like Trump, explain a lot about your character.

I'm tired of this same old childish lie, Jim. Grow up.

[rogue06]

It's pretty common knowledge that the alleged whistle blower went to Schiff (and or his committee) before filing papers.

Whistleblower spoke to Schiff aides before filing complaint



Why would the alleged whistleblower - presumably a really smart guy - go to a politician rather than legal counsel?

It's hard to believe that things went just like the "boiler plate language" suggests - that the committee (and or Schiff himself) didn't at least get a general layout of the complaint before passing him along.

The Washington Post even gave 4 Pinocchios to Schiff's claim that he had not been in contact with Ciaramella and that he and/or his staff had helped him file the complaint. The fact that the WaPo usually bends over backwards to avoid giving that particular review to any Democrat speaks volumes.

I think the strongest evidence is that Schiff cited what was in the complaint before it had been officially filed

[rogue06]

I'm tired of this same old childish lie, Jim. Grow up.

When it's the only tool in his tool box aside from his bong...

[rogue06]

I don't know if it's that hard to believe based on this.
Based on the article the conversation could have just been:

Whistleblower - Hello! could I get some advice on how to report possible wrongdoing?
Staff - contact the the inspector general and seek legal counsel.
Whistleblower - thank you! bye!
Staff - bye!

---end---

IIRC, several experts have pointed to some of the language in the complaint specifically citing what would be legal to release to the public as strong evidence that Ciaramella had lots of lawerly help writing the complaint.

[NorrinRadd]

"No it does not" what? It does not protect federal whistleblowers? Is that what you're suggesting? Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation, that is the whole purpose of the law, so I'm not sure what you were reading.

It protects from retaliation. If the statute in discussion is the Witness Protection Act of 1989, the protection of identity seems limited.

And of course, various legal and Constitutional experts, mainly on the "right," of course, dispute whether Ciaramella or whoever even statutorially qualifies as a "whistleblower," as opposed to a "rumorleaker."

[Cow Poke]

It protects from retaliation. If the statute in discussion is the Witness Protection Act of 1989, the protection of identity seems limited.

And of course, various legal and Constitutional experts, mainly on the "right," of course, dispute whether Ciaramella or whoever even statutorially qualifies as a "whistleblower," as opposed to a "rumorleaker."

That.

[JimL]

It protects from retaliation. If the statute in discussion is the Witness Protection Act of 1989, the protection of identity seems limited.

And of course, various legal and Constitutional experts, mainly on the "right," of course, dispute whether Ciaramella or whoever even statutorially qualifies as a "whistleblower," as opposed to a "rumorleaker."

And congress has the ability and the responsibility to protect him from the most powerful man in the world in this divisive climate. Besides that, his identity is a red herring and has nothing to do with the facts that he brought to light. Those facts are out there so outing the revealer of them does nothing to change that.