Whistleblower identified

[oxmixmudd]

Most of Washington knows by now, but I don't think there's any reason Schiff should be singled out in this. There's no good reason to believe he knows more than Ratcliffe. A whistleblower looking for advice on how to refer a complaint to congress is going to talk to staff, not the congressperson. There's no reason to think the whistleblower would volunteer any details, either, and especially not if they're part of the IC.

The conspiracy theorists aren't saying Schiff knows who the whistleblower is, anymore, anyway. They're saying Schiff coached him on what to put in his complaint. On a dime, Trump's defenders have turned from saying they don't want to hear from the whistleblower, because all he's got is hearsay, to demanding to hear from him, because he's actually Schiff, or something else just as poorly considered.

Let's be at least this honest. They don't want to hear from the whistleblower.

They want to paint a target on his back.

They want to make him pay.

exactly.

[Mountain Man]

You have no respect for the concept of protecting a whistle blower.

What's there to protect? It is widely known that Eric Ciaramella is the whistle blower. Type "whistle blower name" into any search engine, and Eric Ciaramella's name will be in the top results. Even Shifty Schiff outed the guy when he released a transcript revealing his name:

schiff_haha.JPG
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/sta...istleblower%2F

No point trying to bolt the barn door now that the horse is already in the next state.

[oxmixmudd]

What's there to protect? It is widely known that Eric Ciaramella is the whistle blower. Type "whistle blower name" into any search engine, and Eric Ciaramella's name will be in the top results. Even Shifty Schiff outed the guy when he released a transcript revealing his name:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41026[/ATTACH]
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/sta...istleblower%2F

No point trying to bolt the barn door now that the horse is already in the next state.

you always have an excuse - but you are always siding with people in the wrong and attacking those trying to do right. That is your legacy on Donald Trump.

[Mountain Man]

you always have an excuse - but you are always siding with people in the wrong and attacking those trying to do right.

I wasn't sure if this should be categorized as ironic or hypocritical, but then my dilemma was resolved when I realized the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Juvenal]

By the way - aside from the fact it is illegal to out a whistle blower and you are now participating in an illegal act -

That's been debunked.

[oxmixmudd]

That's been debunked.

Fair enough.

I would add that it sounds like rather than 'debunked' it's more a bit vague. They are protected against retaliation, which outing in this case most certainly is a form of retaliation - so if one could get a jury to treat it as retaliation it could be a crime, or at least one could prosecute any retaliation that came as a consequence of it. My guess is Schiff is likely basing his claim on a perhaps tenuous extrapolation from that, but at the same time it sounds like it is true it is not explicitly stated they have a right to anonymity.

OTOH, without anonymity, the reality is there is no practical means of enforcing a protection from retaliation. It is just too easy to get back and someone and pretend is was for some 'other' reason, especially if one is patient and waits a while. Or in the case of actual physical attack, too easy to get someone else to do it for you and in a way that is hard to prevent or even find the perp ( a real concern in cases where the person exposed has strong criminal ties )

[Cow Poke]

Doesn't matter. But it is unlikely he does not know.

Nevertheless, I believe he has a responsibility, if he knows, to keep the identity secret, and thus not to confirm any rumors about the identity and to prevent any lines of questioning that might otherwise reveal that identity. And so any actions or comments that are being criticized here surrounding that issue and Schiff are related to him honoring his responsibility to do so.

Doesn't matter? SERIOUSLY???? Jim, you KNOW that he knows. There's no way he can NOT know. He is flat out lying about this, and everybody knows it.

But it "doesn't matter"?

I guess that's OK, though - he hates Trump.

[Mountain Man]

That's been debunked.

The narrative that hoax blower Eric Ciaramella needs to be protected from conservatives is rather ironic when you consider that it's liberals in general who tend to be intolerant and violent.

https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/scienc...chotic-traits/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...y-think-215114
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...718-story.html
https://www.redstate.com/diary/nikit...heres-23-ways/

[Mountain Man]

Doesn't matter? SERIOUSLY???? Jim, you KNOW that he knows. There's no way he can NOT know. He is flat out lying about this, and everybody knows it.

But it "doesn't matter"?

I guess that's OK, though - he hates Trump.

Schiff all but admitted he knew who the whistle blower was when he wouldn't allow Vindman to say the name of one of the two people he leaked information to, with Schiff insisting that the whistle blower's identity had to be protected. But how could he have known that Vindman was about to identify the whistle blower if neither of them know who he is? One of the Republicans even told Schiff to his face that nobody believed his claims of ignorance.

[Cow Poke]

Does it matter given that the whistle-blower's complaints have been corroborated by numerous people. Besides he/she is protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Evasion of the question noted. Everybody knows that Schiff knows who the alleged whistle blower is. He doesn't have to be a serial liar to protect him - he could simply declare it is his job to protect him. (Though there is nothing in the actual protection act that protects his identity)

Schiff is lying about his and everybody knows it.

[Cow Poke]

Schiff all but admitted he knew who the whistle blower was when he wouldn't allow Vindman to say the name of one of the two people he leaked information to, with Schiff insisting that the whistle blower's identity had to be protected. But how could he have known that Vindman was about to identify the whistle blower if neither of them know who he is? One of the Republicans even told Schiff to his face that nobody believed his claims of ignorance.

Absolutely -- and was it Nunez -- who called him out on that?

[One Bad Pig]

The narrative that hoax blower Eric Ciaramella needs to be protected from conservatives is rather ironic when you consider that it's liberals in general who tend to be intolerant and violent.

https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/scienc...chotic-traits/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...y-think-215114
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...718-story.html
https://www.redstate.com/diary/nikit...heres-23-ways/

Also:

source

[Mountain Man]

Evasion of the question noted. Everybody knows that Schiff knows who the alleged whistle blower is. He doesn't have to be a serial liar to protect him - he could simply declare it is his job to protect him. (Though there is nothing in the actual protection act that protects his identity)

Schiff is lying about his and everybody knows it.

Schiff is stuck on this one because he's also trying to skate out from under the fact that he coordinated with Ciaramella to draft the "whistle blower" complaint, so he's trying to maintain an air of plausible denial by claiming, unconvincingly, that he doesn't know the guy.

[JimL]

Really simple yes or no question - do you honestly believe that Schiff does not know who the alleged whistle blower is?

Couldn't care less if he does or not, since it has nothing to do with the evidence uncovered.

[Cow Poke]

Couldn't care less if he does or not, since it has nothing to do with the evidence uncovered.

If he knows, and he's ADAMantly declaring he doesn't, then he's lying - but that's probably OK, too, since he's your guy. So that doesn't surprise me at all.