Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump Comes Under Fire After Sharing Name Of Alleged Whistleblower On Twitter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The TDS is strong.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sam View Post
      That has nothing to do with the question. Does Trump's action serve to further protect the alleged whistleblower from threat or harassment or does his action serve to further threats and harassment against the alleged whistleblower?

      You know the answer, same as everyone.

      --Sam
      I think he does it primarily to rile up those afflicted with TDS ---- because, obviously, it works.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        I think he does it primarily to rile up those afflicted with TDS ---- because, obviously, it works.
        That's an assumption of Trump's intent. The question was about the consequence of his action.

        --Sam
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Since you appear to be new, I'm not sure how to take you. Are you actually SERIOUS?
          DivineOb was probably before your time, but he was an early member of Tweb.

          To answer his question, a man attempting to hide behind the fig leaf of whistleblower while coordinating the passing off of hearsay with a congressman in a transparent attempt to fraudulently take down a sitting president absolutely deserves to be exposed to ridicule in furthering of the national interest. Legitimate whistleblowers should absolutely be protected. Those actively attempting to undermine the administration should be prosecuted, not protected.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
            Do you think spreading this information is in keeping with our national security interests?
            Why not? This information is in the public domain and easily accessible, and it's not like the guy is a secret agent.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              DivineOb was probably before your time, but he was an early member of Tweb.

              To answer his question, a man attempting to hide behind the fig leaf of whistleblower while coordinating the passing off of hearsay with a congressman in a transparent attempt to fraudulently take down a sitting president absolutely deserves to be exposed to ridicule in furthering of the national interest. Legitimate whistleblowers should absolutely be protected. Those actively attempting to undermine the administration should be prosecuted, not protected.
              Both the ICIG and Acting DNI, as well as numerous senior Republican members of Congress, have attested that the whistleblower is, indeed, a legitimate whistleblower and is afforded protection under the law.

              --Sam
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • #22
                What OBP said. And the accused has the right to face his accuser. Which would include knowing who the accuser is. Congress should have been the one to reveal his name publicly.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  What OBP said. And the accused has the right to face his accuser. Which would include knowing who the accuser is. Congress should have been the one to reveal his name publicly.
                  The whistleblower is not an "accuser". The people with direct evidence and knowledge of the call and pressure campaign are the people that Trump could "face" at trial -- but he's blocked some of them from testifying, didn't allow his lawyers to participate at the Judiciary hearing, and McConnell is blocking witnesses testimony at trial.

                  But, again, the point here is whether blasting the name of an alleged whistleblower is going to further national security and the general interest in whistleblowers exposing corrupt actions in government or work against it. Folks here seem to indicate that they don't care if such retaliatory measures deter future whistleblower complaints -- so long as those complaints involve Republican administrations.

                  --Sam
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    The whistleblower's name has been public knowledge for two-months after it was published by Real Clear Investigations at the end of October, and it is easily found using any internet search engine, including the heavily censored Google (when I searched for "whistleblower identity", it was the third result).

                    Complaining about Trump mentioning something that has been in the wild for 8-weeks is a bit silly.
                    Worse, the Schiff Committee accidentally confirmed his identity in a document that they forgot to redact, namely Taylor's deposition. Click HERE and then use Find or Search to locate "Ciaramella".

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      The whistleblower is not an "accuser". The people with direct evidence and knowledge of the call and pressure campaign are the people that Trump could "face" at trial -- but he's blocked some of them from testifying, didn't allow his lawyers to participate at the Judiciary hearing, and McConnell is blocking witnesses testimony at trial.

                      But, again, the point here is whether blasting the name of an alleged whistleblower is going to further national security and the general interest in whistleblowers exposing corrupt actions in government or work against it. Folks here seem to indicate that they don't care if such retaliatory measures deter future whistleblower complaints -- so long as those complaints involve Republican administrations.

                      --Sam
                      Of course he is an "accuser" Sam. He is the one who started the whole thing. His words are what they impeached him on. Complete hearsay. If they needed actual witnesses and Trump blocked them, then they should have waited for the Supreme Court to rule on it instead of impeaching him on the word of the whistleblower. Congress at least should have been able to question him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Of course he is an "accuser" Sam. He is the one who started the whole thing. His words are what they impeached him on. Complete hearsay. If they needed actual witnesses and Trump blocked them, then they should have waited for the Supreme Court to rule on it instead of impeaching him on the word of the whistleblower. Congress at least should have been able to question him.
                        Nothing quite says "impeachment is an urgent concern" like waiting a year or two for SCOTUS to rule on the matter.

                        The rest is the same old claptrap about hearsay has been shown false hundreds of times.

                        --Sam
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          Nothing quite says "impeachment is an urgent concern" like waiting a year or two for SCOTUS to rule on the matter.
                          And then the Democrats turn around and put an indefinite delay on transferring the articles to the Senate.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            Nothing quite says "impeachment is an urgent concern" like waiting a year or two for SCOTUS to rule on the matter.

                            The rest is the same old claptrap about hearsay has been shown false hundreds of times.

                            --Sam
                            1. SCOTUS would not do that. They would rule quickly on such matters.
                            2. If it were so important, why didn't Nadler and Crew actually submit official subpoenas?
                            3. If time were such an issue, why are they now sitting on their hands?

                            And the whistleblower did use hearsay. He had no direct knowledge of the phone call. That is hearsay. Or worse. He could just be lying. That is why he needed to be put in front of congress for questioning.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              ---
                              And it is replys like yours that illustrate why whistleblower laws exist.

                              You exhibit a level of disrespect for human life and dignity that is inexcusable.

                              (1) regardless of why you think you know this person's name, you could be wrong. You have no direct knowledge of who this person is. And so you could be spreading a rumor that implicates the wrong person.

                              (2) people with your same attitude towards this person but less self control or a more violent or destructive nature will be trying to exact some sort of revenge on this person, and your action participates, willingly, in whatever negative things come his way.
                              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-30-2019, 03:15 PM.
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Eric Ciaramella. He's a CIA stooge and associate of Vindman who was feeding him gossip from the White House.
                                And it is replys like yours that illustrate why whistleblower laws exist.

                                You exhibit a level of disrespect for human life and dignity that is inexcusable.

                                (1) regardless of why you think you know this person's name, you could ge wrong. You have no direct knowledge of who this person is. And so you could be spreading a rumor that implicates the wrong person.

                                (2) people with your same attitude towards this person but less self control orca more violent or destructive nature will be trying to exact some sort of revenge on this person, and your action participates, willingly, in whatever negative things come his way. Yet this means nothing to you.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                62 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                247 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                330 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X