Eric Ciaramella is lucky it’s Trump he’s spying on and not obama

Loading

 

It is now widely believed that Eric Ciaramella is the vaunted “whistleblower” that Adam Schiff  boasted of non-stop. For a long time Schiff has promisd that his WB would testify

Well, Ciaramella is having second thoughts.

The whistleblower whose complaint launched impeachment proceedings against President Trump is unlikely to testify to Congress, as talks have ceased between his legal team and committee leaders.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who has overseen depositions in Democrats’ impeachment proceeding, was initially eager for the whistleblower to testify before citing concern about the person being identified.

Republicans accuse Schiff, a California Democrat, of changing course to prevent inquiries into his staff’s dealings with the whistleblower before he filed his Aug. 12 complaint to the Intelligence Community inspector general.

A source familiar with the discussions told the Washington Examiner that talks halted over potential testimony from the whistleblower and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first’s claims.

“There is no indication that either of the original whistleblowers will be called to testify or appear before the Senate or House Intelligence committees. There is no further discussion ongoing between the legal team and the committees,” the person said.



It just might have something to do with Ciaramella being a CIA spy and not a whistleblower. Once it was learned that he worked for Joe Biden and John Brennan and Glenn Simpson and was conspiring with Adam Schiff the room temperature went way up.

Ciaramella is damned lucky it’s Trump and not obama that he’s conspiring against. obama had a way with whistleblowers.

A scorched Earth policy.

Jack Balkin, a liberal law professor at Yale, agrees that the increase in leak prosecutions is part of a larger transformation. “We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national-surveillance state,” he says. In his view, zealous leak prosecutions are consonant with other political shifts since 9/11: the emergence of a vast new security bureaucracy, in which at least two and a half million people hold confidential, secret, or top-secret clearances; huge expenditures on electronic monitoring, along with a reinterpretation of the law in order to sanction it; and corporate partnerships with the government that have transformed the counterterrorism industry into a powerful lobbying force. Obama, Balkin says, has “systematically adopted policies consistent with the second term of the Bush Administration.”

obama prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous Presidents combined.

The Guardian:

Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined.

The prosecutions are quite selective

obama went so far as to spy on reporters and their families.

The Washington Post contrasted the styles of obama and Trump vis-a-vis whistleblowers

“Trump rages about leakers. Obama quietly prosecuted them.”

Republicans want to see Ciaramella testify– publicly. Vladimir Schiff instead is leading the process of impeaching Trump in secret and making it impossible for Republicans to participate or the President to defend himself.

A report in Breitbart suggested that obama softened his position on whistleblowers at the end of his term.

Near the end of his administration, it appeared the former president had a change of heart and showed an interest in protecting government whistleblowers and other official leakers.

He implemented executive-branch directives and signed a bill into law to protect whistleblowers and members of the inspector general community.

100% wrong.

obama changed the rules to allow as much dissemination of information between agencies and as much consequent leaking as possible to undermine Trump.

It is not difficult to see what is going on.

All the “whistleblowers” should testify in public. Impeaching or convicting someone- anyone- in secret is un-American.

Eric Ciaramella is lucky he’s participating in a coup against Trump and not obama. And he’s not a whistleblower. He is a spy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
34 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Difference would be there were actually crimes not just simply differences of opinion.
In June 2017, then-National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster appointed Ciaramella to be his personal aide. At the time, political commentator Mike Cernovich issued a warning.
I wonder why Mc Master didn’t last. Purging three National Security Council officials close to Flynn and promoting Obama spies?

People, this is an overt coup to overthrow a sitting president of the United States, which by the way is called treason.

18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States…”
Treason has ever been deemed the highest crime which can be committed in civil society; since its aim is an overthrow of the Government and a public resistance by force of its just powers, its tendency is to create universal danger and alarm, and on this account, it has often been visited with the deepest public resentment.
Attempting to overthrow a sitting President is considered overthrowing the government

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t CIA operations on US soil and against US citizens sort of illegal?

obama prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous Presidents combined.

The most transparent President in the history of the Universe pledged to support whistle blowers. I guess that only applied to people snitching on the opposition, not anyone exposing HIS corruption. Once again, we have the Democrats accusing Republicans of THEIR crimes.

A whistle blower deserves to have their job protected (unless it is found they lied) but don’t deserve anonymity. Schitt and Democrats pretend this is for his “safety”, but Republicans want him safe and sound to testify because they know the truth of the matter. Schitt and Democrats, however, have changed their collective mind about him dropping his bombshell now that the transcript and the information about Schitt, his staff and Ciaramellan swapping spit for a long, long time has been revealed. Any threat to his personal safety is going to originate from those who want him anonymous and silent, not those clamoring for him to be cross-examined.

If I were Ciaramella, I wouldn’t be sitting on any remote park benches and wouldn’t get too depressed about being set up and used by the Democrats. That can be really bad for your health.

so why hasn’t the radicalized muslin terrorist obama not been charged with TREASON?

There are quite few career politicians that belong in prison starting with both the Clinton’s and Obama in fact we need a special prison to send these politicians who oppose our U.S. Constitution and try to force UN backed Treaties on us and who are all part of the NWO and the Globalists

Eric Ciaramella must be executed for espionage…

@Patriot, #2:

Horse hockey.

18 U.S. Code § 2385 only makes it unlawful to advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence.

The statute has absolutely nothing to do with advocating or actually removing someone from office through the lawful means provided by the U.S. Constitution: impeachment, or the 25th Amendment.

@LEEROY, #6:

LEEROY, however, is committing an actual crime, to whatever extent his moronic remark is taken as a threat. It is a felony offense to threaten a federal employee with violence.

@LEEROY:

Eric Ciaramella must be executed for espionage…

If he’s not very careful now, he will be; but it won’t be by the Republicans.

He has become a liability to the coup, no longer an asset.

Calling for Eric Ciaramella’s head is a pathetic “shoot the messenger” reaction. It’s like blaming a witness who called the cops to report the crime, or blaming the cops who then came to look into it.

Trump is going to have far bigger problems come November 19th when advanced orders for “A Warning” begin to ship. Pre-orders of the book’s three available formats have already made it Amazon’s first, second, and third place hottest seller for books of its category.

The administration doesn’t have a clue which upper-level White House insider wrote it, knowing only that it’s the the same person who wrote the “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration” op-ed, which appeared September 5, 2018.

@Greg:

Calling for Eric Ciaramella’s head is a pathetic “shoot the messenger” reaction.

Who’s asking for his head? What is being asked is that Ciaramella face the accused. That is in the Constitution. But, more is required; all of the discussions between Schitt and Ciaramella needs to be revealed, when they occurred and what was discussed. We need to know where Ciaramella got his information to know the quality of that information. In short, we need to know if they are lying… which ALL indication show they are.

So, you expect ANOTHER unsourced, unverified novella to bring Trump down? What’s wrong with you people? Why do you think, all of a sudden, unverified information from a group of people with a document three year history of lying… telling ANY LIE NECESSARY to “get Trump” are going to suddenly have credibility? You people are so blinded by your 2016 loss that you can’t see that as the lies pile up, the subsequent lies are even more difficult to take seriously.

EVERY “witness” (they haven’t “witnessed” anything) provides things they have heard about or suspect. Your little coup is based upon the weakest, shakiest, shallowest veneer of lies anyone has ever seen and millions of people (those that have functioning brains and eyes) see clear through it.

@Deplorable Me:

LEEROY

Eric Ciaramella must be executed for espionage…

Greg

LEEROY, however, is committing an actual crime, to whatever extent his moronic remark is taken as a threat. It is a felony offense to threaten a federal employee with violence.

Leeroy did NOT say he was going to “execute” the WB (leaker). It seems Comrade Greggie wants to make up laws as much as Schitt-for-brains is doing. And if the law is applied as Comrade Greggie wants, half of Hollywood, and Congress, would be in jail awaiting trial (can anyone bake Kathy Griffin a file cake?).

We need to know where Ciaramella got his information to know the quality of that information. In short, we need to know if they are lying… which ALL indication show they are.

But hey, all the talking heads on CNN are saying Ciaramella is entitled to anonymity. Never mind that they are wrong. The WB is only protected against retribution by his superiors, nothing more, nothing less but that protection didn’t seem to apply to WBs in the Obama administration who fired them as well as pressing espionage charges against them. My how the Democrats were quiet about that.

So, you expect ANOTHER unsourced, unverified novella to bring Trump down? What’s wrong with you people?

It’s called “grasping at straws.” What do you think Pelosi would be demanding if a book came out claiming Schitt-for-brains was found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy? And how many laws is Schitt-for-brains breaking with not allowing the minority to call impeachment witnesses (not to be confused with witnesses who are testifying as witnesses for impeachment)?

Comrade Greggie will contend these hearings are only “fact finding” investigations. Nope. It is seeking opposition research on the Democrats Presidential opponent, Donald Trump. You know, much like Hillary sought opposition research by paiding Fusion GPS and Christopher Steel by laundering money through Perkins Coie only the Democrats are doing it on the taxpayers dollar.

If Trump is guilty of a quid pro quo by holding up Ukrainian aid until August, for which Ukrain did nothing in return, then it is a fact that Joe Biden was guilty of a quid pro quo, threatening to hold up Ukrainian aid if they did not give him the quo he wanted, which they did. (i.e. DT made a request for which he got nothing in return while Joe Biden made a demand and got something in return, like within six hours)

But I’m sure that Comrade Greggie is soooooooooo much smarter than the rest of us and will present his rebuttal shortly.

@retire05: But, WHO is “Leeroy” and is he a member of the government? If Ciaramella is guilty of treason, he SHOULD be executed, but he should testify to determine if that might be true.

@Deplorable Me, #11:

Who’s asking for his head? What is being asked is that Ciaramella face the accused.

Why should the whistleblower “face the accused”? The whistleblower is only the person who initially “telephoned the police” to report a possible crime. He or she did so by following the correct process, going through proper channels.

It was the Inspector General who took the call, who determined he report to be credible and of urgent concern, and who subsequently realized that the correct process was being blocked.

Trump doesn’t actually want the whistleblower to “face the accused”. He wants the whistleblower to become the accused, and then have their career destroyed as an warning to anyone else who might speak against him. He’s willing to put the personal safety of the whistleblower at risk to accomplish that.

So, you expect ANOTHER unsourced, unverified novella to bring Trump down?

A lot more may be verified now than was a year ago, when the cautionary op-ed came out.

Maybe the author is John Bolton. Bolton’s attorney has just publicly announced that Bolton has first-hand knowledge of meetings regarding the Ukraine proposition which impeachment investigators are as yet completely unaware of.

For all practical purposes, the attorney has just requested that his client be subpoenaed, after realizing he probably wasn’t going to be. They might as well have hung signs around their necks stating “CALL US! WE KNOW SOMETHING!”.

November 8, 2019 – Bolton attorney ‘dismayed’ over lack of subpoena

I imagine that situation will be quickly remedied.

From FOX News, November 8, one hour ago – Bolton warned of ‘hand grenade’ Giuliani, shut down Ukraine meeting, aide told impeachment inquiry

Fiona Hill, a former top White House expert on Russia, testified that former national security adviser John Bolton distanced himself from the effort to leverage investigations from Ukrainians in exchange for a White House meeting — and warned that President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani was a “hand grenade” who was “going to blow up everyone,” according to transcripts released Friday.

These two particular dots are so close together it’s hard not to connect them.

I always thought of Giuliani more as a loose cannon than a hand grenade. I think I might like Bolton’s characterization better.

@Greg:

Why should the whistleblower “face the accused”? The whistleblower is only the person who initially “telephoned the police” to report a possible crime. He or she did so by following the correct process, going through proper channels.

But he didn’t follow the correct process. He coordinated with Schitt before he filed his complaint and lined up his lawyers. He also is not a whistle blower because he is not providing any evidence of any crimes he himself witnessed. He is a gossip; he is presenting hearsay. So, it is imperative that he be questioned to determine if there IS any validity in any of his accusations and why he decided to coordinate with Schitt before he filed a complaint.

It should also be discovered why the whistle blower rules were changed right before this complaint was filed. That, too, is a suspicious development, adding credence to the assertions of this being part of a coup.

Of course Trump wants the whistle blower to be the accused because it is Trump’s position (and all the evidence supports it) that the whistle blower is lying. There is only one way to sort that out; he needs to be cross examined by people other than those that have been promoting his accusations for their own political gain.

A lot more may be verified now than was a year ago, when the cautionary op-ed came out.

Oh… like “collusion”? Whatever happened to all that evidence Schitt had that PROVED Trump colluded with Russians to win in 2016? How could all that purportedly SOLID evidence simply evaporate when Mueller’s report was released? If you are looking for your credibility, don’t bother… it’s GONE.

Why hasn’t Giuliani been called to testify? Ever wonder why Schitt hasn’t called him?

You need a cold shower; your desperation is showing.

@Deplorable Me, #17:

Of course Trump wants the whistle blower to be the accused because it is Trump’s position (and all the evidence supports it) that the whistle blower is lying.

The investigation has moved far beyond the point where somebody called in an initial report to the cops. There have been weeks of testimony from people who were a lot closer to the situation.

If Bolton doesn’t testify at this point, I might offer a guess why not—and it is just a hunch. Possibly he might testify on the floor of the Senate. It would all depend on what he knows.

If Bolton knows something seriously damaging, Democratic Party strategists might not want to give the Trump propaganda machine weeks or months to pick away at it, confusing the public with an avalanche of contrary claims and working to erode Bolton’s credibility. They might want to hit hard with previously undisclosed information, so the Senate trial moves to a vote before before the propagandists have time to confuse the issue. Again, just a guess, but there’s been plenty of time now to observe and predict Trump’s tactics. He’ll attack the witnesses and the process and confuse the hell out of the public if all of the testimony comes out too early in the House.

You need a cold shower; your desperation is showing.

Trumpistas should get their schadenfreude fixes while they can.

@Greg: There’s plenty of time for that.

@Greg:

The investigation has moved far beyond the point where somebody called in an initial report to the cops.

You’d love to think so, but it hasn’t. Since NO credible evidence of any crimes has been uncovered (hearsay is not evidence. Opinion is not evidence) then the HOW and WHY of the impeachment proceedings is VERY important. There we actually HAVE evidence of collusion, obstruction, extortion and corruption… by DEMOCRATS.

If Bolton doesn’t testify at this point, I might offer a guess why not—and it is just a hunch. Possibly he might testify on the floor of the Senate. It would all depend on what he knows.

Possibly he doesn’t have anything against Trump and doesn’t want to be a part of that little turd Schiff’s little scheme. That is the MOST likely reason.

Do you actually think the Democrats are going to send impeachment to the Senate and hamstring all the Democrat candidates that happen to be Senators? Well, they might if they have another candidate in mind… that’s just the kind of scumbaggery they are capable of.

I think they’re going to take it to the Senate with the intention of actually removing Trump from office, and of holding republican Senators accountable who deny the evidence and put Trump ahead of both party and country.

@Greg: First you need 2/3rd house vote,aint gonna happen.

@Greg: There is no evidence to ignore. At best, they want this to use after 2020. It’s weak and pointless, as destroyed any credibility Democrats had left. All they’ve done is draw attention to their own corruption and this will bite them square in their dumb asses.

@kitt, #23:

It actually depends on how compelling the case for impeachment is at that point, after all evidence and testimony have been publicly summarized into a coherent presentation on the floor of the Senate. I’m not so sure Trump would be acquitted no matter what. Not with 23 republican senators up for reelection in a few months.

Not everyone agrees that there is no evidence. In cases such as this, sworn testimony is evidence. Actions taken to obstruct the investigation are also evidence, and there’s been a lot of that.

@Greg:

Trump doesn’t actually want the whistleblower to “face the accused”. He wants the whistleblower to become the accused, and then have their career destroyed as an warning to anyone else who might speak against him. He’s willing to put the personal safety of the whistleblower at risk to accomplish that.

So your claim is that President Trump wants to do exactly what Obama did to more whistleblowers than all presidents combine before him?

Then, in post #18 you return to your usual “I might offer a guess, it is just a hunch, possibly he might, it would all depend, they might want” and other worthless comments because you don’t know jack. All you know is what you are told to say, parroting things you read on places like Vox and CNN.

You’re an idiot, Comrade Greggie Goebbels.

@Greg: No, partisan crybabies think hearsay is valid evidence.

@retire05, #26:

So your claim is that President Trump wants to do exactly what Obama did to more whistleblowers than all presidents combine before him?

No, because Obama did no such thing. I notice that you aren’t mentioning any specific examples. There were several people charged during the Obama administration under the Espionage Act. It’s because they broke the law and deliberately exposed highly classified information. What Edward Snowden did wasn’t “whistleblowing”. He isn’t currently a guest of the Putin government in Moscow because he performed some great patriotic service to the United States.

Specifically which situation during the Obama administration are you trying to conflate with what the current whistleblower has done? Do you have an example?

@Greg: I have already told you hearsay isnt evidence, there are many lawyers in congress who know that. it wont see the senate floor without 2/3 of the house voting impeachment, not just investigation, with 2 dem defectors.

When hearsay leads to the questioning and testimony of people with direct, first-hand knowledge of a situation, it ceases to be hearsay. In retrospect, it has become a productive lead.

It has also ceased to be the focus of the investigation. It’s only something that helped find the proper place to focus. It no longer matters how the investigation got there. All that matters is what was discovered once it did.

@Greg: Its much more difficult to prove subjectives such as motive. Did Joe join the race just to avoid investigation? That is as good a motive as any. There could be multiple motives each having a different importance set for them.
Is using money to leverage behavior unheard of in politics? Well “son of a bitch”, I bet it isnt.
You still need 2/3 of the house and with the likability of buggy eyed pencil neck I dont think its doable.
People see real problems congress is ignoring and are not behind this endless persecution. Very very few really GAF if Ukraine got another US tax dollar. Most are damn tired of the USA propping up corrupt governments around the planet.
Estimates are they have already got 5 billion go to the street see if you can find 1 person that is willing to donate $ 1535.06 out of their pockets, that would be everyone in the US chipping in.

@Greg:

It actually depends on how compelling the case for impeachment is

Compelling to whom? Compelling to those who, in November of 2016, pledged to impeach Trump and have been pursuing that goal relentlessly ever since or to those that believe in the Constitution, law, justice and truth? Because, one group (Democrats) have already decided Trump is guilty (though still looking for the crime) while the other (rational, thinking human beings) regards our story up to now a total farce and is not likely to give it serious consideration.

No, because Obama did no such thing. I notice that you aren’t mentioning any specific examples.

If you didn’t already know it was true, you might have looked it up.

Obama routinely attacks whistle blowers despite pledge of transparency
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16528-obamas-attack-on-whistleblowers-criminalizes-news-gathering

http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi-attacks/2013/04/29/obama-admin-threatening-benghazi-whistleblowers

Obama set a precedent for going after leakers and whistleblowers
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

Obama’s Legacy: A Historic War On Whistleblowers

Fast and Furious whistle blower fired
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/atf-whistle-blower-fired-claims-complaints-about-fast-and-furious-played-role

There were several people charged during the Obama administration under the Espionage Act. It’s because they broke the law and deliberately exposed highly classified information.

Oh… like Hillary did? Was SHE prosecuted? Was she even CRITICIZED? No, Obama deemed her “the most capable Presidential candidate in history”.

Democrats use leaks of information, regardless of classification, to attack political opponents but prosecute it when it happens to THEM and affects THEIR political future.

Specifically which situation during the Obama administration are you trying to conflate with what the current whistleblower has done?

No, you can’t do that because the current “whistle blower” is no such thing. Instead of going to the IG, he went to Schitt to coordinate the most damaging way to manipulate that second- and third-hand information he had, got lawyered up, THEN filed his complaint. So, no, it’s in no way similar to, for instance, revealing Eric Holder was running guns to Mexican drug cartels.

When hearsay leads to the questioning and testimony of people with direct, first-hand knowledge of a situation, it ceases to be hearsay. In retrospect, it has become a productive lead.

Yet, TO DATE, you’ve had none with first hand knowledge but Vindman, and he has given his OPINION of what Trump was doing and what he “remembers” was left off the transcript, not validated by any actual data. Vindman is, of course, a rabid Trump and America hater.

@kitt:

Did Joe join the race just to avoid investigation? That is as good a motive as any.

Quite possibly. If Trump was getting Ukraine to get to the bottom of interference in US elections and finishing their corruption investigations, Biden could very well have viewed being a candidate as a shield. Democrats are big on shields. For a Democrat (but for no one else) being a candidate is a shield. Race is a shield. Gender is a shield. Military service is a shield. Sexual orientation is a shield. Being a taffy-ass crybaby is a shield. Hell, being a Democrats is a shield. However, it needs to be determined not only if Biden is corrupt but what laws he has broken.