Nunes Aide Is Leaking the Ukraine Whistleblower’s Name, Sources Say

What's really at stake here and not mentioned much is, "How did this Whistleblower get access to a classified material concerning the President and the leader of a foreign country"? How easy was it and who helped him?

 

I have a picture of me and Louie with Dana Rohrbacher in the background begging us to come have some whiskey. Should I share it? Hmmmm.

 

Would love to see that but it's risky. I almost did something similar but there is word here that some posters have their own agenda. If there is a private and secure way I would say go for it!))

 

Well, seeing as how he worked for Susan Rice, Brennan, Biden, and was involved in Ukraine "policy" it's not hard to fathom.

 

Everyone in DC already knew who the fake whistle blower was weeks ago.

By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations
October 30, 2019, 4:21 PM Eastern

"For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous “whistleblower" who triggered impeachment proceedings against President Trump — even though his identity is an open secret inside the Beltway."




Eric Ciaramella

https://www.realclearinvestigations...biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

 

Because two wrongs always make a right...I mean granted the wrong you claim is made up but even still.

 

Spoiler alert: You're going to think it's political. The whistleblower could be the reincarnated corpse of Ronald Reagan combined with Barry Goldwater and you would still say it's a Trump hating, fake Republican democrat liberal.

The real reason to reveal their identity is to be able to pressure them or take revenge. There is no other real reason and that's why the whistleblower protections exist in the first place. You don't have to admit it for it to be true.

 

No, it isn't even my opinion. It is the common belief in the conservative world you ignore.

 

None of them have. Why? They aren't Bond villains or anything. No one is dumb enough to spell out what happens when someone infuriates Trump's base. There WILL be death threats, don't pretend there won't be. They won't come from Mitch McConnell at all, but from some crazy deplorable somewhere. No actual violence may come of it, but the risk outweighs any made up benefit that Trump and supporters claim come from knowing the identity. You don't need to know who it is to claim they are political motivated, you can do that right now. No one can stop you.

 

Assuming that the article is correct, do you still stand behind your position?

Would you argue that some marginally possible threat is the real reason and that the sum total of his connections to major players in all of the getTrump shenanigans don't rate a mention?

 

I don't ignore it, I dismiss it. I don't have to entertain people's beliefs as if they are facts or reasonable conclusions anymore than they have to do that for me. If leaks are a threat to the nation and conservatives supposedly love the nation more than liberals, then they wouldn't do it EVEN if it meant losing. But what you are highlighting, intentionally or not, is that conservatives, particular groups of conservatives such as blue collar, high school educated white men, have long felt like they have been "losing" and are now hell bent on "winning" at any cost. Those costs include retaining any semblance of conservative ethos or ideology. So when they say turn about is fair play, what they mean to say is, we want to win at any cost and claim our opponent is doing the same. That's my conclusion which you are free to dismiss.

 

I stand behind all my positions. I think I made two in that post, possibly even three.

1) Trump supporters will claim the whistleblower is political motivated no matter who it is, what their resume is, or how conservative they may have been in the past. Remember when W Bush was a conservative hero? Now he might as well have been Al Gore to Trump supporters.
2) They don't need to know the person's identify to carry out step 1, they are already doing it anyway so why bother attaching a name?
3) Revealing the identity will subject that person to threats, possibly of violence and death, that's a given and only the most naive or someone trying to win an internet fight would dispute that

I don't know if the article is real or not and I don't care if Nunes does it or not. I'm not the whistleblower so it's little impact on me. Furthermore given that there's plenty of corroborating evidence to their claim, the whistleblower themselves is less relevant anyway. It's going to be a bad day for that person if their name gets out for sure and that is probably best avoided, but whatever.

 

So, what do you do if the article proves true?

Do you argue that all of the alleged connections to proven schemers are irrelevant because he would have been attacked anyway?

 

Still a whistleblower whose complaint was found credible and urgent by the Trump appointed ICIG and whose complaint has been verified by multiple witnesses and documents.

 

How could there be "multiple witnesses and documents" regrading information that's supposed to be classified?

 

"Further, the official’s status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate” — as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint."

The IGIC is just another Washington bureaucrat. Who says he has any loyalty to Trump? He is an investigator, not a judge, BTY.

The White House “whistleblower” is Eric Ciaramella.
- Registered Democrat
- Worked for Obama
- Worked with Joe Biden
- Worked for CIA Director John Brennan
- Vocal critic of Trump
- Helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation hoax

 

Because the multiple individuals all have the requisite security clearance and access to view that classified information.

 

He was appointed by Trump and none of the "complications" that you list are any reason to dismiss the urgent and credible decision imposed by the Trump appointed ICIG.

Even if the whistleblower was Joe Biden himself, the complaint is still valid and still urgent, as determined by the Trump appointed ICIG.

 

Your are not that naïve. Do you honestly believe that any president, including Trump, makes every low level appointment decision? Even Refs make bad calls. The IG's call is one opinion, his.

I'd like to see you make your argument in a trial court.

 

But the central point is the classified phone call between Trump and Zelensky, isn't that correct? How did the WB get this information, as well as others you mentioned?

 

They can tell congress or their superiors ...

Why are you being obtuse ?

 

HUH ? Show me where it says " you can report anything but presidential calls " ?

What "difference of opinion" ? He reported that he felt that the President may have broken the law. The same as others on the call who went to their superiors also. The law isnt a "difference in opionin, Had that been the case the IG would not have classified the complaint as credible

Your literally making that up. The whistleblower didn't leak anything. The IG released it !!!!

 

You can read it yourself and see where it only applies to events within the intelligence community.

I'm not making anything up. That's why the DNI rejected the IG.

I could explain to you why this is going to fail, but it's really much the same as the "Russia" nonsense. It's getting kind of boring trying to explain why leftists are wrong.

They either A) Know and don't care or B) Just aren't going to get it

I'll just sit back and watch the continual running into the windmill face first.

At least that is entertaining.

 

They tell the IG who takes it to the OLC and they take it to Congress. The whistleblower doesn't make the determination it is an "urgent" matter? Did that happen here? Why did the complainer collude with partisan Democrats first?

 

No.

The complainant can take their complaint to a member of an intelligence committee, which he did, and they help understand, validate, and formalize the complaint for the IG

In this case the IG did mark it as “urgent” and then followed the process and gave it to the DNI (Maguire) , as required by the law, and it stalled at Maguire. There is nothing in the law that allows the DNI to withhold the complaint, or to stall it in any way, as the DNI is a politically appointed position.

I love how the right is now ONLY talking about procedure, and the character of the whistleblower, and everything under the sun EXCEPT the subject of what was in the complaint. I watched tv last night and was switching between channels and FOX was all over how he was a democrat, and how he needed to be outed, and how he worked for a DNC based organization at one point in his career (stopping short of identifying him), and how that means the complaint is just political......and then literally every other channel, was actually talking about the claims int he complaint. It was fascinating to watch. MSNBC, ABC,CBS,NBC, locals, ALL of them were talking about the accusations in the complaint, while Fox was attacking the messenger.

For me, thats very telling about whats going on right now in this country