Real Clear Investigations - Reveals "Whistleblower's" Name - Eric Ciaramella

Setting aside the fact that we are well beyond a mere phone call and have sworn testimony that there was an entire shadow diplomatic campaign to place pressure on Ukraine, I just have to laugh at the notion that phone call was a "fizzle" when it was released the day after the impeachment inquiry began and support for the impeachment immediately shot up.

 

Re: First paragraph.

Now that persons who can give first-hand admissible evidence have been identified, the WB is pretty much irrelevant other than as to matters about which he can give admissible evidence which is limited very strictly to what he had been told*, or about relevant incidents to which he was a party himself. *That is not proof/evidence of the veracity of what he had been told. He simply informed people where to look. People have looked and the parade began with the sacked female Embassador and on.

 

This traitor and his lawyer are being controlled and coached by Adam Schiff and/or other Democrats. I hope someone tapped Schiff's phones so we can eventually hear all the calls and the attempted coup, live on tape.

 

Per the OP... / "Whistle blower" AKA SNITCH... (imho)

Who the "F" cares...

According to Buck Sexton (former CIA)... - 3/4 of them are progressively leaning 'liberals' & even if you consider the staff 'in its entirety' - they are only fractionally what you'd call "brilliant". (not at the top of the "collegiate heap") which was a shock to me.

Personal quip... lol, the guy I was dating in HS... Big football 'jock' w/ big money family connections - landed up in the FBI after turning down the CIA (ostensibly), a complete moron who still tries to play the "Biff card" with me... lol

 

What does a guy getting 500 mill in aid supposed to say? Do you think if he would have said he felt pressured by Trump, he would have gotten 500 mill next year? talking about being under duress. And again it is not just what was said on the phone, but what was going on behind the phone call. WTF is Rudy even doing over there? He is the presidents lawyer not a official. This is not "bridge of spies" deal between enemies and governments can't be involved, this is foreign aid between countries with a shared interest. Hell if Trump wanted Ukraine's corruption resolution as part of it, McConnell could have added to the bill as a contingency. Contingencies are added to foreign aid all the time. He could have had the justice dept look into and investigate Biden if they thought something was out of the ordinary and do it through official channels and notify Biden/Dems that it was being done. He could have sent Rudy as part of the reelection committee and told both he and the ambassador to stay clear of each other, but no he told them to work together.

 

Whatever his or her name is, they've done a great service for our country.. any harm that comes to them is on Donald Trumps head..

I just wish that could be literally...

 

You are spinning furiously. It wasn't us that said this phone call was a very big deal.

Presidential use of personal envoys has a very long history, they have all done it. RFK started meeting with the Russians before JFK was even sworn in, and prior to RFK being sworn into the cabinet. It can be reasonably argued that it was RFK's behind the curtains relationship that helped prevent the Bay of Pigs fiasco from turning into nuclear war. Bottom line, the Deep State is butt hurt that Trump doesn't allow them to control his presidency and that's just too damn bad for the Deep State. They are staff, not elected representatives.

This aid that he briefly held up, was first held up but Obama, who NEVER released it, why did Obama hold it up, why was that hold not an "impeachable" offense? You guys with the "one set of rules for those we favor" and another "for those who disagree with us" do you not realize that with even a whisper of unfairness in the process that the Public will never support the removal of a President, especially in the absence of ANY statutory crime?

So what? You think that is an "impeachable" offense? Face it. Trump's "high crime" was beating Hillary fair and square.

 

I would trust his testimony as much as I would trust a rabid skunk.

 

No proof? Fake news!

 

The phone call was the first piece in the investigation, it is no longer the most relevant piece. The first piece that sets of an investigation is usually not the most critical piece.

 

Yes, another "SMOKING GUN!" fizzles into irrelevance, as crazed Leftists frantically persist in their efforts to undo the 2016 election.

But thanks for admitting that there are no impeachable offenses in the Ukraine Phone call. If you will recall, we told you that at the start, just as we did with the Dossier, three years ago.

 

When all is said and done, this little weasel will go down in the dustbin of history with Christine Blasey Ford. (think hard, she was the mouse voiced idiot who thinks she was savagely attacked by Supreme Court Kavanaugh although she could not remember the time, location, or year.)

 

^ Snowballing lies and feverish delusions in service to a dirty crook and con man in the White House.

 

Do you have anything to actually add to the topic?

 

You will not find one post by me saying anything positive about Russia gate, but you will find my posts critizing it. I don't like trump the person and I don't like the tax cut or the us vs them mentality of his speeches. I wore the uniform in Nam and I don't appreciate the president when he says that I am not as much of an American than his followers are because I favor progressive politics. Captain bonespurs never even wore the uniform and he is in no position to infer that one American is more American than another, when that chickenshit avoided the draft.

First I did not admit anything regarding the phonecall, just that it was not now the most critical piece. We have not yet gotten a full and complete transcript of the phone call but the "“Memorandum of Telephone Conversation” that was provided is not a word for word transcript.

 

It does not matter whether he is a democrat or a republican as both have their own biases. If you argue that a democrat cannot be objective about Trump then for the sake of a logical consistency neither can a republican be objective about Trump. Democrats have a negative bias towards Trump while republicans have a positive bias towards Trump. The aforementioned biases make it more likely than not that democrats will easily see the negatives of Trump and be largely oblivious to the positives of Trump just as the republicans with their positive bias will easily see the positives of Trump while being largely oblivious to the negatives of Trump. With that said, just because someone has a bias does not automatically make the claims they make false.

 

It's Mueller time!!!

 

Careful. You might be giving a hostage to fate.

 

Does he knock on your forehead and say "Hellooo, McFly, anybody home?"

 

Ha ha, "his or her name."

 

Nothing alleged is worthy of impeachment. Democrats in Trump states will be slaughtered in 2020.

 

Sworn testimony you say? Not perjury? Thought you were supposed to be a lawyer... cause you should know the difference...

So fizzle on to the next one..

 

I swear I read it in the paper.
I swear someone told me they heard it.

 

Thank you for your service.

The Phone call is being downplayed now because it's obvious that the Left's claims about it are lies and that no impeachable offenses occurred on the call. So now you are back to where you have been since the inauguration, desperately looking for grounds to undo the 2016 election and not only no Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes, but no statutory crimes whatsoever, and a time line that has the Dems trying to impeach him during an election year, rather than simply leaving the decision to the voters, who they clearly distrust, and Trump's Senate exoneration in the Senate right before the Election.