Why does the whistleblower's identity matter?

How about that he hosted an Obama WH meeting with Ukrainian prosecutors, Ukrainian Embassy Officials in DC, and US Embassy Officials who work in Ukraine designed to hatch a plan to cover up Hunter & Joe Biden's corruption going on at the same time the US was supposed to be helping Ukraine fight corruption. The Whistleblower signed all of participants in the attempted conspiracy in to meet with Obama. The WB's Attorney swore endless coup attempts against Trump to attack the US government from the inside and Trump voters.

The ICIG testimony that was covered up by Schiff noted that the WB was psychotically biased against Trump. He conspired with a former coworker who moved to Schiff's staff in order to launch the Trump impeachment hoax.

 

Dead wrong on both counts. The death threats are probably from Democrats to keep him quiet about the whole corrupt process of how this came to be.

 

He does not "live" under armed security guards. When threats against him increase, security guards drive him to and from work.

 

If that's even accurate considering today news media

 

Schiff "claims" that the whistleblower is the accuser...but Schiff (or more broadly House Democrat leadership) is the "official" accuser. Schiff was hunting for "anything" to accuse the president of some sort of impeachable offense. How convenient that there happened to be a couple of Trump-hating lackeys who were heard openly plotting to reverse the Presidential election and get Trump out of office.

Would you put it past Schiff to be the mastermind to use these two young men, particularly the whistleblower, as tools to have a scapegoat set up in case he is investigated? Is it conceivable that Schiff would tell the WB (who hates Trump as much as Schiff does) "Here. Fill out this official whistleblower form and it will protect your identity. My staff will write it for you. You just sign it. I'll stand behind you all the way."

Now if Schiff gets investigated by the DOJ, he'll continue to claim that he doesn't know the whistleblower, but the whistleblower "started it" and that he simply followed it through in "good faith". Schiff would throw Ciaramella and Miske under the bus so fast that their heads would spin. Of course, at that point, they'd start squawking too. Could get very interesting.

 

I most certainly would not put anything past Schiff. The scenario that you describe is all the more reason why it would be beneficial to cross examine this person.

 

True. That info is sourced from a heavily-biased Washington Post article.

The part about the "armed guards" having to drive the WB to work from time to time is plausible. People in the public eye often encounter death threats, regardless of partisanship. There are "crazies" on both sides.

Amazing how the press knows how an "unknown, anonymous" person gets to and from work.

"The CIA analyst who triggered the impeachment inquiry continues to work on issues relating to Russia and Ukraine, but when threats against him spike — often seemingly spurred by presidential tweets — he is driven to and from work by armed security officers."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...831e3e-2359-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html

 

The WB would very likely crack before a seasoned pro like Schiff would. Still I'm standing by my position that this matter is best left to the DOJ, and is not a matter for the Senate impeachment trial.

 

Or so you say.

 

What is he going to crack from? Other witnesses have confirmed what the whistle blower alleged.

 

Yes. Democrats have confirmed that they agree with the WB's assumptions and presumptions about the President's motivations.

 

Yes.

It doesn't matter all. Ciaramella was used as justification to start the impeachment inquiry. He has done his job and has nothing else to do with it. I think the problem the republicans have is not with him but with Schiff who appears to have been the engine behind the blowing of the whistle.

Correct.

Unfortunately you fail to see what sense the republicans make - no crime alleged, purely partisan impeachment, that sort of stuff. Nobody doubts what Trump did. They just don't care since nobody got hurt and since every politician seeks a political advantage with every word and action. A victimless non crime is an extremely weak reason to bring an impeachment and it won't work.

 

You seem to be presuming guilt and don't want an investigation but a witch hunt. And why wouldn't Trumps Justice Department do their job if there was anything legitimate to investigate? Even if they were investigating him, why would or should they name the wistleblower?

 

How many times do these shams have to be proven to be frauds?

The list is nearly endless.

 

Everyone knows Eric Ciaramella was the whistleblower. Schiff, being a psychotic leaker, accidently let the name slip out during the top secret inquisition in the SCIF. This will become more clear after Rudy finishes his podcasts backed up by documentary evidence. If that doesn't do it, Laura Ingraham cronicles a meeting in the WH with Ciaramella signing in Ukrainians and Americans tied to Obama Ukraine Diplomacy / and Biden self-dealing. I've confirmed the visitor logs and who the people are from official archives.

 

What a strange world in which you live.

 

I live reality, would that you did.

 

For obvious reasons that have been made over and over again. A lot of people think the entire whistleblower report was a corrupt act done in collusion between state department personnel and Adam Schiff's office. This is why Schiff refuses to allow any investigation into it.

 

Love all you want. It is over.

 

They should be mostly if the one being accused with is a very influential political figure, Trump do have a lot of fanatical followers as I see it.

 

Over? It is just starting now.

 

3link Nothing we learn about the whistleblower will change that conduct.

Really nothing? How about he dated Schiffs daughter possibly, which means Schiff's statement that he doesn't know him would be a lie. You don't think it is relevant that this WB had made it clear he was out to get Trump from day one, no relevance? None.? We don't have a right to know if this thing was orchestrated from the get go by Schiff? It appears to be a coup plain and simple.
By the way, the "conduct" is not impeachable anyway.

 

Knowing the name of the whistleblower now will only help in understanding how this shipwreck got started.

 

The whistleblower is protected by the law.

Change the law if you want his or her name, guys.

 

But the American people don't deserve to hear from the other key witnesses or view key documents & records? They should just be happy with the whistleblower testifying, even though he can't offer any new evidence? Okay.

And speaking of "what's there to hide?" What's there to hide from the key witnesses the Dems would like to hear from?

I hope you don't seriously buy into any of the nonsense you post.