Eric Ciaramella - whistleblower

Ziggurat said:
So what's the point in not having him even testify in closed hearings for the House...
Click to expand...

He doesn't have any facts to add that weren't amply attested by career civil servants (and Sondland) who were closer to the events in question. What do you think would be the point in calling him as a fact witness in any impeachment hearings in either chamber?
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Are the whistleblower protections there to protect people from non government actors?
Click to expand...

They have to be or else the "government actor" has to do is to order/suggest/strongly hint that said person needs to be dealt with and let a "non government actor" do it.

Which of course would render the whole concept pointless and without form or function which is why you are metaphysically certain to now try and argue why that means it how it has to be.
 
JoeMorgue said:
They have to be or else the "government actor" has to do is to order/suggest/strongly hint that said person needs to be dealt with and let a "non government actor" do it.

Which of course would render the whole concept pointless and without form or function which is why you are metaphysically certain to now try and argue why that means it how it has to be.
Click to expand...

You know me well. That is exactly my point.

The law is not there to provide a broader point. If it meets its narrow goal, but fails in spirit, then that is success.
 
Bob's nonsensical ******** aside, the whistleblower is completely useless right now. It makes absolutely no sense to bring him in and he provides no insight to the charges. Given the evidence we have available there is nothing for him to do.

Unless someone can actually provide me with any information he could give that would change anything, I'm going to consider this a continuation of empty whining.
 
plague311 said:
Bob's nonsensical ******** aside, the whistleblower is completely useless right now. It makes absolutely no sense to bring him in and he provides no insight to the charges. Given the evidence we have available there is nothing for him to do.

Unless someone can actually provide me with any information he could give that would change anything, I'm going to consider this a continuation of empty whining.
Click to expand...

If it adds nothing, then let them waste their time questioning.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If it adds nothing, then let them waste their time questioning.
Click to expand...

No, for a few reasons, and this will be my only reply.

1) It will only open him up to unwarranted harassment by the Trump Cult.

2) We don't just have people testify to appease the "other side" for no reason at all.

3) It will do absolutely nothing to change any storyline or complaint that the GOP has at all. He isn't going to testify and the GOP will all of a sudden say, "Oh snap, I guess we were wrong. We're all for impeachment now." It's an exercise in futility with absolutely no upside at all. This isn't about getting people to waste their time. It's about not doing stupid **** just because a bunch of ******** don't want their leader impeached for engaging in proven illegal activity on a myriad of scales (corruption, bribery, abuse of office, etc).
 
plague311 said:
It will only open him up to unwarranted harassment by the Trump Cult.
Click to expand...
I think we may safely assume this is truly the point of the exercise, since (A) no one has suggested that the whistleblower has access to any salient facts beyond those which we've already heard from civil servants in public hearings, and (B) we've already seen barely veiled threats from the man himself.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
OK. So what's the point in not having him even testify in closed hearings for the House if he's going to be dragged out in public by the Senate anyways? I'm still not seeing how the House is protecting him by keeping him from testifying.
Click to expand...

sure.

right after Mulvaney, Bolton, Guiliani and Trump.
 
plague311 said:
No, for a few reasons, and this will be my only reply.

1) It will only open him up to unwarranted harassment by the Trump Cult.

2) We don't just have people testify to appease the "other side" for no reason at all.

3) It will do absolutely nothing to change any storyline or complaint that the GOP has at all. He isn't going to testify and the GOP will all of a sudden say, "Oh snap, I guess we were wrong. We're all for impeachment now." It's an exercise in futility with absolutely no upside at all. This isn't about getting people to waste their time. It's about not doing stupid **** just because a bunch of ******** don't want their leader impeached for engaging in proven illegal activity on a myriad of scales (corruption, bribery, abuse of office, etc).
Click to expand...

The ONLY reason GOP wants him to testify is because it will afford some of their biggest wankers an opportunity to distract, deflect and obfuscate the facts and generally turn things into a circus the way Jim "shouty-mouth" Jordan and Mark "some of my best friends are black" Meadows tried to do in the House hearings.
 
Ziggurat said:
OK. So what's the point in not having him even testify in closed hearings for the House if he's going to be dragged out in public by the Senate anyways? I'm still not seeing how the House is protecting him by keeping him from testifying.
Click to expand...


You're saying the House should endanger him just because the Senate will too.
 
Ziggurat said:
OK. So what's the point in not having him even testify in closed hearings for the House if he's going to be dragged out in public by the Senate anyways? I'm still not seeing how the House is protecting him by keeping him from testifying.
Click to expand...


McConnell says he isn't going to allow any witnesses to testify to the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday rejected calls from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to allow witnesses at an expected Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Click to expand...


Unless, of course, he only means no witnesses called by the Democrats.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
You're saying the House should endanger him just because the Senate will too.
Click to expand...

Yes, and do their best to discredit the person. If they can prove that the whistle-blower is a NeverTrumper or liberal shill that only disclosed hearsay evidence, it will render all of the first-hand witness testimony and collaborative evidence in the House's impeachment hearings invalid because of.... reasons.

The reality is, they want to punish the whistle-blower to send a message to anyone who would dare blow whistles on the Trump administration. Snitches get stitches. They know damn well that the Senate will not vote to remove Trump so the need to out the whistle-blower is all about revenge and discouragement of future snitches.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes, and do their best to discredit the person. If they can prove that the whistle-blower is a NeverTrumper or liberal shill that only disclosed hearsay evidence, it will render all of the first-hand witness testimony and collaborative evidence in the House's impeachment hearings invalid because of.... reasons.

The reality is, they want to punish the whistle-blower to send a message to anyone who would dare blow whistles on the Trump administration. Snitches get stitches. They know damn well that the Senate will not vote to remove Trump so the need to out the whistle-blower is all about revenge and discouragement of future snitches.
Click to expand...

That! They want to identify the whistleblower so they can discredit him/her as a Dem or NeverTrumper as if that makes all the House witness testimony moot. They want to kill the messenger and ignore the message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom