“He’s Not Voldemort… Eric Ciaramella Is a Deep State Conspirator”

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Vasa Croe

As a matter of fact, if Ciaramela is a contractor and not a direct employee for the CIA then he can even be fired and have charges brought against him....courtesy of Obama's Presidential Policy Directive 19....remember Snowden?

good point
one that will be lost on most

I find it hilarious when people make claims based on what media says but don't fact check the claims. Gryphs post was exactly that.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
its is typical of this sham "process"
none of the people interviewed have any actual evidence, it is all opinion
their opinion is different than the president, who actually is in charge of diplomacy

insanity

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Vasa Croe

As a matter of fact, if Ciaramela is a contractor and not a direct employee for the CIA then he can even be fired and have charges brought against him....courtesy of Obama's Presidential Policy Directive 19....remember Snowden?

good point
one that will be lost on most

I find it hilarious when people make claims based on what media says but don't fact check the claims. Gryphs post was exactly that.

You should know me better than that Vasa, if you don’t. I wouldn’t post something “just because the media” said it.

As I said, I was on my phone ... so I gave you my honest answer based on my understanding. As you well know, there isn’t one law or regulation that protects whistleblowers ... but in terms of the Intelligence Community particularly, there are protections that include anonymity at least from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in this case Michael Atkinson who respected that anonymity and from Intelligence Chair Schiff, who has thus far enforced anonymity.

It’s my understanding that under the Inspector General Act

(b) The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation

Of course, there are always those who take advantage of the law for political gain.

The Inspector General shall not

as stated previously
and not proven incorrect

originally posted by: shooterbrody

The Inspector General shall not

as stated previously
and not proven incorrect

Making a statement is not proving anything incorrect.

I cited the law.

Perhaps you can make an argument that the law doesn’t apply here somehow?

a reply to: Gryphon66
it ONLY applies to the ig

not even a nice try

the "whistleblower" is afforded no other protections from the press or congress

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
it ONLY applies to the ig

not even a nice try

the "whistleblower" is afforded no other protections from the press or congress

Federal employees are protected from reprisal. Yes, you are correct, technically it only applies to the ICIG, but Schiff has respected that anonymity, and honestly, so would anyone not blinded by partisan rage.

In my opinion of course.

No, the media is not restricted from guessing and I don’t think I made that claim, did I?

Yes, you are correct, technically it only applies to the ICIG

thanks for that

but Schiff has respected that anonymity

incorrect
schiff HIMSELF outed the "whistleblower"

wow

a reply to: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It’s sad how quickly the “law and order crowd” is willing to ignore the rule-of-law when they so choose.

We used to have a word for that: hypocrite.

Got a link to the law that says he can't be named and doesn't have to testify?

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and associated EOs and subsequent legislation. On my phone now, will link later for you.

Gosh, look at that. I didn’t claim that the press or Congress were restricted did I?

If one didn’t know better, it would seem that folks are intentionally misrepresenting the truth ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

The IG didn't release the name. He is the only one beholden to that. Anyone else involved can....and that is only for a direct employee of said agency.

The fact Ciaramela was able to go to a Congressional member with the claim let's me know that, by law, he is a contractor and not direct employ. Because of this AND Obama's PPD19, he is afforded no guarantee of his anonymity nor his job.

If he was a direct employee of the US Govt then, by law, if he disclosed anything about a confidential classified communication to a Congressional member he can be prosecuted and jailed.

oig.justice.gov...

a reply to: Gryphon66

the question you attempted to answer

Got a link to the law that says he can't be named and doesn't have to testify?

the law you cited does neither, tho you represented such

and again schiff outed the "whistleblower"

hot garbage

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
it ONLY applies to the ig

not even a nice try

the "whistleblower" is afforded no other protections from the press or congress

Federal employees are protected from reprisal. Yes, you are correct, technically it only applies to the ICIG, but Schiff has respected that anonymity, and honestly, so would anyone not blinded by partisan rage.

In my opinion of course.

No, the media is not restricted from guessing and I don’t think I made that claim, did I?

Based on the manner in which the accusation was brought to Congress, the whistleblower is not a Federal employee.....he is a contractor. That is the only way he could have gone direct to Congress.

He is going to regret the way Schiff has handled this and that Obama didn't afford the same protections to contractors as he did direct employees.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
You do not know anything about what I think.

Silly, you do realize that you have made your TDS level 6 thought processes abundantly clear for the last 3+ years... don't you?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Yes, you are correct, technically it only applies to the ICIG, but Schiff has respected that anonymity, and honestly, so would anyone not blinded by partisan rage.

Rotflmao!

Are you seriously suggesting that if the shoe were on the other foot...

Never mind, rhetorical question.

Sorry, but there is absolutely zero reason for a whistleblower to remain anonymous beyond the initial stage of his reporting.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Those are actually excellent points. I could argue spirit of the law over the letter, but we both know how that would go.

Didn't Ciaramela leave the White House in like 2017?

How could the ICIG find such a complaint valid ... which did happen.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Those are actually excellent points. I could argue spirit of the law over the letter, but we both know how that would go.

Didn't Ciaramela leave the White House in like 2017?

How could the ICIG find such a complaint valid ... which did happen.

My guess would be Schiff had already spoken to the IG prior to the complaint getting to him based on the fact the initial complaint was brought to Schiff. Schiff helped word it and had the whistleblower send it to the IG in order to not look biased. This is where it kinda blew up on him...nobody was supposed to find out the whistleblower went to Schiff first.

So the IG said he found it credible based on it coming from Schiffs people and having been likely written by them.

Trouble is Maguire didn't find it credible and wasn't in on the initial actions of the Schiff team and the IG so Schiff had to figure out how to get it into the public.....hence his dilemma of now showing his extreme bias on a non issue.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

If Eric Ciaramella is the primary whistleblower, then my belief at the outset is correct.

Somehow the Democrats would find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

What an unmitigated, unfathomable, dumb move it has been to base Trump impeachment on THAT if true.

Thanks Vasa.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If Eric Ciaramella is the primary whistleblower, then my belief at the outset is correct.

Somehow the Democrats would find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

What an unmitigated, unfathomable, dumb move it has been to base Trump impeachment on THAT if true.

Thanks Vasa.

There was never any victory to be had in the first place.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Perhaps not in the Senate for removal, but there’s plenty to impeach the President on.

In my opinion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Perhaps not in the Senate for removal, but there’s plenty to impeach the President on.

In my opinion.

He won't be impeached. Would love to see whatever facts you can provide that say otherwise....not feelings or just a online news report, but actual facts.

I think the biggest disconnect between the dems and reps is facts. Dems tend to believe media and don't research what they read. Reps tend to be reluctant to believe media but actually do research factual basis for accusations.

Sure...I watch mostly Fox, but also watch CNN, ABC, NBC, etc...I research all of their claims and mostly back to laws.

I have watched 3 years of complete BS from the dems. From Trump being blamed for Obama policies to Dems taking credit for the absolutely amazing economy we have, to Russia collusion to the Blasey Ford total BS story to the Ukaraine crap.

Seriously....the dems need to focus on their constituents and their districts. The insanity of CA and Baltimore and Chicago, etc....I can't believe these folks are still in Congress.....I guess it will take a mass plague or disease or epidemic in one of those areas coming out because of lack of doing anything in order for folks to see they are literally doing nothing.