|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
Oculus Spirit [97727]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64863
Joined: 7/13/02
|
He who shall not be named
Nov 14, 2019, 6:50 PM
|
|
Interesting read:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/14/whistleblower-nyt-impeachment-070887
Right or left, the op-ed has a point. Everyone knows the guy, and by self-imposing censorship within the mainstream media, they're just opening a huge door to the alt-right media to run with this. I mean if harm came to this guy right now, who would be responsible? His name appears in 408,000 results in Google. Who is his attorney going to sue? 408,000 people? There's already a lawsuit filed against Facebook for deleting a post with his name.
If the guy is who they say he is, and there's very good reason to believe he has been accurately named, he poses a HUGE problem in this impeachment inquiry. Speculation is he was in charge, or at least involved in USAID payments to Ukraine under Obama's administration at the time Hunter Biden was making his millions. He would have every reason to know why Trump's call was dangerous. I have no clue if what is written about the guy is true or not, but the way the media is censoring itself, while millions know the guy's name and are writing about and investigating him, it's just kind of surreal. Just for reference, here's a list of famous whistleblowers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers
In fact, the government has been all too eager to release the identity of whistleblowers in the past. And I have never seen one as exposed as this guy still being censored in the media, or by SOME in the media anyway.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [42170]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Why does he need to be named?***
Nov 14, 2019, 8:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97727]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64863
Joined: 7/13/02
|
He's already been named. That's my point.
Nov 14, 2019, 8:41 PM
|
|
Hundreds of websites. 480,000 according to Google.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42170]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: He's already been named. That's my point.
Nov 14, 2019, 8:54 PM
|
|
If that's your point, why didn't you say that in your post?
Why does he need to be named?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155930]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65829
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Re: He's already been named. That's my point.
Nov 14, 2019, 10:05 PM
|
|
“ And I have never seen one as exposed as this guy still being censored in the media, or by SOME in the media anyway. ”
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42170]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Oh, we're gonna call that "censorship" now? LOL
Nov 15, 2019, 8:07 AM
|
|
I love watching people outside the field of journalism try to explain it.
This would be what we call protecting someone's identity so he isn't harmed. Which is exactly what Trump and his people want to do to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155930]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65829
Joined: 5/6/13
|
LOL, no it's not.
Nov 15, 2019, 2:30 PM
|
|
I think it's mostly no one being quite sure if it's legal or not to name him with an erring on the side of caution.
If anyone were inclined to shorten this guy's time on Earth, it would only happen if he WERE mostly anonymous. With his name out there and known, he's the safest guy in America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Oh, we're gonna call that "censorship" now? LOL
Nov 16, 2019, 2:58 PM
|
|
Nobody went after, and prosecuted whistleblowers more than your boy Obama. By 2016 he had jailed 25+ of them, and no one batted an eye.
You didn't read the article. Whistle blowing isn't the same as leaking.
There is a legal process one must go through to qualify as a 'whisle blower'.
Leaker's let out protected information for their own purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42170]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56140
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
All I ask is when (not if) a Democrat President is accused of something
Nov 14, 2019, 8:54 PM
[ in reply to Why does he need to be named?*** ] |
|
that the identity of the accuser is not important. Indeed, the media, even if they have it, should not release it.
That’s all I want. Consistency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
You're being unreasonable.***
Nov 14, 2019, 9:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: All I ask is when (not if) a Democrat President is accused of something
Nov 14, 2019, 10:25 PM
[ in reply to All I ask is when (not if) a Democrat President is accused of something ] |
|
that the identity of the accuser is not important. Indeed, the media, even if they have it, should not release it.
That’s all I want. Consistency.
That's reasonable Swarley. People forget that the Benghazi Investigation started with a CIA whistle-blower as well.
Nobody screamed for him/her to be revealed and no one vilified him/her in the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56140
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [181005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 94637
Joined: 12/5/10
|
These Are The Days Of Our Lives***
Nov 14, 2019, 9:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
They won't hide him if this goes to the Senate.
Nov 15, 2019, 6:56 AM
|
|
Here say isn't allowed by federal law because it denies the defendant the right to face his accuser.
Dems are acting like a 14 yr old boy with an erection. They aren't thinking this through to the end.
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9436
Joined: 12/18/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Don't change the subject.
Nov 19, 2019, 7:29 AM
|
|
What's the crime? Dems' accusation is that the whistleblower directed everyone's attention to a crime. What statue did Trump violate?
If you're going to say he intended to bribe Ukraine then you're going to be burdened to prove motive. Being that Ukraine was part of the 2016 election meddling as clearly mentioned in the transcript dems will never prove the only reason Trump asked for Ukraine to help with Barr's investigation was to seek 'dirt,' on Biden. Biden gave plenty of predicate for the investigation.
When this goes to the senate, and I'm about positive it will since AOC wants it, the senate will call the whistleblower and Adam Schiff to find out how much they coordinated before the report was filed.
By then the Durham investigation will be filing charges against Obama's administradors and a chitshow will entertain us all the way to Nov 2020. Horowitz testifies before the Senate Dec 11 this year.
All the house investigation is doing it bringing the spotlight on Joe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42170]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
This whole thing is weird.
Nov 15, 2019, 9:08 AM
|
|
If "everyone knows who it is," then who is it? Who are these people who are "writing about it"? I haven't seen it anywhere. You didn't even say the name in your post. Are you "censoring yourself"? Why? It's just weird.
The identity of the whistleblower is completely and hopelessly irrelevant to the impeachment case. And the people obsessing over it know this. I don't think the President should be impeached, but this is just embarrassing behavior by him and his supporters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6639]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4998
Joined: 10/31/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97727]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64863
Joined: 7/13/02
|
This thread is a prime example. His name is Eric Ciaramella
Nov 15, 2019, 2:25 PM
[ in reply to This whole thing is weird. ] |
|
Real Clear Politics, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump Jr and his 4 million twitter followers, Mark Levin, Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Breitbart, Rand Paul, PJ Media, Dallas Morning News, Town Hall, all have named him. Google that name. There's 443,000 results. The results will be a who's who among right wing websites. And if you read up, there's a very good reason they're NOT naming him publicly, even though he's been named publicly.
And if you consider how the whole Russian collusion investigation started, that was equally as shady. There isn't anything here either, but the fishing expedition and how it started is something we should all be concerned with. We should also be concerned in how Biden acted and the millions his son made in what is hard to describe as anything but corruption. Having the FBI director falsely submit a FISA warrant, based on verified information that was not verified, to a judge is a felony.
If there was Russian collusion, impeach Trump. If there was something BEYOND this phone call, I'll wait and see. But reasonable people are seeing through this. Meanwhile everyone knows who the whistleblower is, yet Youtube, Facebook, Apple, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc. simply won't cover it. Won't investigate him. Won't investigate Benghazi. Won't investigate Biden's VERY clear quid pro quo while in office, won't investigate his son. It's really surreal the control and bias of the press.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I will admit that the whistleblower matters in this case:
Nov 16, 2019, 10:37 AM
|
|
If, when we discover who it is and everything about him, that that information magically scrubs out things the President says in the call transcript, and writes in other words in their place.
I really don't think that's going to happen, so I think it's going to remain true that the whistleblower matters absolutely zero. Absolutely. Zero. It really is confusing to me how anyone can think differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18024]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
You probably don't follow right-wing propaganda sites
Nov 16, 2019, 9:44 PM
|
|
which, based on what Tiggity wrote, he does. You're not going to see eye to eye with people that so removed from reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56140
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Does it matter that he is a documented liar?
Nov 19, 2019, 8:10 AM
[ in reply to I will admit that the whistleblower matters in this case: ] |
|
He filed a falsehood on the report. He did not reveal that he had contact with congress before the report was filed. Why would an honest man do that when the question is specifically asked on the form he filled out?
Why did Adam Schiff lie about it when asked?
Does honesty mean anything anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
It matters zero if he/she is a documented liar.
Nov 19, 2019, 9:47 AM
|
|
Absolutely zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Even if the report he turned in contained a falsehood...
Nov 19, 2019, 10:20 AM
|
|
which suggest he may have been guided by Adam Schiff? Is there no law about filing false accusations on government forms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
That would be of personal consequence to the individual
Nov 19, 2019, 11:02 AM
|
|
but would have zero relevance to the impeachment.
I don't understand how you (and others) don't understand that we have a call transcript. We have it. I've read it. You've read it. Who cares about the whistleblower? It just makes no sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1428]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1134
Joined: 10/27/11
|
Re: He who shall not be named
Nov 19, 2019, 12:09 PM
|
|
The name of the whistleblower doesn't matter at this point. The evidence that trump did impeachable things is pretty overwhelming. Plus, the main reason not to share the whistleblowers name, besides it being illegal.... is that it's a chilling effect on having other people come forward and report malfeasance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
