Eric Ciaramella - whistleblower

applecorped said:
Didn't take long for the knives to come out and people stop addressing the article and start personalizing it but that's is, as someone recently said here.....SOP
Click to expand...

OK - addressing the article: Nobody legitimately cares.

Quite a few illegitimates carry on about it as if it made some kind of difference, but there is no valid reason to care.
Because of the multiple corroborations of the report, that cat is out of the bag, that parrot is truly deceased, that train has left the station, too little, too late, crying over spilled milk, those horses are gone and it is too late to close that barn door, crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good.
 
Trump's demand that the Whistleblower be identified is encouraging the breaking of a law i.e. incitement.

In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred.
Click to expand...

Lock. Him. Up.
 
Okay, so, second try on the image:

untitled.jpg

Again, the link:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

My point is that this thread exists to intimidate the (alleged) messenger rather than rationally discredit the message.

So far, nothing has been presented to persuade us that the (alleged) whistleblower didn't have his or her facts straight.
 
Last edited:
Wow, imagine if the entire justice system operated the way Trumpublicans are saying that it should with this whisleblower.....
 
I had not heard of that particular logical fallacy, but by name I'd think it would be something like
 

Attachments

  • fallacy.jpg
    fallacy.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 14
thaiboxerken said:
Wow, imagine if the entire justice system operated the way Trumpublicans are saying that it should with this whisleblower.....
Click to expand...

It makes being a defense attorney more interesting.


Officer: We found a body under the bridge. It had a note on it in the defendant's handwriting saying "I killed this guy because I'm above the law and there is nothing you can do about it" Also, the dead man had a smartphone in his hands that contained a video of the incident where the defendant fired a gun at him. Also, we have tweets from the defendant acknowledging his shooting the victim.

Def atty: Officer, who told you about the body?

Officer: Some guy who was in the area putting up Bernie Sanders campaign signs.

Def atty" MOVE TO DISMISS THAT GUY WAS BIASED MY CLIENT IS A REPUBLICAN AND ALL OF THIS IS TAINTED HOW DARE THEY ASRGGHHGHGHGH!!!!!

Trump Appointee Judge: Yeah, good point. Case dismissed.
 
I just know that the Whistleblower's attorney is going to mess up the whole plan.

Today we've got: (from Twitter)

Mark Zaid predicting a coup in 2017
Mark Zaid's YouTube channel that he linked to from his website showing his love of Disney Girl videos.
Mark Zaid's foundation having John Podesta sitting on it's board.
 
Drewbot said:
I just know that the Whistleblower's attorney is going to mess up the whole plan.

Today we've got: (from Twitter)

Mark Zaid predicting a coup in 2017
Click to expand...

We've gone over this. Disliking the President means **** all, and one can do their job while having a political bias.

Drewbot said:
Mark Zaid's YouTube channel that he linked to from his website showing his love of Disney Girl videos.
Click to expand...

I'm still looking for a credible link to this because not even Fox has posted it but have posted on the "coup" statement. Sorry, I don't find Twitter trustworthy and the only website I can actually find that supports this is named "NOQ".

Drewbot said:
Mark Zaid's foundation having John Podesta sitting on it's board.
Click to expand...

Per the man himself:

I love watching right wing spin my so-called relationship to @johnpodesta bc of his listed affiliation as "advisor" to @JMadisonProject, which I founded in 1998. I believe last time I interacted w/Mr. Podesta was possibly in 2000, nearly 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

It certainly doesn't seem like Podesta is actually involved in any way, and they don't get together. Podesta had a lot of people fooled. It sucks this guy is one of them.

I don't know this guy, and if he's a douche then he's a douche. That doesn't change the fact that Trump shouldn't be trying to out the whistleblower, **** like this is good for nothing other than a lame attempt at discrediting the whistleblower and his attorney, and the whistleblower is irrelevant because Trump and the transcript confirmed everything both whistleblowers have said.

tl;dr Who gives a ******
 
The whistle blower could be a convicted serial killer, it doesn't matter. What he's reported is collaborated by many other known witnesses. In fact, the whistle blower could go into hiding, or try to retract his report and it wouldn't matter at this point.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The whistle blower could be a convicted serial killer, it doesn't matter. What he's reported is collaborated by many other known witnesses. In fact, the whistle blower could go into hiding, or try to retract his report and it wouldn't matter at this point.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you forget that he represents a case of "The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"!

You know, the principle that if you find 20 murdered bodies in someone's cellar and video of a guy doing the killing after an illegal search, it means that the guy is innocent.
 
Here are a handful of the questions posed by the NY Post:

What, if anything, did he leak?
Click to expand...

Did he work with Biden on Ukraine, apparently Ciaramella’s area of expertise?
Click to expand...

Did he know about Burisma and Hunter Biden?
Click to expand...

Who told him about the call, and why did that person not complain instead of him?
Click to expand...

How did Schiff’s staff help him tailor the complaint?
Click to expand...

It is unclear to me how the answers to any of those questions might help us discover whether the allegations and details found in the whistleblower's report are truthful and accurate. This editorial strikes me as a fairly ham-fisted effort to distract from the various abuses of power committed by the White House in pursuit of a domestic political errand.
 
Last edited:
If I murder my wife and someone blows the whistle on me because they think I'm a jerk, then it's obvious that the investigation into the murder was started because of personal bias. Therefore, the investigation is a sham and I am innocent.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Pfffftt.

Why? What ******* difference does it make? Please, do tell. The evidence without any whistleblower speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

If they show that the whistleblower only blew the whistle because he didn't like Trump, that means all of the evidence uncovered during the investigation doesn't count..........
 
dudalb said:
I honestly am scared that 2024, if he wins relection in 2020,Donnie will try to stay in power.And he mindless supporters will cheer him on.
Click to expand...

Thank you for telling us this. Now we know not to take anything you say about Trump seriously.
 
dudalb said:
I honestly am scared that 2024, if he wins relection in 2020,Donnie will try to stay in power.And he mindless supporters will cheer him on.
Click to expand...

While he might not try to stay in power personally, he might try putting Dump Jr up for the Republican nomination, in an effort to retain power in every way but name.
 
smartcooky said:
While he might not try to stay in power personally, he might try putting Dump Jr up for the Republican nomination, in an effort to retain power in every way but name.
Click to expand...

Yea right. Next, you'll say that he has a loyal lackey AG that controls the DOJ and that the Senate Republicans are rigging the Senate impeachment trial....
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Ah, but you forget that he represents a case of "The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"!

You know, the principle that if you find 20 murdered bodies in someone's cellar and video of a guy doing the killing after an illegal search, it means that the guy is innocent.
Click to expand...

The "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" principle is one of the most publicly misunderstood doctrines in Law, right alongside "hearsay" and the BS claim that "a failed attempt to commit a crime means no crime was committed" that Trumpistas keep trotting out.

Firstly, this evidential exclusion doesn't even apply in the case of impeachment, it only applies in Law and only when the accused has had his 4A rights violated. This happens when an Officer of the Law or an agent of the government (that bit is very important) has illegally searched an area which is covered by the accused's 4A rights, i.e. in an areas in which he/she has the right to privacy - usually the person's home or property or vehicle, or under very limited circumstances, his/her place of work. The search must be illegal through either no warrant or an illegally obtained search warrant.

Examples of exceptions to the exclusion rule;

1. Discovery of evidence as a result of an independent source
Your neighbour knows you have committed a crime. One day, your neighbour is visiting you. He takes a piece of incriminating evidence and passes it to Police. Your 4A rights have not been violated because there was no illegal search by the Police (although your lawyer could argue "chain of custody issues")

2. Inevitable discovery
You keep incriminating evidence in your top drawer at your place of employment, you have no 4A rights. If the business owner grants the Police permission to search your desk, any evidence so obtained will be admissible. Even if the owner wasn't there to give permission, the Police would have discovered the evidence anyway with a warrant issued to the owner

3. The Good Faith exception
Police obtain a search warrant based on information they believe to be true. They find incriminating evidence. Later it turns out the the information was wrong and the search warrant was not valid on probable cause, however, it was obtained and executed by government agents in good faith. The evidence is admissible.


Even if the exclusion rule did apply to impeachment, two exceptions would apply

1. The Independent Source Exception - the whistleblower is not an agent of the government

2. The Good Faith Exception - the whistleblower believed he was right to do what he did (and he was, because his actions were protected by US Federal Statute).
 
Ziggurat said:
Thank you for telling us this. Now we know not to take anything you say about Trump seriously.
Click to expand...


And we also shouldn't take what Trump says seriously. He himself has publicly said, and agreed with supporters who said, that his term should be extended as compensation for the investigation. That's why people bring it up.
 
thaiboxerken said:
If I murder my wife and someone blows the whistle on me because they think I'm a jerk, then it's obvious that the investigation into the murder was started because of personal bias. Therefore, the investigation is a sham and I am innocent.
Click to expand...

Worded like that, it makes the Repugnican argument sound even more silly.
 
thaiboxerken said:
If I murder my wife and someone blows the whistle on me because they think I'm a jerk, then it's obvious that the investigation into the murder was started because of personal bias. Therefore, the investigation is a sham and I am innocent.
Click to expand...

Since the whistleblower has no bearing on the investigation, I don't understand the opposition to having him testify. If the defense wants to waste their time going down a path that doesn't help them, then let them.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Since the whistleblower has no bearing on the investigation, I don't understand the opposition to having him testify.
Click to expand...

Do you understand why whistleblower statutes exist in the first place?

dudalb said:
I honestly am scared that 2024, if he wins relection in 2020,Donnie will try to stay in power. And [his] mindless supporters will cheer him on.
Click to expand...
Where could one possibly come up with such a ridiculous idea? Surely actual GOP politicians would never suggest such a blatantly unconstitutional idea.

https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/status/1205211276005101568
 
d4m10n said:
Do you understand why whistleblower statutes exist in the first place?
Click to expand...

He's already been outed. I'm not sure why you think keeping him from testifying is going to provide him with any additional protection.
 
Ziggurat said:
He's already been outed. I'm not sure why you think keeping him from testifying is going to provide him with any additional protection.
Click to expand...
I suppose a few online articles are a lot like having one's face on the evening news, testifying under oath, now you mention it.
 
d4m10n said:
I suppose a few online articles are a lot like having one's face on the evening news, testifying under oath, now you mention it.
Click to expand...

I can see why you think being on broadcast news is relevant, but how the hell is being under oath? Do you think he's going to be forced to lie? Do you think he's going to be tricked into lying? Do you think he's going to want to lie? Oh, and BTW, he can testify in closed hearings, so he's at no more risk of having his face in the news in that situation than he already is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom