But you can tell that he truly, really *thinks* he is, which kind of makes it interesting to watch him state a basic fact as if it is something insightful.
Why would I ask fallible memories when I can go to a library and pull microfilm of actual newspapers?
Eric Ciaramella. Is he the whistleblower? And are the pics of him buddying up with Pelosi, Clinton and others, real or fake?
Imagine having to hold the positions that testimony before congress regarding Kavanaugh can't be trusted as even possibly true, multiple threads of evidence and the statements of Trump's own defense lawyers stating something happened don't matter, but a smattering of right wing outlets outing a legally protected whistle blower and claiming he said some stuff heard by "sources" 3 years ago is true. What is the threshold? It clearly isn't testimony or named names UNLESS it is politically useful. Then "sources" are fine.
Could of sworn there was outrage for making fun of the appearance of Sarah Sanders. Guess it only works for Trump appointees.
U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9) "Doxing" an employee of a certain intelligence agency, even just an analyst... even just an analyst with a very high security clearance, could be easily argued as being retaliatory. I don't know why people think it just means promotions as shit.
I feel like the intent of unmasking them through unofficial channels is obvious. They were never unknown to the government, and thus Congress, the WH, etc. It wasn't an anonymous accusation.
“Could be argued” is no legal standard, as almost every post on this matter easily attests. There is no federal law which either: A) Grants anonymity to a whistleblower, or B) Requires anyone to provide or protect the identity of said whistleblower from public use & knowledge. That the Dems certainly know and understand this, and yet don’t want anyone to know the identity of Eric Ciaramella is telling. Because once you know his name, then you can begin to learn who he associates with, who he has worked for and with, and can begin to discern his motives - and perhaps of those around him. So, who is Eric Ciaramella Well, this is pretty easily discovered via “Google” - but please forgive what Float thinks must be my utter scofflaw behavior in posting this: Well, and then this: Schiff may soon have to answer some very tough questions about his relationship, and those on his staff, to Ciaramella. Boy, I sure hope that this guy is never proven to have leaked confidential info to unauthorized persons (or publicly) - because even if such had occurred in the role of a “whistleblower” - it won’t save him from prison. See, Float, not a word of this violates any law, whatsoever. Trump could say the same thing, during the SOTU speech. Pelosi could, too, once she sober us up. As could McConnell. As could anyone. Because it’s not illegal to do so. Well, that and because anyone with the mental friction produced by having two brain cells to rub together instinctively understands that a whistleblower’s anonymity can never be fully guaranteed in a transparent government, and so long as any accused retain a right to personally face her/his accuser, as that pesky ol’ Constitution guarantees. Link: https://www.realclearinvestigations...biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html
can you give some other examples of whistleblowers who were outed within a short time of making the complaint? if this is an established thing to do, there must be many.
Seems as if you continue to struggle, or simply include at your leisure and benefit, with the difference between a criminal case and an impeachment.