Home · Maps · About
Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

(1693022)

view threaded

Eric Ciaramella

Posted by mtk52983 on Fri Jan 24 09:57:47 2020

Wishing those who celebreate a happy, healthy, and prosperous Year of the Rat

Post a New Response

(1693026)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella II

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 24 10:10:21 2020, in response to Eric Ciaramella, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Jan 24 09:57:47 2020.

Now now now. Couldn't append to the original?

Post a New Response

(1693030)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 10:17:30 2020, in response to Eric Ciaramella, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Jan 24 09:57:47 2020.

Cute.

Post a New Response

(1693034)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 24 10:22:09 2020, in response to Eric Ciaramella, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Jan 24 09:57:47 2020.

Who is Eric Ciarmella and what does he have to do with the Year of the Rat?

Post a New Response

(1693036)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Dave on Fri Jan 24 10:26:45 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 24 10:22:09 2020.

He was the whistleblower a.k.a, a rat.

Post a New Response

(1693039)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella II

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 24 10:29:55 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Dave on Fri Jan 24 10:26:45 2020.

A whistleblower has first-hand knowledge of something. Ciaramella has nothing but hearsay.

Post a New Response

(1693043)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 24 10:35:47 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Dave on Fri Jan 24 10:26:45 2020.

Has Ciaramella been officially, positively identified as the whistleblower?

Post a New Response

(1693044)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Dave on Fri Jan 24 10:39:10 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 24 10:35:47 2020.

Dunno but that's what he's been accused of doing.

Post a New Response

(1693050)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 10:46:13 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 24 10:35:47 2020.

Wow, now there is a surprise. You defending a lying rat.

Post a New Response

(1693055)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella II

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 24 11:06:56 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 10:46:13 2020.

Never mind a friend of communist Brennan.

Post a New Response

(1693062)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jan 24 11:16:11 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 24 10:22:09 2020.

It's in the other thread.

Post a New Response

(1693063)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jan 24 11:16:50 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 10:17:30 2020.

Which one?

Post a New Response

(1693071)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by mtk52983 on Fri Jan 24 11:29:18 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 10:17:30 2020.

Thanks

Post a New Response

(1693078)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 24 11:54:32 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 10:46:13 2020.

Just about everything the whistleblower (who has NOT been identified by name) reported to the IG has been contemporaneously corroborated by first-hand witnesses or direct evidence, including Trump's own words.

Of course, you're defending the indefensible.

Post a New Response

(1693084)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 24 12:35:24 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Dave on Fri Jan 24 10:26:45 2020.

He was the whistleblower

How do you know that? The only way you could know is if someone has committed a federal crime and let his name out. Are you relying on the word of some unknown criminal.

Also, I thought it was your position that Trump hasn't committed any crime. In that case, there can't be a rat because there is nothing to expose.

Post a New Response

(1693112)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 13:30:34 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 24 11:54:32 2020.

LOL. The whistle blower is a rat. He is not a true whistle lower because he had no first hand I. He was only repeating what he heard in furtherance of someone else's political agenda. Just the sort of person who you would admire.

Post a New Response

(1693113)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 13:30:59 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 24 11:54:32 2020.

LOL. The whistle blower is a rat. He is not a true whistle lower because he had no first hand information. He was only repeating what he heard in furtherance of someone else's political agenda. Just the sort of person who you would admire.

Post a New Response

(1693114)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 13:31:44 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 13:30:34 2020.

A whistle blower doesn’t need first hand knowledge to count as a whistle blower.

Post a New Response

(1693118)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 13:34:31 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 13:31:44 2020.

Bullshit

Post a New Response

(1693123)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 13:42:09 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 13:34:31 2020.

What is your source for this. Please specify the part of the whistleblower act that requires first hand knowledge.

Post a New Response

(1693125)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 14:01:11 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 13:42:09 2020.

Anyone who complains about things that the have heard is not whistle blower but a gossip and a rumor monger.

Now for Tinkerbell's edification, please show me in the OSHA guidelines where it says that an alleged whistle blower must have their identity kept confidential.

Post a New Response

(1693126)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 14:04:26 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 14:01:11 2020.

You mean the USC. I don’t believe he is correct about that.

But Ciaramella, if his identity is being accurately reported, is a whistleblower. Even “gossip” can be used to legitimately blow the whistle.

Post a New Response

(1693129)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 14:08:35 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 14:04:26 2020.

If he has no first hand knowledge then he is spreading rumors. For example, what if it was someone from schiff's staff who went to this guy and said," Mr Schiff heard this and would like you to report it to he IG because he can't. Would he be a whistle blower or a rumor monger?

Post a New Response

(1693132)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jan 24 14:10:34 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 14:08:35 2020.

You should hear the things I've heard about spider-pig. I'm thinking of reporting him.

Post a New Response

(1693140)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 14:20:28 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 14:08:35 2020.

His "rumor" has been corroborated.

Post a New Response

(1693141)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 14:20:57 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jan 24 14:10:34 2020.

Just like those things that Trump was hearing about Obama's birth certificate?

Post a New Response

(1693143)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jan 24 14:25:16 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 14:20:57 2020.

Kinda hard to ignore Hillary's shrill voice. And that woman is STILL in the news!

Post a New Response

(1693144)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jan 24 14:26:08 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 14:20:28 2020.

"Corroborated" by a woman who was fired months before the phone call and wasn't even in the building.
Yeah okay.

Post a New Response

(1693154)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 24 14:47:03 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 14:01:11 2020.

Whistleblower identity is covered in the various provisions of the federal Whistleblower Protection Act.

Post a New Response

(1693156)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 14:51:26 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 14:20:28 2020.

The confirmation was that there was a call. The interpretation of the call is subject to debate and the two principles on that call both disagree with the adam quiff sponsored interpretation.

Post a New Response

(1693160)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 14:54:14 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 24 14:47:03 2020.

Exactly where does it say identity must not be disclosed?

Post a New Response

(1693180)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 24 15:41:31 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 14:54:14 2020.

Outing a whistleblower is considered retaliation under the Whistleblower Protection Act. I have posted the link to that fact several times here since last fall. Look it up yourself.

You flatly refused to answer my question about when McConnell lied: was it when he said "I am not an impartial juror", or was it when he swore an oath to "do impartial justice"?

So go look it up. I'm not your slave.

Post a New Response

(1693191)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jan 24 16:34:25 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 14:51:26 2020.

There is really no debate as nothing illegal is done.
Obama's staff said he did it all the time.

Cnn, Nancy, and Schiff fabricated a new conversation again....#perjury #resign

Post a New Response

(1693233)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 24 18:12:22 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 24 15:41:31 2020.

Tinkerbell has an attitude? Fuck you and the pig and hat birthed you. You are wrong and can't bring yourself to admit it.

Post a New Response

(1693244)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 18:39:15 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 24 15:41:31 2020.

I would have remembered that if you did.

Post a New Response

(1693283)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 25 01:01:30 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 24 12:35:24 2020.

A legitimate journalism outlet has repeatedly published the name after reverse-engineering details from the NY Times. No one leaked anything, just the set of details the NY Times provided matched exactly one person.

Here is the latest article about him discussing with someone who would later become a Schiff aide on how to remove the president from office in 2017, it's a nice read.

Post a New Response

(1693299)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 25 08:43:52 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 25 01:01:30 2020.

A legitimate journalism outlet has repeatedly published the name after reverse-engineering details from the NY Times.

OK, no criminal activity in that. There is of course the risk that other people meet the criteria but weren't findable by the outlet's methods. In that case, they are putting someone at risk, which would be irresponsible even if not illegal.

By the way, there is nothing that says a whistleblower has to be ideologically neutral. If you have been told by others that the president has committed a crime, you can pass that on to the inspector general no matter what your personal views of the president might be.

Again, everything the whistleblower has claimed has now been testified to by Republicans in open hearings.

Post a New Response

(1693300)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 25 09:07:16 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 18:39:15 2020.

I did. I'll try to find it.

Post a New Response

(1693301)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 25 09:14:45 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 24 18:39:15 2020.

"Donald Trump, Jr. and others’ enthusiastic efforts to expose the anonymous impeachment whistleblowers are felonies under relevant whistleblower laws, and the President has liability for launching their campaign through his own demands. While commentators are right that the whistleblower cannot file a retaliation lawsuit, that does not make this campaign legal. Based on federal law, whistleblower retaliation should be another Article of Impeachment. Obstructing a congressional investigation is a felony. 18 USC 1505 has been on the books since 1948. It makes it a felony with five year’s imprisonment to engage in communications that “endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede” any “any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.”
Exposing the anonymous whistleblower violates this law by trying to influence, obstruct, and impede a congressional investigation."

Post a New Response

(1693303)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 25 10:08:21 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 25 09:14:45 2020.

LOL. Did you shit your pants again?

Post a New Response

(1693315)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by bingbong on Sat Jan 25 12:44:07 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 25 09:14:45 2020.

Sums it up nicely.Thanks for the link!

Post a New Response

(1693316)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 25 12:50:46 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by bingbong on Sat Jan 25 12:44:07 2020.

That's an editorial, asshole.

Post a New Response

(1693317)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by chicagomotorman on Sat Jan 25 12:52:39 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 25 12:50:46 2020.

LOL

Post a New Response

(1693319)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by bingbong on Sat Jan 25 12:55:34 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 25 12:50:46 2020.

if You actually read the link, you'd know you're wrong.

Post a New Response

(1693323)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 25 13:00:19 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 25 08:43:52 2020.

There is of course the risk that other people meet the criteria but weren't findable by the outlet's methods. In that case, they are putting someone at risk, which would be irresponsible even if not illegal.

I considered that, but a random comment on twitter seemed insightful about this possibility: If I were this Eric Ciaramella and I was not the whistleblower, I'd be talking to every news outlet or blog that would have me saying "wtf is this nonsense".

Post a New Response

(1693325)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 25 13:08:10 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 25 13:00:19 2020.

If I were this Eric Ciaramella and I was not the whistleblower, I'd be talking to every news outlet or blog that would have me saying "wtf is this nonsense".

No. That just draws more attention and risk to personal safety. The nut jobs wouldn't believe him.

PS. I have no reason to believe this guy is not the one who filed the whistleblower complaint.

Post a New Response

(1693337)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 25 13:33:38 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by bingbong on Sat Jan 25 12:55:34 2020.

No, actually the real law states that if the complaint is made to the IG, then the IG may not reveal the "whistle blower's ID without permission of the RAT whistleblower:

If a federal employee makes a disclosure to the Inspector General regarding potential violations of subsection “a”, their identity must be kept strictly confidential, and only a very narrow exception would apply. The confidentiality provisions state:
•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.


Post a New Response

(1693338)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jan 25 13:37:11 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 25 13:33:38 2020.

Note the "unless" part. An IG who likes a particular President will summarily determine that it is unavoidable to tell the President the name of the "whistleblower."

Post a New Response

(1693344)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 25 14:35:51 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jan 25 13:37:11 2020.

So much for prohibited

Post a New Response

(1693808)

view threaded

Re: Eric Ciaramella

Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue Jan 28 09:33:41 2020, in response to Re: Eric Ciaramella, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 25 13:08:10 2020.

Your post doesn't make sense. If a dude heard a phone call that was made in 2019 all the way back in 2017, obviously he has some type of ESP and safety isn't really a concern of his.

"PS. I have no reason to believe this guy is not the one who filed the whistleblower complaint."

Huh? you have no reason to believe that Sciff and Biden and several Obama staffers were telling the truth when they said they proofread the copmlaint for several weeks before allowing it to be filed?

well, la-de-da!

Post a New Response


[ Return to the Message Index ]