There is no confidentiality. And he’s not a whistle blower.
3 Likes
Man, ■■■■ Rand Paul. I was a supporter of his in 2016 and his father in 2012. He has no integrity.
1 Like
We found out why from more than a dozen witnesses who corroborated and shared the WB concerns.
What he did is set a precedent for future potential whistle blowers from coming forward and pointing out government corruption. Even as a DOD contractor, we have training(taken by military personnel, civilian government workers and contractors) every year regarding reporting inappropriate behavior/activity and the possibility of laws/policies being broken that can have a direct impact on national security. The whistle-blower policy guarantees no retaliation to the accuser. Rand Paul outing the accuser opens the window for such retaliation. Like I said, it sets a bad precedent for future whistle blowers from reporting bad behavior. This is not a partisan talking point because something like this transcends petty partisan nonsense and political ideology.
1 Like
It still doesn’t make sense. If Lindsey doesn’t know that the Republican ICIG found the whistleblower report to be credible then he simply didn’t read it.
No we didn’t. What got what ■■■■ for Brains wanted us to know.
The whistleblowers story has already been corroborated. Many times over.
You had about 6 Trump appointed people corroborating the whistleblowers account and concerns.
You want different witnesses? Senate could have called them.
Amazing. Let’s keep this in the headlines. Pure genius on Graham’s part.
1 Like
Why do you need to hear their testimony? Their story has been corroborated by several other witnesses.
Lol remember when Rand Paul was a libertarian? Seems like so long ago.
3 Likes
I would think it isn’t. Whistleblower laws prevent the agency involved (yes, to be applicable he should have been talking about fraud or waste within his agency) from inflicting retribution on the whistle blower. They do not guarantee the whistle blower public anonymity.
I want to heard from Eric Ciaramella…and I want to know if he collaborated with ■■■■ for Brains.
4 Likes
You see… if they can cast any shred of doubt that the intention of the whistleblower was not to bring to the attention of the IG that the President was indeed pressuring a foreign government to publicly open an investigation into a potential political rival using the work of his personal lawyer and Eastern European mobsters to remove an Ambassador, withhold Congressionally mandated arms funding and circumvent the ordinary channels in the State Department to help his own future election prospects then they can ignore that the entire thing happened.
2 Likes
“Their” you go again. “He” will be a household name before too much longer. “He” and Schiff and Avenatti share the same dna.
Probably to close the loop back to Schiff staff and conspiracy.
And there’s never any discrepancy between what Trump says and what is fact.
Verifiable!
Nope. Second hand data…Didn’t see a thing.
According to Parnas, Graham was in the loop.
So of course it was credible.
Just curious. What steps does a President have to take to transfer an Ambassador, and why would they need a conspiracy with mobsters to transfer an Ambassador?
Why wouldn’t they just pick up the phone, call the Secretary of State, and say “I feel uncomfortable working with xxx, would you please transfer them?”…and that would be more explanation than would be required.
2 Likes
