https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-wants-you-to-know-hes-smart-enough-to-do-quid-pro-quo

Oh man this is too good lmao-

Wall Street Journal editorial board: "trump is too stupid (inept) to execute a quid pro quo, so he's not guilty of anything impeachable, he's just incompetent".

Trump: "I'M SMART ENUFF TO QUID PRO QUO, IF I WANTED TO QUID PRO QUO I WOULD HAVE QUID PRO QUO'd".

so the katie hill scandal went 4 days in public with undeniable proof before MSM touched it (and CNN had the temerity to claim Politico was the first to report it)
Eric Ciaramella being the whistleblower has been pretty widely teased at for like, a month, but today marks when its getting its first major (rightwing, non MSM) publication in the media sphere
how many days/weeks/months/years do you guys think could elapse before MSM finally admits that's the guy?

/e more
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2019/10/30/report-whistleblower-outed-n2555644
https://therightscoop.com/report-secret-schiff-whistleblower-exposed/
https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1189669484157718528


so in typical propagation of such stories (katie hill, ilhan omar, etc), its echoing through the right-wing blogosphere and partisan sites that are well out of the mainstream, but have wide enough reach that the information spreads into social media like wildfire. It will be interesting to see how long CNN/NBC/ABC/PBS/Fox/etc try to suppress the story

This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 30 2019 05:31pm

the real whistleblowers names: donald trump & mick mulvaney

I'm not up to date on this part of the saga - why is the identity of the whistleblower so important? Is this Ciamarella guy a shady or clearly untrustworthy figure?

He's supposedly a democrat, so yes

it casts the whole affair into a new context
Ciaramella was a hardcore euromaidan partisan who was involved in the very Biden shakedown of Ukraine that was at issue in Trump's phone call. He was closely tied to Biden during his white house term, outspoken against Trump and responsible for multiple anti-Trump leaks from inside the white house during his time there. We also know he was violating the whistleblower rules to coordinate directly with Adam Schiff from the beginning. It wasn't some outside impartial apolitical observer blowing a whistle, it was a diehard political partisan aggrieved due to his opposition to Trump's foreign policy agenda. This guy was extremely outspoken and had zero inclination to follow the executive's policies on Ukraine and was 100% in on the euromaidan interventionalism, 100% died in wool democrat, globalist, liberal, you throw the labels at him however you want.

At least with someone like John Bolton, his political grievances are out in public, Trump can listen to his opinion and reject it if he disagrees, and Bolton was expected to fall in line and carry out orders even if they weren't his preference- up until he disagreed enough that he would rather resign. Which he did. That's the kind of responsible disagreement in a chain of command. Ciaramella is the kind of lower level bureaucrat who seeks to subvert the policies from the inside if he disagreed with them. When Trump showed signs of deconfliction with Putin, Ciaramella was the guy who leaked the false narrative of "Putin fired Comey" by leaking Trump talking to Putin the next day. He was involved in procuring the Steele Dossier. He leaked the other white house phone calls with world leaders, and finally he went on to do this Ukraine nonsense.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 30 2019 05:57pm

Hmmm, I see. So if it came down to a he said she said situation, the partisan taint of Ciamarella would spell disaster for the impeachment process. But as far as I understand it, he provided transcripts from phone calls that others were also listening to. Like... no matter how flawed of a messenger he might be, and no matter how many rules he violated, if there is meat to his testimony, if he provides verifiable evidence that is incriminating Trump, then his partisan background wont really matter. And if he doesnt provide any such thing, then impeachment will fail anyway, irrespective from the question of how partisan or trustworthy this guy is. So overall, I dont see why him being the whistleblower should be a gamechanger.

At this point, it's completely unnecessary for him to testify. Bill Taylor is going to testify publicly next week and that should be enough to move the polls a bit.

If it was just a partisan whistleblower that would be one thing, but this guy was directly involved in the very scandal of Joe Biden that Trump was asking the Ukrainians to look into. Its like finding out that Hunter Biden was the whistleblower. Ukrainian politics have become a completely entrenched proxy war by foreign influences that has been battled out across both east and west like in crimea, but also between political affiliations. And Ciaramella was deeply involved in advancing the Obama-era intervention, replacing all the Russian oligarchs with western oligarchs and so on.

If history books were being written, this is the kind of thing that would stick out like a sore thumb. They can't pretend that this impeachment was over misconduct divorced from legitimate policy differences and that Biden had nothing to do with it, when the complaint over "political interference in Ukraine" hails from one of the architects of political interference in ukraine, who was repeatedly using his ukrainian desk to undermine Trump.

Do you honestly believe that there is any merit to a Biden investigation?