(11-19-2019, 07:55 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 02:44 AM)jj82284 Wrote: The whistleblower statute 

A.) Doesnt apply to Eric Ciaramela.  That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the office of legal counsel for the doj.  

B.) Only Prevents the IG from revealing the name of the whistleblower.  That's one public officer.  It says nothing about universal guarantees of anonymity.  

Moreover, the majority already outed the whistleblower by not redacting his name from certain released depositions.  

As to testimony "confirming" the whistleblower complaint...  have u been paying attention.  We have a transcript.  The leaker contended that there were multiple references to a quid pro quo involving military aid and investigations.  The military aid in question was NEVER MENTIONED on the call.

The transcript is redacted.  We know how many minutes long the call was.  Unless they were talking extremely slowly, much more was said than what we have.

False, it was not redacted, it is a consensus notation. Four people taking individual notes did not find anything about withholding aid to record in the transcript. It's an inference by a person without personal direct knowledge of the call, hearsay, propped up by several testimonies with no more direct knowledge than the rumour monger. It's a sham and you know it.

---