Judicial Watch Sues CIA and DOJ for Communications of Eric Ciaramella

I recognize that you believe you have made a coherent argument. You have not.

Nearly every aspect of the WB complaint has been verified, but the GOP wishes to reveal his identity in order to punish him.

Go look up the 2019 Politifact Lie of the Year.

 

If you got proof that the defense bill rider was added in exchange for his vote on impeachment (or any other evidence of a bribe), present it.

 

The same could be said about anyone who testifies against another.

 

Yes, zero proof is a very weak argument. Keep waving your hands.

 

As soon as you prove that Trump pressured Ukraine to interfere in our election.

Buy hey, those two stories have one thing in common. Both are reported in leftist media.

Funny that you'd support one and not the other.

 

Done.

Source: Trump got impeached for precisely that.

 

Haaahahahahaaa!

 

How about...

Source: Trump, on the White House lawn, said the one thing he really wanted from that phone call from Zelensky was for them to decide they they should investigate the Bidens

 

By the hyper partisan dem clown show with zero proof.

 

650 pages of reports, 35 hours of public testimony, text messages, emails, memorandums, and internal reviews.

 

Save it, you had 230 hyper partisan dems, that's all. There's a reason public support for impeachment went down after Schiff's presented his weak evidence.

 

I think that the Bidens should be investigated.

So?

 

230 is the record for most yes votes.

And public support for impeachment did not go down. It has remained remarkably flat with a majority supporting the inquiry and a plurality supporting his outright removal.

 

You are not Ukraine.

Glad I could help.

 

Yet still all hearsay and presumption. You must not have listened to any of the testimony.

 

You keep saying that same tired ****. Obviously you know that I can debate any aspect of the impeachment, so just stop trotting the same bullshit.

 

You keep denying that the testimony, which was all opinion and hearsay, is insufficient.

 

Yet all you do is come up with logical fallacies like the number of pages mean something or the testimony proves something other than what it was which was hearsay and presumption.

 

NEARLY is not EVERY. What do you admit he got wrong? How does his identity being known punishes him? He has no right to anonymity and we have a right to know who leaked classified information and to whom. I don't care about the Politifact asserted "lie of the year".

 

It would be very easy and quite prudent for Ciaramella to release a public denial if he is not the complainer. Has he?

 

There were several times when Schiff stopped them from answering because their answer could have exposed the whistleblower's identity.

 

Thought Criminal said: ↑
As soon as you prove that Trump pressured Ukraine to interfere in our election.

Which article says he pressured Ukraine? Quote it.

 

Yes, like I said 230 hyper partisan democrats (many who had already voted to impeach him before any of this) voted to impeach the guy they couldn't beat in 2016 and are afraid they can't beat in 2020.

Actually removing him from office did go down and not removing him went way up after Schiff presented his concrete "evidence"

Oct 1st, 2019 48.3 Yes/Remove 43.7 No

Dec 29th, 2019 47.2 Yes/Remove 47.3 No

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...ment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

 

And when acquitted of the charges I guess we'll wave back at you that your charges were unproven. No one gets removed from office on hearsay nor on any subpoena that the issuer didn't even bother to challenge in court. Obama would've been impeached if it were a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

I dont believe I have ever made that statement. But there is plenty of evidence which is not opinion or hearsay that also supports the allegation sufficiently.

But, of course, I would definitely like more evidence. That's why Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton,and the OMB director should testify.