[FONT=\&]
This post is a public service announcement to the liberal media and the major tech giants who don't want us to spread the name of the Ukraine "Whistleblower":[/FONT]
[FONT=\&]WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED![/FONT]
The reason is very simple:
Eric Ciaramella is not a "whistleblower" at all.
He is a left-wing radical who:
1. Defrauded the IG by not disclosing his contact with Congress
2. Got his "information" from a second-hand source
3. Is extremely biased against the President
4. Has an attorney who has dreamed about impeachment since 2017.
Here's how this whole fiasco about "outing" the whistleblower first began...
Earlier this week, the liberal media lost their ever-loving minds after Don Jr. quote-tweeted an article that cited Ciaramella's name.
Ironically enough, Ciaramella's name had been in the news for almost a full week before Don Jr. sent that fateful
tweet.
One of the first major sources to break the news of Ciaramella's identity was RealClearInvestigations.
Still, the media shamed Don Jr. for "outing" the whistleblower.
However, Facebook & YouTube took things a step further.
Just days after Don Jr's tweet, these two Tech Giants announced that they would scrub ANY reference to the name "Eric Ciaramella" or any discussion of who the whistleblower MIGHT be.
Yes, really.
BEFORE READING FURTHER, BEWARE SHARING THIS ARTICLE ON FACEBOOK BECAUSE THEY ARE CRACKING DOWN IN SCARY FASHION.
Here's what Breitbart had to say about this censorship:
Switching gears, let's discuss just a few reasons Eric Ciaramella shouldn't even be considered a "whistleblower" at all.
First of all, he completely defrauded the IC Inspector General by not disclosing his contact with Adam Schiff":
As noted by Fox News, 18 U.S. Code §?1001 specifies that an individual who “falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” could be subject to felony charges of making a false statement.
“Failing to disclose a major contact on the complaint form seems to fit the bill here,” the report adds.
The Federalist’s Sean Davis further tweeted that failing to disclose the information could subject the whistleblower to “felony false statement charges.”
“The form submitted by the complainant required him to disclose all contacts he had regarding his allegations. If he failed to disclose those interactions with Schiff before filing the complaint, he could be subject to felony false statement charges,” Davis wrote.
I write all of this to say that Eric Ciaramella doesn't deserve whistleblower privileges. His name has already been public for more than 10 days and there's no reason to act like he's being "protected" by not saying his name publicly.
So, try what you will, Facebook & Google.
We will NOT bow down to your extreme censorship! We will shout his name from the rooftops because it is our first amendment right to do so.
- Trending Politics
This post is a public service announcement to the liberal media and the major tech giants who don't want us to spread the name of the Ukraine "Whistleblower":[/FONT]
[FONT=\&]WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED![/FONT]
The reason is very simple:
Eric Ciaramella is not a "whistleblower" at all.
He is a left-wing radical who:
1. Defrauded the IG by not disclosing his contact with Congress
2. Got his "information" from a second-hand source
3. Is extremely biased against the President
4. Has an attorney who has dreamed about impeachment since 2017.
Here's how this whole fiasco about "outing" the whistleblower first began...
Earlier this week, the liberal media lost their ever-loving minds after Don Jr. quote-tweeted an article that cited Ciaramella's name.
Ironically enough, Ciaramella's name had been in the news for almost a full week before Don Jr. sent that fateful
tweet.
One of the first major sources to break the news of Ciaramella's identity was RealClearInvestigations.
Still, the media shamed Don Jr. for "outing" the whistleblower.
However, Facebook & YouTube took things a step further.
Just days after Don Jr's tweet, these two Tech Giants announced that they would scrub ANY reference to the name "Eric Ciaramella" or any discussion of who the whistleblower MIGHT be.
Yes, really.
BEFORE READING FURTHER, BEWARE SHARING THIS ARTICLE ON FACEBOOK BECAUSE THEY ARE CRACKING DOWN IN SCARY FASHION.
Here's what Breitbart had to say about this censorship:
On Wednesday evening, Facebook removed Breitbart posts reporting on the fact other respected news outlets have reported the identity of the alleged whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. Any Facebook user who attempts to click on that article on Facebook is now given a message that says, “this content isn’t available at the moment.”
To be clear, Breitbart did not “out” the alleged whistleblower but did provide additional relevant reporting about him; he is, after all, a public figure, having served on the National Security Council. Moreover, his name has been used in the Mueller report (p283) and Ambassador Bill Taylor’s testimony.
Administrators of Breitbart News’ Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday evening stating that Breitbart’s page is “at risk of being unpublished” but were not given any details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue.
Yes, Facebook is taking terrifying measures to censor content that has already gone semi-viral across other social media outlets and websites.To be clear, Breitbart did not “out” the alleged whistleblower but did provide additional relevant reporting about him; he is, after all, a public figure, having served on the National Security Council. Moreover, his name has been used in the Mueller report (p283) and Ambassador Bill Taylor’s testimony.
Administrators of Breitbart News’ Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday evening stating that Breitbart’s page is “at risk of being unpublished” but were not given any details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue.
Switching gears, let's discuss just a few reasons Eric Ciaramella shouldn't even be considered a "whistleblower" at all.
First of all, he completely defrauded the IC Inspector General by not disclosing his contact with Adam Schiff":
Per Catherine Herridge: IC Inspector General told lawmakers the whistleblower did not disclose contact w Schiff/Committee staff - so IG never looked into it. IG “had no knowledge of it”.
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 4, 2019
This sort of omission of information could literally lead to felony charges:— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 4, 2019
As noted by Fox News, 18 U.S. Code §?1001 specifies that an individual who “falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” could be subject to felony charges of making a false statement.
“Failing to disclose a major contact on the complaint form seems to fit the bill here,” the report adds.
The Federalist’s Sean Davis further tweeted that failing to disclose the information could subject the whistleblower to “felony false statement charges.”
“The form submitted by the complainant required him to disclose all contacts he had regarding his allegations. If he failed to disclose those interactions with Schiff before filing the complaint, he could be subject to felony false statement charges,” Davis wrote.
I write all of this to say that Eric Ciaramella doesn't deserve whistleblower privileges. His name has already been public for more than 10 days and there's no reason to act like he's being "protected" by not saying his name publicly.
So, try what you will, Facebook & Google.
We will NOT bow down to your extreme censorship! We will shout his name from the rooftops because it is our first amendment right to do so.
- Trending Politics