Fox News Management Forbids Hosts from Using Alleged Name of Ukraine ‘Whistleblower’

[jimnyc]

No one wants to be on the receiving end of the liberal chaos and whining, even when the name is already known nationally. So stupid, and not just for Fox, for everyone to now start acting, and looking upward and whistling and acting like we don't already know the truth.

--

Fox News Management Forbids Hosts from Using Alleged Name of Ukraine ‘Whistleblower’

Fox News Channel management have ordered network hosts to refrain from using the alleged name of the so-called “whistleblower” — reported to be Eric Ciaramella — who sparked the House Democrats’ partisan impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump, according to a report.

CNN Business states that while some Fox News personalities want to use the name reportedly linked to the “whistleblower” complaint, bosses have warned against the move. On October 31, an unnamed executive emailed staff that the network had not “independently confirmed [the] name or identification of the anonymous whistleblower” and advised to “NOT fulfill any video or graphic requests” in connection to the so-called “whistleblower’s” identity, according to the report.

The demand from Fox News management to staff includes some of the network’s most-high profile personalities, including Sean Hannity. Jeanine Pirro, host of Justice with Judge Jeanine, suggested on Friday that hosts were to follow the guidelines, telling viewers that she and other employees “apparently can’t say Ciaramella’s name.” On Monday, Hannity said he “confirmed independently” the so-called “whistleblower’s” name, though he opted against revealing this name.

“You know what, I will play the game for a little bit,” he told viewers. “I will take the lawyers’ threats that they’re going to sue me; it wouldn’t go anywhere.”

CNN’s report came as reporters expressed fury over Donald Trump Jr. tweeting a Breitbart News article containing Ciaramella’s name, despite this particular guess at his identity being discussed publicly for several days.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/11/06/report-fox-news-management-forbids-hosts-from-using-alleged-name-of-ukraine-whistleblower/

[Gunny]

No one wants to be on the receiving end of the liberal chaos and whining, even when the name is already known nationally. So stupid, and not just for Fox, for everyone to now start acting, and looking upward and whistling and acting like we don't already know the truth.

--

Fox News Management Forbids Hosts from Using Alleged Name of Ukraine ‘Whistleblower’

Fox News Channel management have ordered network hosts to refrain from using the alleged name of the so-called “whistleblower” — reported to be Eric Ciaramella — who sparked the House Democrats’ partisan impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump, according to a report.

CNN Business states that while some Fox News personalities want to use the name reportedly linked to the “whistleblower” complaint, bosses have warned against the move. On October 31, an unnamed executive emailed staff that the network had not “independently confirmed [the] name or identification of the anonymous whistleblower” and advised to “NOT fulfill any video or graphic requests” in connection to the so-called “whistleblower’s” identity, according to the report.

The demand from Fox News management to staff includes some of the network’s most-high profile personalities, including Sean Hannity. Jeanine Pirro, host of Justice with Judge Jeanine, suggested on Friday that hosts were to follow the guidelines, telling viewers that she and other employees “apparently can’t say Ciaramella’s name.” On Monday, Hannity said he “confirmed independently” the so-called “whistleblower’s” name, though he opted against revealing this name.

“You know what, I will play the game for a little bit,” he told viewers. “I will take the lawyers’ threats that they’re going to sue me; it wouldn’t go anywhere.”

CNN’s report came as reporters expressed fury over Donald Trump Jr. tweeting a Breitbart News article containing Ciaramella’s name, despite this particular guess at his identity being discussed publicly for several days.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/11/06/report-fox-news-management-forbids-hosts-from-using-alleged-name-of-ukraine-whistleblower/I see your point. However, we have never been real kind when the leftwingnut MSM reported unverified stories.

I don't like Fox News. Too MSM PC for me.

[pete311]

Guess it just shows even Fox News has more morality than you. The whistleblower has the right to be anonymous. It's the job of the IG and DNI to vet the claim, they did, and found it urgent and credible. Deal with it.

[jimnyc]

I see your point. However, we have never been real kind when the leftwingnut MSM reported unverified stories.

I don't like Fox News. Too MSM PC for me.

Oh I know, and I'm NOT a fan of Fox. That's my Dad. Other than a glancing peek at their online site, I don't know anything at all about them. And I 100% agree about un-verified stories. But I assure you, at this point, it's moved into a cover your ass mode - as the guy named IS the whistleblower. And while I understand why they cover their butts, it's sad that the resulting chaos would be kinda lame, considering everyone already knows.

[jimnyc]

Guess it just shows even Fox News has more morality than you. The whistleblower has the right to be anonymous. It's the job of the IG and DNI to vet the claim, they did, and found it urgent and credible. Deal with it.

No thanks, Pete. Made 2 posts today before you reminded me that ANY of my time with you is nothing but a waste. You are simply incapable of posting without the insults and incapable of more than a few sentences. I'd rather have a one sided board slap on your back, then deal with one liner insults over and over, even when I've been trying.

So thanks, but no thanks.

[Gunny]

Oh I know, and I'm NOT a fan of Fox. That's my Dad. Other than a glancing peek at their online site, I don't know anything at all about them. And I 100% agree about un-verified stories. But I assure you, at this point, it's moved into a cover your ass mode - as the guy named IS the whistleblower. And while I understand why they cover their butts, it's sad that the resulting chaos would be kinda lame, considering everyone already knows.I've never like the whilstleblower crap. It's kind of like trade unions. Looks great on paper. Then personalities/people get involved and it's just another tool for the dishonest to misuse.

[Gunny]

No thanks, Pete. Made 2 posts today before you reminded me that ANY of my time with you is nothing but a waste. You are simply incapable of posting without the insults and incapable of more than a few sentences. I'd rather have a one sided board slap on your back, then deal with one liner insults over and over, even when I've been trying.

So thanks, but no thanks.
I thought I saw some crap on my screen while I was responding to you :)

[pete311]

I've never like the whilstleblower crap. It's kind of like trade unions. Looks great on paper. Then personalities/people get involved and it's just another tool for the dishonest to misuse.

So the IG and DNI chief who deemed the report urgent and credible and all the facts that have come out since... how has it been misused?

[STTAB]

Guess it just shows even Fox News has more morality than you. The whistleblower has the right to be anonymous. It's the job of the IG and DNI to vet the claim, they did, and found it urgent and credible. Deal with it.


The tattle tale has no "right to remain anonymous" , this sure shows the juxtaposition of the way Fox News treats people as opposed to the other networks and the way they throw out allegations though eh?

Of course that's always the way of it, conservatives always treat people they disagree with better than liberals do.

[STTAB]

So the IG and DNI chief who deemed the report urgent and credible and all the facts that have come out since... how has it been misused?

The IG of the intelligence community didn't even have jurisdiction about a complaint about the President to begin with stupid, as the President is not a member of the intelligence community.

That's why the report was originally not sent to Congress to begin with, because it was NOT a whistleblower exposing a problem within the intelligence community, rather it was simply a tattle tale whining about the President because he disagreed with foreign policy.

Can you ever just come into a thread and and have an honest discussion?

[jimnyc]

It'll be quite interesting when the IG report is released, and then Barr and then Durham. Let's then see where things stand, and see if folks still have their same stances. I'm all in 100% no matter the findings, bad or good. And I'll accept them, I'll state that much now.

[pete311]

The IG of the intelligence community didn't even have jurisdiction about a complaint about the President to begin with stupid, as the President is not a member of the intelligence community.

That's why the report was originally not sent to Congress to begin with, because it was NOT a whistleblower exposing a problem within the intelligence community, rather it was simply a tattle tale whining about the President because he disagreed with foreign policy.

Can you ever just come into a thread and and have an honest discussion?

You can't say he did or didn't because there is no precedent and that is why the DNI asked the WH, because he didn't know what to do. So don't act like it's basic procedure.

[Gunny]

I'm tired of these damned investigations. The Dems are abusing the authority of their positions to stall the President they don't like and can't beat for 4 or 8 years. It's REAL old. We're going on 4 years of nothing.

We'll never know what Trump could or couldn't do as President. He hasn't had the chance to be.

[STTAB]

You can't say he did or didn't because there is no precedent and that is why the DNI asked the WH, because he didn't know what to do. So don't act like it's basic procedure.

I CAN say he didn't , because he's the IG of the Intelligence Community (meaning the intelligence agencies) of which the President is not a member of. He simply has no jurisdiction over the President. That's why normal whistleblower policies don't apply. That you don't like Trump doesn't change this simple fact . And this is EXACTLY why the DNI originally did not send the complaint to Congress. That's exactly what he told Congress , and what he was advised to do by the Justice Department.

You're right, it isn't basic procedure because normally whistleblowers are serious people who are exposing serious situations inside the agencies they work for, not tattle tales trying to get someone in trouble for political reasons.

[pete311]

You're right, it isn't basic procedure because normally whistleblowers are serious people who are exposing serious situations inside the agencies they work for, not tattle tales trying to get someone in trouble for political reasons.

Extorting a foreign president is not serious? Political reasons, please show proof.

[jimnyc]

I'm tired of these damned investigations. The Dems are abusing the authority of their positions to stall the President they don't like and can't beat for 4 or 8 years. It's REAL old. We're going on 4 years of nothing.

We'll never know what Trump could or couldn't do as President. He hasn't had the chance to be.

He has been more than obstructed by the democrats in congress. His own party wasn't always helpful. The media has tried to destroy him. He has had an unprecedented amount of obstruction and then some against him. And not only had he had some good results as a president compared to all others, but has done so in the face of all of that BS. So yeah, without all of that, I think he would have been a great success story. But also correct in that we will never know.

[jimnyc]

Extorting a foreign president is not serious? Political reasons, please show proof.

What are your thoughts on why so so many in Ukraine have signed sworn statements to otherwise? And stated he felt no pressure whatsoever, and never felt that anything at all was held back, and never once even knew that it had been. And of course as I posted, quite a few others that were involved in Ukraine have signed sworn statements to the same. And additionally, statements against Biden and Son.

I DO agree it's ALL very serious. But Ukraine mostly disagrees with the accusations. Many diplomats disagree. But for some reason they all get ignored.

[pete311]

What are your thoughts on why so so many in Ukraine have signed sworn statements to otherwise? And stated he felt no pressure whatsoever, and never felt that anything at all was held back, and never once even knew that it had been. And of course as I posted, quite a few others that were involved in Ukraine have signed sworn statements to the same. And additionally, statements against Biden and Son.

I DO agree it's ALL very serious. But Ukraine mostly disagrees with the accusations. Many diplomats disagree. But for some reason they all get ignored.

Ukraine's existence is dependent on our aid. They're not going to risk pissing off either side. You know that. Which US diplomats disagree? When you have Trumps' own words, Mulvany's own words, and sworn testimony from the 3 top diplomats in Ukraine and Trump's EU ambassador all telling the same story. What else is there?

[STTAB]

Extorting a foreign president is not serious? Political reasons, please show proof.


First of all, there was no extortion attempt. Second of all, we use foreign aid to get foreign countries to do what we want them to do ALL THE TIME. This is precisely why in the normal course of events Congress authorizes the funds and then allows the President the latitude to release them when he feels it's warranted. That's how it works, the money is authorized by Congress and then the State Department via the President tells said country what they must do to get the money. That's how it works Pete, stop being disengeious, it's beyond obvious that the ONLY problem here is that some don't like the conditions this President allegedly put on Ukraine (even though there really isn't even any proof that Trump did put conditions on Ukraine anyway)

Either way , this is complaint is stupid and childish and nothing but an extension of the Russian hoax and every other damn thing the Dems have tried to neuter Trump since he got elected. You should be ashamed of yourself for not having the integrity to admit that is exactly what is going on, but even moreso you should be saying "wait a damn minute you idiots, you know damn well that by treating Trump this way that the Republicans are going to retaliate in kind when the situation is reversed and there is a Democrat in the WH" because I know you're smart enough to know that is exactly what is going to happen

[jimnyc]

Ukraine's existence is dependent on our aid. They're not going to risk pissing off either side. You know that. Which US diplomats disagree? When you have Trumps' own words, Mulvany's own words, and sworn testimony from the 3 top diplomats in Ukraine and Trump's EU ambassador all telling the same story. What else is there?

Like I said, in the past week the Democrats first claimed that Volker and Yovanovitch claimed the same, but then turned out to be the opposite, and that their statements showed quid pro quo, NOT involved. And Mulvaney has since walked back and said definitely no quid pro quo. And surely if Sodland can change one way, then it should be OK for the other way, yes? And what about the Ukraine and their statements? And of course endless outsiders.... but they matter, congress, as they will be doing the voting.

I see Ukraine solidly supporting what Trump stated. I see a nice handful off the top of my head that supported him (just listed). And the voters, seemingly read/know more than we do, and said there's nothing.

Then we have the WB himself, and his connections that they want to downplay. This will be downplayed as well - But surely, and I assure you, those connections will matter, which is why the left wants to avoid it at all costs, as the know it will matter in the long run.

But what matters the most, is not necessarily the words and feedback of diplomats and others, but the literal call and how congress sees that call, and interprets it via the law. I can't imagine much of anything that will be stated by anyone that will ultimately change those material facts. And if so, the overwhelming majority already have spoken out, stated they don't like it, see things as unethical and what not - but not nearly anything worthy of removal from office.

So it's quite possible it's another investigation that takes up so much of America's time, with not much return for the efforts, and a slap on the wrist or less. Also possible that this whole thing takes forever, but once in the senate, goes bing bang boom and is over in a flash.

---

And then in the return side, which makes for good discussion, I hope.

What Biden did. It's impossible to get away from as he did so on video. And it was in fact a threat. And it should in fact be investigated properly, no matter by whom. And I do personally think, if what he did turns out to be illegal, then anyone in government investigating a crime, should not be somehow vilified for investigating that crime.

Then the letter sent to Ukraine from Dems in congress. Also something forgotten and ignored for whatever reason. I think this should come to the table and heavily investigated as well.

Never mind either "side". I'm just tired of seeing congress being above the law, have their own damn walls and sets of policies. :(

[STTAB]

Like I said, in the past week the Democrats first claimed that Volker and Yovanovitch claimed the same, but then turned out to be the opposite, and that their statements showed quid pro quo, NOT involved. And Mulvaney has since walked back and said definitely no quid pro quo. And surely if Sodland can change one way, then it should be OK for the other way, yes? And what about the Ukraine and their statements? And of course endless outsiders.... but they matter, congress, as they will be doing the voting.

I see Ukraine solidly supporting what Trump stated. I see a nice handful off the top of my head that supported him (just listed). And the voters, seemingly read/know more than we do, and said there's nothing.

Then we have the WB himself, and his connections that they want to downplay. This will be downplayed as well - But surely, and I assure you, those connections will matter, which is why the left wants to avoid it at all costs, as the know it will matter in the long run.

But what matters the most, is not necessarily the words and feedback of diplomats and others, but the literal call and how congress sees that call, and interprets it via the law. I can't imagine much of anything that will be stated by anyone that will ultimately change those material facts. And if so, the overwhelming majority already have spoken out, stated they don't like it, see things as unethical and what not - but not nearly anything worthy of removal from office.

So it's quite possible it's another investigation that takes up so much of America's time, with not much return for the efforts, and a slap on the wrist or less. Also possible that this whole thing takes forever, but once in the senate, goes bing bang boom and is over in a flash.

---

And then in the return side, which makes for good discussion, I hope.

What Biden did. It's impossible to get away from as he did so on video. And it was in fact a threat. And it should in fact be investigated properly, no matter by whom. And I do personally think, if what he did turns out to be illegal, then anyone in government investigating a crime, should not be somehow vilified for investigating that crime.

Then the letter sent to Ukraine from Dems in congress. Also something forgotten and ignored for whatever reason. I think this should come to the table and heavily investigated as well.

Never mind either "side". I'm just tired of seeing congress being above the law, have their own damn walls and sets of policies. :(


Much as I say you can't possibly believe what Biden or the 4 Dems did is legal but what Trump allegedly did is illegal, the opposite is also true Jim. Without evidence to the contrary, we MUST give Biden the benefit of the doubt, and assume that there were valid legal considerations for why the US would have wanted that prosecutor fired. We can say the say about the 4 Democratic Senators, we MUST assume that they actually believed what the FBI and intelligence agencies were telling them about what was going on in the Trump campaign and that they had valid reasons for threatening to withhold funding if Ukraine didn't cooperate with investigators.

Just because people like Pete don't believe in the presumption of innocence when it comes to people they disagree with politically does not mean we should follow them down that road. I'm sick of seeing our government being used as a weapon against those with whom with we disagree.

[jimnyc]

Ukraine's existence is dependent on our aid. They're not going to risk pissing off either side. You know that. Which US diplomats disagree? When you have Trumps' own words, Mulvany's own words, and sworn testimony from the 3 top diplomats in Ukraine and Trump's EU ambassador all telling the same story. What else is there?

I'm still following all that comes out. Part of the problem here is the privacy involved. With everything in private thus far, we are left with mainly what the Democrats themselves tell us, what they leak out. You have to admit, if that's what the main process that has been done thus far, it stands to reason why things appear one sided. I think that will largely change if they had a full vote and when things go fully publicly.

I have seen, also mainly, major leaks and wording coming out from the Democrats, that certainly does not bode well for the president and/or others in his administration. But then allow for 48 to go by, and maybe hear from that person directly, or through an attorney or a colleague, and find out it wasn't the truth, or not the entire truth/story.

I believe this is why we need a vote. This is why, with something so important, things need to be public for all to see. Why, neither side can fully jump to conclusions at first, as fun as it may be!

Hearing from any committees, then from an individual themselves, we can already paint a decent picture.

I also still stick to the idea that it is ALL that needs to come out, and I mean ALL of it. From the Biden and Son days, what involvement if any from anyone... all the way through the primaries and the Russia stuff and the investigations and all the way to today.

As to Mulvaney, here is some more from today's news.

--

Acting White House Chief Of Staff Mulvaney Tells Schiff To Pound Sand, Skips Deposition In Sham Impeachment Inquiry

Democrats demanded Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney appear on Friday to sit for a deposition.

He said no thanks.

Democrats late Thursday issued a subpoena seeking to force the White House official to appear for a closed-door interview on President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, which have prompted Democrats to open an impeachment inquiry into the president.

“An official working on the inquiry said the House intelligence panel subpoenaed Mulvaney because other testimony indicated he ‘could shed additional light on the president’s abuse of the power of his office for his personal gain,’ ” the Associated Press reported.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) subpoenaed Mulvaney and, along with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Oversight Committee Acting Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) wrote that he had “substantial first-hand knowledge and information” relevant to the inquiry.

The White House rejected the demand.

“Past Democrat and Republican administrations would not be inclined to permit senior advisers to the president to participate in such a ridiculous, partisan, illegitimate proceeding – and neither is this one,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley told reporters on Tuesday.

On Thursday, former national security adviser John Bolton did not appear for an interview. A pair of filings are making their way through the court system to decide whether White House officials can be forced to appear.

During an Oct. 17 press conference, Mulvaney was asked why Trump put a hold on aid money to Ukraine. “We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney said. “And I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

He later walked back his statement, but the Democratic committee heads said he had already made a “confession.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/acting-white-house-chief-of-staff-mick-mulvaney-ignores-democrats-skips-9-a-m-deposition/