Facebook will remove any and all posts that mention the alleged name of the whistleblower who is responsible for the start of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. The social media platform is accusing these pages of violation their Community Standards and Policies.
Breitbart highlights how Facebook deleted one of their posts, highlighting how the whistleblower is most likely to be anti-Trump Democrat Eric Ciaramella.
Check out what they said:
For example, 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Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday evening stating that Breitbart’s page is “at risk of being unpublished” but were not given any details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue.
In response to Breitbart’s questions, Facebook responded with, “Any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content “outing of witness, informant, or activist.” We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.”
A similar instance took place with a Facebook account closely connected with TrendingPolitics.com called, “Donald Trump Is My President” where Facebook deleted a post that mentioned Eric Ciaramella by name.
Facebook and other Democrats allege that mentioning the whistleblower’s name is illegal however Republican Senator Rand Paul says otherwise.
“I’m more than willing to, and I probably will at some point. … There is no law preventing anybody from saying the name,” Paul said to reporters.
Bias leftwing CNN reporter Suzanne Malveaux almost had a breakdown as she confronted Paul on the issue, claiming it would break the law. She was clearly flustered.
“The whistleblower laws they protect the whistleblower,” Malveaux whined. “You know it’s illegal to out a whistleblower?”
Paul punched back: “Actually, you see you’ve got that wrong.”
Paul doubled down during an interview with Fox News host Bret Baier who asked the Republican senator: “I referenced that tweet moments ago, Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s attorney, ‘If Congress and others do not protect my client’s anonymity, which my client is afforded by the law, not only does it jeopardize their safety, but it jeopardizes an entire system that took decades to build. It will destroy effective Congressional oversight for years to come.’ Your response to that?”
Paul replied, “You know, I don’t wish harm on anyone. I’ve been the victim of political violence not once, but twice. I was there at the ballfield when Steve Scalise was almost killed. A staff member was 10 feet from me, who was shot. I had six of my ribs broken by a hater of President Trump. So, I know what political violence is all about. I don’t want that, at all. But the report was — not correct, in the sense that the statute says the Inspector General can’t reveal the name. It says the president should enforce the law, but the person you quoted was disingenuous in what they were saying. The statute says the Inspector General can’t reveal the name. There’s nothing that prevents me from saying it now, other than that I wanted to be more about the process and less about the person. But there’s no law that prevents me from mentioning the name of who’s been said to be the whistleblower. But there’s also – ”
“But are you convinced you know?” Baier asked.
“Yeah. And there’s something important, also. It’s called the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution says if you are going to accuse me of a crime, I get to stare you down in court,” Paul added. “That is absolutely part of the Constitution. The statute might say one thing, but, I promise you, if there is a trial, you always get to confront your accuser. It’s in the Sixth Amendment. It’s in the Bill of Rights. There’s no way they can stop the defense from asking for that.”
“But I can [reveal the identity of the whistleblower] right now, if I want. Nothing stops me. There is no law that stops me from doing it, other than that I don’t want to make it about the one individual,” Paul continued. “But I would say this: I do think that this individual is a material witness to the potential Biden corruption. He was there under Joe Biden. He was there when Joe Biden was trying to fire the prosecutor that was in — that was investigating Hunter Biden. So, this person was a Ukrainian expert on the desk, at that time. I think he should be interviewed, not as the whistleblower, but as a material witness to the Biden corruption in Ukraine.”
What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below!