Lawyer says whistleblower willing to answer written questions from Republicans

[poweRob]

I wonder if repuiblicans really want to ask questions of this whistleblower or if they just want to scream and holler at someone to grandstand at a hearing like they always do.

Lawyer says whistleblower willing to answer written questions from Republicans

Mark Zaid, an attorney for the anonymous whistleblower whose allegations about President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine ignited the House impeachment inquiry into the President, said Sunday he offered to have Republican lawmakers submit questions to his client directly without having to go through the committee's Democratic majority.

The whistleblower previously offered to answer lawmakers' questions under oath and in writing if they were submitted by the House Intelligence Committee as a whole. This new offer would be a direct channel of communication with the Republicans who are in the minority on that committee. Republican leadership has complained that the process is unfair and overly restrictive on their ability to question witnesses.​

 

[Mycroft]

No.

The whistleblower needs to answer questions in person. Anything else is unsatisfactory.

 

[Jetboogieman]

No.

The whistleblower needs to answer questions in person. Anything else is unsatisfactory.

Mycroft hath spoken everyone, Mycroft hath spoken.

 

[Nalu]

I wonder if repuiblicans really want to ask questions of this whistleblower or if they just want to scream and holler at someone to grandstand at a hearing like they always do.

Lawyer says whistleblower willing to answer written questions from Republicans

Mark Zaid, an attorney for the anonymous whistleblower whose allegations about President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine ignited the House impeachment inquiry into the President, said Sunday he offered to have Republican lawmakers submit questions to his client directly without having to go through the committee's Democratic majority.

The whistleblower previously offered to answer lawmakers' questions under oath and in writing if they were submitted by the House Intelligence Committee as a whole. This new offer would be a direct channel of communication with the Republicans who are in the minority on that committee. Republican leadership has complained that the process is unfair and overly restrictive on their ability to question witnesses.​

That's an interesting turn of events. What will the Trump supporters pull out of their asses this time?

Edit: Oh, **** me. I just read post 2.

 

[3leftsdoo]

No.

The whistleblower needs to answer questions in person. Anything else is unsatisfactory.

Obviously.

Zaid is a pathetic, sleazy joke.

 

[Nalu]

No.

The whistleblower needs to answer questions in person. Anything else is unsatisfactory.

Unsatisfactory to whom? You?

 

[Nalu]

Obviously.

Zaid is a pathetic, sleazy joke.

Let me guess. You formed that opinion when you found out he was representing the WB?

 

[Mycroft]

Unsatisfactory to whom? You?

To everyone who is interested in transparency. To everyone who is interested in honesty. To everyone who is interested in a REAL hearing.

 

[JasperL]

No.

The whistleblower needs to answer questions in person. Anything else is unsatisfactory.

Sad story. :boohoo:

 

[Nalu]

To everyone who is interested in transparency. To everyone who is interested in honesty. To everyone who is interested in a REAL hearing.

I'm interested in all those things, but I'm not held up on a personal appearance. What's your problem with written questions and answers? I think the biggest concern with testifying in person is getting the WB into and out of the Capitol without being seen. It's impossible. Maybe a video conference? Or would that be unsatisfactory to you too?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

To everyone who is interested in transparency. To everyone who is interested in honesty. To everyone who is interested in a REAL hearing.

So then you would support President Trump testifying under oath as well?

 

[poweRob]

So then you would support President Trump testifying under oath as well?

Im sure that also would be unsatisfactory to him.

 

[Cardinal]

Republicans will reject the offer, because they don't give a **** what he has to say. They want the opportunity to destroy him.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Obviously.

Zaid is a pathetic, sleazy joke.

So...you know Zaid personally? That's remarkable...

 

[beefheart]

No.

The whistleblower needs to answer questions in person. Anything else is unsatisfactory.

Oh, you mean like Donald Trump did in the Mueller probe?

HYPOCRISY.....

 

[yankintx]

I wonder if repuiblicans really want to ask questions of this whistleblower or if they just want to scream and holler at someone to grandstand at a hearing like they always do.

Lawyer says whistleblower willing to answer written questions from Republicans

Mark Zaid, an attorney for the anonymous whistleblower whose allegations about President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine ignited the House impeachment inquiry into the President, said Sunday he offered to have Republican lawmakers submit questions to his client directly without having to go through the committee's Democratic majority.

The whistleblower previously offered to answer lawmakers' questions under oath and in writing if they were submitted by the House Intelligence Committee as a whole. This new offer would be a direct channel of communication with the Republicans who are in the minority on that committee. Republican leadership has complained that the process is unfair and overly restrictive on their ability to question witnesses.​

I see little value in outing the whistle blower. Its immaterial now, the horse has bolted from the stable. other than PR value, knowing the actual identity of the WB adds little. Its all a distraction from Trumps crime, dont look at me, look at this shiny object in my hand, Republicans are so gullible.

 

[The Mark]

No.

The whistleblower needs to answer questions in person. Anything else is unsatisfactory.

Why though?

 

[yankintx]

So then you would support President Trump testifying under oath as well?

Odd how they claim transparency, but balk at the actual complete audio of the phone conversation be released. No one does hypocrisy like a Trump supporter.

 

[Parrish]

To everyone who is interested in transparency. To everyone who is interested in honesty. To everyone who is interested in a REAL hearing.

So, you want 45 to sit before the House Intel Comm. Sounds good. Alert the media.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Let me guess. You formed that opinion when you found out he was representing the WB?

It's an opinion formed by those familiar with his ridiculous antics over time.

 

[Bullseye]

I wonder if repuiblicans really want to ask questions of this whistleblower or if they just want to scream and holler at someone to grandstand at a hearing like they always do.

Lawyer says whistleblower willing to answer written questions from Republicans

Mark Zaid, an attorney for the anonymous whistleblower whose allegations about President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine ignited the House impeachment inquiry into the President, said Sunday he offered to have Republican lawmakers submit questions to his client directly without having to go through the committee's Democratic majority.

The whistleblower previously offered to answer lawmakers' questions under oath and in writing if they were submitted by the House Intelligence Committee as a whole. This new offer would be a direct channel of communication with the Republicans who are in the minority on that committee. Republican leadership has complained that the process is unfair and overly restrictive on their ability to question witnesses.​

Or as it's know - act like Booker.

 

[3leftsdoo]

To everyone who is interested in transparency. To everyone who is interested in honesty. To everyone who is interested in a REAL hearing.

In other words, NOT the Democrats.

 

[3leftsdoo]

So then you would support President Trump testifying under oath as well?

Impeach him.

 

[DiAnna]

No.

The whistleblower needs to answer questions in person. Anything else is unsatisfactory.

The Whistle Blower Law says differently. His identification must, by law, be protected.

Republicans just want a public target on his forehead so one of Trump's crazy muppets knows where to put the bullet.

 

[SkyFox76]

No.

The whistleblower needs to answer questions in person. Anything else is unsatisfactory.

Why? The WB made claims, those claims have been verified by people who we know the faces and names of. What exactly do you think would matter if we know the WB's name and face? Unless of course they would show up and tell the course they have paid off or threatened everyone who has since verified what they claimed. Like I said on another thread, if the WB were throwing out unsubstantiated claims then yeah they need to testify. That's not the case here though.