Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Suddenly Won't Testify

[dairyair]

Dont get overconfident about this. Its important to understand the major subtexts that are at play here. Impeaching Trump is just a slight of hand they are using as an end to a means.

This is a PR campaghin to convince the public that Trump does not deserve a 2nd term and its a smokescreen to obfuscate the reports that are coming. Make no mistake the die cast, they are gonna claim anything damning revealed by horrowitz and Durham is meant to distract us from the REAL crimes Trump is committing.

Its as obvious as the nose on your face to those of us who are paying attention but dont underestimate the impact it will have with the casaul political followers. The threat these people pose should not be taken lightly. Dont assume everyone is as smart as you.

Imo the best thing trump supporters can do is to engage people with calm noninflamatory discussions of whats taking place. People need to be woke but not in the progressive sense of the word. They need to understand what the progessive threat is in a way that allows them to put the pieces together on their own. Hyperbole imo is the wrong approach

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Likely true. And certainly a worthwhile endeavor.

tRUMP can't drain the swamp, he has laid a foundation below the swamp.

 

[dairyair]

:roll:

Irrelevant nonsense.

We're known for weeks that the leaking CIA termite was a traitorous Democrat cockroach.

What is the WB's name?
Then everyone will know if what you say is true.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Show where our law requires that a person be allowed to know the names af any and all who provided a tip against them, even if their tip simply led to an investigation that produced plenty of evidence against the suspect originally pointed out.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I am talking about the right to face your accuser. As you well know.

 

[OpportunityCost]

They are following the Constitution and you obviously don't get how the Constitution works and the separation of powers. This isn't a criminal proceeding. It's a Constitutional process.

Nah, its much more of a political process right now, constitutionality was kicked to the curb for this one.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Not an issue Obama was not a traitorous con artist crook involved with fixing elections with foreign governments...

8 years and he never needed one personal criminal lawyer, and not one of his staff was imprisoned...

Obama = Mad smoove deep state poster boy & vicious war criminal

 

[3leftsdoo]

You observe your neighbor throw a brick into a window in your home, enter through the window and start stealing your stuff. You call the cops, and when they arrive they catch your neighbor in the act and promptly arrest him. It's an open and shut case.

However...

It later comes out that you and your neighbor don't like each other very much, so the cops let him go.

Is that a logical or illogical result?

Son of Worst Analogy Ever!

:thumbs:

 

[3leftsdoo]

It would probably be much like your reaction here. There goes your pretense of superiority.

I am MAD superior!!!!

:2dancing:

 

[3leftsdoo]

Remember the Dems and their MSM breathless over the WB? Wall to wall coverage! We've got that Trump now!!

Fast forward to now...WB? We don't need no stinkin' WB.

Really, none of the WBs that Mark Zaid lined up??

Zaid's a joke - a literal punchline surpassed only by his fellow DC swamp crawler Roy Pearson, the pantsuit lawyer.

 

[3leftsdoo]

What is the WB's name?
Then everyone will know if what you say is true.

^ ^Ridiculous/irrelevant nonsense.

 

[Chomsky]

You're not entitled to anonymity as a whistleblower. You can't be fired because you said something but you don't get a guarantee of anonymity.

I'm not familiar with the intimate details of the act, but through the WB & previous Loyd Act federal employees have the right to approach Congress directly. If Congress chooses to not release the identity of the WB, I'm not sure what can be done about it - legally or otherwise. So, I don't see your statement holding, as we can see here in the current situation.

 

[calamity]

The op is a flat-out lie, btw.

Lawyer says whistleblower is willing to answer written questions from Republicans

 

[Chomsky]

I could care less if the whistleblowers testifies about this juvenile nonsense or not but he does not have the right to privacy. The whistleblower protection act protects him from being fired but it does not garuntee him anonymity. His anoni.ity is the discretion of the gov.

I will also add that if there is anything false in the report thst he made he can and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Furthermore its absolutely at the discretion of the house if they want to include his testimony as part of the inquiry but if they follow through with impeaching him, the whistleblower will have no wiggle room if Trumps people subpoena him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I honestly don't know the details of whether the WB Act itself protects WB anonymity. But, Congress would seem to have the power to release or protect his/her identity as they choose, and it seems to be occurring here.

As to Presidential subpoenas, I'm not sure how enforceable they are in the context of impeachment. From what we see so far, it seems subpoenas are regularly ignored, and it may be the only effect of ignoring a subpoena is political. If Trump's people ignore subpoenas, I'm not sure how it can be expected the ones he generates will be binding.

 

[JasperL]

Remember the Dems and their MSM breathless over the WB? Wall to wall coverage! We've got that Trump now!!

Fast forward to now...WB? We don't need no stinkin' WB.

Really, none of the WBs that Mark Zaid lined up??

I also remember everyone on the right dismissing the complaint as second hand HEARSAY!!! Now it's essential to get this person with only second hand HEARSAY@!! evidence, that doesn't count, under oath so he can tell us all about the second hand HEARSAY! evidence that's meaningless until it's critical, or something.

Bottom line is the merits of the complaint have been confirmed or not by the transcript and the direct testimony of those involved. The point of outing him and getting him in a hearing is to smear him. We're all adults so we should be able to admit that much.

 

[JasperL]

And the IG said the leaker arguably has political bias towards POTUS

-VySky

Assume he's the biggest Trump hater in D.C. What facts does that change?

 

[Chomsky]

That right to privacy is questionable. You have a right to confront your accusers.

Not in impeachment.

 

[JasperL]

That right to privacy is questionable. You have a right to confront your accusers.

The WB is no longer an accuser anyone cares about because his allegations have been made moot by the direct testimony of those involved.

If someone calls the crime stopper line, and the defendant is tried based on the evidence outside that tip, the defense has no right to unmask the person calling into the tip line, dig through their personal life to smear them and discredit them, because that accusation isn't part of the case against the defendant.

 

[dairyair]

^ ^Ridiculous/irrelevant nonsense.

So you know all these details about the whistle blower, but don't even know the name.

Talk about irrelevant and ridiculous nonsense.
Dismissed.

 

[3leftsdoo]

The op is a flat-out lie, btw.

Lawyer says whistleblower is willing to answer written questions from Republicans

:roll:

The Democrats and their cockroaches are truly a massive basket of deplorables...

 

[3leftsdoo]

So you know all these details about the whistle blower, but don't even know the name.

Talk about irrelevant and ridiculous nonsense.
Dismissed.

:roll:

 

[Integrityrespec]

As I predicted. These cockroaches bed deep

-VySky
-------------



Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Suddenly Won't Testify; Lawyers Break Off Negotiations Amid New Revelations

A CIA officer who filed a second-hand whistleblower complaint against President Trump has gotten cold feet about testifying after revelations emerged that he worked with Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan, and a DNC operative who sought dirt on President Trump from officials in Ukraine's former government.

According to the Washington Examiner, discussions with the whistleblower - revealed by RealClearInvestigations as 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella have been halted, "and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first's claims."

There is no indication that either of the original whistleblowers will be called to testify or appear before the Senate or House Intelligence committees. There is no further discussion ongoing between the legal team and the committees," said the Examiner's source.

The whistleblower is a career CIA officer with expertise in Ukraine policy who served on the White House National Security Council during the Obama administration, when 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was "point man" for Ukraine, and during the early months of the Trump administration. -Washington Examiner

Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Suddenly Won't Testify; Lawyers Break Off Negotiations Amid New Revelations | Zero Hedge

Of course not. There is a tie to Schiff there and the democrats are afraid it will get out. The entire investigation is just more BS by the Trump Haters.

 

[EnigmaO01]

Here's a newsflash: Most whistleblowers do have an axe to grind, revenge for terrible treatment for exposing corruption, etc. etc. I doesn't mean what they have to say should be automatically dismissed especially if other sources and witnesses corroborate the whistleblower's information.

And no human being is unbiased. One does not exist.

 

[rickc]

It seems now the whistleblower is willing to come forward and answer the republicans in congress questions.

Now the republicans suddenly don't want to hear it.

Sort of like they voted against the empeachment hearing going public. What they had been demanding all along.

These guys just can't make up their minds what they want

 

[trouble13]

I honestly don't know the details of whether the WB Act itself protects WB anonymity. But, Congress would seem to have the power to release or protect his/her identity as they choose, and it seems to be occurring here.

As to Presidential subpoenas, I'm not sure how enforceable they are in the context of impeachment. From what we see so far, it seems subpoenas are regularly ignored, and it may be the only effect of ignoring a subpoena is political. If Trump's people ignore subpoenas, I'm not sure how it can be expected the ones he generates will be binding.

Disclosing or keeping private the name of the person is a discretionary policy as its written in the law. Its an either or deal. There is nothing compelling Congress to release the name but the idea that the WB has a right to anonymity is false. The law does not prevent the name from being msde known.

Your point about subpoenas is well taken. They seem to be ignored by both sides quite often and the consequences seem to be minimal at best. I find it very frustrating the way gov officals blatantly defy the law without facing reprecussions. I dont think you or I would get away with such flagrant disobedience.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[3leftsdoo]

Of course not. There is a tie to Schiff there and the democrats are afraid it will get out. The entire investigation is just more BS by the Trump Haters.

Pretty much.

They're not satisfied with destroying their own party in an entitled, sociopathic rampage, and have been trying to destroy the entire country for the past 3 years.

Democrats = The greatest danger our country has ever faced

 

[Parrish]

It seems now the whistleblower is willing to come forward and answer the republicans in congress questions.

Now the republicans suddenly don't want to hear it.

Sort of like they voted against the empeachment hearing going public. What they had been demanding all along.

These guys just can't make up their minds what they want

The WB stated that under oath she/he will answer questions from GOP in writing.