Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Suddenly Won't Testify

[3leftsdoo]

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

100% wrong; impressive. :thumbs:

Willing to come forward = Answering questions in writing & in secret

What sane people demanded = Not what the criminally insane Democrats did

 

[trouble13]

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

The WB does not have the authority to dictate the terms

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[HAL9000]

The WB does not have the authority to dictate the terms

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yet somehow Parnas and Fruman are claiming executive privilege, and refusing to testify at all lol.

Maybe if the President wants a witness who will testify openly(he doesn't seem to be to fond of the other ones testifying) he shouldn't mention the WB anywhere near references to execution.

 

[trouble13]

Yet somehow Parnas and Fruman are claiming executive privilege, and refusing to testify at all lol.

Maybe if the President wants a witness who will testify openly(he doesn't seem to be to fond of the other ones testifying) he shouldn't mention the WB anywhere near references to execution.

I dont know if executive privilege will stand up or not but thats their ascertain. Its up to a court to decide that if congress challenges it.

What legal argument has the WB got to refuse congress if they issue a subpoena?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[HAL9000]

I dont know if executive privilege will stand up or not but thats their ascertain. Its up to a court to decide that if congress challenges it.

What legal argument has the WB got to refuse congress if they issue a subpoena?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

None, I totally think he should testify. I don't think testimony is bad, it's important to find the truth. I just understand his reservations.

 

[madasheck]

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

This story comes from a fake news site "Zero Hedge". The New York Times, Washington Post and CNN aren't reporting it. EVen that Trump news site Fox News doesn't have it. In fact, Fox has a clearly visible headline on its front page (and here's the Fox link): (Whistleblower now willing to take Republican questions, lawyer abruptly announces | Fox News) It's not true and this thread is totally bogus.

 

[rickc]

I dont know if executive privilege will stand up or not but thats their ascertain. Its up to a court to decide that if congress challenges it.

What legal argument has the WB got to refuse congress if they issue a subpoena?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I believe Pelosi is not going to waste time fighting those who refuse to testify.

She has plenty to impeach him already.

 

[JasperL]

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

When are you going to remove your signature urging people to vote for Democrats and just put up a MAGA hat?

 

[GDViking]

I dont know if executive privilege will stand up or not but thats their ascertain. Its up to a court to decide that if congress challenges it.

What legal argument has the WB got to refuse congress if they issue a subpoena?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Who are they going to subpoena?

Any outing of his/her name would be illegal...

 

[GDViking]

Okay so now the WB has agreed to the exact same.e terms that trump insisted on during the Mueller Investigation.

And somehow that is not good enough for the crooked right...

 

[trouble13]

Who are they going to subpoena?

Any outing of his/her name would be illegal...

Its not illegal to identify him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Anna Bonita]

LOL! How deliciously irrelevant.

The IG contradicted the asinine claim at your link and found the complaint by the WB "both urgent and that it appeared credible."

Yet again you have no idea what you're talking about here.

What the WB has been confirmed by other witnesses, under oath, repeatedly, and confirmed publicly by your god, twump.

:lol::applaud

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Its not illegal to identify him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yes, it is. It is literally against the law.

Yet again you have no idea, etc....

 

[roguenuke]

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

That right begins after being officially accused, indictment, not before. And the official accuser isnt necessarily everyone who comes forward with info about you doing something wrong. Again, if someone gave a tip to the police that you were acting nervous during an interview about some robberies at the store where you worked and that led to the police investigating you and finding evidence that showed you were the thief, it doesn't mean you have a right to know or face the person who gave the initial tip that you were acting nervous during the interview.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[OpportunityCost]

That right begins after being officially accused, indictment, not before. And the official accuser isnt necessarily everyone who comes forward with info about you doing something wrong. Again, if someone gave a tip to the police that you were acting nervous during an interview about some robberies at the store where you worked and that led to the police investigating you and finding evidence that showed you were the thief, it doesn't mean you have a right to know or face the person who gave the initial tip that you were acting nervous during the interview.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Yes, yes it does. Fruit of the poisoned tree and it then contends with inevitable discovery.

 

[roguenuke]

Yes, yes it does. Fruit of the poisoned tree and it then contends with inevitable discovery.

No. Trump openly gave us the memo confirming much of what was put out about the call by the whistleblower. Others have confirmed most of the rest. And Congress has congressional oversight over the President. The whistleblower statement was not used to subpoena anything nor any warrant nor any search.

Pretty sure you don't understand fruit of the poisoned tree.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[OpportunityCost]

No. Trump openly gave us the memo confirming much of what was put out about the call by the whistleblower. Others have confirmed most of the rest. And Congress has congressional oversight over the President. The whistleblower statement was not used to subpoena anything nor any warrant nor any search.

Pretty sure you don't understand fruit of the poisoned tree.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Its not a perfect fit for these circumstances but its close. Pretty sure I do understand it.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Yes, it is. It is literally against the law.

Yet again you have no idea, etc....

do you ever wonder what % of Trump Republicans want the whisleblower identified and taken out? 10% maybe?

 

[eohrnberger]

Right. The LAST person Schiff wants to hear from is the guy he used to set this whole thing up.

Schiff was more than willing to have the whistle blower testify, up until it was discovered that the whistle blower had contact with Schiff's office in orchestrating the sequence of events and word smithing the whistle blower's complaint, then, all of a sudden, not so much.

Given the number of other Democrat orchestrated attacks against the president that we've seen over the last 3 years the burden of proof lies with the Democrats that this isn't just yet another one, and that it really comprises what the Democrats claim it comprises, rather than just being yet another orchestrated dirty politics by them.

The way I heard it, the whistle blower statute doesn't protect the whistle blower from being identified (other than the ICIG - unless deemed necessary), it only protects his job, so revealing the whistle blower's identify is not a crime, not by anyone other than ICIG, and then only until he deems it necessary.

As his identity has been discovered and now widely reported, along with a long history of being a Democrat, working for Biden, Clapper, and Bennan, if I'm not mistaken.

Oh, nothing to see here? Wilful ignorance, when politically convenient.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Yes, it is. It is literally against the law.

Yet again you have no idea, etc....

No it's not.

McClanahan explained the protection provision of the ICWPA pretty clearly.

That provision says the inspector general should not disclose the whistleblower’s identity without their consent, unless the watchdog determines that “such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.”

Once the complaint is out of the inspector general’s hands the law does little to guarantee the whistleblower anonymity, said McClanahan, the executive director of National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm.

 

[eohrnberger]

No it's not.

McClanahan explained the protection provision of the ICWPA pretty clearly.

That provision says the inspector general should not disclose the whistleblower’s identity without their consent, unless the watchdog determines that “such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.”

Once the complaint is out of the inspector general’s hands the law does little to guarantee the whistleblower anonymity, said McClanahan, the executive director of National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm.

Statues invented for perceived political advantage. Go figure.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

No it's not.

McClanahan explained the protection provision of the ICWPA pretty clearly.

That provision says the inspector general should not disclose the whistleblower’s identity without their consent, unless the watchdog determines that “such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.”

Once the complaint is out of the inspector general’s hands the law does little to guarantee the whistleblower anonymity, said McClanahan, the executive director of National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm.

Yes, it is, as it is witness intimidation as it is currently being done, as in Donnie Moscow, Jr.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Yes, it is, as it is witness intimidation as it is currently being done, as in Donnie Moscow, Jr.

LOL...more BS from you.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

LOL...more BS from you.

Keep living the fantasy.

 

[roguenuke]

Its not a perfect fit for these circumstances but its close. Pretty sure I do understand it.

Not even close since fruit of the poisonous tree does have a specific meaning. No information gained on Trump and his dealings with Ukraine regarding Biden or Crowdstrike was obtained illegally or through an unlawful search.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk