Adam Schiff Admits He Has Agreement With Whistleblower When His/Her Identity Is Unknown

[mudwhistle]

1- In the Senate, it's still not a criminal trial, though I would guess the Senate can make its own rules.

2-The whistleblower's name is protected by law. In good America, the president swears an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

So you’re impeaching for political revenge.

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

So, are you making the claim that there is no standard by which the House of Representatives must abide in order to write formal impeachment documents?

They can say, "We don't like him so we move to impeach him", and that is all that is required?

Here's the standards :

Process of Impeachment—7 Steps

 

[mudwhistle]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

What a collection of dumbassery.

Of course they are working through lawyers. He doesn't know the WB's name. That's going to be very closely held since the Tangerine Tornado is already making death threats.

Constitutional procedures are being followed to the letter. He will get all the due process required under the law.

The "transcripts" (they are not transcripts) were never protected by executive privilege and I never saw speaker pelosi claiming to know what was in them before anyone else.

Your post is nothing but desperation.

Sure.....and the sky ain't blue.
Schiff-face knows who this fucker is.
You can bank on it.

 

[mudwhistle]

If he knows why not other members of Congress?

There's no evidence that he knows. He knows who the attorneys are, and he is in touch with them. That's not the same as knowing the identity of the whistleblower.

That said, I assume every member of the committee will soon know, and that's worrisome, given Trump's unhinged tweeting.

Ok, how does a deranged Trump hater who’s lied about Trump with false accusations for three years know who the lawyers are but not other members of Congress?

I'll try to find out how that became public knowledge, but righties on this site identified the firm days ago as one used previously by Hillary Clinton, as if that were prejudicial. The DNI testified the whistleblower had legal representation. Whether that's part of the hearing record, I don't know.

Let us know that out of the hundreds of members of Congress the most deranged anti Trumper who’s lied about Trump continuously for three years is the ONLY member of Congress to learn of details of the accusation.

Repeat after me:

Chairman of the house intelligence committee.

Notice how Trump's most vocal critics all chair committees... .

This fucker is there only because they own his corrupt ass.

 

[CWayne]

So you’re impeaching for political revenge.

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

So, are you making the claim that there is no standard by which the House of Representatives must abide in order to write formal impeachment documents?

They can say, "We don't like him so we move to impeach him", and that is all that is required?

Here's the standards :

Process of Impeachment—7 Steps

So, suspicion of a crime needed to start, verification of a crime needed to draw up articles of impeachment.

Where is the Justice Department or independent council's charges?

 

[mudwhistle]

So you’re impeaching for political revenge.

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

Impeached for not committing a crime, got it.

The claim was made that the 6th Amendment would guarantee Trump the right to face his accuser. I pointed out the 6th applies to criminal prosecutions. Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. If you're determined not to understand that, fine.

We understand.....you want to hide behind the impeachment process while avoiding due process for the accused.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There's no evidence that he knows. He knows who the attorneys are, and he is in touch with them. That's not the same as knowing the identity of the whistleblower.

That said, I assume every member of the committee will soon know, and that's worrisome, given Trump's unhinged tweeting.

Ok, how does a deranged Trump hater who’s lied about Trump with false accusations for three years know who the lawyers are but not other members of Congress?

I'll try to find out how that became public knowledge, but righties on this site identified the firm days ago as one used previously by Hillary Clinton, as if that were prejudicial. The DNI testified the whistleblower had legal representation. Whether that's part of the hearing record, I don't know.

Let us know that out of the hundreds of members of Congress the most deranged anti Trumper who’s lied about Trump continuously for three years is the ONLY member of Congress to learn of details of the accusation.

Repeat after me:

Chairman of the house intelligence committee.

Notice how Trump's most vocal critics all chair committees... .

Or are running as Democrats for president.

This fucker is there only because they own his corrupt ass.

How that bug-eyed, pencil-necked, pixie-lipped Commie ever got elected even in stupid California is Gawd's own private mystery.

 

[mudwhistle]

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

So, are you making the claim that there is no standard by which the House of Representatives must abide in order to write formal impeachment documents?

They can say, "We don't like him so we move to impeach him", and that is all that is required?

Here's the standards :

Process of Impeachment—7 Steps

So, suspicion of a crime needed to start, verification of a crime needed to draw up articles of impeachment.

Where is the Justice Department or independent council's charges?

None.
Democrats aren't impeaching Trump. They have to wait for charges to be filed and a vote in the House to be conducted by House members.....none has been done.

 

[mudwhistle]

Ok, how does a deranged Trump hater who’s lied about Trump with false accusations for three years know who the lawyers are but not other members of Congress?

I'll try to find out how that became public knowledge, but righties on this site identified the firm days ago as one used previously by Hillary Clinton, as if that were prejudicial. The DNI testified the whistleblower had legal representation. Whether that's part of the hearing record, I don't know.

Let us know that out of the hundreds of members of Congress the most deranged anti Trumper who’s lied about Trump continuously for three years is the ONLY member of Congress to learn of details of the accusation.

Repeat after me:

Chairman of the house intelligence committee.

Notice how Trump's most vocal critics all chair committees... .

Or are running as Democrats for president.

This fucker is there only because they own his corrupt ass.

How that bug-eyed, pencil-necked, pixie-lipped Commie ever got elected even in stupid California is Gawd's own private mystery.

Well it's California. Nuff said.

 

[CWayne]

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

So, are you making the claim that there is no standard by which the House of Representatives must abide in order to write formal impeachment documents?

They can say, "We don't like him so we move to impeach him", and that is all that is required?

Here's the standards :

Process of Impeachment—7 Steps

So, suspicion of a crime needed to start, verification of a crime needed to draw up articles of impeachment.

Where is the Justice Department or independent council's charges?

None.
Democrats aren't impeaching Trump. They have to wait for charges to be filed and a vote in the House to be conducted by House members.....none has been done.

But they are, according to some, involved in a "Formal Inquiry" which mean they should be following the rules as outlined.

So, what I want to know is what committee or Justice Department report or investigation spurred the 'formal inquiry'.

Or do they just get to make it up or give no reason at all? There are many claiming that there doesn't have to be an underlying crime, that impeachment is purely political.

If that is the case, and there really is no standard for impeachment, then the very next Democrat President can be 'formally inquired' upon so that he or she can be impeached.

I see someone making the statement that Lindsey Graham has said there need not be a crime. Is he correct all the time? Will those who say he is full of it now say he is right?

The entire thing is nothing but kabuki theater, to quote a famous President.

 

[joaquinmiller]

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

Impeached for not committing a crime, got it.

The claim was made that the 6th Amendment would guarantee Trump the right to face his accuser. I pointed out the 6th applies to criminal prosecutions. Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. If you're determined not to understand that, fine.

We understand.....you want to hide behind the impeachment process while avoiding due process for the accused.

What due process is Trump being denied?

 

[Olde Europe]

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

Oh, please, please, let's make it a criminal trial, with a randomly selected jury of twelve convicting him by a simple majority and preponderance of evidence, and not only shall he be removed from office but go right to jail - with no recourse.

Come on, let them have their criminal trial! Wouldn't that be fun, if the Goober majority in the Senate can no longer protect him?

 

[playtime]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

^^^
Adam Schifface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump.

shiff & the whistleblower's lawyers are protecting his/her identity from many people including trump - who has a history of making thinly veiled threats against those who threaten him.

This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court.

1st of all - the rules & threshold regarding congress' censuring, impeachment inquiry, or bringing forth articles of impeachment are not the same as they are in a criminal or civil matter PER THE CONSTITUTION.

2nd - there has been no trial, nor is it even close to a trial... YET.... so even IF the protocol were the same in a criminal or civil matter, donny doesn't have the right to anything at this stage.

This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

Excellent post, and I'm stealing your meme.

by all means use it as often as necessary............

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

The agreement was made through the lawyers.

Duh.

What a painfully stupid thread.

 

[playtime]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

What does it matter who blew the whistle? The transcript shows what he did, without argument. At this point, why does the whistleblower's identity matter? Just so the right can smear him/her with lies and innuendo like they do with every other Trump critic? Call for the whistleblower's hanging?
lol

6th and 14th Amendments.

The 6th governs criminal prosecutions. The 14th covers due process. What do they have to do with impeachment?

Impeachment has to go thru 7 steps.
The Justice Department refers charges to the House and the House must vote to impeach. The Senate chooses to either hold a trial or not hold one. Evidence is presented and the President mounts his defense. An unknown accuser with fake claims would be rejected by the Senate off-hand.
Process of Impeachment—7 Steps

congress - being an CO EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT - can conduct its own investigations - separate from the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. wtf would we even have OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES, if not to do their j-o-b & OVERSEE?

Investigations & Oversight | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives


Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.~ wiki

 

[playtime]

1- In the Senate, it's still not a criminal trial, though I would guess the Senate can make its own rules.

2-The whistleblower's name is protected by law. In good America, the president swears an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

So you’re impeaching for political revenge.

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

"High crimes and misdemeanors".

m'k, now pay attention...

Explainer: Impeachment depends on 'high crimes and misdemeanors' - what are they?
Jan Wolfe
What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”?

According to several constitutional lawyers, “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a purposefully vague term and can be defined by members of Congress.

Writings by the nation’s founders make clear that they were concerned about presidents abusing the public trust, said Rosenzweig, now a senior fellow at the libertarian think tank R Street Institute.

“The founders spoke about things like promising pardons to your friends to protect your own criminality,” said Rosenzweig. “They spoke about things like people being beholden to foreign governments. They spoke about profiting from the presidency.”

Explainer: Impeachment depends on 'high crimes and misdemeanors' - what are they?



"In fact, ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars."
— Justin Amash on Monday, May 20th, 2019 in a tweet

Jeffrey A. Engel, director of the Southern Methodist University Center for Presidential History and a contributor to the 2018 book Impeachment: An American History, said Amash’s understanding of the framers’ thinking, was "spot on."

"A high crime is an affront to the state, to the people, the body politic," Engel said. "A president, or any leader really, need not break any statute in order to break the public’s trust."
What counts as a high crime or misdemeanor for impeachment?

 

[playtime]

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

Impeached for not committing a crime, got it.

The claim was made that the 6th Amendment would guarantee Trump the right to face his accuser. I pointed out the 6th applies to criminal prosecutions. Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. If you're determined not to understand that, fine.

Impeachment

A. Being formally accused of unlawful activity, committing a crime

under congressional protocol per the constitution. that's why mueller threw it to congress because a sitting prez cannot be indicted under DOJ policy.

 

[boedicca]

Schiffty does have an agreement with the Whistleblower-Spy-Leaker as they colluded to cook up this fake charge in the first place.

 

[playtime]

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

Impeached for not committing a crime, got it.

The claim was made that the 6th Amendment would guarantee Trump the right to face his accuser. I pointed out the 6th applies to criminal prosecutions. Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. If you're determined not to understand that, fine.

Impeachment

A. Being formally accused of unlawful activity, committing a crime

That's a high school cheat sheet, and it doesn't differentiate between civil officers and the elected president.

For the Umpteenth time, a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution.

You should try reading the US Constitution for the first time. A President may be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors.


“Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”

— Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution

BY CONGRESS, UNDER THEIR RULES. WHICH IS A TRIAL IN THE SENATE OCCURS & SC JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS PRESIDES AFTER FORMAL ARTICLES ARE DRAWN UP.

 

[playtime]

What does it matter who blew the whistle? The transcript shows what he did, without argument. At this point, why does the whistleblower's identity matter? Just so the right can smear him/her with lies and innuendo like they do with every other Trump critic? Call for the whistleblower's hanging?
lol

6th and 14th Amendments.

The 6th governs criminal prosecutions. The 14th covers due process. What do they have to do with impeachment?

When and if the matter is sent to the Senate, it becomes a trial, and the 6th guarantees confrontation. The 14th also hold the states to the 6th.

The fact that the Democrats are reluctant to name the accuser only cements the view that it's a set-up.

1- In the Senate, it's still not a criminal trial, though I would guess the Senate can make its own rules.

2-The whistleblower's name is protected by law. In good America, the president swears an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

That's highly debatable because according to the law you aren't considered a valid whistleblower unless you have firsthand knowledge of the infraction.
Somebody changed the forms to allow gossip and rumors to be included.

ummmm 'cept the IG - who donny appointed after all - investigated & went to the people that the whistleblower named.... you know lenny, NAMED & the IG said that the blowing of the whistle was corroborated by the first person witness'.

 

[playtime]

this thread is a perfect example why trump loves the poorly educated long time.