Discussion in 'Politics' started by Billy_Kinetta, Oct 10, 2019.
It will be like Mueller Part Two. Sound and fury signifying nothing. You realize this deep down.
I'm not sure where this concept that a whistleblower's identity is totally immune from disclosure to the defendant of an accused crime is coming from, but wherever it got started, it is incorrect. The fact of the matter is the privacy protections available to whistleblowers are no greater than that of sexual abuse victims (much less, in fact), and the Supreme Court has shot down efforts to shield the identity of sex crime accusers pursuant to the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. There are numerous cases involving similar decisions for whistleblower claims.
The media is slow to catch on to things once a narrative goes viral, but I'll bet you that within the next couple of days, the media will catch up with this and the reporting will adjust accordingly.
The purpose of questioning him (the WB) at this stage of the process is to see if he pr she could point to where they can find additional evidence of possible wrong doing or to support the initial claim of wrong doing.
It's up to the investigators to determine if the possible additional evidence, is actual evidence, and evidence that will help them make their case of wrong doing.... it could be that when they find the additional evidence, it is evidence that exonerates the president in some way.
No, I don't...
this, if it goes to trial in the Senate where the president can legally show his side, will be nothing like the Mueller investigation.
The 1st one or the 2nd one
OR the 4 officials who logged their complaints about the call
They must all work for Biden... Well Biden know how to retain staff...
The Deep State must have great dental, looking for a job with them, any one know what promotion prospects are like?
You're ignoring two critical things here:
1. Where material statements of accused wrongdoing about a specific alleged perpetrator are made with a reasonable expectation that they would be used to investigate a crime and/or prosecute a crime, it is subject to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and the denial of a defendant's right of cross-examination renders all information obtained as a result of an investigation arising from those statements inadmissible (fruit of the poisonous tree).
2. Some people are claiming that the transcript is incomplete (the so-called "missing 18 minutes" which has been popularized on this very forum), and the people who are advancing this theory are indeed relying on the substance of the whistleblower complaint as being evidence of statements not included in the transcript. Perhaps you are not one of them. If not, you should advise them of their erroneous rationale when they carry on about this while also contending that the whistleblower is not subject to cross-examination.
Because sex crimes accusers, are a he said she said...
This is NOT a he said he/she said situation, what so ever.
If there are Articles of impeachment drawn up, (charges) not a single one, will include the whistle blower report as evidence of that article/charge.
A defendant has the right to question anyone who presents evidence.
The WB is a coward and blew the whistle on a conversation protected by executive privilege (first enacted by Washington) for pure political purposes and what Biden did was possibly a violation of the law. Why doesn’t the liberal media talk about Bidens wrong doing? Whistleblower had second hand to information and is a coward. How do you know it’s not Brennan? Because the Democrats told you so? I’m not sure this person even exists. It could be beady eyed Schiff just making shit up. Wouldn’t put anything beyond the depravity of the Democratic Party.
That would require liberals to read the Constitution.
Separate names with a comma.