Ukraine Whistleblower May Not Testify In Person

[boedicca]

Don't worry! The 2nd Whistleblower is all teed up to testify...and has prior experience!

 

[Desperado]

what happened to The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Nothing happened to it. The impeachment inquiry is not a trial, or a criminal prosecution. Very simple.

But it does come into play if they vote for impeachment and a trial is set in the senate

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

what happened to The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Nothing happened to it. The impeachment inquiry is not a trial, or a criminal prosecution. Very simple.

But it does come into play if they vote for impeachment and a trial is set in the senate

Says who? That's not a criminal trial, either. Furthermore, the "accuser" in the Senate trial will be the House of Representatives. Are you just making stuff up? I think you are.

 

[Coyote]

Democrats are doing their damnedest to keep the inquiry illegitimate.

WASHINGTON—Lawyers for the CIA officer whose whistleblower complaint helped ignite an impeachment inquiry into President Trump have asked Congress whether their client could submit testimony in writing

Ukraine Whistleblower May Not Testify In Person

Democrats are trying to protect his/her life from deranged Trump supporters.

That is a real concern. It seems there are those who neither understand nor care about whistleblower laws. They are pissed because this time it happens to be theirs who’s tits are in the wringer.

 

[Coyote]

Democrats are doing their damnedest to keep the inquiry illegitimate.

WASHINGTON—Lawyers for the CIA officer whose whistleblower complaint helped ignite an impeachment inquiry into President Trump have asked Congress whether their client could submit testimony in writing

Ukraine Whistleblower May Not Testify In Person

The whistleblower is a coward. What are they trying to hide? Because it’s Brennan, a biased political hack? The guy that was a communist in the 1950’s? This person must not have any credibility or Democrats wouldn’t be hiding them. Fucking coward.

All whistleblowers are protected by anonymity under the law. Otherwise they would be subject to retaliation.

 

[Coyote]

but they are NOT using the testimony of the WB in the trial.... the WB report will not be used in the trial either,
. . .
If it were the whistle blower's word, against the president's word, then you'd have a point...

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.

The transcript isn’t a verbatim transcript. It is a memo of a call. This administration stopped doing verbatim transcripts.

 

[edthecynic]

Protected by the deep state

 

[bripat9643]

Protected by the deep state

Your scumbag heroes are the deep state, moron

 

[bripat9643]

but they are NOT using the testimony of the WB in the trial.... the WB report will not be used in the trial either,
. . .
If it were the whistle blower's word, against the president's word, then you'd have a point...

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.

The transcript isn’t a verbatim transcript. It is a memo of a call. This administration stopped doing verbatim transcripts.

It's as close as you're ever going to get to a verbatim transcript, and it's a hell of a lot more credible than your memory challenged "whistleblower."

Your belief that Trump isn't following the same practice as Obama is supported by nothing.

 

[Coyote]

but they are NOT using the testimony of the WB in the trial.... the WB report will not be used in the trial either,
. . .
If it were the whistle blower's word, against the president's word, then you'd have a point...

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.

The transcript isn’t a verbatim transcript. It is a memo of a call. This administration stopped doing verbatim transcripts.

It's as close as you're ever going to get to a verbatim transcript, and it's a hell of a lot more credible than your memory challenged "whistleblower.

Your belief that Trump isn't following the same practice as Obama is supported by nothing.

No. It isn’t. Former administrations used to to do verbatim transcripts. This White House discontinued it.

That is just the facts. Why are you so defensive?

Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president, annotated

 

[bripat9643]

but they are NOT using the testimony of the WB in the trial.... the WB report will not be used in the trial either,
. . .
If it were the whistle blower's word, against the president's word, then you'd have a point...

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.

The transcript isn’t a verbatim transcript. It is a memo of a call. This administration stopped doing verbatim transcripts.

It's as close as you're ever going to get to a verbatim transcript, and it's a hell of a lot more credible than your memory challenged "whistleblower.

Your belief that Trump isn't following the same practice as Obama is supported by nothing.

No. It isn’t. Former administrations used to to do verbatim transcripts. This White House discontinued it.

That is just the facts. Why are you so defensive?

Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president, annotated

How do you know they were verbatim, shit for brains? Did they put in every sniffle, sneeze, cough and stutter? I doubt it. Your claim is absurd on its face.

 

[bripat9643]

what happened to The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Nothing happened to it. The impeachment inquiry is not a trial, or a criminal prosecution. Very simple.

But it does come into play if they vote for impeachment and a trial is set in the senate

Says who? That's not a criminal trial, either. Furthermore, the "accuser" in the Senate trial will be the House of Representatives. Are you just making stuff up? I think you are.

The court will be run by Republicans. Trump simply isn't going to lose. furthermore, all the nasty ugly truth will come out and Dims will be devastated. The voters will learn what kind of vermin they really are.

 

[Coyote]

but they are NOT using the testimony of the WB in the trial.... the WB report will not be used in the trial either,
. . .
If it were the whistle blower's word, against the president's word, then you'd have a point...

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.

The transcript isn’t a verbatim transcript. It is a memo of a call. This administration stopped doing verbatim transcripts.

It's as close as you're ever going to get to a verbatim transcript, and it's a hell of a lot more credible than your memory challenged "whistleblower.

Your belief that Trump isn't following the same practice as Obama is supported by nothing.

No. It isn’t. Former administrations used to to do verbatim transcripts. This White House discontinued it.

That is just the facts. Why are you so defensive?

Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president, annotated

How do you know they were verbatim, shit for brains? Did they put in every sniffle, sneeze, cough and stutter? I doubt it. Your claim is absurd on its face.

You can’t dispute it eh?

 

[SAYIT]

Just wait till the Senate gets a hold of him in a real impeachment. It's called subpoena and if the left can issue them, so can the right.

The left HAS to maintain this "inquiry" because they know damn good and well that a true vote of impeachment would give republicans subpoena rights and the last thing they want is any of these asshats behind this attack on Trump to have to go under oath.

But you won't have any problem with people ignoring congressional subpoenas if trump tells tells them to, right?

Under the current circumstances, I demand all who receive those bogus subpoenas tear 'em up and ridicule the bitter, petulant, impotent crybabies who issued them.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The transcript isn’t a verbatim transcript. It is a memo of a call. This administration stopped doing verbatim transcripts.

It's as close as you're ever going to get to a verbatim transcript, and it's a hell of a lot more credible than your memory challenged "whistleblower.

Your belief that Trump isn't following the same practice as Obama is supported by nothing.

No. It isn’t. Former administrations used to to do verbatim transcripts. This White House discontinued it.

That is just the facts. Why are you so defensive?

Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president, annotated

How do you know they were verbatim, shit for brains? Did they put in every sniffle, sneeze, cough and stutter? I doubt it. Your claim is absurd on its face.

You can’t dispute it eh?

In other words, you can't support it.

 

[SAYIT]

This is just about VENGEANCE the Trumpsters want ....

Indeed because "Trumpsters" are so angry and bitter about Shrillary's 2016 election victory and how well the country has done with her as POTUS.

No one should have to tell you what a flaming IDIOT you are so I'm not gonna bother.

 

[Coyote]

The transcript isn’t a verbatim transcript. It is a memo of a call. This administration stopped doing verbatim transcripts.

It's as close as you're ever going to get to a verbatim transcript, and it's a hell of a lot more credible than your memory challenged "whistleblower.

Your belief that Trump isn't following the same practice as Obama is supported by nothing.

No. It isn’t. Former administrations used to to do verbatim transcripts. This White House discontinued it.

That is just the facts. Why are you so defensive?

Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president, annotated

How do you know they were verbatim, shit for brains? Did they put in every sniffle, sneeze, cough and stutter? I doubt it. Your claim is absurd on its face.

You can’t dispute it eh?

In other words, you can't support it.

I did.

 

[Coyote]

This is just about VENGEANCE the Trumpsters want ....

Indeed because "Trumpsters" are so angry and bitter about Shrillary's 2016 election victory and how well the country has done with her as POTUS.

No one should have to tell you what a flaming IDIOT you are so I'm not gonna bother.

The election was three years ago. Isn’t it time you guys quit blaming everything on it?

 

[Coyote]

Just wait till the Senate gets a hold of him in a real impeachment. It's called subpoena and if the left can issue them, so can the right.

The left HAS to maintain this "inquiry" because they know damn good and well that a true vote of impeachment would give republicans subpoena rights and the last thing they want is any of these asshats behind this attack on Trump to have to go under oath.

But you won't have any problem with people ignoring congressional subpoenas if trump tells tells them to, right?

Under the current circumstances, I demand all who receive those bogus subpoenas tear 'em up and ridicule the bitter, petulant, impotent crybabies who issued them.

What makes them bogus?

When Eric Holder was held in contempt for failing to turn over documents to Congress, was that bogus? Or...is this one of your funky partisan things that only applies to one side?

 

[SAYIT]

This is just about VENGEANCE the Trumpsters want ....

Indeed because "Trumpsters" are so angry and bitter about Shrillary's 2016 election victory and how well the country has done with her as POTUS.

No one should have to tell you what a flaming IDIOT you are so I'm not gonna bother.

The election was three years ago. Isn’t it time you guys quit blaming everything on it?

Only when you bitter Clintonettes stop whining about it and trying to nullify the results.

So exactly what kind of "VENGEANCE" do you think C-4-all is referring to?