What's new

Schiff says whistleblower (/leaker Eric Ciaramella) testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
21,040
Reaction score
4,799
Points
1,010
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Graham could initiate a full blow Coup investigation and withhold a vote indefinitely.

Not entirely true.

Once the Senate is served with Articles of Impeachment they must drop anything they are doing and convene an Impeachment trial.
The trial can be postponed for relevant fact witnesses and investigation of the Coup Attempt. Or Justice Roberts could throw it out as baseless..
 

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
21,040
Reaction score
4,799
Points
1,010
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Outing the whistleblower is against the law.
No, it isn't.

But I understand you must protect fabricated lies and conspiracies at all costs.
The whistle blower has no right to identity protections. It infact, violates the rights of the accused to question his accuser. A major problem Schiff-for-brains is ignorant of.
One faces his accuser at trial. And, like it or not, there are laws protecting the identity of whistleblowers.

How can you be right when you don't know what's wrong?
The LAW does not give the accuser the right to identity protections.. How can you be so ignorant of the law.... Oh wait, your a leftist drone...
 

Third Party

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
619
Points
255
Washington (CNN) — House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff made clear on Saturday that the Ukraine whistleblower won't be testifying in the impeachment inquiry, arguing that the individual's testimony would be "redundant and unnecessary."

House Republicans earlier Saturday had submitted a list of witnesses to Democrats that they'd like to testify as part of the chamber's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump and Ukraine. The list included the whistleblower and former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden.

**SNIP**

"The impeachment inquiry, moreover, has gathered an ever-growing body of evidence -- from witnesses and documents, including the President's own words in his July 25 call record -- that not only confirms, but far exceeds, the initial information in the whistleblower's complaint. The whistleblower's testimony is therefore redundant and unnecessary. In light of the President's threats, the individual's appearance before us would only place their personal safety at grave risk," Schiff wrote to California Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

The comments by Schiff, one of the Democrats in charge of the inquiry, are the clearest yet that the whistleblower won't testify in the probe, a dramatic shift since the beginning of the impeachment inquiry in September when the individual's testimony was viewed as paramount by all Democrats.

(Excerpt) Read more at edition-m.cnn.com ...

------------

The complete list of Eric Ciaramella’s ties to top DempnRAT operatives will SHOCK YOU!

** The so-called “whistleblower” Eric Ciarmella is a Democrat who had a “professional” tie to a 2020 Democrat.

** Ciaramella coordinated and took guidance from Adam Schiff’s staff and Schiff lied about it.

** Ciaramella’s attorneys worked for James Clapper, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and donated to Joe Biden.

** The attorneys for Ciaramella is a member of the #Resistance.

** Ciaramella worked with Joe Biden in the executive branch when he was Vice President.

** Ciaramella traveled with Joe Biden to the Ukraine.

** Ciaramella worked with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa in the creation of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

** A former associate of James Clapper, Charles McCullough, assisted Ciaramella with his complaint against Trump.

** And Adam Schiff’s aides, Abigail Grace and Sean Misko worked with Ciaramella in the White House.

Without fanfare or long verbage, Pelosi, Schiff & Nadler are going down the political drain within the next week or two, if they do not allow the Republican Party to have their choices of folks to come and testify on the Schiff committee!!! The American people are already wise to the 100% Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Media, farce, behind the locked door criminal & crooked, investigation.

This is EXACTLY what they do in the Soviet Union under despots and dictators.....
Translation: The whistleblower would make Schiff look worse than he already does.
 

edward37

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
25,444
Reaction score
2,263
Points
290
Plenty of others have testified confirming the whistleblower's complaint. Outing the whistleblower is against the law.

Democrats want to determine the facts. Republicans want to find out who ratted them out.
Why won't he testify? Does he have something to hide?
The story has been laid bare by the testimony of others, others who were on the call. The only reason Republicans want the whistleblowers testimony is to publically destroy him/her. We've seen this play before.

Trump wants his 'Lisa Page' for a new scandal.
He IS A LIAR and a political HACK.. He needs to be exposed for what he is.. Not to mention that Trump has the RIGHT TO FACE HIS ACCUSER.
Are ALL the others liars and political hacks ?? Or just patriots doing their civil duty Seems to me the cowards liars and hacks are those refusing subpoenas
 

Crepitus

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
29,789
Reaction score
2,663
Points
290
That's a conspiracy theory, not reality.

They are not witnesses.

Why are you tRumplings so mind-bogglingly stupid?
See now, in all my years of inbred, redneck, trailer park trash edumakashun, I was never taught to insult.

I was taught how to debate using facts.

What's your excuse?
I've beat that moron over the head with facts for weeks on end. Even my patience has limits.
 

edward37

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
25,444
Reaction score
2,263
Points
290
That's a conspiracy theory, not reality.

They are not witnesses.

Why are you tRumplings so mind-bogglingly stupid?
See now, in all my years of inbred, redneck, trailer park trash edumakashun, I was never taught to insult.

I was taught how to debate using facts.

What's your excuse?
I've beat that moron over the head with facts for weeks on end. Even my patience has limits.
Can any republican idiot read?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
45,559
Reaction score
9,159
Points
2,060
That's a conspiracy theory, not reality.

They are not witnesses.

Why are you tRumplings so mind-bogglingly stupid?
See now, in all my years of inbred, redneck, trailer park trash edumakashun, I was never taught to insult.

I was taught how to debate using facts.

What's your excuse?
I've beat that moron over the head with facts for weeks on end. Even my patience has limits.
Can any republican idiot read?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]
Can you? Where does it say the identity must remain secret?
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
110,295
Reaction score
20,619
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Plenty of others have testified confirming the whistleblower's complaint. Outing the whistleblower is against the law.

Democrats want to determine the facts. Republicans want to find out who ratted them out.
Why won't he testify? Does he have something to hide?
The story has been laid bare by the testimony of others, others who were on the call. The only reason Republicans want the whistleblowers testimony is to publically destroy him/her. We've seen this play before.

Trump wants his 'Lisa Page' for a new scandal.
Yeah says you. Let him testify, under oath
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
201,310
Reaction score
29,300
Points
2,190

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
201,310
Reaction score
29,300
Points
2,190
That's a conspiracy theory, not reality.

They are not witnesses.

Why are you tRumplings so mind-bogglingly stupid?
See now, in all my years of inbred, redneck, trailer park trash edumakashun, I was never taught to insult.

I was taught how to debate using facts.

What's your excuse?
I've beat that moron over the head with facts for weeks on end. Even my patience has limits.
Can any republican idiot read?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]
Can you? Where does it say the identity must remain secret?
Other than to be able to threaten and harass the whistle blower, what value is there in releasing his name?
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
201,310
Reaction score
29,300
Points
2,190
Once it goes to the Senate - and it will - Schiff will become no more than an observer as the Senate takes him apart.
Graham has indicated that Schiff would be first on the witness list and followed by Caramillio.The trial will be over by the end of the first day on legal grounds..
Other than harassment, what information can they provide?
 

Crepitus

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
29,789
Reaction score
2,663
Points
290
That's a conspiracy theory, not reality.

They are not witnesses.

Why are you tRumplings so mind-bogglingly stupid?
See now, in all my years of inbred, redneck, trailer park trash edumakashun, I was never taught to insult.

I was taught how to debate using facts.

What's your excuse?
I've beat that moron over the head with facts for weeks on end. Even my patience has limits.
Can any republican idiot read?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]
Can you? Where does it say the identity must remain secret?
That's part of securing his life and livelyhood.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
201,310
Reaction score
29,300
Points
2,190
Plenty of others have testified confirming the whistleblower's complaint. Outing the whistleblower is against the law.

Democrats want to determine the facts. Republicans want to find out who ratted them out.
Why won't he testify? Does he have something to hide?
The story has been laid bare by the testimony of others, others who were on the call. The only reason Republicans want the whistleblowers testimony is to publically destroy him/her. We've seen this play before.

Trump wants his 'Lisa Page' for a new scandal.
Yeah says you. Let him testify, under oath
Same applies to our President
 

edward37

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
25,444
Reaction score
2,263
Points
290
That's a conspiracy theory, not reality.

They are not witnesses.

Why are you tRumplings so mind-bogglingly stupid?
See now, in all my years of inbred, redneck, trailer park trash edumakashun, I was never taught to insult.

I was taught how to debate using facts.

What's your excuse?
I've beat that moron over the head with facts for weeks on end. Even my patience has limits.
Can any republican idiot read?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]
Can you? Where does it say the identity must remain secret?
He must be protected from those who would cause harm to him and his family We call those cowards Republicans
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
45,559
Reaction score
9,159
Points
2,060
That's a conspiracy theory, not reality.

They are not witnesses.

Why are you tRumplings so mind-bogglingly stupid?
See now, in all my years of inbred, redneck, trailer park trash edumakashun, I was never taught to insult.

I was taught how to debate using facts.

What's your excuse?
I've beat that moron over the head with facts for weeks on end. Even my patience has limits.
Can any republican idiot read?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]
Can you? Where does it say the identity must remain secret?
That's part of securing his life and livelyhood.
Horseshit. All it says is that the agency that employs the whistleblower cannot take retaliatory personnel action against that employee.

No one else is subject to restrictions. You cannot add words to the law after the fact.
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
45,559
Reaction score
9,159
Points
2,060
That's a conspiracy theory, not reality.

They are not witnesses.

Why are you tRumplings so mind-bogglingly stupid?
See now, in all my years of inbred, redneck, trailer park trash edumakashun, I was never taught to insult.

I was taught how to debate using facts.

What's your excuse?
I've beat that moron over the head with facts for weeks on end. Even my patience has limits.
Can any republican idiot read?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]
Can you? Where does it say the identity must remain secret?
He must be protected from those who would cause harm to him and his family
Perhaps, but not by the law cited.
 

edward37

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
25,444
Reaction score
2,263
Points
290
See now, in all my years of inbred, redneck, trailer park trash edumakashun, I was never taught to insult.

I was taught how to debate using facts.

What's your excuse?
I've beat that moron over the head with facts for weeks on end. Even my patience has limits.
Can any republican idiot read?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]
Can you? Where does it say the identity must remain secret?
He must be protected from those who would cause harm to him and his family
Perhaps, but not by the law cited.
Is the senate a federal agency?
 

Crepitus

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
29,789
Reaction score
2,663
Points
290
See now, in all my years of inbred, redneck, trailer park trash edumakashun, I was never taught to insult.

I was taught how to debate using facts.

What's your excuse?
I've beat that moron over the head with facts for weeks on end. Even my patience has limits.
Can any republican idiot read?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]
Can you? Where does it say the identity must remain secret?
That's part of securing his life and livelyhood.
Horseshit. All it says is that the agency that employs the whistleblower cannot take retaliatory personnel action against that employee.

No one else is subject to restrictions. You cannot add words to the law after the fact.
Have you ever heard of "the spirit of the law"?
 

edward37

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
25,444
Reaction score
2,263
Points
290
The whistleblower is almost irrelevant now that there are more than a few patriots that can back up his statements
Forget there is a law protecting a whistleblower his identity
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top