Ukraine Whistleblower May Not Testify In Person

[Care4all]

If they do not testify in person this goes nowhere. A person has a legal right to face their accuser.

it's not a civil suit

there is no him against him

Trump has to defend himself against the actual articles of impeachment....

the WB has nothing to do with that....

 

[Obiwan]

this is not a he said she/he said....

it's not the WB word against someone else's?

in the trial, it's the wrong doing itself of the person on trial that is being argued... did they or did they not, commit the crime?

the WB or the person who saw something, that said something should have nothing to do with the trial...

Then any information the whistleblower gives should automatically be excluded, and not even be considered in the process, since you're obviously claiming it's not being used as "evidence"...

But, wait...

THAT means the Democrats don't have jack shit, right???

 

[Care4all]

this is not a he said she/he said....

it's not the WB word against someone else's?

in the trial, it's the wrong doing itself of the person on trial that is being argued... did they or did they not, commit the crime?

the WB or the person who saw something, that said something should have nothing to do with the trial...

Then any information the whistleblower gives should automatically be excluded, and not even be considered in the process, since you're obviously claiming it's not being used as "evidence"...


But, wait...

THAT means the Democrats don't have jack shit, right???

what he said is not being used as evidence.... no one took his word for it....

the IG found evidence, to support the complaint, and they have Trump confessing on National TV to what the WB had complained about....

The IG found the complaint of wrong doing both credible and urgent....

So if I see what I think is a crime, and I report what I think is a crime to law enforcement, and then go on my merry way....

And the perp' is caught red handed committing the crime by the cops....

Are you saying that because I was the one who called the cops to check it out,

that I have to be questioned by the crook's lawyer at his trial for his wrong doing, because I was the one who called the cops?

It just does NOT work that way OBIWAN

 

[Osiris-ODS]

I don't know why the person who reports a crime would ever be questioned if a trial takes place?

if i called the police because i thought someone was breaking in to a house across the street, cops come and find someone had broken in the house across the st and caught the burglar red handed....

would I be called in to this burglar's trial by his lawyers because I called the cops to check it out?

makes no sense...???

Because the "whistleblower complaint" is the predicate for the impeachment, making the person who filed it a material witness. Your analogy is inapposite, as you did not identify the perpetrator or provide any material facts to law enforcement.

A more appropriate analogy would be someone going to the police station after a crime was committed and filing a report -- in which case, if that person's statements were used as a basis to pursue a criminal investigation or conviction, the Confrontation Clause under the Sixth Amendment would apply, subjecting the person to cross-examination by the defendant or else the information (statements and the fruits thereof) would be rendered inadmissible as testimonial hearsay under the Sixth Amendment.

what he said is not being used as evidence.... no one took his word for it....

the IG found evidence, to support the complaint, and they have Trump confessing on National TV to what the WB had complained about....

The IG found the complaint of wrong doing both credible and urgent....

As indicated above, if the information was used as the basis for a criminal investigation that is used to pursue a conviction, then it is subject to the Confrontation Clause or else it will be suppressed as inadmissible testimonial hearsay. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Confrontation Clause has been extremely expansive in recent rulings.

Secondly, one of the talking points by people on the left is the so-called "missing 18 minutes" when comparing the whistleblower complaint to the transcript. So if there is any allegation that the transcript is incomplete, and that the conversation was instead consistent with the claims made in the whistleblower complaint, then the whistleblower complaint is most definitely testimonial hearsay under the Sixth Amendment and subject to the Confrontation Clause. As an aside, "credible and urgent" is a statutory term--not the ICIG's own words--and it has a very low bar. It does not require evidence, but merely requires that the conduct alleged aligns with the legal elements the alleged wrongdoing.

No offense intended, but statements like yours serve as a good illustration for why judges are reticent to allow a layperson to handle their own criminal defense.

 

[Care4all]

I don't know why the person who reports a crime would ever be questioned if a trial takes place?

if i called the police because i thought someone was breaking in to a house across the street, cops come and find someone had broken in the house across the st and caught the burglar red handed....

would I be called in to this burglar's trial by his lawyers because I called the cops to check it out?

makes no sense...???

Because the "whistleblower complaint" is the predicate for the impeachment, making the person who filed it a material witness. Your analogy is inapposite, as you did not identify the perpetrator or provide any material facts to law enforcement. A more appropriate analogy would be someone going to the police station after a crime was committed and filing a report -- in which case, if that person's statements were used as a basis to pursue a criminal investigation or conviction, the Confrontation Clause under the Sixth Amendment would apply, subjecting the person to cross-examination by the defendant or else the information (statements and the fruits thereof) would be rendered inadmissible as testimonial hearsay under the Sixth Amendment.

If there were no crime when the cops or IG or congress arrives to check it out, then in this case, there would be NO impeachment.

no one is taking the 2nd hand WB complaint at his word and are 'charging' the president with articles of impeachment, via the WB's words....

it's the EVIDENCE of such wrong doing or crime, that has to be refuted in trial, not the person that called the cops to report it..

 

[Bush92]

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. ******* coward.

 

[Care4all]

You've all been brainwashed to think the WB is who you need to attack and all that crap, to keep you from actually looking at the EVIDENCE in hand....

It's just crazy crazy crazy!

 

[Bush92]

I don't know why the person who reports a crime would ever be questioned if a trial takes place?

if i called the police because i thought someone was breaking in to a house across the street, cops come and find someone had broken in the house across the st and caught the burglar red handed....

would I be called in to this burglar's trial by his lawyers because I called the cops to check it out?

makes no sense...???

Because the "whistleblower complaint" is the predicate for the impeachment, making the person who filed it a material witness. Your analogy is inapposite, as you did not identify the perpetrator or provide any material facts to law enforcement. A more appropriate analogy would be someone going to the police station after a crime was committed and filing a report -- in which case, if that person's statements were used as a basis to pursue a criminal investigation or conviction, the Confrontation Clause under the Sixth Amendment would apply, subjecting the person to cross-examination by the defendant or else the information (statements and the fruits thereof) would be rendered inadmissible as testimonial hearsay under the Sixth Amendment.

If there were no crime when the cops or IG or congress arrives to check it out, then in this case, there would be NO impeachment.

no one is taking the 2nd hand WB complaint at his word and are 'charging' the president with articles of impeachment, via the WB's words....

it's the EVIDENCE of such wrong doing or crime, that has to be refuted in trial, not the person that called the cops to report it..

Whistleblower is a coward. Political spy and hack for the Socialist Democratic Party. Can’t have commies in the White House.

 

[Care4all]

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. ******* coward.

What part about it being THE LAW, that Whistle blowers are protected, that you do not understand?

And NO it is not Brennan...

The WB is an ACTIVE employee and this is why he or she can be involved with the WB ACT,

they have to be working there to be a WB and get the protection of not being fired or intimidated in the work place.

 

[SweetSue92]

You've all been brainwashed to think the WB is who you need to attack and all that crap, to keep you from actually looking at the EVIDENCE in hand....

It's just crazy crazy crazy!

The evidence is that the Dem nuts will do anything, say anything, make up anything to get Trump out of office...and this has made up the ENTIRETY of their 2 year term. When this one blows up too, they will be coming to voters completely empty-handed in 2020

Good luck with that sweetheart

 

[Care4all]

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

not about anything else....

the actual physical EVIDENCE matters naught.....

just plain nuttiness!

 

[Care4all]

You've all been brainwashed to think the WB is who you need to attack and all that crap, to keep you from actually looking at the EVIDENCE in hand....

It's just crazy crazy crazy!

The evidence is that the Dem nuts will do anything, say anything, make up anything to get Trump out of office...and this has made up the ENTIRETY of their 2 year term. When this one blows up too, they will be coming to voters completely empty-handed in 2020

Good luck with that sweetheart

Evidence, is evidence.... facts are facts.

I can't live in this alternative reality show that you live in.... I just can't...

 

[Osiris-ODS]

If there were no crime when the cops or IG or congress arrives to check it out, then in this case, there would be NO impeachment.

no one is taking the 2nd hand WB complaint at his word and are 'charging' the president with articles of impeachment, via the WB's words....

it's the EVIDENCE of such wrong doing or crime, that has to be refuted in trial, not the person that called the cops to report it..

I edited my post prior to you posting this, which added a response to one of your other posts and addressed the meat of this. I'll refer you back to my edited post rather than re-state all of that here.

Long story short, you are 100% incorrect. Under the circumstances of our hypothetical, the information in the report and the fruits of any investigation arising from the report are subject to the Confrontation Clause under the Sixth Amendment, and the defendant is entitled to cross-examination or else all of the information would be suppressed as inadmissible testimonial hearsay.

 

[Obiwan]

this is not a he said she/he said....

it's not the WB word against someone else's?

in the trial, it's the wrong doing itself of the person on trial that is being argued... did they or did they not, commit the crime?

the WB or the person who saw something, that said something should have nothing to do with the trial...

Then any information the whistleblower gives should automatically be excluded, and not even be considered in the process, since you're obviously claiming it's not being used as "evidence"...


But, wait...

THAT means the Democrats don't have jack shit, right???

what he said is not being used as evidence.... no one took his word for it....

the IG found evidence, to support the complaint, and they have Trump confessing on National TV to what the WB had complained about....

The IG found the complaint of wrong doing both credible and urgent....

So if I see what I think is a crime, and I report what I think is a crime to law enforcement, and then go on my merry way....

And the perp' is caught red handed committing the crime by the cops....

Are you saying that because I was the one who called the cops to check it out,

that I have to be questioned by the crook's lawyer at his trial for his wrong doing, because I was the one who called the cops?

It just does NOT work that way OBIWAN

Great!!!

So the Democrats don't need anything the whistleblower said, right???

Then don't use ANY of it...

After all, he's refusing to show up and verify the information in person...

Just remind "Shiffty Shitt" that "I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend" doesn't cut it on the burden of proof, and means ANYTHING the whistleblower told them is TOTALLY INADMISSABLE!!!

 

[Care4all]

this is not a he said she/he said....

it's not the WB word against someone else's?

in the trial, it's the wrong doing itself of the person on trial that is being argued... did they or did they not, commit the crime?

the WB or the person who saw something, that said something should have nothing to do with the trial...

Then any information the whistleblower gives should automatically be excluded, and not even be considered in the process, since you're obviously claiming it's not being used as "evidence"...


But, wait...

THAT means the Democrats don't have jack shit, right???

what he said is not being used as evidence.... no one took his word for it....

the IG found evidence, to support the complaint, and they have Trump confessing on National TV to what the WB had complained about....

The IG found the complaint of wrong doing both credible and urgent....

So if I see what I think is a crime, and I report what I think is a crime to law enforcement, and then go on my merry way....

And the perp' is caught red handed committing the crime by the cops....

Are you saying that because I was the one who called the cops to check it out,

that I have to be questioned by the crook's lawyer at his trial for his wrong doing, because I was the one who called the cops?

It just does NOT work that way OBIWAN

Great!!!

So the Democrats don't need anything the whistleblower said, right???

Then don't use ANY of it...

After all, he's refusing to show up and verify the information in person...

Just remind "Shiffty Shitt" that "I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend" doesn't cut it on the burden of proof, and means ANYTHING the whistleblower told them is TOTALLY INADMISSABLE!!!

They are not using anyone's word or 2nd hand info, if he's impeached, it will be with EVIDENCE in hand, as with all criminal trials.

refute the evidence, not the person who pointed to the the evidence.

evidence, is evidence, not someone's word.

 

[Care4all]

Why are ya'll so consumed with who reported the wrong doing, VERSES THE WRONG DOING ITSELF?

shouldn't you be trying to refute the actual evidence of wrong doing?

 

[Care4all]

If there were no crime when the cops or IG or congress arrives to check it out, then in this case, there would be NO impeachment.

no one is taking the 2nd hand WB complaint at his word and are 'charging' the president with articles of impeachment, via the WB's words....

it's the EVIDENCE of such wrong doing or crime, that has to be refuted in trial, not the person that called the cops to report it..

I edited my post prior to you posting this, which added a response to one of your other posts and addressed the meat of this. I'll refer you back to my edited post rather than re-state all of that here.

Long story short, you are 100% incorrect. Under the circumstances of our hypothetical, the information in the report and the fruits of any investigation arising from the report are subject to the Confrontation Clause under the Sixth Amendment, and the defendant is entitled to cross-examination or else all of the information would be suppressed as inadmissible testimonial hearsay.

but they are NOT using the testimony of the WB in the trial.... the WB report will not be used in the trial either,

so I don't think what you are saying applies.

If it were the whistle blower's word, against the president's word, then you'd have a point...

 

[Care4all]

this is not a he said she/he said....

it's not the WB word against someone else's?

in the trial, it's the wrong doing itself of the person on trial that is being argued... did they or did they not, commit the crime?

the WB or the person who saw something, that said something should have nothing to do with the trial...

Then any information the whistleblower gives should automatically be excluded, and not even be considered in the process, since you're obviously claiming it's not being used as "evidence"...


But, wait...

THAT means the Democrats don't have jack shit, right???

what he said is not being used as evidence.... no one took his word for it....

the IG found evidence, to support the complaint, and they have Trump confessing on National TV to what the WB had complained about....

The IG found the complaint of wrong doing both credible and urgent....

So if I see what I think is a crime, and I report what I think is a crime to law enforcement, and then go on my merry way....

And the perp' is caught red handed committing the crime by the cops....

Are you saying that because I was the one who called the cops to check it out,

that I have to be questioned by the crook's lawyer at his trial for his wrong doing, because I was the one who called the cops?

It just does NOT work that way OBIWAN

Great!!!

So the Democrats don't need anything the whistleblower said, right???

Then don't use ANY of it...

After all, he's refusing to show up and verify the information in person...

Just remind "Shiffty Shitt" that "I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend" doesn't cut it on the burden of proof, and means ANYTHING the whistleblower told them is TOTALLY INADMISSABLE!!!

What ever he said, or the complaint itself that was filed, will NOT be used in the trial.

Evidence and facts will be used in the trial, if there is a trial.

If they do not have the EVIDENCE or FACTS that show a wrong doing, then there will be no trial.

 

[pknopp]

this is not a he said she/he said....

it's not the WB word against someone else's?

in the trial, it's the wrong doing itself of the person on trial that is being argued... did they or did they not, commit the crime?

the WB or the person who saw something, that said something should have nothing to do with the trial...

Doesn't work that way.

 

[pknopp]

If they do not testify in person this goes nowhere. A person has a legal right to face their accuser.

it's not a civil suit

there is no him against him

Trump has to defend himself against the actual articles of impeachment....

the WB has nothing to do with that....

So it isn't going anywhere then........