Ukraine Whistleblower May Not Testify In Person

[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

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

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

It will be like Mueller Part Two. Sound and fury signifying nothing. You realize this deep down.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

What part about it being THE LAW, that Whistle blowers are protected, that you do not understand?
. . .
they have to be working there to be a WB and get the protection of not being fired or intimidated in the work place.

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.

 

[Care4all]

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.

 

[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...

It will be like Mueller Part Two. Sound and fury signifying nothing. You realize this deep down.

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.

 

[CowboyTed]

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

Which one?
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?

 

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

 

[Care4all]

What part about it being THE LAW, that Whistle blowers are protected, that you do not understand?
. . .
they have to be working there to be a WB and get the protection of not being fired or intimidated in the work place.

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.

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.

 

[pknopp]

What part about it being THE LAW, that Whistle blowers are protected, that you do not understand?
. . .
they have to be working there to be a WB and get the protection of not being fired or intimidated in the work place.

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.

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.

 

[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. Fucking 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.

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.

 

[Bush92]

What part about it being THE LAW, that Whistle blowers are protected, that you do not understand?
. . .
they have to be working there to be a WB and get the protection of not being fired or intimidated in the work place.

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.

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.

That would require liberals to read the Constitution.

 

[Bush92]

I think we should send the team from Ghost Adventures to find the whistleblower. This is a specter.

 

[pknopp]

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.

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.

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.

If Presidential conversations were protected by executive priveledge in all cases the Watergate tapes would have been worthless.

 

[pknopp]

What part about it being THE LAW, that Whistle blowers are protected, that you do not understand?
. . .
they have to be working there to be a WB and get the protection of not being fired or intimidated in the work place.

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.

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.

That would require liberals to read the Constitution.

I don't think either side has any moral standing there.

 

[Care4all]

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.

That's not true though....

The Ukraine president initially released parts of what they said took place in the phone call.... and there was a part of what the Ukraine said that took place, that was NOT in the shortened summary version of the whitehouse.

the summary memorandum release had three spots that had 'ellipses' had the three dots... for "continued".... they were all at critical spots in the so called transcript

The whitehouse staff found this phone call so disturbing and damning, that they took the FULL transcript and deep sixed it in to a vault, where only ABOVE TOP SECRET, compartmental files, are kept... near no one, has access to them at that level...

Why would they do that, if the phone call was merely what the summary shows?

 

[Care4all]

What part about it being THE LAW, that Whistle blowers are protected, that you do not understand?
. . .
they have to be working there to be a WB and get the protection of not being fired or intimidated in the work place.

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.

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 whistle blower is not presenting any EVIDENCE....?

the whistle blower simply pointed to where there may be evidence, of wrong doing...

like me calling the cops if I see something fishy going on at a house on my block...
the cop/ investigator is the one who finds and gathers the evidence.

 

[pknopp]

What part about it being THE LAW, that Whistle blowers are protected, that you do not understand?
. . .
they have to be working there to be a WB and get the protection of not being fired or intimidated in the work place.

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.

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 whistle blower is not presenting any EVIDENCE....?

the whistle blower simply pointed to where they may be evidence, of wrong doing...

like me calling the cops if I see something fishy going on at house on my block...
the cop/ investigator is the one who finds and gathers the evidence.

No whistleblower....no case.

 

[Care4all]

What part about it being THE LAW, that Whistle blowers are protected, that you do not understand?
. . .
they have to be working there to be a WB and get the protection of not being fired or intimidated in the work place.

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.

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 whistle blower is not presenting any EVIDENCE....?

the whistle blower simply pointed to where they may be evidence, of wrong doing...

like me calling the cops if I see something fishy going on at house on my block...
the cop/ investigator is the one who finds and gathers the evidence.

No whistleblower....no case.

Well DUH!

That is the case with every whistle blower of wrong doing....

WE ENCOURAGE people within our gvt to be whistle blowers of wrong doings...

we recoup billions of dollars a year, from whistle blowers reporting what they believe is corruption to the IG..

many, if not MOST whistle blower complaints end up not being the corruption the whistle blower had thought,

and the IG's report after investigation, says such and the complaint is dismissed.

In THIS CASE, after the IG investigated the complaint and found actual evidence to support the complaint, the IG determined that this WB complaint, had some legs to it... was credible and urgent, and had to go to the Intelligence committee in Congress, according to the law.

(any credible, designated URGENT complaint, must go to Congress within 7 days of the IG report, under the law)

 

[2aguy]

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.

This is why they won't take an actual impeachment vote....as long as they have a pretend impeachment going, they can hide this guy from the Republicans and Trump.....

Besides....can anyone explain what this guy is going to say? Trump released the transcript of the call......we know what he said.

See, the strategy was to have the whistleblower lie about the call...which he did.....then a typical republican would have refused to turn over the transcript....simply because you don't do that sort of thing as a President.....but Trump being Trump, he released it...making these two whistleblowers into liars......

The Trump Boomerang effect is going to be vicious to the democrats.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

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 whistle blower is not presenting any EVIDENCE....?

the whistle blower simply pointed to where they may be evidence, of wrong doing...

like me calling the cops if I see something fishy going on at house on my block...
the cop/ investigator is the one who finds and gathers the evidence.

No whistleblower....no case.

Well DUH!

That is the case with every whistle blower of wrong doing....

WE ENCOURAGE people within our gvt to be whistle blowers of wrong doings...

we recoup billions of dollars a year, from whistle blowers reporting what they believe is corruption to the IG..

many, if not MOST whistle blower complaints end up not being the corruption the whistle blower had thought,

and the IG's report after investigation, says such and the complaint is dismissed.

In THIS CASE, after the IG investigated the complaint and found actual evidence to support the complaint, the IG determined that this WB complaint, had some legs to it... was credible and urgent, and had to go to the Intelligence committee in Congress, according to the law.

(any credible, designated URGENT complaint, must go to Congress within 7 days of the IG report, under the law)

Moron....we have the transcript of the call....nothing the whistleblower said happened, actually happened.....they had no first hand knowledge of the call, so they were relying on being able to lie about it without it being exposed...then Trump released the Transcript, showing that the whistleblowers are lying.......

You are a moron......and that "Urgent" thing....is a process thing, and has nothing to do with whether the complaint is actually real or not....you dipshit.

 

[Care4all]

Moron....we have the transcript of the call....

yes, we do have the shortened summary, and it says what the whistle blower says he was told by first handers... enough so to initiate this recommended by the IG, congressional investigation...