Ukraine Whistleblower May Not Testify In Person

[Osiris-ODS]

. . .
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)

As I already stated above, the phrase "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 align with the legal elements of the alleged wrongdoing.

I'm trying to help with this discussion from a legal perspective, but you seem to be making things up at this point to fit whatever point you want to make and ignoring my posts when they don't fit with your position, so I'm going to stop wasting my time here. It's very frustrating trying to have a productive discussion (and perhaps help shed some light on a complex subject) with someone who has no interest in being open minded and objective.

 

[Care4all]

As I already stated above, the phrase "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 align with the legal elements of the alleged wrongdoing.

Agree! Urgent is simply a designation of the complaint, meeting the spelled out requirements to be urgent...

including requirements of getting the IG report to congress within 7 days, of which the administration DID NOT DO.

for any other WB report alleged wrong doings, it would be then passed on to the DOJ and then to FBI or Treasury corruption units to investigate and gather evidence to use in a court of law/prosecution.

The president is different, it's not a criminal investigation or criminal trial...

it is an impeachment investigation or an impeachment trial, with absolutely no criminal punishment.

 

[Lesh]

No whistleblower....no case.

The whistleblower alerted us to the phone call.

The genie is out of the bottle

 

[Care4all]

I'm trying to help with this discussion from a legal perspective, but you seem to be making things up at this point to fit whatever point you want to make and ignoring my posts when they don't fit with your position, so I'm going to stop wasting my time here. It's very frustrating trying to have a productive discussion (and perhaps help shed some light on a complex subject) with someone who has no interest in being open minded and objective.

I'm not trying to ignore you, I am as quickly as possible, trying to respond to your posts and

obiwan, pknop, bush 2,sweatsue, 2 aguy posts...

it's little ole me

against the world!

granted, I like to argue the argument... debate, that's why I am here on this site... but 6 against one, is getting a little difficult, to do it justice...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Until the whistleblower is produced, it exists only in the minds of Democrats.

With the Democrats engaging Kafka as their backstop, their is no reason to believe such a one exists.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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...

WOW....

The accused is guilty...And anyone lying is OK with you until its YOU that is the target... FOOL!

 

[Billy_Bob]

the phrase "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 align with the legal elements of the alleged wrongdoing.

And when improperly applied gives credibility where none exists. 2nd hand info is not credible in any court.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No whistleblower....no case.

The whistleblower alerted us to the phone call.

The genie is out of the bottle

And the phone call is a nothing burger....

 

[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...

WOW....

The accused is guilty...And anyone lying is OK with you until its YOU that is the target... FOOL!

what?

the accused is not guilty until found guilty, in a trial in the Senate, where he has the opportunity, to defend himself... is that too hard to understand??

 

[pknopp]

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)

It might be credible. That wasn't my argument.

 

[pknopp]

No whistleblower....no case.

The whistleblower alerted us to the phone call.

The genie is out of the bottle

That's fine but not what I argued.

 

[The Original Tree]

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

They want to allow this Piece of Shit DemNazi Lawfirm to have a bunch of attorneys prepare a written testimony for him.

Guarantee you, that this was planned all along and Adam Shit Face and Nazi Pelosi already have agreed to it in advance.

So much for Due Process, Facing your Accusers, or Cross Examining Anyone.

More Secret Proceedings from The Deep State to continue their quest for a successful COUP.

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

Democrats are paid to assault and DOX Trump Supporters. Since when has The GOP paid protestors to do this kind of treacherous Evil thing that is a normal daily occurrence in LibPhuckistan?

Using your argument, Trump should never release his tax returns because the violent left will dox his employees, and attack his businesses, so he needs to protect his businesses, and his employees lives.

 

[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

They want to allow this Piece of Shit DemNazi Lawfirm to have a bunch of attorneys prepare a written testimony for him.

Guarantee you, that this was planned all along and Adam Shit Face and Nazi Pelosi already have agreed to it in advance.

So much for Due Process, Facing your Accusers, or Cross Examining Anyone.

More Secret Proceedings from The Deep State to continue their quest for a successful COUP.

he has not been charged with anything yet, nor has he gone to trial, where he has his due process... this is the investigative stage... the gathering facts stage.... like a grand jury stage.... before charges are filed, if any!

 

[The Original Tree]

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

They want to allow this Piece of Shit DemNazi Lawfirm to have a bunch of attorneys prepare a written testimony for him.

Guarantee you, that this was planned all along and Adam Shit Face and Nazi Pelosi already have agreed to it in advance.

So much for Due Process, Facing your Accusers, or Cross Examining Anyone.

More Secret Proceedings from The Deep State to continue their quest for a successful COUP.

he has not been charged with anything yet, nor has he gone to trial, where he has his due process... this is the investigative stage... the gathering facts stage.... like a grand jury stage.... before charges are filed, if any!

There is no Investigation. They cannot even subpoena anyone.

There is no such thing as an Impeachment Inquiry. A Special Counsel Usually heads stuff like that up, and it has to have Bi-partisan Support.

You already tried that with Mueller and you struck out and fell flat on your face.

The Mueller Investigation produced ZERO recommendations for indictment.

 

[lennypartiv]

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

It's an illegal impeachment.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Manonthestreet]

For all we know Schiff is "the whistleblower" which is why they cant reveal them

 

[lennypartiv]

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

You have your facts, we have our facts. The president will not be impeached. He did nothing wrong with the Ukrainian leader.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

You people might present some, then.

Or not.