Ukraine Whistleblower May Not Testify In Person

[Markle]

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.

 

[edthecynic]

You can't get socked into a "perjury trap" if you don't lie!

Are you really that naive or are you throwing shade?

Why do you think Hillary, Bill and many others of both parties answer with, "I don't recall", I can't remember",

At just ONE of her hearings:
Here’s All 40 Times Hillary Clinton Told the FBI She Couldn’t Remember Something

Hillary Clinton ‘Can’t Recall’ in 21 of 25 Answers to Judicial Watch Lawsuit

Lying scum Reagan has them both beat combined!
Reagan Retains Charm but Not His Memory
The words “I don’t remember,” or their equivalents, occurred at least 124 times in his [Reagan's] eight hours of testimony.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The court will be run by Republicans. Trump simply isn't going to lose.

Haha, you are delusional. Republicans or not, they are far smarter than you short sighted cultists, and they know that their rulings will cover democrat presidents, too.

No, they won't even hear cases regarding congressional subpoenas. I know you pinned your hopes on the abortion fairy when he was confirmed, but they are not going to save your orange turd from being flushed.

 

[Markle]

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

Do you think that by enhancing your lies with a foolish explanation some folks will think it must be true?

NO one but you has even tried to explain away the transcript as not being a REAL transcript. Democrats and Progressives were thrown off base by President Donald Trump releasing the transcript so early.

Trump's Ukraine call transcript: Read the document

You just look foolish with this nonsense.

 

[Coyote]

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

Do you think that by enhancing your lies with a foolish explanation some folks will think it must be true?

NO one but you has even tried to explain away the transcript as not being a REAL transcript. Democrats and Progressives were thrown off base by President Donald Trump releasing the transcript so early.

Trump's Ukraine call transcript: Read the document

You just look foolish with this nonsense.

Prove it's a lie.

 

[Markle]

You can't get socked into a "perjury trap" if you don't lie!

Are you really that naive or are you throwing shade?

Why do you think Hillary, Bill and many others of both parties answer with, "I don't recall", I can't remember",

At just ONE of her hearings:
Here’s All 40 Times Hillary Clinton Told the FBI She Couldn’t Remember Something

Hillary Clinton ‘Can’t Recall’ in 21 of 25 Answers to Judicial Watch Lawsuit

Lying scum Reagan has them both beat combined!
Reagan Retains Charm but Not His Memory
The words “I don’t remember,” or their equivalents, occurred at least 124 times in his [Reagan's] eight hours of testimony.

So sad. How can someone so young make if from one day to the next filled with so much hate and vitriol? You either can't, or don't bother to read my post and I never called either of them vile names.

I did, however, include this in my post: "Why do you think Hillary, Bill and many others of both parties answer with, "I don't recall", I can't remember".

 

[edthecynic]

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

Do you think that by enhancing your lies with a foolish explanation some folks will think it must be true?

NO one but you has even tried to explain away the transcript as not being a REAL transcript. Democrats and Progressives were thrown off base by President Donald Trump releasing the transcript so early.

Trump's Ukraine call transcript: Read the document

You just look foolish with this nonsense.

From your own link:
CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.

 

[Markle]

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

Do you think that by enhancing your lies with a foolish explanation some folks will think it must be true?

NO one but you has even tried to explain away the transcript as not being a REAL transcript. Democrats and Progressives were thrown off base by President Donald Trump releasing the transcript so early.

Trump's Ukraine call transcript: Read the document

You just look foolish with this nonsense.

Prove it's a lie.

I did, I posted the transcript and even a copy of the first page. Where have you proved anything?

 

[MAGAman]

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

If they're not legitimate.

House subpoenas aren't absolute. Fishing expeditions aren legitimate.

Did you really think Congress has more power than the Executive?

 

[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?

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?

Ask her.

 

[Coyote]

I hope not, I really do. People need to look at this beyond a partisan lens.

Objectively observed, the whole thing is a fraud. I would give no quarter.

Objectively observed, I disagree.

And as an aside, if you take that route...what about tbe next whistleblower and the next...and the one that pops up when it is a Dem in the hot seat...what then?

The thing is...it isn’t like a whistleblower can fabricate something and a get awZy with it.

If the enemy party and the media want it, and prevents the opposing party from participating, it can.

It is checked on multiple levels. And in this case it was taken seriously by men who were Trump appointees.

If you're going to take what you think is a legitimate shot at the king, at least have the spine to show your face.

Of what Trump appointees do you speak?

Let’s agree to disagree on that for now. The more important point imo is this:

And as an aside, if you take that route...what about the next whistleblower and the next...and the one that pops up when it is a Dem in the hot seat...what then?

First line, last post.

Shot at the king...interesting. King.

So you think, no matter who's tits are in the wringer - the whistle blower should be exposed?

And face retaliation - death threats - threats against family - loss of job?

That would certainly prevent whistle blowing.

Is that good?

 

[Coyote]

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

If they're not legitimate.

House subpoenas aren't absolute. Fishing expeditions aren legitimate.

Did you really think Congress has more power than the Executive?

Co-Equal.

Something you folks forget.

 

[Coyote]

Poor psycho. Donald and his lions need to be kept as far from
The whistleblower as possible.

Where are all the "suicides" surrounding President Donald Trump? You know, like all those surrounding the Clinton cabal.

Let's not get into conspiracy theories.

 

[bripat9643]

The day the whistleblower testifies before the committee will be the day the name is leaked.

I hope not, I really do. People need to look at this beyond a partisan lens.

Objectively observed, the whole thing is a fraud. I would give no quarter.

Objectively observed, I disagree.

And as an aside, if you take that route...what about tbe next whistleblower and the next...and the one that pops up when it is a Dem in the hot seat...what then?

The thing is...it isn’t like a whistleblower can fabricate something and a get awZy with it. It is checked on multiple levels. And in this case it was taken seriously by men who were Trump appointees.

Just because they are a "whistle blower" doesn't mean they did it legally, they are telling the truth or that they should be believed.

Agree. That is why there is a system in place to determine whether it is credible.

It absolutely doesn't mean they have a right to anonymity or are immune to being questioned under subpoena especially when it's about the president.

Yes, per law it does mean they have a right to anonymity. Think about it. What whistle blower would dare raise his head if he could not be anonymous? Right or wrong - he'd be subject to firing, etc. by those who he was blowing the whistle on. Or death threats. Or murder.

But the whole "whistle blower" statue has to do with the intelligence community of which Trump is not a part so it doesn't even pertain to Trump. So the whole thing should be thrown out but God knows it won't be.

Trump is a part. He's the head of it all. And regardless - it does not change the law.

Let me ask you this: is the President exempt from whistle blowing?

Is that the system where the IG testifies before Congress that he's credible and then admits he hasn't read the complaint or the text of the phone call?

 

[bripat9643]

Protected by the deep state

Your scumbag heroes are the deep state, moron

And you are with your hero Putin.

Putin isn't my hero, dumbass. However, he worries me less than Congressional Democrats.

 

[Care4all]

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?

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

If they're not legitimate.

House subpoenas aren't absolute. Fishing expeditions aren legitimate.

Did you really think Congress has more power than the Executive?

Really now?

Can you show the law that says the person being subpoenaed gets to decide themselves whether it is legitimate?

Please list the US Code Statute.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Objectively observed, the whole thing is a fraud. I would give no quarter.

Objectively observed, I disagree.

And as an aside, if you take that route...what about tbe next whistleblower and the next...and the one that pops up when it is a Dem in the hot seat...what then?

The thing is...it isn’t like a whistleblower can fabricate something and a get awZy with it.

If the enemy party and the media want it, and prevents the opposing party from participating, it can.

It is checked on multiple levels. And in this case it was taken seriously by men who were Trump appointees.

If you're going to take what you think is a legitimate shot at the king, at least have the spine to show your face.

Of what Trump appointees do you speak?

Let’s agree to disagree on that for now. The more important point imo is this:

And as an aside, if you take that route...what about the next whistleblower and the next...and the one that pops up when it is a Dem in the hot seat...what then?

First line, last post.

Shot at the king...interesting. King.

So you think, no matter who's tits are in the wringer - the whistle blower should be exposed?

And face retaliation - death threats - threats against family - loss of job?

That would certainly prevent whistle blowing.

Is that good?

Why should the accuser be believed over the accused when only one side can question him? When one side clearly presents their case as a work of fiction from the committee chairman?

Fan of the Inquisition?

 

[AntonToo]

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

I don't see a problem with that. trump was given a take home test by Mueller for his lawyers to complete for him, because they knew he would be incapable of telling the truth.

And he failed even that buy refusing to answer any Obstruction questions.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

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

If they're not legitimate.

House subpoenas aren't absolute. Fishing expeditions aren legitimate.

Did you really think Congress has more power than the Executive?

Really now?

Can you show the law that says the person being subpoenaed gets to decide themselves whether it is legitimate?

Please list the US Code Statute.

When did the whistleblower witch hunt star chamber start following standard court procedure?

 

[bripat9643]

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

I don't see a problem with that. trump was given a take home test by Mueller for his lawyers to complete for him, because they knew he would be incapable of telling the truth.

And he failed even that buy refusing to answer any Obstruction questions.

He wasn't legally required to answer them. Furthermore, they were all designed to be perjury traps.