Whistleblower offers Republicans testimony

The U.S. official whose whistleblower complaint led to the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump offered to answer questions directly to Republicans on the intelligence committee leading the inquiry, one of his lawyers said on Sunday.

The whistleblower initially offered to answer questions in writing if submitted by the House Intelligence Committee as a whole. Zaid said the new offer, made on Saturday to top intelligence panel Republican Devin Nunes, reflected the client’s desire to have the complaint handled in a nonpartisan way.

Reuter s

This should put the uproar to rest. The testimony of the whistle-blower is not needed since the original complaint has been corroborated by witnesses, but this is just an additional, though unnecessary, step towards transparency. I welcome it. I believe we all should welcome it. Devin Nunes should waste no time replying.

...

But let's think about a hypothetical scenario for a minute here, please:

Let's say that I am in position of power, say a superintendent for a school district. And it was discovered by someone in the accounting department that I was embezzling company money. An investigation followed and what the person alleged in the complaint was found to be true. But I am furious at what is happening to me and I DEMAND that the name of the accountant who turned me in be released publicly.

Is that alright? What difference will the name of the accountant make at that point, other than give me the option to have my revenge on that person?

...

This whistle-blower is a pretty courageous person to be offering testimony when one is not even needed. Adds a new level to the definition of transparency, doesn't it?

originally posted by: Oraculi

The U.S. official whose whistleblower complaint led to the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump offered to answer questions directly to Republicans on the intelligence committee leading the inquiry, one of his lawyers said on Sunday.

The whistleblower initially offered to answer questions in writing if submitted by the House Intelligence Committee as a whole. Zaid said the new offer, made on Saturday to top intelligence panel Republican Devin Nunes, reflected the client’s desire to have the complaint handled in a nonpartisan way.

Reuter s

This should put the uproar to rest. The testimony of the whistle-blower is not needed since the original complaint has been corroborated by witnesses, but this is just an additional, though unnecessary, step towards transparency. I welcome it. I believe we all should welcome it. Devin Nunes should waste no time replying.

...

But let's think about a hypothetical scenario for a minute here, please:

Let's say that I am in position of power, say a superintendent for a school district. And it was discovered by someone in the accounting department that I was embezzling company money. An investigation followed and what the person alleged in the complaint was found to be true. But I am furious at what is happening to me and I DEMAND that the name of the accountant who turned me in be released publicly.

Is that alright? What difference will the name of the accountant make at that point, other than give me the option to have my revenge on that person?

...

This whistle-blower is a pretty courageous to be offering testimony when one is not even needed. Adds a new level to the definition of transparency, doesn't it?

Oh please...The whistleblower laws protect the employee from your retribution...But the laws don't protect his/her anonymity...

This lying creep needs to be present while the Republicans drill him about his lies...

a reply to: Oraculi

Still a nothing burger.
I am sure Schiff will not let the Republicans grill him about his ties to Biden, Brennan and Hillary because that will totally destroy his bullsh!t story about how Trump hurt his feelz.

a reply to: Iscool

This lying creep needs to be present while the Republicans drill him about his lies...

What did the whistleblower lie about? Here's a link to the complaint...www.usatoday.com...< br />
Can you show me where the lies are?

Doesn't he have the "right" to face his accuser? Isn't this just common sense? Or is just supposed to accept this guy's "opinion?"

Why not? Not sure I am fully understanding the op.

a reply to: Floridadreamin

Doesn't he have the "right" to face his accuser?

That right is afforded defendants during criminal prosecution, usually during cross examination.

Impeachment isn't criminal prosecution and these hearing aren't a trial.

Another clever ruse 😃

a reply to: Oraculi

If they (Schiff and Pelosi) will ALLOW the whistle blower to be question by Republicans without interference then that would be wonderful- though it remains to be seen.

As far as the whistle blowers identity being revealed the laws of our country demand that the accused must be able to face their accuser. While you state that the only reason for this would be revenge I beg to differ. The reason is so that it can be proven one way or the other whether or not the accusations themselves are or are not biased or false and made as a form of attack- such as a vendetta, It is one thing to accuse someone of something, quite another to show that the accusations are not part of a revenge or personal attack scheme. The accusers integrity must be determined.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So the impeachment inquiry is about the aid, yes? Quid-pro-quo in the phone call?

This complaint says that the call in question happened on July 25th? And at the very bottom it states that:

On 18 July, an Office of Management and Budget (0MB) official informed Departments and Agencies that the President "earlier that month" had issued instructions to suspend all U.S. security assistance to Ukraine. Neither OMB nor the NSC staff knew why this instruction had been issued. During interagency meetings on 23 July and 26 July, OMB officials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend this assistance had come directly from the President, but they still were unaware of a policy rationale.

So, before the July 25th phone call, where the supposed quid-pro-quo of "do this thing for me or stop receiving aid" happened, the instructions to suspend aid were given well before that call.

Or have we moved to something else in this farce.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Iscool

This lying creep needs to be present while the Republicans drill him about his lies...

What did the whistleblower lie about? Here's a link to the complaint...www.usatoday.com...< br />
Can you show me where the lies are?

The whistleblower lied on the form when he said that he had no contact with Congress before making his complaint.
Councidentally, Adam Schiff also lied when he stated that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower.

How do we know the whistleblower is who (s)he says (s)he is, without knowing the person's identity? For all we know, it could be a homeless person that was paid 100 bucks for his time.

a reply to: Oraculi

What difference will the name of the accountant make at that point, other than give me the option to have my revenge on that person?

Revenge is all Republicans want. How dare someone expose anything unethical they’ve been a part of.

The real crime is reporting the crime.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Oraculi

What difference will the name of the accountant make at that point, other than give me the option to have my revenge on that person?

Revenge is all Republicans want. How dare someone expose anything unethical they’ve been a part of.

The real crime is reporting the crime.

Whelp, you're a pedophile. I saw you with a young looking person.

See how that works?

a reply to: Oraculi
The hypothetical posited requires us to take the astronomical leap that he chose to be a whistleblower because of actual wrong-doing and not a trumped up lie in order to exact revenge on behalf of a group to which he belongs and works for who gain much be propagating such a charge in order to wrest control from a much-hated foe. The fact that the guy it is being suggested who blew his whistle is a partisan Democrat who went to Schiff first makes this seem questionable at best, and just another coup attempt against Trump at worst. That doesn’t pass the sniff test for me. In that case, no not brave at all...just another slimy political hack trying to being down the President because the democrat-led coup against a duly elected President didn’t work.

a reply to: butcherguy

The whistleblower lied on the form when he said that he had no contact with Congress before making his complaint.

Is that a question on the form? Do you have a link to the form the whistle blower filled out?

Councidentally, Adam Schiff also lied when he stated that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower.

Maybe Schiff lied, maybe he didn't. What does that have to do with the whistleblower's integrity or the integrity of their complaint?

originally posted by: SourGrapes
How do we know the whistleblower is who (s)he says (s)he is, without knowing the person's identity? For all we know, it could be a homeless person that was paid 100 bucks for his time.

Because the Intelligence Community Inspector General verified his status and found his complaint to be "urgent and credible".

Let's say a coke whore flags down a police officer and tells him that she saw 2 men burying bodies in a vacant lot. The officer follows up and finds two men in the process of burying some dead bodies. Does it matter that the tip came from a coke whore?

originally posted by: Floridadreamin
Doesn't he have the "right" to face his accuser? Isn't this just common sense? Or is just supposed to accept this guy's "opinion?"

Why not? Not sure I am fully understanding the op.

Nothing wrong with not understanding. Allow me to explain.

He is actually facing his accusers right now, except the White House has had zero strategy on how to defend against the accusers.

Numerous witnesses have come forward and have given testimony, under oath, corroborating everything the original complaint indicated. These witnesses are the accusers. And they have accused him in public. And he admitted to doing it in public.

So he is facing his accusers daily. It's just that he and his team have nothing to retort with, because everything being said is true.

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: Floridadreamin
Doesn't he have the "right" to face his accuser? Isn't this just common sense? Or is just supposed to accept this guy's "opinion?"

Why not? Not sure I am fully understanding the op.

Nothing wrong with not understanding. Allow me to explain.

He is actually facing his accusers right now, except the White House has had zero strategy on how to defend against the accusers.

Numerous witnesses have come forward and have given testimony, under oath, corroborating everything the original complaint indicated. These witnesses are the accusers. And they have accused him in public. And he admitted to doing it in public.

So he is facing his accusers daily. It's just that he and his team have nothing to retort with, because everything being said is true.

Yeah, but they've all passed through Schiff's School of Witness Coaching too, I bet.

a reply to: SourGrapes

To give it equal billing to the original whistleblower someone would have had to tell you that they saw him with a young person. You wouldn’t have actually seen anything to testify to, in this case.

a reply to: Oraculi

No it should not and will not put that issue to rest. There is a massive difference between answering questions in writing and answering them under questioning by a person.

As for the comment about answering questions you are ignoring the fact that Shiff has prevented him from answering questions posed by Republicans.