Whistleblower offers Republicans testimony

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

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

What questions have the Republicans tried to ask the whistleblower, and in what venue, that Schiff has authority to order the "witness" to not answer a question?

Citation please.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Schiff Blocked Witness From Answering Crucial Questions During Impeachment Hearing: Congress Members

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said at a press conference that Schiff wouldn’t allow Vindman to answer some questions from Republicans during the impeachment hearing.

“When we asked who he spoke to after important events in July—Adam Schiff says, ‘no, no, no, we’re not going to let him answer that question,”‘ Jordan said.

“Adam Schiff, among many things, has been trying to claim that this is a fair process by saying that Republicans are allowed to ask questions,” Scalise added.

“Now he gets to choose all the witnesses, and him and himself only, which means it’s not a fair process on the face. But even his claim now, that Republicans can ask questions, has been undermined because now he’s directing witnesses not to answer questions that he doesn’t want the witness to answer if they’re asked by Republicans.”

“He’s not cut off one Democrat, he’s not interrupted one Democrat and told a witness not to answer Democrat members’ questions, but today he started telling the witness not to answer questions by certain Republicans. That reeks,” Scalise said.

Being able to face your accuser in legal proceedings is a basic human right protected by our Constitution.

originally posted by: Jason79
Being able to face your accuser in legal proceedings is a basic human right protected by our Constitution.

and as much as I hate to say this that is not correct for a grand jury, which the house is technically acting as.

In a grand jury it is run by the prosecutor. The prosecutor decides what witnesses to call and what evidence to present for consideration. People who are subpoenaed are not entitled to have a lawyer present during their testimony. They also use a lower legal threshold, preponderance of evidence, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt in order to indict.

Representation and equality occurs from when the person who was indicted in asked by a court for their plea - guilty or not guilty. Thats when evidence / witnesses etc are turned over to the defense and we go from there.

Now here is the problem.

Impeachment is not based on US criminal law. Impeachment falls under the political question doctrine and is governed by house rules. High crimes and misdemeanors are defined by Congress and not law.

Because of this and the way Democrats have restricted the ability of Republicans in the House to fair hearings (as was done in other impeachments setting a precedent in their political world) it is a problem.

Impeachment is not and has never been intended to be used to remove a President because the opposing party lost an election and dont like potus. That is whats occurring now and the questions that are being blocked would lead to exposing this latest attempt by democrats as what it is - another coup attempt.

The Lt. Col in question testified he had issues with what Trump stated because it undermined, in his opinion, US foreign policy. The problem here is US foreign policy, per the Constitution, is set by the President and not the bureaucrats.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Schiff wouldn’t allow Vindman to answer some questions from Republicans during the impeachment hearing.

Vindman isn't the whistle blower. Plus, Jim Jordon was first asking Vindman his party affiliation, Democrat or Republican, which is an inappropriate question to ask a military a civil servant.

Then Jorden asked him to name everyone he had expressed his concerns to, which would force him to reveal the whistleblower's name.

If Jim Jordon has a right to know who the whistleblower is, he should get the courts, not the witnesses to reveal the name. He/the Trump admin, should sue for it. In my opinion...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The "whistleblower" does not meet legal criteria to be considered one. Secondly it is hearsay which no court will accept. third the person actually broke the law by doing what he did and the ICIG did the same when he decided to back a policy change that changed the requirement of having direct knowledge.

Blocking questions to any of the people called as a witness is a non starter and smack of democrat desperation.


have you not bothered to ask yourself the question of why this was placed with the intelligence committee and not the judicial committee? By doing this they can hide the depositions and info, can block member of congress from hearing / reviewing evidence / documents / testimony and finally the 3 big hitters for Republicans are based in the judicial committee and not intelligence.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The "whistleblower" does not meet legal criteria to be considered one.

Tell it to the ICIG.

Secondly it is hearsay which no court will accept.

The Whistleblower named his sources, who it seems are now giving depositions behind closed doors.

third the person actually broke the law by doing what he did and the ICIG did the same when he decided to back a policy change that changed the requirement of having direct knowledge.

That is just not true. The "law" has not changed, even if the form was changed (to reflect the law).

have you not bothered to ask yourself the question of why this was placed with the intelligence committee and not the judicial committee?

Yes, and I found the answer. This is a preliminary inquiry. When their work is finished, and public hearings have been held, the findings will go to the Judiciary Committee, who will then craft the Articles of Impeachment.

Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process. That's why you see political strategies being played out, on both sides, much to the chagrin of most Americans.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Tell it to the ICIG.

Its already been pointed out.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The Whistleblower named his sources, who it seems are now giving depositions behind closed doors.

The whistleblower himself has never been officially named nor called to testify. Schiff has stated he is not needed so wont be calling him. Secondly hearsay is not allowed and the ICIG changed the whistleblower policy in order to try and sneak this complaint in under the radar.

ICIG Admits it Changed Whistleblower Rules BECAUSE of the Anti-Trump Complaint

The original complainant is not a whistleblower and he and whomever he named as his source violated federal law. Hence the reason schiff blocked the Lt. Col. from answering Republican questions.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
That is just not true. The "law" has not changed, even if the form was changed (to reflect the law).

Yes it is true.
ICIG Admits it Changed Whistleblower Rules BECAUSE of the Anti-Trump Complaint

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Yes, and I found the answer. This is a preliminary inquiry. When their work is finished, and public hearings have been held, the findings will go to the Judiciary Committee, who will then craft the Articles of Impeachment.

Something about putting lipstick on a pig comes to mind with that mindset.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process. That's why you see political strategies being played out, on both sides, much to the chagrin of most Americans.

Yup I already covered that in my other post however the part you are ignoring is impeachment is not to be used because one party lost an election and doesnt like the current potus.

Which is exactly whats occurring here.

The only way Eric Ciaramella can testify in an open public setting is if he pleads the 5th on every single questions.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

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?

A false analogy to apply to this situation. Interesting mental gymnastics though.

So a 33 year old liberal idealogue disagrees with the presidents policies...

He hears about a phone call and disagrees with the presidents legal policies and requests.

He then shuts down the government....

FYI, this is not an impeachment inquiry....it’s a n attempted soft coup by an unelected ruling class of governmental bureaucrats...

-Chris

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

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?

Meeting with the democrats first and basically saying they "felt" there was something wrong, is not really a lie, and it is not really the truth either.

a reply to: underwerks

You're delusional.

This second hand "whistle blower" is a partisan operative.

He worked directly with Biden and Brennan.

He was removed from the White House due to concerns over leaking.

He met with Schiff/Schiff's staff prior to filing his complaint.

He lied about that contact on his form, as did schiff.

He met with Alexandra chalupa (the DNC operative who sought Ukraine's help digging up dirt on Manafort during the 2016 campaign) at the White House in 2016.

This guy likely has bigger problems than testifying to congress, in the form of a man named Durham.

a reply to: elDooberino

He was also reprimanded for partisan behavior during military exercises.

The other weird thing not discussed is he has an identical twin brother who is also a Lt. Col. in the military and assigned to the same job as his brother.

Schiff star witness Alex Vindman reprimanded for partisan behavior during military exercise

twitter.com...

Well this is interesting...

twitter.com...

Sara A. Carter
@SaraCarterDC
#BREAKING:

@OANN
identifies the #Ukraine #whistleblower by name and gives HIM the opportunity to deny. (WATCH VIDEO)
OAN gives alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella the opportunity to...
One America News reporter Neil W. McCabe followed up on information from multiple sources that the alleged whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, was hiding out at ...
youtube.com

The "whistleblower" complaint was filed 1 day after Mueller testified to Congress, dashing the hopes of Democrats who were waiting for Mueller to end Trumps presidency.

Apparently when that didnt work they went with this "whistleblower" as plan Z.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You're thinking of Vindman (the likely leaker to the "whistleblower") who has his own set of issues.

The "whistleblower" is, in all likelihood, Ciaramella.

www.realclearinvestigations.com...

Not in the above article, the possibility that he is also the "charlie" referred to in some of the Page/Strzok texts discussing a CI in the white house.

www.zerohedge.com...

Spread it round!

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
No Political Trolling.....either in words or images. Please read new thread.

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: butcherguy

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.

Here's a timeline of the Ukraine controversy events:

www.washingtonpost.com...

If you cut through all the stuff that doesn't involve the whistleblower directly, it turns out that the whistleblower actually attempted to file the complaint twice. The whistleblower is a CIA employee. He/she first submitted the complaint up through the CIA chain of command. At that point in time, it was true that the whistleblower had had no contact with Congress--so, no lying involved. The CIA told the White House and the DOJ about the complaint and the White House instructed them to not put the complaint forward to Congress, and they complied with that instruction. The Whistleblower then contacted the Congressional staff directly, which the law allows them to do. The staff told the Whistleblower to resubmit the complaint through the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which he/she did. The Inspector General for ODNI investigated the complaint and found it credible and urgent and recommended to the acting DNI that it should be reported to Congress. The White House instructed the acting DNI to not forward it to Congress and he complied. Eventually (Sept. 26) the White House relented and published the complaint.

It is one thing for Adam Schiff and his lawyers to answer any/all queries for this Major from the Republicans.
It is an entire other thing to have this Military Officer answer these questions in an open forum in real time.

As a retired member of the armed forces, I cannot fathom doing what he has done. I was not a fan of Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama. But I would never have dreamed of attempting to aid their political foes.

His whistle blowing statement is nothing more than his opinion. The fact that he could not foresee this "truth" puts him in the Christine Blasey Ford category. And the outcome will be the same as the Kavanaugh hearings as well. Just more blowing smoke by the insanity of the left.

Where is this man's Commanding Officer or General when he needed them?

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?

You linked to USA Today you yourself provided the answer for your own question. Post a link to a reputable [cough cough] source. USA Today has been a garbage newspaper since I first read it as a night auditor in 1996 sorry you cannot decipher fact from fiction.