Adam Schiff says NO Whistleblower Testimony -- it's Redundant and Unnecessary

originally posted by: Veryolduser
The question I have been asking myself is this all happened when the democrats had hope “russia gate wasn’t a bust” they still had 2020. now this impeachment nonsense with nobody that has a chance against trump in 2020. What happens if these people lose this impeachment? Will it cause a trump induced depression? Will it completely destroy the Democratic Party? Will these people become more dangerous?

I'm still amazed the Democrats took back control of the House.

I think based on the evidence the Democrats have a very good chance to get an impeachment vote to pass the House.

Who knows what will happen in the Senate. Will the Senator's loyalties side with their own party, with their dear leader, or will the rule-of-law and Constitution prevail. I think when it really comes down to it the Republicans in the Senate will choose the Constitution and rule-of-law over Trump's reckless ways of handing politics.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: xuenchen
What ARE Democrats so afraid of anyway ?

If the whistleblower comes forth then there is a chance he or she will be completely roasted by the right wing media. He will be crucified by Fox News and all over the Internet. His or her life will be completely ruined by an endless barrage of character assassinations and mud-slinging by the Republicans to try to discredit any testimony.

The result would be NO WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD EVER COME FORTH EVER AGAIN!!!! Especially a Republican one.

I have heard Schiff say there is no reasons for the whistleblower come forth because the existing testimonies are plenty enough to show Trump is guilty of the articles of impeachment currently be considered.

Whistleblower's tesitmony will only make the case against impeachment stronger. So what is the motivation of the Republicans? The whistleblower is not accusing the president of anything. The whistleblower just got Congress to listen to certain people's testimonies about the call.

So who cares where the crime tip came from as long as there is justice? Again, why does it matter to know the whistleblower's identity at all is an important question.

Oh boo hoo

“Character assassinations”
Like Bret Kavanaugh?

You people are pathetic

The President will not be impeached.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: dfnj2015

I think we all know by now that the original "compl-ain't" had it all wrong to start with.

No, nothing is "wrong". The evidence of the testimonies seems to suggest a crime was committed.

Taylor was even more concerned, texting Sondland: "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

The evidence from the text messages seem to indicate a crime occurred in my opinion. You have the right to your own opinion.

originally posted by: xuenchen
This will be exposed to THE HILT soon enough and *Schiff and Company* are doing damage control already
This will end up being the biggest failure (so far) for Democrats

if the evidence doesn't show a federal crime has been committed then the impeachment should fail. If the people testifying show a crime has occurred then the impeachment vote should pass.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

No, he will most likely resign in order to save Republican Senate seats just like last time:

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Breakthestreak

No, he will most likely resign in order to save Republican Senate seats just like last time:

Yeah

He’ll resign.

Smfh

a reply to: dfnj2015

The HoaxBlower "Compl-ain't" is tainted 6 ways from Sunday 😃😎

Schiff and Pelosi can't afford the damage. There WILL BE consequences 😃😎

a reply to: dfnj2015

"Dreams from 45 years ago" with 1940s music 😃

a reply to: RickinVa

Schiff is running this like a Grand Jury. That was his specialty before becoming a Congressman. Grand Jurys hear the prosecutor, witness testimony, then find the defendant guilty, or exonerated.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Breakthestreak

No, he will most likely resign in order to save Republican Senate seats just like last time:

Yeah
He’ll resign.
Smfh

If AG Barr is secretly betraying him, Trump might resign!

Adam Schiff cheats and still gets beat ................ 🤣

This is the end result of the Democrat Agenda ....

When you start to look into Eric Ciaramella it starts to look ugly, about as ugly as the faked Dossier...

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today analysis of Obama-era White House visitor logs that detail meetings of controversial CIA employee Eric Ciaramella, who had been assigned to the White House. Ciaramella reportedly was detailed to the Obama White House in 2015 and returned to the CIA during the Trump administration in 2017. The logs also reveal Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor hired by the DNC during the 2016 election who coordinated with Ukrainians to investigate President Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, visited the White House 27 times.

a reply to: Xtrozero
It is why they don't want him questioned under oath.
He will burn them down.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: dfnj2015
The HoaxBlower "Compl-ain't" is tainted 6 ways from Sunday

Well, contrary to your right wing delusions, the evidence may have merit regardless of how much you deny it or ignore it.

Here is a video showing a Republican ignoring impeachment evidence:

a reply to: dfnj2015

There you go with the assumptive name calling again.

Sure sign of a defeatist attitude 😃 👓

uuHH OOhh !!! here it comes 😃

Visitor Logs Reveal ‘Whistleblower’ And DNC Contractor Visited Obama White House Multiple Times
BwaaaHaHaHaHa😃

A controversial whistleblower who allegedly reported second-hand on President Donald Trump’s private conversation with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited the Obama White House on numerous occasions, according to Obama era visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch.

Last week Real Clear Investigation’s first reported the whistleblower’s name. It is allegedly CIA officer Eric Ciaramella. His name, however, has been floating around Washington D.C. since the leak of Trump’s phone call. It was considered an ‘open secret’ until reporter Paul Sperry published his article. Ciaramella has never openly stated that he is the whistleblower and most news outlets are not reporting his name publicly.

He was detailed to the National Security Counsel during the Obama Administration in 2015 and was allegedly sent back to the CIA in 2017, after a number of people within the Trump White House suspected him of leaking information to the press, according to several sources that spoke with SaraACarter.com.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I must say sir you take doublespeak, deflection and repeating propaganda to an olympic level.

lets now deal in some FACTS vs the propagation of propaganda

1. the whole quip pro quo / forcing Ukraine to investigate a political rival for president was brought up by the WHISTLE BLOWER.

that was the start and the "evidence" of wrongdoing that democrats used to start the "impeachment" investigations.

you cant claim it is "redundant and unnecessary" or not important now.

that is a bold face LIE and deflection

2. trump (note against protocol , setting up for future problems and his own advisers advice ) RELEASED THE CALL TRANSCRIPT .

it is there for all to see and before you try the claims "it isnt all of it" the DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES quote it as some sort of evidence / claim and the main stream press has not said its fake either.

3.. THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE himself stated over and over he didnt think there was any quip pro quo or withholding aid for his cooperation.

4. ALL OF THE AID was released.

5 (one of the biggest next to the transcript) THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION got NOTHING for the aid .

6. LITTLE FACT... there is no democratic presidential candidate.
until the democratic primaries are over and a nominee is announced there is no political rival for president against trump.

sorry but to keep claiming that biden is his "rival for the presidency" is an outright LIE.
in fact he is slipping in the polls of DEMOCRATIC (you know those people who are supposed to decide) voters.

7. all the testimony you have presented from the "hearings" is relatively consistent but if you care to look at what was said its all OPINION.... opinion is not fact and just because multiple people say the same thing it doesn't make it fact.
you do know in gang and mafia trials thought the years those testifying for them would say the same things right?

8. the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to face your accuser (which also means the evidence claiming guilt) and defend yourself .
the person making the claim and/or the evidence is NOT TO BE TAKEN AS UNCHALLENGED / OUTRIGHT FACT .

9. in conjunction with 8 you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW . an impeachment (if its ever done) is not proof of guilt. Its just like an indictment and the accused MUST BE PROVEN GUILTY in a court (in case of impeachment by the senate though a court process) OF LAW.

unless found guilty by the senate HE IS PRESUMED INNOCENT.
sorry if that messes with your rant.



but there is also one very big point you care to ignore or be a hypocrite on is that WHEN TRUMP was the confirmed candidate not only did hillory go to UKRAINE to get political dirt on him (later to be used in the steele report) but TRUMP WAS BEING INVESTIGATED by the democrats though obama administration.

kinda hard to claim dirty pool / impeachment crime on ACCUSED trump doing it when it was done to him and all legal now is it?

but there is the big elephant in the room you keep trying to marginalize.

the transcripts SHOW that there was no wording stating quip pro quo
the very person supposedly being threatened DID NOT THINK THEY WERE and GOT ALL THE AID PROMISED.

all the "testimony" in the world cannot change those FACTS.

Trump is AUTOMATICALLY AND BY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT presumed innocent.

your OPINION is not proof of guilt nor a court of law.

now instead of name calling, deflection or otherwise what PROOF can you show that the charges are credible?

I have the transcript and testimony of the president of ukraine
what you got?


scrounger

a reply to: SailorJerry

Except in this case the accuser is going to be The US House of Representatives when the trial reaches the Senate.

The whistleblower is the equivalent of an anomonous tip.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: RickinVa

Schiff is running this like a Grand Jury. That was his specialty before becoming a Congressman. Grand Jurys hear the prosecutor, witness testimony, then find the defendant guilty, or exonerated.

That is not what a grand jury does. They hear the prosecutor’s evidence and if needed witness testimony, to decide if there is enough to bring the case to trial. They DO NOT decide innocence or guilt.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: SailorJerry

Except in this case the accuser is going to be The US House of Representatives when the trial reaches the Senate.

The whistleblower is the equivalent of an anomonous tip.

with respect no it isnt the same as an anonymous tip

it is a set procedure of reporting where the accusation must be able to be confirmed.
hence the "whistle blower " status and legal protection.

if it were truly an anonymous tip you would not need the whistle blower law/protection.

also point of order if it were "anonymous" it would have been shown by the transcript as no merit and dropped already if anyone else but trump or target of the left

scrounger

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: RickinVa

Schiff is running this like a Grand Jury. That was his specialty before becoming a Congressman. Grand Jurys hear the prosecutor, witness testimony, then find the defendant guilty, or exonerated.

That is not what a grand jury does. They hear the prosecutor’s evidence and if needed witness testimony, to decide if there is enough to bring the case to trial. They DO NOT decide innocence or guilt.

shhhhhh
the anti trump / pro impeachment crowd doesnt like FACTS when they have their "truth"

scrounger