Whistleblower

[Rightguide]

As has been explained many, many times, this is not a trial. There is no cross-examination. This is the investigative and evidence gathering stage, interviewing witnesses, taking depositions. These are the cops and prosecutors preparing the case.

Does anyone accused get to confront or cross-examine witnesses at the police station in your town even before charges are filed?

The Trial will be in the Senate where Moscow Mitch will be able to stack the deck however he chooses, or at least to the extent Roberts allows him to.

In three years you've gathered zero evidence of wrong doing against the President. This isn't a proper impeachment proceeding, it is a Soviet style show trial with phony narratives, phony charges, and coached witnesses protected from cross examination by the minority.

 

[KeithD]

He really said that Trump had been self-impeaching since day one.

Before that. The day he stood in a press conference and publicly asked Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails was the day that the legal process to put him in the slammer should have started (and perhaps it did).

 

[phrodeau]

You should keep your snark down to less than a half a dozen words because any time you extend beyond that, your stupidity shows.

The scare quotes are obviously because the "whistleblower" (who does not meet any of the criterion for being a whistleblower under the relevant stautes) like Taylor, did not witness anything at all. He merely was the conduit to convey gossip that began by someone sharing classified information with him when he was not authorized to hear.

He is a fact witness to that crime as well as Schiff's perjury when Schiff lied about his role in creating this latest fictional impetus for yet another attempt to oust Trump.

A false witness is still a witness.

He properly reported the gossip to the IG, who said that it was urgent and credible.

 

[phrodeau]

In three years you've gathered zero evidence of wrong doing against the President. This isn't a proper impeachment proceeding, it is a Soviet style show trial with phony narratives, phony charges, and coached witnesses protected from cross examination by the minority.

The elected representatives of the people are the ones who are doing the impeachment proceeding, and that makes it proper. Nobody else can impeach the President. Only We the People can.

 

[KeithD]

He properly reported the gossip to the IG, who said that it was urgent and credible.

Yep. Of course these despicable Trumpettes don't want to see that it's the Inspector Generals who made this a formal process, not a whistleblower. They don't have a leg to stand on, so of course they dig into the deflection and illegally go after the whistleblower. That's all they've got.

 

[jaF0]

In three years you've gathered zero evidence of wrong doing against the President.

Of course not. I'm not involved in the official process. What I have gathered is that the GeeBee BBs are idjits.

 

[KeithD]

Of course not. I'm not involved in the official process. What I have gathered is that the GeeBee BBs are idjits.

And purposely blind as bats.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It was more than "someone." Many people reported their concerns.

So if it involves "classified" information, then there is never any possibility ever of whistleblowing--according to you. Common sense says a WB can WB on anything through the right legal means of access afforded to him/her. That's exactly what the WB process is for, therefore, there is no crime in reporting so-called "gossip."

What "relevant statutes" are you citing here? The WB Statute itself spells out protection for whistleblowers who come forward. It does not define what a WB is or who they can or can't be. So where's your citation that a WB has to have "witnessed" something?

The director of the NSA (Trump's pick) testified under oath the WB did everything by the book and properly. So, you're being a blowhard as usual.

You should keep your snark down to less than a half a dozen words because any time you extend beyond that, your stupidity shows.

The scare quotes are obviously because the "whistleblower" (who does not meet any of the criterion for being a whistleblower under the relevant stautes) like Taylor, did not witness anything at all. He merely was the conduit to convey gossip that began by someone sharing classified information with him when he was not authorized to hear.

He is a fact witness to that crime as well as Schiff's perjury when Schiff lied about his role in creating this latest fictional impetus for yet another attempt to oust Trump.

A false witness is still a witness.

 

[Conager]

He properly reported the gossip to the IG, who said that it was urgent and credible.

According only to very recently revised standards. The IG looked into it, found no there, there, so it went no farther.

Which was the predictable, and desired outcome. Next, Schiff and the fake whistleblower sprung their little impeachment trap pretending the Trump administration was hiding unlawful acts. Trump defeated that by releasing the contemporaneously prepared memorandum of the call, despite it being protected by executive privilege.

Now Schiff is pretending like his gotcha moment actually happened even though it didn't.

 

[Rightguide]

The elected representatives of the people are the ones who are doing the impeachment proceeding, and that makes it proper. Nobody else can impeach the President. Only We the People can.

The Democrats aren't the "People."

 

[Rightguide]

It was more than "someone." Many people reported their concerns.

So if it involves "classified" information, then there is never any possibility ever of whistleblowing--according to you. Common sense says a WB can WB on anything through the right legal means of access afforded to him/her. That's exactly what the WB process is for, therefore, there is no crime in reporting so-called "gossip."

What "relevant statutes" are you citing here? The WB Statute itself spells out protection for whistleblowers who come forward. It does not define what a WB is or who they can or can't be. So where's your citation that a WB has to have "witnessed" something?

The director of the NSA (Trump's pick) testified under oath the WB did everything by the book and properly. So, you're being a blowhard as usual.

The one I just posted: 50 U.S. Code § 3033, and you're full of shit as usual.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

The Democrats aren't the "People."

https://media1.tenor.com/images/d1007527e00ecba6ffabf72712ab07e0/tenor.gif?itemid=15503541

 

[Conager]

It was more than "someone." Many people reported their concerns.

So if it involves "classified" information, then there is never any possibility ever of whistleblowing--according to you. Common sense says a WB can WB on anything through the right legal means of access afforded to him/her. That's exactly what the WB process is for, therefore, there is no crime in reporting so-called "gossip."

What "relevant statutes" are you citing here? The WB Statute itself spells out protection for whistleblowers who come forward. It does not define what a WB is or who they can or can't be. So where's your citation that a WB has to have "witnessed" something?

The director of the NSA (Trump's pick) testified under oath the WB did everything by the book and properly. So, you're being a blowhard as usual.

You really can't follow up basic line of thought can you BettyPoop? Whistleblower law exists for people who have to go outside of their chain of command because they have gone to their chain of command to no avail. Who you take that to is very clearly defined.

There is no provision whatsoever in US law much less whistleblower law for anyone to take classified information to someone who is not in their direct chain of command ,authorized to receive that classified information because of a specific need to know, what are the specific authority authorized to receive that information which in this case would be the Inspector General. Gossiping about it is not an approved remedy for you believing that there has been wrong doing and having felt that your superiors were not properly addressing it.

The Whistleblower statute has nothing at all to do with someone who has received classified information they were not authorized to receive. If it worked that way any human being on the planet who heard something from someone could call themselves a whistleblower, hurl some accusations and according to the new and improved enlarged whistleblower statute which doesn't include anything about anonymity, be protected by anonymity. Which again to repeat is not part of the Whistleblower statute at all.

Where was your concern when the Obama Administration was targeting actual whistleblowers such as in the Fast & Furious case?

 

[Conager]

The Democrats aren't the "People."

Not only are they not "The" people, they are barely people.

 

[Conager]

Why do the Democrats not want the "whistleblower'" who has concerns that are so "urgent and credible" that they want to contort the statute to include him, be heard?

I would think his "urgent and credible" concerns should be urgently conveyed to the American public so they can see how obviously credible he must surely be.

Look at the thread title and then look at all of the usual suspects trying to justify burying the impetus of this faux impeachment process.

Since they do not wish to hear what the "whistleblower" has to say- this should:

/thread

 

[coati]

Since they do not wish to hear what the "whistleblower" has to say- this should:

/thread

C'mon, Deplorable, get your shit together!

 

[jomar]

It was more than "someone." Many people reported their concerns.

So if it involves "classified" information, then there is never any possibility ever of whistleblowing--according to you. Common sense says a WB can WB on anything through the right legal means of access afforded to him/her. That's exactly what the WB process is for, therefore, there is no crime in reporting so-called "gossip."

What "relevant statutes" are you citing here? The WB Statute itself spells out protection for whistleblowers who come forward. It does not define what a WB is or who they can or can't be. So where's your citation that a WB has to have "witnessed" something?

The director of the NSA (Trump's pick) testified under oath the WB did everything by the book and properly. So, you're being a blowhard as usual.

The one I just posted: 50 U.S. Code § 3033, and you're full of shit as usual.

That doesn’t say anything about a whistleblower having to be an eye witness.

 

[Rightguide]

That doesn’t say anything about a whistleblower having to be an eye witness.

Here's what it does and doesn't say. It only constrains the "Inspector General" from revealing the identity of the Whistleblower, applies only to the Intel Community, and grants no oversight authority against the President, the foreign policy of the President, or his conversations with foreign leaders.

 

[jomar]

Here's what it does and doesn't say. It only constrains the "Inspector General" from revealing the identity of the Whistleblower, applies only to the Intel Community, and grants no oversight authority against the President, the foreign policy of the President, or his conversations with foreign leaders.

So are you saying you think the IG has no authority in the matter?

 

[HisArpy]

As we are often reminded, the whistleblower is not a witness. Look at the quote marks you used, and realize that even you don’t believe he’s a witness.

GOFUCKYOURSELF

 

[HisArpy]

So are you saying you think the IG has no authority in the matter?

The IG has very little actual authority, they cannot subpoena witnesses or documents for example. What the IG is authorized to do is investigate claims brought to them. Claims such as those brought by the WB would be "urgent and credible" and worthy of investigation if true.

Where the D's (and you) go wrong is that the WB didn't actually witness anything, concealed that facet from the IG's office, and then continued to conceal all kinds of other FACTS which would have affected the "urgent and credible" nature of the claims made by the WB had they been revealed.

In essence, the WB committed fraud on the IG's office and filed a false report against the President. Oops.

Now that we know what occurred and what didn't, Schiffty Schiff doesn't want the originator of the probe to testify in any manner whatsoever. I suspect that's because if the WB does testify, Schiff's personal and direct involvement in the whole affair will be brought to light. So he's obstructing justice while loudly claiming that Trump is the one doing so even as they shift the focus of the probe from the WB to parsing phrases from the Mueller report once again.

I'm still wondering where the fuck the Senate is in all of this.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Before that. The day he stood in a press conference and publicly asked Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails was the day that the legal process to put him in the slammer should have started (and perhaps it did).

I agree 100%, I was just using a twist on Kantarii’s pist.


I’ll drop this bit of Hill’s testimony we discussed earlier here. That rabbit hole is filled with Lit boomers.

http://forum.literotica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2084857&stc=1&d=1573414709

 

[Conager]

One wonders what the IG would have thought if the "whistleblower" had explained prior to filing his complaint on the recently amended form that he'd already brought all of this to the attention of the chairman of the intelligence Committee of the House of Representatives.

Make it seem a lot less "urgent," doesn't it?

 

[Conager]

Before that. The day he stood in a press conference and publicly asked Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails was the day that the legal process to put him in the slammer should have started (and perhaps it did).

What an idiotic, humorless dolt you are.

Let's assume just for the sake of discussion that the Russians are as idiotic and humorless as you are and :took Trump seriously. For them to be able to hack Clinton's emails that would imply that she hadn't already shut down her illegal server, or the DNC had not already had Vidman's Ukrainians patch the security breeches.

 

[coati]

I’ll drop this bit of Hill’s testimony we discussed earlier here. That rabbit hole is filled with Lit boomers.

http://forum.literotica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2084857&stc=1&d=1573414709

What? Are you inferring that the "other shoe" is not going to drop any day now, convincing everyone in the nation that it was the Deep State manipulating Ukrainian operatives, not the Russians, who engineered the hack into the DNC as a conspiracy against Donald Trump?

B'b'b'but, several Lit Deplorables have assured me otherwise!