"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct."

[Rightguide]

Marie Yovanovitch is making an opening statement about how hard her life was and how close to combat she was. What does all of this have to do with impeaching the President? What impeachable offense has he committed? Blah, Blah, it goes on.

 

[HisArpy]

It's more of the same ol', same ol'.

Question to Ms. Yovanovitch: What does Guilliani saying mean things about you have to do with Bribery on the part of the President?

 

[Rightguide]

It's more of the same ol', same ol'.

Question to Ms. Yovanovitch: What does Guilliani saying mean things about you have to do with Bribery on the part of the President?

Looks like another snoozer.

 

[Rightguide]

Another whine about the State Department being drained of self important windbags and theorists who think they create and direct foreign policy.

 

[jomar]

The imagined danger of one person is nothing compared to the very real dangers of the destruction of our entire social order and laws by a group of very determined individuals acting in concert against the best interests of the United States.

Glad you agree

 

[HisArpy]

Glad you agree

When you finally get your brain to stop spinning, try again.

 

[beezzz]

Amb. Yovanovitch admits she has no first hand knowledge of Trump/Zelensky phone call & no first hand knowledge about the Trump admin withholding aid.

So why is she here then?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Amb. Yovanovitch admits she has no first hand knowledge of Trump/Zelensky phone call & no first hand knowledge about the Trump admin withholding aid.

So why is she here then?

I agree, lets here From Mr. Trump. He could clear this all up in a heartbeat by answering questions under oath.

 

[HisArpy]

I agree, lets here From Mr. Trump. He could clear this all up in a heartbeat by answering questions under oath.

It is not Trump's job to prove his innocence. It is the job of the House to prove he is guilty of Treason, Bribery, High Crimes or Misdemeanors.

So far it looks like he's guilty of making Ambassadors cry.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It is not Trump's job to prove his innocence.

S

No issues there on the right of any individual to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

All I am saying is, if Trump did agree to answer questions under oath, this could be ended that much quicker.

 

[Rightguide]

I agree, lets here From Mr. Trump. He could clear this all up in a heartbeat by answering questions under oath.

Let's put the WB and Schiff under oath instead.

 

[beezzz]

Amb. Marie Yovanovitch:

- Was not on the July 25th call.
- Not involved in the Trump/Zelensky meeting.
- Never spoke with Trump.
- Never spoke with Mulvaney.

Have any of these “Witnesses” actually Witnessed anything?

 

[Conager]

Marie Yovanovitch is making an opening statement about how hard her life was and how close to combat she was. What does all of this have to do with impeaching the President? What impeachable offense has he committed? Blah, Blah, it goes on.

Was this combat before President Trump provided lethal military aid in accordance with the advice by these same State Department Ukraine "experts" on and ambassadors to the Ukraine or was it after Obama, contrary to the advice by these same State Department Ukraine "experts" on and ambassadors to the Ukraine, denied lethal military aid to the Ukraine?

It seems as if lethal military aid to help the Ukraine repel the evil Rooskies is somehow, entirely beside the point. -whatever that point actually is.

Amb. Marie Yovanovitch:

- Was not on the July 25th call.
- Not involved in the Trump/Zelensky meeting.
- Never spoke with Trump.
- Never spoke with Mulvaney.

Have any of these “Witnesses” actually Witnessed anything?

It's the al dente test. Throw everything they can against the wall and see if anything's sticks.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Let's put the WB and Schiff under oath instead.

Why the WB?

Seems most of the stuff put out, has collaboration, except from the main players. So since the WH will not allow the primary witness's to answer questions, the fastest way to get answers and wrap it up, put Trump on the stand. I am pretty sure that if Trump agreed, Schiff would too.

 

[beezzz]

"Obama's own state department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from Hunter Biden's role at Burisma that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee."

-- @RepStefanik

 

[Conager]

Why not the "whistleblower?"

After all, the third hand account of presidential wrongdoing was so "credible and urgent" that it served as the impetus for the Schiff Show before any other second hand witness was ever heard from. On the strength of his full-of-Schiff coaching complaint alone, the Dems announced that Trump should be removed from office based on a telephone call that occurred (entirely coincidentally) the day after Mueller let all the hot air out of the balloon on the previous impeachmemt effort.

Why wouldn't the Dems be eager to put such a compelling witness on the stand?

He was totally "credible" and what he had to say was extremely "URGENT," right?

Right?!??

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Why not the "whistleblower?"

After all, the third hand account of presidential wrongdoing was so "credible and urgent" that it served as the impetus for the Schiff Show before any other second hand witness was ever heard from. On the strength of his full-of-Schiff coaching complaint alone, the Dems announced that Trump should be removed from office based on a telephone call that occurred (entirely coincidentally) the day after Mueller let all the hot air out of the balloon on the previous impeachmemt effort.

Why wouldn't the Dems be eager to put such a compelling witness on the stand?

He was totally "credible" and what he had to say was extremely "URGENT," right?

Right?!??

If you put the WB on the stand, you now lose the "legal protection" offered to WB's by legislation, thus fear will prevent anyone from blowing the whistle in the future.

So the next time this WILL occur ( you can bet this will happen again), it may be a Democratic president, abusing his/her powers. Yet because in your defence of this President, and the outing of the WB, no one person i their right mind would come forward and let people know.

So by putting the WB on the stand in this case, you make it open season for any future President to abuse their powers, with no fear of reprisal by a WB.

So when that occurs, I can bet you will be crying to protect that person's identity!!

I would have thought you are smarter than walking into this kind of discussion.

 

[Conager]

The last Democrat president went after whistleblowers. I have no doubt that the next Democratic president face little criticism if they do the same.

There is nothing whatsoever in the law about a whistleblower remaining anonymous. There is nothing whatsoever in the law about whistleblower not being compelled to testify. In fact it specifically provides for guidance about handling that likelihood.

You're just making things up.

Since you like believing what you like to believe, instead of using Wikipedia to pretend that you know anything at all about American politics why don't you jump right into RationalWiki so that you can fully immerse yourself in the appropriate talking points.

In the alternative have Aglopheme give you a link to the sources that email her daily with what the appropriate talking points are. That way you can be right up to speed and feel like you're really able to participate in these conversations.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The last Democrat president went after whistleblowers. I have no doubt that the next Democratic president face little criticism if they do the same.

There is nothing whatsoever in the law about a whistleblower remaining anonymous. There is nothing whatsoever in the law about whistleblower not being compelled to testify. In fact it specifically provides for guidance about handling that likelihood.

You're just making things up.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-103/pdf/STATUTE-103-Pg16.pdf

So here is where the lawyers get involved.

The original law from 1998 does not protect the WB identity after it leaves the office of the Inspector General.

Yet the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act does, and here is the part where lawyers interven.

"Congress must take the next step to protect federal whistleblowers by providing them with access to a jury to challenge retaliation – a right that is currently enjoyed by most federal contractor and
private sector employees, but not regular federal employees."

So while you are correct in your statement about the 1998 Act, the above allows Congress to now protect the identity. Of course Lawyers from all sides can beat the piss out of the above.

Yet does this take anything away from my previous post? Protecting a WB is good for both parties, as it relates to outing possible abuses of power.

 

[beezzz]

https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-historic-war-on-whistleblowers/


Obama’s Legacy: A Historic War On Whistleblowers

 

[beezzz]

Jim Jordan just got Yovanovitch, who's clearly a left-wing partisan, to admit she didn't do a single thing to prevent Ukrainian officials from meddling in our election in 2016. Her demeanor made it clear she did nothing because she supported foreign efforts to damage Trump.

 

[Conager]

https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-historic-war-on-whistleblowers/


Obama’s Legacy: A Historic War On Whistleblowers

Bingo.

Add to that him treating the Free Press as An Enemy of the State and using the powers of our intelligence apparatus to illegally spy on journalists.

Whoever hacked Atkinson's laptop should absolutely be serving time in Leavenworth.

 

[beezzz]

DUMZ are immune

 

[Conager]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-103/pdf/STATUTE-103-Pg16.pdf

So here is where the lawyers get involved.

The original law from 1998 does not protect the WB identity after it leaves the office of the Inspector General.

Yet the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act does, and here is the part where lawyers interven.

"Congress must take the next step to protect federal whistleblowers by providing them with access to a jury to challenge retaliation – a right that is currently enjoyed by most federal contractor and
private sector employees, but not regular federal employees."

So while you are correct in your statement about the 1998 Act, the above allows Congress to now protect the identity. Of course Lawyers from all sides can beat the piss out of the above.

Yet does this take anything away from my previous post? Protecting a WB is good for both parties, as it relates to outing possible abuses of power.

Providing them with resources when and if they face retaliation has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity nor whether or not a whistleblower can and should be compelled to testify if his information is relevant to any proceeding anywhere. You're citation has absolutely nothing to do with what you're trying to prove.

 

[beezzz]

[Spamming, bumping multiple threads in order to flood the forum, posting same content to multiple locations, or screen-stretching to disrupt the forum is prohibited per our forum guidelines.]