• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

Perotista said:
You know I have been pretty much indifferent to this whole impeachment process. My main interest in it is how it will effect the upcoming elections. Getting information for my Perotista senate, house and presidency forecasts. Not whether Trump will be or won't be impeached. I put most of what I have seen and heard down to ultra high partisan political propaganda.

This throws a different light on the subject. I didn't comment on the thread of a lynching, mainly because I didn't care if Trump thought that or not or what others said about Trump's use of the word lynching. This in my opinion means Trump isn't going to get a fair hearing. That the Democrats have stacked and packed the Jury so to speak. I don't care if Trump is or isn't impeached. If Hillary had won, I wouldn't care if she was impeached or not. My disdain for both is ultra high. But in this case, I do think Trump's use of the word lynching seems to be correct.

It does seem the Democrats want to hide anything and everyone that might weaken their case. This is totally wrong. I'm still indifferent about impeachment knowing it is strictly a partisan affair, a battle between our two major parties which I don't belong to neither and highly dislike both. What it does is pique my interest beyond just how impeachment might effect the upcoming election.
Click to expand...


Precisely.

It seems like Adam Schiff doesn't want the public to know about the WB reaching out to him prior to the WB's complaint going public...His testimony just may incriminate himself and those who conspire along with him. Quite possibly this entire WB complaint was built on a political coup to get Trump impeached. We already know that Schiff lied about his contact with the WB. We already know about WB's attorney, Zaid.
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
Did I make any claim of alternative fact? No, I didn't. At issue is the informant's testifying. From Jarrett:

….nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) is anonymity even mentioned. Nor is it found in Presidential Policy Directive 19, which also provides specific whistleblower protections.

The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else.
Under this framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements.

However, identity protection is neither provided for, nor contemplated, anywhere in the language.

But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that a whistleblower might deserve anonymity under exigent circumstances of some sort. He or she must first qualify for whistleblower status under the governing law. Yet, in the present case, he does not. Gregg Jarrett: Whistleblower not entitled to anonymity – He’s an informant acting as a Democratic operative | Fox News
Click to expand...

How does any of that change the fact that all of the WB’s central claims have been corroborated and confirmed by just about everyone?
 
nota bene said:
I'd suggest that you read Jarrett's opinion/explanation.
Click to expand...

nota bene said:
This isn't what Jarrett wrote. :roll:
Click to expand...

nota bene said:
If you were familiar with Jarrett's opinions, you'd be able to spell his name. ;)
Click to expand...

er uh Nota, I responded to exactly what jarrett said. I pointed out his disingenuous (at best) claim that the WB was "uninformed". How come I didn't get one of your silly deflections? Oh that's right, I responded to what he said.
 
bubbabgone said:
Waddya mean nothing but conjecture.
There's concern, imagination, suspicion, assumption, mindreading, and whole lot of I betchas.
Click to expand...

Yes, and we can certainly trust Schiff for the truth, too. He's been honest and forthcoming about sooo much. Makes ya wonder what inspires him.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Strange, why would Trump try to prevent white house officials from testifying, and why is Trump refusing to comply with subpoenas from the House committees? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?
Click to expand...

It is called executive privilege. It is every bit as constitutional as the Congress' oversight powers which enable them to issue the subpoenas in the first place. Co-equal branches means co-EQUAL, not Congress gets to be more equal when a Republican is president, so the executive branch has no way to push back when Congress starts feeling like they should be more equal.
 
trixare4kids said:
Quite possibly this entire WB complaint was built on a political coup to get Trump impeached.
Click to expand...

Either Trump did it, or he didn't.
All evidence indicates he did.
No evidence indicates he didn't.

I suppose when you have no case, you just make up **** and strenuously insist it's relevant, when you know it isn't. Why do you do it? Right wing media gets in your brain.
 
Perotista said:
You know I have been pretty much indifferent to this whole impeachment process. My main interest in it is how it will effect the upcoming elections. Getting information for my Perotista senate, house and presidency forecasts. Not whether Trump will be or won't be impeached. I put most of what I have seen and heard down to ultra high partisan political propaganda.

This throws a different light on the subject. I didn't comment on the thread of a lynching, mainly because I didn't care if Trump thought that or not or what others said about Trump's use of the word lynching. This in my opinion means Trump isn't going to get a fair hearing. That the Democrats have stacked and packed the Jury so to speak. I don't care if Trump is or isn't impeached. If Hillary had won, I wouldn't care if she was impeached or not. My disdain for both is ultra high. But in this case, I do think Trump's use of the word lynching seems to be correct.

It does seem the Democrats want to hide anything and everyone that might weaken their case. This is totally wrong. I'm still indifferent about impeachment knowing it is strictly a partisan affair, a battle between our two major parties which I don't belong to neither and highly dislike both. What it does is pique my interest beyond just how impeachment might effect the upcoming election.
Click to expand...

Two points:

1. Republicans will have complete control of the process in the Senate.

2. It seems to me that if Trump won't testifying, and if he won't allow White House officials to testify, and he is not complying with any of the document requests the House Committees have made via the subpoena process then the criticism you have Democrats is disingenuous.
 
Mach said:
Either Trump did it, or he didn't.
All evidence indicates he did.
No evidence indicates he didn't.

I suppose when you have no case, you just make up **** and strenuously insist it's relevant, when you know it isn't. Why do you do it? Right wing media gets in your brain.
Click to expand...
Except the transcript and Zalensky say he didn't. :lol:
 
Cardinal said:
So what? How does that have any bearing on the fact that sworn testimony from Trump officials has corroborated everything the whistleblower wrote?
Click to expand...

It has a lot of bearing. The public has the right to understand why the WB's testimony is no longer needed. I believe the public deserves to hear the Republicans grill him. It's a matter of FAIRNESS that the public gets ALL the details, not just the cherry picked testimonies stacked against this president.

Plus, the WB would not be harmed in being called to testify. The Law protects the whistleblower only against his Employer (the CIA) punishing him for being a snitch. No Law prevents suspected WB, Ciaramella, from testifying; No Law guarantees his identity be kept secret.
 
SLC said:
Except the transcript and Zalensky say he didn't. :lol:
Click to expand...

Exactly, but as we know the Democrats don't give a **** about this.
 
trixare4kids said:
It has a lot of bearing. The public has the right to understand why the WB's testimony is no longer needed. I believe the public deserves to hear the Republicans grill him. It's a matter of FAIRNESS that the public gets ALL the details, not just the cherry picked testimonies stacked against this president.

Plus, the WB would not be harmed in being called to testify. The Law protects the whistleblower only against his Employer (the CIA) punishing him for being a snitch. No Law prevents suspected WB, Ciaramella, from testifying; No Law guarantees his identity be kept secret.
Click to expand...

Why are you more interested in the testimony of someone with second hand information than all the sworn testimony of those with first hand information?
 
PoS said:
I am not a lawyer, but Im sure the GOP needs to have some questions answered, so why not allow an open hearing where they can question him/her? It's part of having a fair trial which everyone is supposed to be entitled to. Dont you agree?

Oh, so because I dont join in with your daily 3-minute hate of all things Trump then I must be on his side? Jesus H Christ. :roll::doh
Click to expand...

It's a legitimate question and revealing that you ignored it. If what we want is a 'fair trial' then under what theory does the accused get to prohibit those involved from testifying? If you don't object to that, then you're not actually interested in a fair trial, but something else that you're not saying.
 
SLC said:
Except the transcript and Zalensky say he didn't. :lol:
Click to expand...

The Zelensky administration had made the decision to cave to Trump’s demands, and right as they were to announce an investigation into Biden on CNN, just as Trump wanted, trump’s withholding of military aid went public.

Your defenses are over two weeks old.
 
trixare4kids said:
It has a lot of bearing. The public has the right to understand why the WB's testimony is no longer needed. I believe the public deserves to hear the Republicans grill him. It's a matter of FAIRNESS that the public gets ALL the details, not just the cherry picked testimonies stacked against this president.

Plus, the WB would not be harmed in being called to testify. The Law protects the whistleblower only against his Employer (the CIA) punishing him for being a snitch. No Law prevents suspected WB, Ciaramella, from testifying; No Law guarantees his identity be kept secret.
Click to expand...
Anyone with google knows the WB identify. The only possible reason Schiff doesn't want the WB to testify is that he is afraid of the truth about the WB. Schiff's office orchestrated the whole WB complaint.
 
humbolt said:
Yes, and we can certainly trust Schiff for the truth, too. He's been honest and forthcoming about sooo much. Makes ya wonder what inspires him.
Click to expand...

th
 
Cardinal said:
The Zelensky administration had made the decision to cave to Trump’s demands, and right as they were to announce an investigation into Biden on CNN, just as Trump wanted, trump’s withholding of military aid went public.

Your defenses are over two weeks old.
Click to expand...
You have NO IDEA what the Zelensky administrations thinks or what their motivations are.
 
3leftsdoo said:
The Schiffer doesn't want to be publicly humiliated by the numerous crimes he's facilitated in pursuit of the impeachment hoax?
Click to expand...

What crimes has he facilitated and who committed these crimes?
 
Cardinal said:
Why are you more interested in the testimony of someone with second hand information than all the sworn testimony of those with first hand information?
Click to expand...

The better question,...Why are you NOT interested in the testimony of a WB, the guy who got the impeachment ball rolling?

I want to know everything about this man but I can see why someone who is not interested in a fair process for Trump wouldn't be interested.
 
SLC said:
You have NO IDEA what the Zelensky administrations thinks or what their motivations are.
Click to expand...

Remember, these are some of the same posters who dug their heels in insisting Trump would be impeached after the Mueller report was released...
 
Airyaman said:
Here is the whistleblower's report: Trump whistleblower complaint: Read full declassified document

Now, feel free to point out which part of it has not been corroborated by the testimony that has been released to date.

IOW, the initial complaint, as stated in the WB report, was mostly 2nd hand information. Thus, why would the whistleblower be a good witness in the first place?

If this were indeed a court of law, the whistleblower would never be a witness because their testimony would be hearsay.
Click to expand...

Your 100% right it would have been considered hearsay and thrown out. Thank you for telling us what we have already been saying for weeks on end.

Guess what all the other testimony we have seen is the exact same thing. No one that was actually on the phone call can confirm quid pro quo because there wasn't any.

Even the military guy could not confirm it with his own notes that he failed to submit.
 
SLC said:
Anyone with google knows the WB identify. The only possible reason Schiff doesn't want the WB to testify is that he is afraid of the truth about the WB. Schiff's office orchestrated the whole WB complaint.
Click to expand...

Did Schiff orchestrate the whistleblower reporting his/her complaint to Courtney Elwood weeks before he went to the ICIG?
 
Mach said:
Either Trump did it, or he didn't.
All evidence indicates he did.
No evidence indicates he didn't.

I suppose when you have no case, you just make up **** and strenuously insist it's relevant, when you know it isn't. Why do you do it? Right wing media gets in your brain.
Click to expand...

Actually there is no evidence that he did it because Ukraine received the money and nothing was given in return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom