Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

[PoS]

The impeachment inquiry is NOT a trial... That happens in the senate...

I didnt say its a trial, I said its part of what a fair trial should be.

 

[JasperL]

Is he a whistleblower? Gregg Jarrett says no:

As I first explained in a column six weeks ago, the so-called “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower at all. The complaint he filed against President Trump does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the ICWPA. That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community.

...So what should we call the fake “whistleblower”? It is more accurate to describe him as an undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gathering hearsay information intended to damage him.

Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the informant was aided and abetted by none other than Schiff and/or Schiff’s staff to invent a pretext for the impeachment of the president.

...To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government. Gregg Jarrett: Whistleblower not entitled to anonymity – He’s an informant acting as a Democratic operative | Fox News

So, shorter Jarrett, "The president is above the law, and no man can legally report on his wrongdoing."

And if his opinion matters, the Republicans can call him to testify to this legal conclusion, and invite DoJ and the IC IG to address this question. Sounds good to me. Let's get this "We are a country of one man, untouchable by the justice system, not laws" when it comes to POTUS out there in the open!

 

[OscarLevant]

Who is surprised? Schiff is not about to place this guy in a position in which he might face any questions. And for those who would prefer that such a circus have some relation to actual legal principles, remember that this isn't a legal proceeding, and that means they can abandon any and all principles or moral underpinnings with impunity. The pursuit of political power trumps all that kinda stuff.

The right is free to challenge any of the points in the WB memo, that is the only thing that they need to do.

But, what the right wants to do is impugn the character of the WB. But, the WB passed muster with the IC IG and the ADNI, so dems are satisfied because of that, and so should repubs.


And please stop projecting, because it is republicans, not dems, who want to fog the proceedings and make a circus out of it, just like they did with Corey Lewandowski.


Sorry, but the right cannot be trusted, which is why Schiff has reserved the right to screen witnesses called by republicans.

 

[BlueTex]

I didnt say its a trial, I said its part of what a fair trial should be.

Does the defense call witnesses before a grand jury?

 

[humbolt]

There are few courts in our country who would ever require an anonymous whistleblower or tipster to testify. There is nothing unusual about how the house is treating the whistleblower.

Nt.
As I said, it's not a legal question. And we already know it's not a usual eve

 

[trouble13]

The only reason Republicans want to interview the whistleblower is so they can try and claim he was politically motivated, out to get the president, or some BS. But that's irrelevant. His complaint has been verified by numerous witnesses. His motivations are completely immaterial to the impeachment case. Which of course is why Republicans want to distract us by interviewing him.

If thats the case they want to present to the american people why shouldnt the democrats allow them to make it? What is the argument for Democrats obstructing Republicans from presenting their argument to the public and letting people decide for themselves?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Marine Electric]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

Wrong noun.

The whistleblower is not an "accuser" -- the whistleblower is a "reporting party" and/or, a "witness."

:2wave:

 

[Vern]

Is he a whistleblower? Gregg Jarrett says no:

As I first explained in a column six weeks ago, the so-called “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower at all. The complaint he filed against President Trump does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the ICWPA. That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community.

...So what should we call the fake “whistleblower”? It is more accurate to describe him as an undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gathering hearsay information intended to damage him.

Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the informant was aided and abetted by none other than Schiff and/or Schiff’s staff to invent a pretext for the impeachment of the president.

...To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government. Gregg Jarrett: Whistleblower not entitled to anonymity – He’s an informant acting as a Democratic operative | Fox News

congratulations, you found an "editorial" that says "nuh uh". I just cant ignore this part like you did.

"In his complaint, the informant offered his interpretation, however uninformed, of the phone call that he neither heard nor read in a transcript. His opinion is irrelevant and immaterial."

I'm not sure you know this but everything the WB claimed has been confirmed so it was not "uninformed". The good news is your "editorial" doesn't think he needs to be subpoenaed.

 

[Irredentist]

If thats the case they want to present to the american people why shouldnt the democrats allow them to make it? What is the argument for Democrats obstructing Republicans from presenting their argument to the public and letting people decide for themselves?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Who's preventing them from making that argument? That's the argument they've been making the entire time. Never mind that it has no relevance to the impeachment investigation in any way. Democrats aren't obligated to assist Republicans with their distracting sideshow. They can waste their own time with that.

 

[Perotista]

The whistleblower is not a witness, he/she is a tipster... No different than an anonymous tipster in many, many criminal cases...



The president will have every right to call witnesses during the senate trial, just like every other trial in this country. There is NO right to call witnesses during an investigation.



If McConnell and the senate GOP want to treat this solemn process with a childish approach, they have every to do so..



The investigation is far from over... Even if Trump survives, there will be plenty of resignations and possibly criminal charges for some members of the administration. Nixon was not impeached and dozens of his staff ended up resigning in shame and some going to prison.

So say the partisans on one side while the partisans on the other say the complete opposite. when on average 85% of partisan Democrats favor impeachment and removal vs. 85% of Republicans who oppose it, you can't get more partisan than that. Or can you? As for McConnell, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd tried it once. So the precedence is there. The Democrats set the precedence much like the Democrats set the precedence for the Nuclear Option.

Do you deny the use of something that was first used by the democrats its use by the Republicans? Probably so, partisan politics at its finest or worst.

Outside of that little know procedure, you do know McConnell and the Republicans will set the rules for the Trial. They have the numbers to deny witnesses the Democrats will want to call. Tit for tat. Open up that can of worms if you like. Perhaps the Republicans will have a better sense of judicial procedure than the democrats? We'll have to wait and see.

 

[btthegreat]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

Are you really not able to figure out why cops might have anonymous tip lines and then protect those sources/ informants from court proceedings by using other sources to prove the elements of a crime? Really. You need to be taught this? Because the point is to get people to come forward, and through subsequent investigation, build a case that makes their testimony redundant and unnecessary. So that you can get people to keep using the anonymous tipster line again and you can investigate and prosecute more cases than otherwise.

This committee is an intelligence committee, who end up having intelligence briefings provided by the FBI or CIA often acquiring a host of covert human resources that they need to protect and manage for long term access. This same reasoning might give you some insight here. I think my preteen l kids figured out what happens to your trust factor on the playground when you narc out, squeal, or otherwise compromise your word.

 

[trouble13]

What I want to know is why Hillary isn't on the list, if they're going to rehash the Mueller investigation.

What difference does it make who is on the list? Provided the list isnt excessively long republicans should be allowed to put into the record any testimony they want. Its not schiffs place to decide if testimony is relevant to the republicans case or not.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Where do you get the idea that the Republicans were limited to eight witnesses?

To clarify, im not saying they were told they could only call 8 people by the Democrats. Im saying they only requested 8 subponeas which is a reasonable number. I could understand schiff triming down the list if it was for 50 subpoenas which would drag the process out but thats not the case.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

Is that the guy GP has claimed is the WB?

Let's just say for laughs that it is him. Do you think for even an instant that Trump wouldn't be all over the guy like a wet suit with tweets and comments in his pressers? I mean really?

It's not like Trump doesn't grab onto CT's and carry on to the point of looking delusional, but now he's just paying dumb when the name is right out there for you to comment on, but he hasn't. Why do you suppose that is?

And let's add all your details in the mix. Just for good measure let's also say a PI sniffed around and found a whole closet full of Trump photos with the faces scratched off. And a memo stating Trump is a baby eating pervert who should rot in hell.

Would that change the fact that one by one a line of people have come forward and confirmed what was in the WB letter?

We've seen the call and we know it matches. The administration has confirmed that there were concerns over the call so it was moved to the coded server. We know Giuliani has been shoulder deep slithering around wreaking havoc between here and Ukraine. We know the money was held up and that there were repeated efforts to get the Ukraine president to announce they were opening an investigation.

Do you honestly think all that would just go "poof" if the WB (regardless of whether it's this guy or Elvis) were to walk in wearing a I hate Trump hat and say: yeah I'm the WB and stand by my letter.

What would that change as far as all the testimony under oath?

Ciaramella's credibility needs to be established. Schiffty doesn't want that done. And he certainly doesn't want to be publicly linked to Ciaramella.

 

[ClaraD]

Ciaramella's credibility needs to be established. Schiffty doesn't want that done. And he certainly doesn't want to be publicly linked to Ciaramella.

why does his credibility need to be established? Do you have some sort of proof beyond a baseless allegation by a right wing media source that he is indeed the whistelblower?

 

[3leftsdoo]

Wow are the Democrats in for it if they ever get another party member into the Oval Office...

 

[trouble13]

Who's preventing them from making that argument? That's the argument they've been making the entire time. Never mind that it has no relevance to the impeachment investigation in any way. Democrats aren't obligated to assist Republicans with their distracting sideshow. They can waste their own time with that.

So why not allow republicans to subpoena whoever they want?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[BlueTex]

So say the partisans on one side while the partisans on the other say the complete opposite. when on average 85% of partisan Democrats favor impeachment and removal vs. 85% of Republicans who oppose it, you can't get more partisan than that. Or can you? As for McConnell, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd tried it once. So the precedence is there. The Democrats set the precedence much like the Democrats set the precedence for the Nuclear Option.

Do you deny the use of something that was first used by the democrats its use by the Republicans? Probably so, partisan politics at its finest or worst.

Outside of that little know procedure, you do know McConnell and the Republicans will set the rules for the Trial. They have the numbers to deny witnesses the Democrats will want to call. Tit for tat. Open up that can of worms if you like. Perhaps the Republicans will have a better sense of judicial procedure than the democrats? We'll have to wait and see.

Of course, Justice Roberts will preside over the trial... I doubt he will allow the trial to become a circus...

 

[nota bene]

So, shorter Jarrett, "The president is above the law, and no man can legally report on his wrongdoing."

This isn't what Jarrett wrote. :roll:

 

[nota bene]

Gregg Jarret? Mr CT himself. Not a reliable source, in my view.


The WB passed muster with both the ADNI and the IC IG.

There is no such evidence other than the fanciful musings of Fox news pundits, such as Gregg Jarret.

If you were familiar with Jarrett's opinions, you'd be able to spell his name.

 

[BlueTex]

Ciaramella's credibility needs to be established. Schiffty doesn't want that done. And he certainly doesn't want to be publicly linked to Ciaramella.

Why does the whistleblowers credibility need to be established? Let's say the whistleblower is entirely uncredible, how would that affect the case for impeachment?

 

[nota bene]

Aren’t federal employees supposed to follow the laws and uphold the same constitution that elected officials swear an oath to uphold? If that is the case, and the president is acting against the law, shouldn’t the first obligation of federal employees be to call out these acts.

I'd suggest that you read Jarrett's opinion/explanation.

 

[nota bene]

Jarrett hasn't practiced law in almost 20 years... I wouldn't take legal advice from a FoX New reporter so far removed from the actual practice of law...

I wouldn't take seriously the argument of someone who can do no better than ad homs. But just FYI, Jarrett, who has formerly taught law, allowed his license to go inactive in 2015. Gregg Jarrett - Wikipedia

 

[BlueTex]

I wouldn't take seriously the argument of someone who can do no better than ad homs. But just FYI, Jarrett, who has formerly taught law, allowed his license to go inactive in 2015. Gregg Jarrett - Wikipedia

He joined Fox News in 2002 and not as a lawyer...

 

[OrphanSlug]

At this point it is reasonable to question everyone’s handling of this, Democrats and Republicans alike.