Whistleblower identified

[oxmixmudd]

That same "duress" that would force him to lie would lead him to continue down that road (too late to go back) and fabricate other things. But we get told he doesn't do that because he doesn't want to get drawn into this mess. And yet the same folks insist that he is lying -- which is drawing him into this mess.

They don't care if their claims are internally inconsistent. The TDS has taken too strong a hold.

The argument you make here is completely lame.

Zelensky has to act in a way that preserves his relationship with the US. He needs our help. So that means he can't investigate a potential 'next' president any more than he can speak poorly of Trump publicly. It's a balancing act Rogue. He will tell the truth about those things that do not cause Trump shame or trouble. And he will lie or bend the truth as necessary when they would. He will not bite the hand the feeds him, that is providing the support he needs to avoid being invaded by Russia.

[rogue06]

The lengths to which people will go to get this guy. To expose Teump must be getting close to the unpardonable sin in some quarters these days.

Is your hatred of all things 'liberal' so complete that it literally does not matter what Trump does as long as whatever is happening is in some way allowing for revenge against the MSM or Democrats?

As Star makes clear Ciaramella is not a whistleblower but a leaker. And considering that he merely passed on hearsay he's nothing but a gossip.

[oxmixmudd]

As Star makes clear Ciaramella is not a whistleblower but a leaker. And considering that he merely passed on hearsay he's nothing but a gossip.

The things exposed by the whistleblower have all been shown to be true rogue. It doesn't matter that it is hearsay. In a whistleblower case, what matters is whether or not what is reported is true.

Why are you advocating for evil rogue? MM I am not surprised at, he's been that way a long time. You I do not understand. Whistle Blower statutes exist to protect people with knowledge of laws being broken from retaliation by the criminals. You are advocating for the criminals here. Why?

[RumTumTugger]

"Lying" is yet more advocation for evil. I don't consider what he said a lie in the sense that you imply here. I see it as a necessary response so as to preserve the peace between his country and the Trump administration. Not unlike when a teacher finds a bully smacking around some smaller kid with all his goons looking on and she asks "are you ok" and the kid says "No, I'm fine, really" as he glances nervously at the bully.

I'm still waiting for you to outline the evidence you have that Trump was bullying the ukrainians you did say you would do so and I did ask in post #256 here for you to do so. I'm still waiting. so far all I've seen from you is feelings and opinion not evidence.

incase you forgot your offer here is the quote.

That is where the evidence leads Rum - but I can't make you accept it. It is what it is. I have outlined some of that evidence in other posts, perhaps in another thread, and I can outline it again if you really need to see it. however I certainly am not going to be like most Trump followers and just say only what Trump wants to hear, nor will I give it a bunch of spin like we see on the conservative rags.

I'll leave the rest of the post to your conscience oxmixmudd with this one question have you ever shown even a modicum of God's Grace to Trump in your baseless attacks on him regarding what he has done in office.

[Mountain Man]

"Lying" is yet more advocation for evil. I don't consider what he said a lie in the sense that you imply here. I see it as a necessary response so as to preserve the peace between his country and the Trump administration. Not unlike when a teacher finds a bully smacking around some smaller kid with all his goons looking on and she asks "are you ok" and the kid says "No, I'm fine, really" as he glances nervously at the bully.




How ironic for someone such as yourself who supports one of the most corrupt men to occupy the white house in years and who advocates for him in ways that accuse and diminish the innocent, the weak, and the poor to be quoting Lewis. But at his point, there is no other possibility than that Trump was trying to manipulate Ukraine into helping him out against Biden. So the point is moot. But even if by some miracle it turns out I'm wrong about Trump, I will not be sad about it. I would be glad if Trump suddenly repented and abandoned his evil. I know you can't understand that - partially because I don't think you understand being motivated by principle any more than Donald Trump does. But I am all for truth and redemption. The problem is, Trump is not. Not even close. And the other problem is there are many that follow Christ, like yourself, willing to literally sell their souls to the Devil himself in offering support for him in his current state.

Jim

It's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone as disconnected from reality as you.

[JimL]

What's your take on why the two Democrats defected? It's interesting that anytime there is a vote "down party lines", it's the Republicans' fault for being obstructionists, but here you actually have two Democrats breaking ranks and voting with the Republicans.

You should be wondering why republicans voted against that which they've been calling for (open hearings) for some time now. Funny how they get what they ask for and then no longer want it. Of course, it is pretty obvious to most of us as to why they don't really want open hearings.

[rogue06]

The things exposed by the whistleblower have all been shown to be true rogue.

Keep telling yourself that.

I've posted several instances (IIRC, addressing you at least once) where various basic claims have been shown to be false.

Why are you advocating for evil rogue? MM I am not surprised at, he's been that way a long time. You I do not understand. Whistle Blower statutes exist to protect people with knowledge of laws being broken from retaliation by the criminals. You are advocating for the criminals here. Why?

Putting aside an attempt on your part that you should be ashamed of, the point that you appear to be blinded to is that Star is saying that Ciaramella is not a whistleblower but a leaker. Note the bolded part please.

And this means that he is not covered by any Whistleblower statute because he is not a whistleblower but instead is simply a leaker.

[Cow Poke]

for those confused by CP's mistake: "this guy" in my post refers ONLY to the whistle-blower.

It wasn't a mistake, Jim, and I think you know that. It was an observation, and it still stands.

I don't think anybody here had any doubt you were referring to the so-called "whistle-blower", but it could just as well apply to the object of your current obsession.

Which is EGGzackly why I said....

One could substitute "Trump" for "this guy"...

[Cow Poke]

As Star makes clear Ciaramella is not a whistleblower but a leaker. And considering that he merely passed on hearsay he's nothing but a gossip.

Which is why I referred to him as the so-called "whistle-blower".

[Cow Poke]

You should be wondering why ...

I really don't think you're the guy I should look to as the source of my 'wonderings'.

[Mountain Man]

You should be wondering why republicans voted against that which they've been calling for (open hearings) for some time now. Funny how they get what they ask for and then no longer want it. Of course, it is pretty obvious to most of us as to why they don't really want open hearings.

Did you even read the resolution? To call it a proposal for "open hearings" is like calling a boxing match where one fighter is required to have his hands tied behind his back a "fair fight". There's a reason it faced bipartisan opposition!

[Cow Poke]

Did you even read the resolution? To call it a proposal for "open hearings" is like calling a boxing match where one fighter is required to have his hands tied behind his back a "fair fight". There's a reason it faced bipartisan opposition!

Is this the one being touted as the Shifty Schiff Empowerment Resolution?

[Mountain Man]

Is this the one being touted as the Shifty Schiff Empowerment Resolution?

That's the one.

[Cow Poke]

That's the one.

No wonder I don't have to wonder why the Republicans opposed it.

[Cow Poke]

That's the one.

The Adam Schiff Empowerment Act

House Democrats plan to pass their Trump impeachment resolution Thursday. Its full description is: "Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes."

A better and much shorter title would be the Adam Schiff Empowerment Act.

The resolution gives Rep. Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, far-reaching power over the Trump impeachment proceedings. Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains the ultimate authority, of course, but, like a chairman of the board choosing a chief executive officer, she has picked Schiff to run the show. And in the resolution, Democrats will give him near-total control.

The first thing the resolution will do is give the impeachment investigation to the Intelligence Committee. Until now, three committees — Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs — have been conducting impeachment interviews. Going forward, Oversight and Foreign Affairs will be out of the interview picture in favor of Intelligence.

Among other things, that would mean that some Republicans who have been persistent critics of the process but who have been allowed into depositions by virtue of their membership in other participating committees — two examples are Oversight Committee members Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Mark Meadows — will no longer be allowed in the interview room.

"It's totally one-sided," Meadows told me Wednesday evening. "They can continue to do secret depositions. They have noticed depositions for John Bolton and others next week in anticipation of a positive vote Thursday. All it does is limit the committees that will be involved in the depositions."

The resolution also gives Schiff total control over whether transcripts of depositions already completed and those yet to be done will be made public. "The chair is authorized to make publicly available in electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by the [Intelligence Committee] in furtherance of the investigation," says the resolution. That means Schiff can release transcripts, but it does not mean he must release transcripts.

"It says they are authorized to disclose depositions," Meadows noted, "which means they can pick and choose which depositions they will release." Perhaps Schiff will release them all. But he doesn't have to.

The resolution would also give Schiff the authority to call and conduct public hearings on impeachment. Schiff will control the witnesses. Although there has been some discussion about whether Republicans will have the right to call witnesses, the resolution only gives the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Community, Rep. Devin Nunes, the right to ask Schiff to call a witness.

"To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation," the resolution says. "Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witnesses to the investigation." Republicans will get nothing that Schiff does not approve.

"There's no guarantee we can call any witnesses," said Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup, a member of the Intelligence Committee, in an interview Wednesday.

"The rules the Democrats rammed through simply confirm the absolute control Schiff has been exercising this entire time," Nunes said. "He shouldn't be involved in impeachment at all since none of this has any intelligence component, but Pelosi obviously thinks Nadler is incompetent."

That was a reference to Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary panel traditionally handles impeachments, but after disastrous hearings with Robert Mueller and Corey Lewandowski, Nadler did not inspire confidence that he could run a successful impeachment effort. So Pelosi passed him by in favor of Schiff.

In the end, Republicans expect Democrats to hold a small number of public hearings, picking a few of the witnesses they believe will be most effective on television and excluding the rest. It will all be run by Schiff, who will be, Republican Rep. Doug Collins said on Fox News Wednesday, "the sole arbiter of everything impeachment."

Republicans can't say for sure, but they expect GOP lawmakers to unanimously vote against the impeachment resolution. Even members who have some doubts about Trump will likely take a stand against the Democratic one-sidedness of the process.

Of course, that won't be enough to stop it. Democrats control the House, and they control the way impeachment will be run. That's what the 2018 election was about. And now, there's nothing Republicans can do to change it.