Whistleblower identified

[Cow Poke]

And congress has the ability and the responsibility to protect him from the most powerful man in the world in this divisive climate.

Jim, "the most powerful man in the world" already knows how he is. If he wanted to reach out and touch him, he could. The Whistle Blower Act is not about protecting the IDENTITY of the whistle blower, but about keeping him/her safe and free from retaliation.

Besides that, his identity is a red herring and has nothing to do with the facts that he brought to light.

So, why does Schiff keep lying about it?

Those facts are out there so outing the revealer of them does nothing to change that.

"Those facts" seem to have fallen on their faces in the view of the millions of Americans who took time to watch the hearings.

[Mountain Man]

I don't know if it's that hard to believe based on this.
Based on the article the conversation could have just been:

Whistleblower - Hello! could I get some advice on how to report possible wrongdoing?
Staff - contact the the inspector general and seek legal counsel.
Whistleblower - thank you! bye!
Staff - bye!

---end---

If that were the case then Schiff could have simply said so, but instead he denied that he or his office ever had any contact with the guy and then was forced to backtrack with the unconvincing claim that only his staff had any contact, and he knew nothing about it.

[JimL]

Jim, "the most powerful man in the world" already knows how he is. If he wanted to reach out and touch him, he could. The Whistle Blower Act is not about protecting the IDENTITY of the whistle blower, but about keeping him/her safe and free from retaliation.

Yes, and keeping the whistleblowers identity secret is what Schiff is doing in order to keep him safe from retaliation.

So, why does Schiff keep lying about it?

Again, you don't know that he's lying, and besides, the facts of the whistleblowers claims are apparent, so it doesn't matter. You tell me, what difference do you think it would make if the whistleblower had met with Schiff. Do you think that they conspired to reveal factual national security complaints to the IG?

"Those facts" seem to have fallen on their faces in the view of the millions of Americans who took time to watch the hearings.

Facts don't fall on their faces, CP and if you watched the hearings and can't understand the corruption that was taking place that the professionals did try to explain to you, then that's on you. Your incapacitation is not their fault.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, and keeping the whistleblowers identity secret is what Schiff is doing in order to keep him safe from retaliation.

Yeah, right.

[JimL]

Yeah, right.

Yeah, right.

[rogue06]

Jim, "the most powerful man in the world" already knows how he is. If he wanted to reach out and touch him, he could. The Whistle Blower Act is not about protecting the IDENTITY of the whistle blower, but about keeping him/her safe and free from retaliation.



So, why does Schiff keep lying about it?



"Those facts" seem to have fallen on their faces in the view of the millions of Americans who took time to watch the hearings.

The testimony of the various non-witnesses^[1] can probably be best summed up by a frank admission by Yovanovitch that she had no firsthand knowledge of the Trump-Zelensky call. In her case she was no longer the Ukrainian Ambassador at that time which brings up the question, why was she even called given that Schiff expressly proclaimed that he would allow no witnesses to testify who couldn't address Trump's alleged quid pro quo?










1.

00000000000000ab000-00aaaaA.jpg

I think most people, if for no other reason than all the police and lawyer shows and movies, understand this already

[rogue06]

Yes, and keeping the whistleblowers identity secret is what Schiff is doing in order to keep him safe from retaliation.

Um, even I know who the whistleblower is. It is one of the biggest open secrets of our time

[rogue06]

The testimony of the various non-witnesses^[1] can probably be best summed up by a frank admission by Yovanovitch that she had no firsthand knowledge of the Trump-Zelensky call. In her case she was no longer the Ukrainian Ambassador at that time which brings up the question, why was she even called given that Schiff expressly proclaimed that he would allow no witnesses to testify who couldn't address Trump's alleged quid pro quo?










1.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41064[/ATTACH]

I think most people, if for no other reason than all the police and lawyer shows and movies, understand this already

I wonder if we'll be seeing hearsay being played up as being legitimate coming out of Hollyweird in the next few months or so.

[rogue06]

Clickinate on if you please

[Watermelon]

The testimony of the various non-witnesses^[1] can probably be best summed up by a frank admission by Yovanovitch that she had no firsthand knowledge of the Trump-Zelensky call. In her case she was no longer the Ukrainian Ambassador at that time which brings up the question, why was she even called given that Schiff expressly proclaimed that he would allow no witnesses to testify who couldn't address Trump's alleged quid pro quo?










1.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41064[/ATTACH]

I think most people, if for no other reason than all the police and lawyer shows and movies, understand this already

A witness is anyone who has relevant information that could help the fact finder determine the truth. Direct observation of an event is an eye witness but there are also witnesses that could contribute with expert opinions, character assessments and hearsay.

Theres also this thing called mens rea in criminal law which is the mental element which also has to be satisfied for a crime to be determined. Most witnesses for this element aren't eye witnesses to the actual crime but testify as to what they know for periods before and after the crime.

If you've seen lawyer shows then surely you've heard them ask other questions to the witness besides 'did you see the crime take place?'.

If that's what most people understand then perhaps it's a good opportunity to learn why she was called to be a witness and how her testimony is relevant to the allegations.

[rogue06]

A witness is anyone who has relevant information that could help the fact finder determine the truth.

So if I find something in a magazine article that helps the fact finder determine the truth that somehow turns me into a witness?

Witnesses are someone who was able to see and/or hear a particular incident. They are not someone who (here we go again), in the words of REO Speedwagon:

Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another

Folks like that aren't witnesses, they are gossips.

Direct observation of an event is an eye witness but there are also witnesses that could contribute with expert opinions, character assessments and hearsay.

Yeah and evolution can mean a whole slew of different things but when someone is talking about Darwin's theory they are not referring to the evolution of stars or music trends.

There is a reason that with extremely few exceptions^[1] hearsay is barred from testimony. And even in the very few cases when it is allowed second, third, and fourth-hand hearsay (which is what was offered during Schiff's circus) is never permitted under any circumstances.

Theres also this thing called mens rea in criminal law which is the mental element which also has to be satisfied for a crime to be determined. Most witnesses for this element aren't eye witnesses to the actual crime but testify as to what they know for periods before and after the crime.

But they cannot testify about the alleged crime which is what we had here.

If you've seen lawyer shows then surely you've heard them ask other questions to the witness besides 'did you see the crime take place?'.

I try not to base my knowledge of the law on what I see in fictional TV shows. If I did I would expect the defense attorney to produce the real culprit just like Perry Mason always did.

If that's what most people understand then perhaps it's a good opportunity to learn why she was called to be a witness and how her testimony is relevant to the allegations.

I've even heard several liberal pundits express dismay that she was called since she couldn't offer anything relevant to the case. That this is indeed the case can be seen by her testimony which ended up being little more than her being given a platform for complaining about being fired (just how many times was she asked how something made her "feel"?).







1. Such as someone giving a dying declaration to someone. In that case the latter can offer it during testimony. But if the person who the dying person told it to goes and repeats it to someone else that person can not testify to what the dying person said.

[rogue06]

The Washington Post even gave 4 Pinocchios to Schiff's claim that he had not been in contact with Ciaramella and that he and/or his staff had helped him file the complaint. The fact that the WaPo usually bends over backwards to avoid giving that particular review to any Democrat speaks volumes.

I think the strongest evidence is that Schiff cited what was in the complaint before it had been officially filed

It seems that the WaPo has taken an unprecedented step in awarding Schiff with three more Pinocchios for more lying during his circus. That speaks volumes when even they can't spin this away

Source: WaPo Busts Adam Schiff Again, Gives Him ‘3 Pinocchios’ for Lying

When even the Washington Post is calling a Democrat for lying not only once but a second time, you know that that Democrat must be setting a new standard for falsehoods that the WaPo just can’t avoid reporting.

They nailed House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), but good.

Schiff has a long history of not telling the truth.

He famously claimed that there was evidence of which he was aware that proved conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. He of course never produced such evidence and the Mueller report concluded that there was no conspiracy.

He opened hearings into the Trump-Zelensky July 25 Ukraine call by lying about what was said in the call, knowing that many might not see the transcript of what was actually said. He later claimed it was “parody” but then continued to lie about the call during television interviews to make President Donald Trump look bad.

The WaPo had previously given Schiff four Pinocchios in October for lying about contacts with the whistleblower claiming his panel had “not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” WaPo called that “flat-out false.” Schiff’s committee aide had in fact met with the whistleblower and even recommended he file a complaint. The whistleblower also sent Schiff a letter dated Aug. 12, apprising him about the call/complaint.

Schiff has continued to tell falsehoods throughout the hearings, including that he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. Yet during the hearing with Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, he stopped him from naming one of the people whom he discussed the July 25th call with, claiming it was necessary to “protect the whistleblower.” Rep. Jim Jordan nailed him on it yesterday during the hearing.

Schiff has tried to clean up the disaster his witnesses have left during the day, recasting what they actually said to more closely fit his narrative. For example, he falsely claimed yesterday that Vindman thought Trump broke the law when Vindman never said that.

There was a virtual host of lies for which the WaPo could have nailed him. But they did give him three Pinocchios for a big lie which has inhibited getting at the truth of the proceedings. Three and four Pinocchios means the lie is more egregious.

From The Hill:

Schiff has said repeated recently, including during impeachment hearings on Tuesday, that the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine, has a statutory right to remain anonymous.

“The whistleblower has the right, a statutory right, to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower,” Schiff said Tuesday.

The Post fact-checker disagreed, stating “it’s not a right spelled out in any statute.”

The WaPo noted that anonymity is not included in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act.

“The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community,” it reads.

Every Republican should be calling out this lie in the hearings every time they have the opportunity to speak. He continues to deceive the public and suffers no consequences for his lies.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Since the TDS crowd is always wringing their hands over Trump's incessant lying you'd think they would be upset with Schiff's unabated string of bald faced lies (not hyperbole, difference in opinion, exaggerations or simple mistakes), but instead we've pretty much got

cricket.gif

from them.

I guess it all depends on who is lying

[Watermelon]

So if I find something in a magazine article that helps the fact finder determine the truth that somehow turns me into a witness?

Witnesses are someone who was able to see and/or hear a particular incident. They are not someone who (here we go again), in the words of REO Speedwagon:

Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another

Folks like that aren't witnesses, they are gossips.


Yeah and evolution can mean a whole slew of different things but when someone is talking about Darwin's theory they are not referring to the evolution of stars or music trends.

There is a reason that with extremely few exceptions^[1] hearsay is barred from testimony. And even in the very few cases when it is allowed second, third, and fourth-hand hearsay (which is what was offered during Schiff's circus) is never permitted under any circumstances.


But they cannot testify about the alleged crime which is what we had here.


I try not to base my knowledge of the law on what I see in fictional TV shows. If I did I would expect the defense attorney to produce the real culprit just like Perry Mason always did.


I've even heard several liberal pundits express dismay that she was called since she couldn't offer anything relevant to the case. That this is indeed the case can be seen by her testimony which ended up being little more than her being given a platform for complaining about being fired (just how many times was she asked how something made her "feel"?).







1. Such as someone giving a dying declaration to someone. In that case the latter can offer it during testimony. But if the person who the dying person told it to goes and repeats it to someone else that person can not testify to what the dying person said.

I should amend that definition to read relevant knowledge that’s not available in the public domain.

The hearsay within a hearsay rule seems to contradict your claim that anything but first hand hearsay is never allowed. There are many exceptions that could apply to any hearsay in these testimonies since most of the occurrences were in situations where the assumption of reliability could be satisfied.

Most notably the fact that Trump actively blocked witnesses from testifying means any hearsay of them is automatically an exception.

Further, to call this a circus for allowing hearsay is misguided since the hearsay rule doesn’t apply here. You’re criticizing it for doing something it’s allowed to do.

She was asked how she felt way too many times and it was annoying but the relevant part of her testimony wasn’t hearsay. She was a fact witness.

I’m curious as to what you thought her testimony was about.

[rogue06]

I should amend that definition to read relevant knowledge that’s not available in the public domain.

The hearsay within a hearsay rule seems to contradict your claim that anything but first hand hearsay is never allowed. There are many exceptions that could apply to any hearsay in these testimonies since most of the occurrences were in situations where the assumption of reliability could be satisfied.

Apparently you missed the fact that I actually provided an example of one of the few instances where hearsay can be admitted.

And no, if a witness doesn't testify doesn't mean that you can permit someone who heard something third or fourth hand to testify as to what they think that the non-testifying witness may have heard about it.

[Cow Poke]

Further, to call this a circus for allowing hearsay ....

I'm not calling it a circus for allowing hearsay - I'm calling it a circus because that's what it was. Adam Schiff, pretty much a pathological liar, built this circus on the most partisan grounds possible, appointed himself chief prosecutor, judge, jury, and media spokesperson, and ran a kangaroo court.

I can't even think of Schiff without thinking "I recognize myself" and "the gentlewoman will suspend". In other words - "I get to talk - you shut up".