Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on October 08, 2019, 10:31:26 AM
-
What kind of star chamber crap is this??
Democrats mull masking whistleblower, holding testimony at remote locale: report
BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 10/07/19
House Democrats are looking to prevent the whistleblower from being identified by holding the person's testimony at a remote location and potentially changing their appearance and voice.
Democrats are going to great lengths to hide the whistleblower's identity out of fear the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee could leak their identity, according to The Washington Post, which cited three people familiar with the discussions.
Democrats are considering holding testimony outside the Capitol as well as a staff-only session that would bar lawmakers from questioning the whistleblower, according to the Post.
Democrats are also weighing options to distort the whistleblower's appearance and voice, including through a video camera or audio-only testimony or by placing the person behind a screen, the Post reported.
These meetings could occur "within the next couple of weeks," though the date has not been decided, an official told the Post.
The whistleblower's allegations that President Trump sought to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden led Democrats to start an impeachment inquiry.
Trump has requested to know the identity of the whistleblower and has called the person "close to a spy."
The lawyer representing the whistleblower has expressed concern for his client's safety. A second whistleblower has hired the same legal team.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464738-democrats-mull-masking-whistleblower-holding-testimony-at-remote-locale-report
-
Libaards are clueless, the wistleblower would be giving hearsay evidence ...not admissible
-
What kind of star chamber crap is this??
Democrats mull masking whistleblower, holding testimony at remote locale: report
BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 10/07/19
House Democrats are looking to prevent the whistleblower from being identified by holding the person's testimony at a remote location and potentially changing their appearance and voice.
Democrats are going to great lengths to hide the whistleblower's identity out of fear the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee could leak their identity, according to The Washington Post, which cited three people familiar with the discussions.
Democrats are considering holding testimony outside the Capitol as well as a staff-only session that would bar lawmakers from questioning the whistleblower, according to the Post.
Democrats are also weighing options to distort the whistleblower's appearance and voice, including through a video camera or audio-only testimony or by placing the person behind a screen, the Post reported.
These meetings could occur "within the next couple of weeks," though the date has not been decided, an official told the Post.
The whistleblower's allegations that President Trump sought to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden led Democrats to start an impeachment inquiry.
Trump has requested to know the identity of the whistleblower and has called the person "close to a spy."
The lawyer representing the whistleblower has expressed concern for his client's safety. A second whistleblower has hired the same legal team.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464738-democrats-mull-masking-whistleblower-holding-testimony-at-remote-locale-report
Do you believe whistleblowers should be required to go public with their allegations?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302 (b) 8 - 9, Pub. L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.
-
Do you believe whistleblowers should be required to go public with their allegations?
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302 (b) 8 - 9, Pub. L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.
I think this person should be identified and questioned by both parties in Congress and the President's representatives. That's just basic, fundamental fairness. These Democrats are some anti-American zealots.
-
I think this person should be identified and questioned by both parties in Congress and the President's representatives. That's just basic, fundamental fairness. These Democrats are some anti-American zealots.
So I take it that the fact that the law protects a whistleblower from retaliation and Trump has threatened to do just that, means nothing to you?
-
So I take it that the fact that the law protects a whistleblower from retaliation and Trump has threatened to do just that, means nothing to you?
You're confused. Prohibiting retaliation does not mean you get to hide the identity of the person accusing you of a crime and prevent that person from being questioned. Testing accusation being made against you isn't retaliation. It's fundamental fairness.
Does the Constitution mean nothing to you??
-
Something like:
The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action. ... As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses.
-
Shouldn't you be able to face your accuser? ???
-
You're confused. Prohibiting retaliation does not mean you get to hide the identity of the person accusing you of a crime and prevent that person from being questioned. Testing accusation being made against you isn't retaliation. It's fundamental fairness.
Does the Constitution mean nothing to you??
Nope Not To Prime & The DummyCraps
Shouldn't you be able to face your accuser? ???
Nope Not To Prime & The DummyCraps
Something like:
The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action. ... As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses.
Nope Not To Prime & The DummyCraps
-
Something like:
The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action. ... As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses.
Precisely. Thank you.
-
So I take it that the fact that the law protects a whistleblower from retaliation and Trump has threatened to do just that, means nothing to you?
So you’re saying that the President of the United States is not afforded due process?
Could you possibly have your head any further up your ass?
-
Interesting if true. What type of ties did the unidentified whistleblower have to the unnamed Democratic candidate?
Whistleblower had 'professional' tie to 2020 Democratic candidate
In an Aug. 26 letter, the Intelligence Community's inspector general, Michael Atkinson, wrote that the anonymous whistleblower who set off the Trump-Ukraine impeachment fight showed "some indicia of an arguable political bias ... in favor of a rival political candidate."
A few weeks later, news reports said the whistleblower's possible bias was that he is a registered Democrat. That was all. Incredulous commentary suggested that Republicans who were pushing the bias talking point were so blinded by their own partisanship that they saw simple registration with the Democratic Party as evidence of wrongdoing.
"Give me a break!" tweeted whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid. "Bias? Seriously?"
Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election.
"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.
"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.
"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate," said a third person with knowledge of what was said.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate
-
Interesting if true. What type of ties did the unidentified whistleblower have to the unnamed Democratic candidate?
Whistleblower had 'professional' tie to 2020 Democratic candidate
In an Aug. 26 letter, the Intelligence Community's inspector general, Michael Atkinson, wrote that the anonymous whistleblower who set off the Trump-Ukraine impeachment fight showed "some indicia of an arguable political bias ... in favor of a rival political candidate."
A few weeks later, news reports said the whistleblower's possible bias was that he is a registered Democrat. That was all. Incredulous commentary suggested that Republicans who were pushing the bias talking point were so blinded by their own partisanship that they saw simple registration with the Democratic Party as evidence of wrongdoing.
"Give me a break!" tweeted whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid. "Bias? Seriously?"
Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election.
"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.
"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.
"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate," said a third person with knowledge of what was said.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate
That's why they are trying to hide his identity. This is some serious banana republic stuff.
-
And autobiographical post if there ever was one.
The case gets more ridiculous by the day and you knuckleheads are still buying into it:
Adam Schiff says whistleblower may not testify in impeachment probe
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/13/schiff-whistleblower-impeachment-probe-045910
-
Dan Bongino has accurately compared the Whistleblower case to this song
REO Speedwagon Take it on the run lyrics
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another you been messin' around
-
Dan Bongino has accurately compared the Whistleblower case to this song
REO Speedwagon Take it on the run lyrics
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another you been messin' around
Nobody gets deeper in the weeds and lays out the facts of this deep state conspiracy stuff like Bongino.
-
Nobody gets deeper in the weeds and lays out the facts of this deep state conspiracy stuff like Bongino.
Kimberley Strassel's recent piece on the deep state is quite good.
https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1182800866635419648
-
I think this person should be identified and questioned by both parties in Congress and the President's representatives. That's just basic, fundamental fairness. These Democrats are some anti-American zealots.
After reading that Schiff might not allow the “whistleblower” to testify, I personally think the “whistleblower” is Schiff.
-
Kimberley Strassel's recent piece on the deep state is quite good.
https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1182800866635419648
Yeah I read that. Good piece.
-
After reading that Schiff might not allow the “whistleblower” to testify, I personally think the “whistleblower” is Schiff.
Well it is in a way because the "whistleblower" coordinated with him. He's a lying snake.
-
After reading that Schiff might not allow the “whistleblower” to testify, I personally think the “whistleblower” is Schiff.
I'm starting to think of bigfoot: myth, rumors, unverified sightings, and kooky theories.
Democratic lawmakers have made 94 calls for impeachment since February 2017.
https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-said-trump-could-be-impeached?fbclid=IwAR1tGkGEInl4DnALXb-vmyl9jOmZwsiD6NEASV61NcsKH1t4vqhyQTiCtQ0
-
Something like:
The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action. ... As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses.
There is no trial yet. This is the discovery period. The sixth Amendment isn't applicable the impeachment goes to trial. It becomes an offical trial when the Senate takes it up.
-
There is no trial yet. This is the discovery period. The sixth Amendment isn't applicable the impeachment goes to trial. It becomes an offical trial when the Senate takes it up.
Oh that's absolute BS. Hiding the identity of the person accusing you of a crime? Holding secret interviews? Refusing access to witnesses? Leaking selective excerpts of texts or testimony to try and create a narrative?
Absolutely unacceptable in America.
-
Oh that's absolute BS. Hiding the identity of the person accusing you of a crime? Holding secret interviews? Refusing access to witnesses? Leaking selective excerpts of texts or testimony to try and create a narrative?
Absolutely unacceptable in America.
Perhaps, but this is currently within the law. -Don't like it? Become a congress person and work to change the law. Again, whether or not it is a crime has yet to be determined. The whistleblower reported what they say they knew. It is not up to them to determine what is legal or not.
-
So who exactly is interviewing this "whistleblower"?
-
So who exactly is interviewing this "whistleblower"?
It came out today that the whistleblower worked directly for Joe Biden in the past.
Now Adam Schiff doesn’t want the whistleblower to testify to Congress.
This is going to fail worse than the Mueller Report for the Democrats
-
So who exactly is interviewing this "whistleblower"?
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/yoJC2N8UEjH2wcmwec/source.gif)
-
Perhaps, but this is currently within the law. -Don't like it? Become a congress person and work to change the law. Again, whether or not it is a crime has yet to be determined. The whistleblower reported what they say they knew. It is not up to them to determine what is legal or not.
What specific law are you talking about?
-
So who exactly is interviewing this "whistleblower"?
My guess is that it is representatives from the House Intelligence Committee. Why?
-
My guess is that it is representatives from the House Intelligence Committee. Why?
Trying to figure out how much coaching and practice he needs to have before he goes public.
-
So who exactly is interviewing this "whistleblower"?
Schiff (supposedly)
-
Schiff (supposedly)
Are you referring to the interviewer or the interviewee?
-
No issues with the person who started the "whistleblower" claim...then interviewing the same person, then running a closed door process? Really think that's going to stick?
-
125 House Republicans co-sponsor resolution to censure Schiff over 'parody' reading of Trump-Zelensky call
By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News
Reaction and analysis from former Schumer aide Chris Hahn and former independent counsel Ken Starr.
A motion to censure House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for his “parody” reading of President Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky during a hearing last month is gaining steam with House Republicans, as Fox News has learned 125 lawmakers have now signed on as co-sponsors.
The resolution to censure Schiff -- who has become a favorite target of Republicans for his role in the Trump impeachment inquiry -- was first introduced late last month by Rep. Andy Biggs, the Arizona Republican who chairs the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and has the support of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., and House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., among other ranking Republicans in the lower chamber of Congress.
Democrats have the majority and control the floor in the House, but Republicans could still attempt to force a vote on the matter.
“Schiff simply does not have the gravitas that a weighty procedure such as impeachment requires,” Biggs wrote in an opinion piece for Fox News. “He has repeatedly shown incredibly poor judgment. He has persistently and consistently demonstrated that he has such a tremendous bias and animus against Trump that he will say anything and accept any proffer of even bogus evidence to try to remove the president from office.”
Fox News has requested comment from Schiff's office.
Schiff, who is leading one of the committees investigating Trump in the impeachment inquiry announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has been under fire from conservatives for the “parody” of the president’s call with Zelensky that he read at the testimony last month of Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire.
Maguire was on Capitol Hill to defend his handling of the explosive whistleblower complaint detailing how Trump pressured his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
Trump says Schiff's parody of the Ukraine transcript should be 'treasonous'Video
The complaint contains allegations related to Trump’s call with Zelensky in July, when he urged him to investigate alleged corruption involving the Bidens.
The White House last month released an unclassified version of the transcript of the phone call. The memo, which does not reflect a “verbatim transcript” but is based on “notes and recollections” of those memorializing the call, shows Zelensky asking for more military aid before Trump asks him to pursue some kind of investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.
On the dais during Maguire’s testimony, Schiff gave his own exaggerated version of the phone call.
“I have a favor I want from you,” Schiff said while appearing to read from a paper. “And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it, on this and on that.”
Schiff has defended the version of the phone call he read at the testimony and chalked up his fictional summary of the controversial phone call to parody.
“My summary of the president’s call was meant to be at least, part, in parody,” Schiff said. “The fact that that’s not clear is a separate problem in and of itself. Of course, the president never said, ‘If you don’t understand me I’m going to say it seven more times’; my point is, that’s the message that the Ukraine president was receiving in not so many words.”
GAETZ SPEAKS OUT AFTER SCHIFF THROWS HIM OUT OF IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARING
Schiff’s explanation, however, did little to quell the outrage of his Republican colleagues who were already on the defensive following Pelosi’s announcement last Tuesday of the impeachment inquiry into Trump.
“Chairman Adam Schiff has been lying to the American people for years,” McCarthy said in a tweet announcing that he signed on to co-sponsor Biggs’ resolution. “Now he is so desperate to damage the president that he literally made up a false version of a phone call. Enough is enough.”
The president also voiced his anger with Schiff – who he has labeled with the nickname “Shifty Schiff” -- calling the California Democrat “desperate” and accusing him of lying to Congress.
“Rep. Adam Schiff fraudulently read to Congress, with millions of people watching, a version of my conversation with the President of Ukraine that doesn’t exist,” Trump tweeted. “He was supposedly reading the exact transcribed version of the call, but he completely changed the words to make it sound horrible, and me sound guilty.”
Schiff, however, did not take Trump’s taunt sitting down, firing back an accusation that the president was trying to “shakedown” a foreign leader and then trying to cover it up.
“You engaged in a shakedown to get election dirt from a foreign country,” Schiff said in a tweet. “And then you tried to cover it up.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/125-house-republicans-co-sponsor-resolution-to-censure-schiff-over-parody-reading-of-trump-zelensky-call
-
How many times can I call Schiff a dishonest dummy?
BREAKING: Schiff Pressured Witness To Say Trump Pressured Ukraine To Investigate Biden, Report Says
By Ryan Saavedra
DailyWire.com
Democrat House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff reportedly pressed U.S. special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker in a secret meeting on October 3 to say that President Donald Trump pressured Ukrainian officials to investigate former Vice President and current Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
“Volker denied that was the case, noting that Ukrainian leaders did not even know the aid was being withheld, and that they believed their relationship with the United States was moving along satisfactorily, without them having done anything Trump mentioned in his notorious July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,” The Washington Examiner reported. “When Volker repeatedly declined to agree to Schiff’s characterization of events, Schiff said, ‘Ambassador, you’re making this much more complicated than it has to be.'”
The central allegation that Democrats are claiming that Trump is guilty of is engaging in a quid pro quo with Ukraine, instructing them to investigate Biden in exchange for U.S. military support.
“Part of the other context is vital military support is being withheld from the Ukraine during this period, right?” Schiff asked, according to the Examiner.
“That was not part of the context at the time,” Volker said. “At least to my knowledge, they [Ukrainian leaders] were not aware of that.”
It was at this point that Schiff reportedly began to press Volker. According to the Examiner, Schiff and Volker engaged in the following back and forth dialogue:
[Schiff] asked Volker whether he would agree that “no President of the United States should ever ask a foreign leader to help intervene in a U.S. election.”
“I agree with that,” said Volker.
“And that would be particularly egregious if it was done in the context of withholding foreign assistance?” Schiff continued.
Volker balked. “We’re getting now into, you know, a conflation of these things that I didn’t think was actually there.”
Schiff wanted Volker to agree that “if it’s inappropriate for a president to seek foreign help in a U.S. election, it would be doubly so if a president was doing that at a time when the United States was withholding military support from the country.”
Again, Volker did not agree. “I can’t really speak to that,” he said. “My understanding of the security assistance issue is — ”
Schiff interrupted. “Why can’t you speak to that, ambassador? You’re a career diplomat. You can understand the enormous leverage that a president would have while withholding military support from an ally at war with Russia. You can understand just how significant that would be, correct?”
Volker tried to go along without actually agreeing. “I can understand that that would be significant,” he said.
Schiff persisted. “And when that suspension of aid became known to that country, to Ukraine, it would be all the more weighty to consider what the president had asked of them, wouldn’t it?”
“So again, congressman, I don’t believe — ” Volker began.
“It’s a pretty straightforward question,” Schiff said.
“But I don’t believe the Ukrainians were aware that the assistance was being held up — ”
“They became aware of it,” Schiff said.
“They became aware later, but I don’t believe they were aware at the time, so there was no leverage implied,” Volker said.
Schiff has come under intense fire over the way that he has handled the House Democrats’ attempt to impeach Trump.
During a congressional hearing in late September, Schiff made up quotes from Trump’s phone call with Ukraine, quotes that did not exist in the transcript of the call.
Schiff’s move garnered intense national criticism from top lawmakers and political commentators.
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) tweeted: “When you don’t have facts on your side some just make it up. The opening statement by their ring leader was #FullofSchiff. House Dems blatantly lying to justify their impeachment inquiry is horribly timed, poorly written and badly intentioned.”
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) tweeted: “It is disturbing and outrageous that Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff opens up a hearing of this importance with improvised fake dialogue between President Trump and President Zelenskyy. We should focus on the facts.”
Fox News analyst Brit Hume tweeted: “If the conversation were as damning as Schiff et al would like, he would have simply read directly from it, instead of making up dialogue. Probably not surprising in light of the extravagant collusion claims he made for 2 years.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) tweeted: “We now have both the transcript and the complaint. Anyone who reads them will see they prove what we already knew: @RepAdamSchiff and his cronies will peddle conspiracy theories and distort the truth to attack our President. It’s wrong.”
Schiff also came under intense fire after it was revealed that his staff had contact with the whistleblower before the whistleblower actually filed an official complaint form.
In a separate report, the Examiner revealed that the whistleblower, a registered Democrat who had worked with Biden in the Obama White House, had also previously worked with two of Schiff’s current aides.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-schiff-pressured-witness-to-say-trump-pressured-ukraine-to-investigate-biden-report-says
-
All bad, just all bad to anyone with a lick of common sense.