Democrats mull masking whistleblower, holding testimony at remote locale: report

[Dos Equis]

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

[Board_SHERIF]

Libaards are clueless, the wistleblower would be giving hearsay evidence ...not admissible

[Primemuscle]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Primemuscle]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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??

[OzmO]

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.

[TheGrinch]

Shouldn't you be able to face your accuser? 

[illuminati]

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

[Dos Equis]

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.

[JustPlaneJane]

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?

[Skeletor]

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

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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

[Thin Lizzy]

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

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Moontrane]

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

[Coach is Back!]

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.

[Dos Equis]

Kimberley Strassel's recent piece on the deep state is quite good.

https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1182800866635419648

Yeah I read that.  Good piece. 

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Moontrane]

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

[Primemuscle]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

[Primemuscle]

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.

[chaos]

So who exactly is interviewing this "whistleblower"?