Adam Schiff Admits He Has Agreement With Whistleblower When His/Her Identity Is Unknown

[Crepitus]

1- In the Senate, it's still not a criminal trial, though I would guess the Senate can make its own rules.

2-The whistleblower's name is protected by law. In good America, the president swears an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

So you’re impeaching for political revenge.

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

Impeached for not committing a crime, got it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

When and if the matter is sent to the Senate, it becomes a trial, and the 6th guarantees confrontation. The 14th also hold the states to the 6th.

The fact that the Democrats are reluctant to name the accuser only cements the view that it's a set-up.

1- In the Senate, it's still not a criminal trial, though I would guess the Senate can make its own rules.

2-The whistleblower's name is protected by law. In good America, the president swears an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

So you’re impeaching for political revenge.

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

"High crimes and misdemeanors".

 

[mudwhistle]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

If he knows why not other members of Congress?

There's no evidence that he knows. He knows who the attorneys are, and he is in touch with them. That's not the same as knowing the identity of the whistleblower.

That said, I assume every member of the committee will soon know, and that's worrisome, given Trump's unhinged tweeting.

Ok, how does a deranged Trump hater who’s lied about Trump with false accusations for three years know who the lawyers are but not other members of Congress?

I'll try to find out how that became public knowledge, but righties on this site identified the firm days ago as one used previously by Hillary Clinton, as if that were prejudicial. The DNI testified the whistleblower had legal representation. Whether that's part of the hearing record, I don't know.

The whistleblower doesn't need legal representation unless he's lying about Trump. Point being the complaint was filed by a team of lawyers provided by someone. Who are these lawyers? Are they the same lawyers that brought Doctor Blaise Ford's false claims to Congress earlier?

 

[Weatherman2020]

So you’re impeaching for political revenge.

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

Impeached for not committing a crime, got it.

The claim was made that the 6th Amendment would guarantee Trump the right to face his accuser. I pointed out the 6th applies to criminal prosecutions. Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. If you're determined not to understand that, fine.

Impeachment

A. Being formally accused of unlawful activity, committing a crime

 

[Crepitus]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

What does it matter who blew the whistle? The transcript shows what he did, without argument. At this point, why does the whistleblower's identity matter? Just so the right can smear him/her with lies and innuendo like they do with every other Trump critic? Call for the whistleblower's hanging?
lol

6th and 14th Amendments.

The 6th governs criminal prosecutions. The 14th covers due process. What do they have to do with impeachment?

Impeachment has to go thru 7 steps.
The Justice Department refers charges to the House and the House must vote to impeach. The Senate chooses to either hold a trial or not hold one. Evidence is presented and the President mounts his defense. An unknown accuser with fake claims would be rejected by the Senate off-hand.
Process of Impeachment—7 Steps

Wrong. Senate holds a trial whether they want to or not. You tRumplings are desperately trying to give them an option they don't have.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

What does it matter who blew the whistle? The transcript shows what he did, without argument. At this point, why does the whistleblower's identity matter? Just so the right can smear him/her with lies and innuendo like they do with every other Trump critic? Call for the whistleblower's hanging?
lol

6th and 14th Amendments.

The 6th governs criminal prosecutions. The 14th covers due process. What do they have to do with impeachment?

Impeachment has to go thru 7 steps.
The Justice Department refers charges to the House and the House must vote to impeach. The Senate chooses to either hold a trial or not hold one. Evidence is presented and the President mounts his defense. An unknown accuser with fake claims would be rejected by the Senate off-hand.
Process of Impeachment—7 Steps

I missed where the Senate appointed you its spokesmodel.

Fake claims? You funny.

 

[Crepitus]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

If he knows why not other members of Congress?

There's no evidence that he knows. He knows who the attorneys are, and he is in touch with them. That's not the same as knowing the identity of the whistleblower.

That said, I assume every member of the committee will soon know, and that's worrisome, given Trump's unhinged tweeting.

Ok, how does a deranged Trump hater who’s lied about Trump with false accusations for three years know who the lawyers are but not other members of Congress?

I'll try to find out how that became public knowledge, but righties on this site identified the firm days ago as one used previously by Hillary Clinton, as if that were prejudicial. The DNI testified the whistleblower had legal representation. Whether that's part of the hearing record, I don't know.

The whistleblower doesn't need legal representation unless he's lying about Trump. Point being the complaint was filed by a team of lawyers provided by someone. Who are these lawyers? Are they the same lawyers that brought Doctor Blaise Ford's false claims to Congress earlier?

Do any need legal representation?

Are you nuts?

 

[Auld Phart]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

What does it matter who blew the whistle? The transcript shows what he did, without argument. At this point, why does the whistleblower's identity matter? Just so the right can smear him/her with lies and innuendo like they do with every other Trump critic? Call for the whistleblower's hanging?
lol

#1 Unless you have read the transcripts of the call you cannot say anything about this. Read the damned thing before you continue to make a fool of yourself.
#2 This person isn't a whistleblower......not according to regulations...because a whistleblower has to have firsthand knowledge, not gossip, in order to file a valid complaint
#3 Nancy Pelosi lied about the content of the transcripts claiming Trump asked the Ukraine president to manufacture dirt on Biden.....claimed that this was in the public domain when it was still unreleased
#4 Adam Schiff lied about the content of the transcripts during a hearing last week and was forced to admit he lied, calling it a parody.....a joke.

#4 Adam Schiff lied about the content of the transcripts during a hearing last week and was forced to admit he lied, calling it a parody.....a joke.

 

[joaquinmiller]

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

Impeached for not committing a crime, got it.

The claim was made that the 6th Amendment would guarantee Trump the right to face his accuser. I pointed out the 6th applies to criminal prosecutions. Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. If you're determined not to understand that, fine.

Impeachment

A. Being formally accused of unlawful activity, committing a crime

That's a high school cheat sheet, and it doesn't differentiate between civil officers and the elected president.

For the Umpteenth time, a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

What does it matter who blew the whistle? The transcript shows what he did, without argument. At this point, why does the whistleblower's identity matter? Just so the right can smear him/her with lies and innuendo like they do with every other Trump critic? Call for the whistleblower's hanging?
lol

#1 Unless you have read the transcripts of the call you cannot say anything about this. Read the damned thing before you continue to make a fool of yourself.
#2 This person isn't a whistleblower......not according to regulations...because a whistleblower has to have firsthand knowledge, not gossip, in order to file a valid complaint
#3 Nancy Pelosi lied about the content of the transcripts claiming Trump asked the Ukraine president to manufacture dirt on Biden.....claimed that this was in the public domain when it was still unreleased
#4 Adam Schiff lied about the content of the transcripts during a hearing last week and was forced to admit he lied, calling it a parody.....a joke.

#4 Adam Schiff lied about the content of the transcripts during a hearing last week and was forced to admit he lied, calling it a parody.....a joke.

So your evidence is a stupid meme of lies.

 

[Auld Phart]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

What does it matter who blew the whistle? The transcript shows what he did, without argument. At this point, why does the whistleblower's identity matter? Just so the right can smear him/her with lies and innuendo like they do with every other Trump critic? Call for the whistleblower's hanging?
lol

#1 Unless you have read the transcripts of the call you cannot say anything about this. Read the damned thing before you continue to make a fool of yourself.
#2 This person isn't a whistleblower......not according to regulations...because a whistleblower has to have firsthand knowledge, not gossip, in order to file a valid complaint
#3 Nancy Pelosi lied about the content of the transcripts claiming Trump asked the Ukraine president to manufacture dirt on Biden.....claimed that this was in the public domain when it was still unreleased
#4 Adam Schiff lied about the content of the transcripts during a hearing last week and was forced to admit he lied, calling it a parody.....a joke.

#4 Adam Schiff lied about the content of the transcripts during a hearing last week and was forced to admit he lied, calling it a parody.....a joke.

So your evidence is a stupid meme of lies.

pointing out that Schiff is a liar.


switch to decaf for a while

 

[Weatherman2020]

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

Impeached for not committing a crime, got it.

The claim was made that the 6th Amendment would guarantee Trump the right to face his accuser. I pointed out the 6th applies to criminal prosecutions. Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. If you're determined not to understand that, fine.

Impeachment

A. Being formally accused of unlawful activity, committing a crime

That's a high school cheat sheet, and it doesn't differentiate between civil officers and the elected president.

For the Umpteenth time, a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution.

You should try reading the US Constitution for the first time. A President may be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors.


“Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”

— Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution

 

[joaquinmiller]

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

Impeached for not committing a crime, got it.

The claim was made that the 6th Amendment would guarantee Trump the right to face his accuser. I pointed out the 6th applies to criminal prosecutions. Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. If you're determined not to understand that, fine.

Impeachment

A. Being formally accused of unlawful activity, committing a crime

That's a high school cheat sheet, and it doesn't differentiate between civil officers and the elected president.

For the Umpteenth time, a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution.

You should try reading the US Constitution for the first time. A President may be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors.


“Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”

— Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution

Not a sitting president, which is a distinction I made.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Impeached for not committing a crime, got it.

The claim was made that the 6th Amendment would guarantee Trump the right to face his accuser. I pointed out the 6th applies to criminal prosecutions. Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. If you're determined not to understand that, fine.

Impeachment

A. Being formally accused of unlawful activity, committing a crime

That's a high school cheat sheet, and it doesn't differentiate between civil officers and the elected president.

For the Umpteenth time, a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution.

You should try reading the US Constitution for the first time. A President may be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors.


“Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”

— Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution

Not a sitting president, which is a distinction I made.

A President can be tried and convicted of crimes without impeachment. A President is not above the law.

 

[joaquinmiller]

The claim was made that the 6th Amendment would guarantee Trump the right to face his accuser. I pointed out the 6th applies to criminal prosecutions. Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. If you're determined not to understand that, fine.

Impeachment

A. Being formally accused of unlawful activity, committing a crime

That's a high school cheat sheet, and it doesn't differentiate between civil officers and the elected president.

For the Umpteenth time, a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution.

You should try reading the US Constitution for the first time. A President may be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors.


“Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”

— Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution

Not a sitting president, which is a distinction I made.

A President can be tried and convicted of crimes without impeachment. A President is not above the law.

Sure, when he's out of office.

BTW, Orange Judas has claimed he has the "absolute right to pardon myself". I don't agree, but anyone who actually had that power is above the law.

 

[mudwhistle]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

What does it matter who blew the whistle? The transcript shows what he did, without argument. At this point, why does the whistleblower's identity matter? Just so the right can smear him/her with lies and innuendo like they do with every other Trump critic? Call for the whistleblower's hanging?
lol

6th and 14th Amendments.

Impeachment isn't a criminal process.

That will probably come after he has been removed from office.

Yeah....don't hold your fucking breath.

 

[mudwhistle]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

What does it matter who blew the whistle? The transcript shows what he did, without argument. At this point, why does the whistleblower's identity matter? Just so the right can smear him/her with lies and innuendo like they do with every other Trump critic? Call for the whistleblower's hanging?
lol

6th and 14th Amendments.

The 6th governs criminal prosecutions. The 14th covers due process. What do they have to do with impeachment?

When and if the matter is sent to the Senate, it becomes a trial, and the 6th guarantees confrontation. The 14th also hold the states to the 6th.

The fact that the Democrats are reluctant to name the accuser only cements the view that it's a set-up.

1- In the Senate, it's still not a criminal trial, though I would guess the Senate can make its own rules.

2-The whistleblower's name is protected by law. In good America, the president swears an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

That's highly debatable because according to the law you aren't considered a valid whistleblower unless you have firsthand knowledge of the infraction.
Somebody changed the forms to allow gossip and rumors to be included.

 

[CWayne]

When and if the matter is sent to the Senate, it becomes a trial, and the 6th guarantees confrontation. The 14th also hold the states to the 6th.

The fact that the Democrats are reluctant to name the accuser only cements the view that it's a set-up.

1- In the Senate, it's still not a criminal trial, though I would guess the Senate can make its own rules.

2-The whistleblower's name is protected by law. In good America, the president swears an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

So you’re impeaching for political revenge.

I said nothing remotely like that.

It’s an either or. Crime or no crime committed. You’re claiming there’s no crime involved. If you’re saying it’s a crime, post the evidence.

I'm saying it's not a criminal trial (proceeding).

So, are you making the claim that there is no standard by which the House of Representatives must abide in order to write formal impeachment documents?

They can say, "We don't like him so we move to impeach him", and that is all that is required?

 

[CWayne]

What does it matter who blew the whistle? The transcript shows what he did, without argument. At this point, why does the whistleblower's identity matter? Just so the right can smear him/her with lies and innuendo like they do with every other Trump critic? Call for the whistleblower's hanging?
lol

6th and 14th Amendments.

The 6th governs criminal prosecutions. The 14th covers due process. What do they have to do with impeachment?

When and if the matter is sent to the Senate, it becomes a trial, and the 6th guarantees confrontation. The 14th also hold the states to the 6th.

The fact that the Democrats are reluctant to name the accuser only cements the view that it's a set-up.

1- In the Senate, it's still not a criminal trial, though I would guess the Senate can make its own rules.

2-The whistleblower's name is protected by law. In good America, the president swears an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

That's highly debatable because according to the law you aren't considered a valid whistleblower unless you have firsthand knowledge of the infraction.
Somebody changed the forms to allow gossip and rumors to be included.

Yes, and it seems that they changed it just a few weeks ago, although I have not seen an official timeline on when the rule was changed. What is clear is that the rule was changed to accommodate this operative.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Adam Schiffforbrains claimed this weekend that he had an agreement with the "Whistleblower" to testify.....but I was under the impression that the identity of this person was supposed be protected. WTF is this crook doing going around bragging that he knows who this person is and has an agreement to testify in front of congress? Schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before House Intelligence Committee - CNNPolitics

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't this look highly suspicious that a person who chaired the first impeachment hearing and offered perjured testimony, seems to know who this person is already? He's already in touch with the lawyers that prepared the complaint and are now representing this fake whistleblower. Adam Schiff Invents Transcript Of Trump Call With Ukraine President

And isn't strange that Nancy Pelosi is going around the Sunday morning circuit bragging that she knew what was in the transcripts (which were considered protected executive privilege) before the president released them to the public....and claims that he asked for manufactured dirt on Biden when in fact everyone knows he did not????? We've seen the transcripts....we know she's lying. Isn't it time that the Senate call the Speaker in and put her under oath and ask her what she knows and when did she know it???

Adam Schiffface claims that he is in contact with this fucker's lawyers....but they're trying to hide his/her identity from Trump. This flies in the face of due process. Everyone knows that you have a right to face your accuser. This goes around that right.....and no lawyer worth his salt would allow testimony of an unknown accuser in any court. This is a travesty of justice and I hope that the public will take it to heart that if they can get away with doing this to a POTUS they can do it to you as well. That is what an impeachment is for....the right of the president to face his accusers....but Democrats in the House aren't allowing the president the simple right of due process.

What does it matter who blew the whistle? The transcript shows what he did, without argument. At this point, why does the whistleblower's identity matter? Just so the right can smear him/her with lies and innuendo like they do with every other Trump critic? Call for the whistleblower's hanging?
lol

6th and 14th Amendments.

Impeachment isn't a criminal process.

That will probably come after he has been removed from office.

Yeah....don't hold your fucking breath.

Oh, no. Please do.