The name of the whistleblower is......... drumroll

[The Original Tree]

Schiff is a Tyrant and is in GROSS Violation of The Constitution, and DUE PROCESS CLAUSE and should be removed from not just his seat on The Intelligence Committee, but from Congress itself.

Due Process Part II

These rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, are:[26]

1. An unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

 

[HappyJoy]

No the Republicans were trying to find out who Vindman talked to when he relayed information which could lead to the identity of the whistle blower. The question was irrelevant other than to attempt to identify the whistle blower.

Can you please show me in The Constitution and US Code where an accusing Witness is allowed to remain Anonymous especially in something as big as an Impeachment Inquiry?

Thanks....I'll be waiting.

When you show me that jaywalking is in the Constitution.

Jay walking statutes can be found all over the country, so I will ask you again.

Can you please show me in The Constitution and US Code where an accusing Witness is allowed to remain Anonymous especially in something as big as an Impeachment Inquiry?

Thanks....I'll be waiting.

Then why bring the Constitution into this?

Anyway, I've never said it's illegal to show the identity of the whistle blower, doesn't mean Congress is legally obliged to do it. It's irresponsible to name the person since the right has fetishezed the person's identity.

Now, name the statute that says Congress or Schiff has to devolve the identity.

Because all LAWS, FEDERAL, STATE and LOCAL have to be CONGRUENT with the Principles laid down in THE CONSTITUTION.

You asked a stupid question wanting me to reference a specific law in the Constitution, it was dumb.

One of them is DUE PROCESS, which declares that All Accused persons have the right to see evidence that is against them, and have the right to face their accusers.

This right cannot be abridged, circumscribed, or denied.

Impeachment isn't a criminal trial, there is no legal requirement for the whistle blower to testify. Whistle blower testimony isn't even being used in the impeachment hearing. The whistle blower is about as relevant to an anonymous 911 call.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are wrong, it is Trump himself... this whole thing is a sting operation designed by Trump himself to trap the Dems. When all is done, Obama, Biden, Hillary and a many more will spend the rest of their days at GITMO.

Trump is definitely the biggest leaker in the White House.

A Trump worshiper on this forum told me this, so it has to be true!!

You’re a never trumper. Would you vote for Trump, Warren or abstain?

I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but too early to say for sure

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

I can say that I have never once in my life based a choice off of what Hillary thinks it says

 

[Frannie]

Trump is definitely the biggest leaker in the White House.

A Trump worshiper on this forum told me this, so it has to be true!!

You’re a never trumper. Would you vote for Trump, Warren or abstain?

I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but too early to say for sure

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

I can say that I have never once in my life based a choice off of what Hillary thinks it says

Excellent but a you are throwing your vote away

 

[g5000]

You are wrong, it is Trump himself... this whole thing is a sting operation designed by Trump himself to trap the Dems. When all is done, Obama, Biden, Hillary and a many more will spend the rest of their days at GITMO.

Trump is definitely the biggest leaker in the White House.

A Trump worshiper on this forum told me this, so it has to be true!!

You’re a never trumper. Would you vote for Trump, Warren or abstain?

I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but too early to say for sure

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

Trump is a Russian agent. Prove me wrong.

 

[Frannie]

Trump is definitely the biggest leaker in the White House.

A Trump worshiper on this forum told me this, so it has to be true!!

You’re a never trumper. Would you vote for Trump, Warren or abstain?

I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but too early to say for sure

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

Trump is a Russian agent. Prove me wrong.

I do not have to prove you wrong. The way the law works all the burden of proof is on you doofy

He he he

Hi turds

 

[HappyJoy]

A Trump worshiper on this forum told me this, so it has to be true!!

You’re a never trumper. Would you vote for Trump, Warren or abstain?

I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but too early to say for sure

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

Trump is a Russian agent. Prove me wrong.

I do not have to prove you wrong. The way the law works all the burden of proof is on you doofy

He he he

Hi turds

This isn't a court of law. Still lost I see, lack of credibility will do that to you.

 

[The Original Tree]

Can you please show me in The Constitution and US Code where an accusing Witness is allowed to remain Anonymous especially in something as big as an Impeachment Inquiry?

Thanks....I'll be waiting.

When you show me that jaywalking is in the Constitution.

Jay walking statutes can be found all over the country, so I will ask you again.

Can you please show me in The Constitution and US Code where an accusing Witness is allowed to remain Anonymous especially in something as big as an Impeachment Inquiry?

Thanks....I'll be waiting.

Then why bring the Constitution into this?

Anyway, I've never said it's illegal to show the identity of the whistle blower, doesn't mean Congress is legally obliged to do it. It's irresponsible to name the person since the right has fetishezed the person's identity.

Now, name the statute that says Congress or Schiff has to devolve the identity.

Because all LAWS, FEDERAL, STATE and LOCAL have to be CONGRUENT with the Principles laid down in THE CONSTITUTION.

You asked a stupid question wanting me to reference a specific law in the Constitution, it was dumb.

One of them is DUE PROCESS, which declares that All Accused persons have the right to see evidence that is against them, and have the right to face their accusers.

This right cannot be abridged, circumscribed, or denied.

Impeachment isn't a criminal trial, there is no legal requirement for the whistle blower to testify. Whistle blower testimony isn't even being used in the impeachment hearing. The whistle blower is about as relevant to an anonymous 911 call.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

1. unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

 

[Frannie]

You’re a never trumper. Would you vote for Trump, Warren or abstain?

I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but too early to say for sure

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

Trump is a Russian agent. Prove me wrong.

I do not have to prove you wrong. The way the law works all the burden of proof is on you doofy

He he he

Hi turds

This isn't a court of law. Still lost I see, lack of credibility will do that to you.

And you still enjoy proving that you cant make me flinch

Lol

Did you fart again

 

[g5000]

A Trump worshiper on this forum told me this, so it has to be true!!

You’re a never trumper. Would you vote for Trump, Warren or abstain?

I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but too early to say for sure

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

Trump is a Russian agent. Prove me wrong.

I do not have to prove you wrong. The way the law works all the burden of proof is on you doofy

He he he

Hi turds

And that brings us back to your opening post, retard:

Adam Schiff...........

Prove me wrong

I do not have to prove you wrong. The way the law works all the burden of proof is on you doofy

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A Trump worshiper on this forum told me this, so it has to be true!!

You’re a never trumper. Would you vote for Trump, Warren or abstain?

I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but too early to say for sure

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

I can say that I have never once in my life based a choice off of what Hillary thinks it says

Excellent but a you are throwing your vote away

Dude, when the two main choices are picking between a punch to the gut or a punch to the head, there is no vote that is not wasted.

 

[The Original Tree]

You’re a never trumper. Would you vote for Trump, Warren or abstain?

I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but too early to say for sure

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

Trump is a Russian agent. Prove me wrong.

I do not have to prove you wrong. The way the law works all the burden of proof is on you doofy

He he he

Hi turds

This isn't a court of law. Still lost I see, lack of credibility will do that to you.

Then it is a proceeding that has no value and no merit. It's a Clown Show, Schitt Show.

Without Due Process, it is absolutely meaningless.

I hate to tell you this DemNazi, DemTard, but the section I copied was from PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS which includes Congressional Hearnings and Inquiries.

This is an Illegitimate Inquiry because Due Process is thrown out the window and being denied, and this is why The Senate will shit can anything The House votes on.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

Procedural due process[edit]

Procedural due process requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.[25]:657 When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process requires the government to afford the person, at minimum, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a
decision made by a neutral decisionmaker.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. The article "Some Kind of Hearing" written by Judge Henry Friendly created a list of basic due process rights "that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority".[26] These rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, are:[26]

1. An unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

 

[HappyJoy]

When you show me that jaywalking is in the Constitution.

Jay walking statutes can be found all over the country, so I will ask you again.

Can you please show me in The Constitution and US Code where an accusing Witness is allowed to remain Anonymous especially in something as big as an Impeachment Inquiry?

Thanks....I'll be waiting.

Then why bring the Constitution into this?

Anyway, I've never said it's illegal to show the identity of the whistle blower, doesn't mean Congress is legally obliged to do it. It's irresponsible to name the person since the right has fetishezed the person's identity.

Now, name the statute that says Congress or Schiff has to devolve the identity.

Because all LAWS, FEDERAL, STATE and LOCAL have to be CONGRUENT with the Principles laid down in THE CONSTITUTION.

You asked a stupid question wanting me to reference a specific law in the Constitution, it was dumb.

One of them is DUE PROCESS, which declares that All Accused persons have the right to see evidence that is against them, and have the right to face their accusers.

This right cannot be abridged, circumscribed, or denied.

Impeachment isn't a criminal trial, there is no legal requirement for the whistle blower to testify. Whistle blower testimony isn't even being used in the impeachment hearing. The whistle blower is about as relevant to an anonymous 911 call.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

1. unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Sorry, the whistle blower isn't a witness and an impeachment hearing does not take place in a court of law.

Of course the president could always sue, why hasn't he?

 

[Frannie]

Jay walking statutes can be found all over the country, so I will ask you again.

Can you please show me in The Constitution and US Code where an accusing Witness is allowed to remain Anonymous especially in something as big as an Impeachment Inquiry?

Thanks....I'll be waiting.

Then why bring the Constitution into this?

Anyway, I've never said it's illegal to show the identity of the whistle blower, doesn't mean Congress is legally obliged to do it. It's irresponsible to name the person since the right has fetishezed the person's identity.

Now, name the statute that says Congress or Schiff has to devolve the identity.

Because all LAWS, FEDERAL, STATE and LOCAL have to be CONGRUENT with the Principles laid down in THE CONSTITUTION.

You asked a stupid question wanting me to reference a specific law in the Constitution, it was dumb.

One of them is DUE PROCESS, which declares that All Accused persons have the right to see evidence that is against them, and have the right to face their accusers.

This right cannot be abridged, circumscribed, or denied.

Impeachment isn't a criminal trial, there is no legal requirement for the whistle blower to testify. Whistle blower testimony isn't even being used in the impeachment hearing. The whistle blower is about as relevant to an anonymous 911 call.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

1. unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Sorry, the whistle blower isn't a witness and an impeachment hearing does not take place in a court of law.

Of course the president could always sue, why hasn't he?

You doo not know that

 

[HappyJoy]

I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but too early to say for sure

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

Trump is a Russian agent. Prove me wrong.

I do not have to prove you wrong. The way the law works all the burden of proof is on you doofy

He he he

Hi turds

This isn't a court of law. Still lost I see, lack of credibility will do that to you.

And you still enjoy proving that you cant make me flinch

Lol

Did you fart again

I'm not trying to make you flinch, I'm just pointing out what an idiot you are. As in when you make a claim you don't feel it necessary to actually present proof. When others make a claim you say something retarded about how the law works.

Your idea of non-debate as a debate tactic demonstrates you don't know what debate is.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Adam Schiff...........

Prove me wrong

You are wrong, it is Trump himself... this whole thing is a sting operation designed by Trump himself to trap the Dems. When all is done, Obama, Biden, Hillary and a many more will spend the rest of their days at GITMO.

Trump is definitely the biggest leaker in the White House.

A Trump worshiper on this forum told me this, so it has to be true!!

You’re a never trumper. Would you vote for Trump, Warren or abstain?

I will probably vote for the Libertarian candidate again, but too early to say for sure

So basically abstain. You would not vote for Tulsi? Why?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trump is definitely the biggest leaker in the White House.

A Trump worshiper on this forum told me this, so it has to be true!!

You’re a never trumper. Would you vote for Trump, Warren or abstain?

I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but too early to say for sure

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

Trump is a Russian agent. Prove me wrong.

I am God. Prove me wrong

 

[Frannie]

According to hillary you would be voting for a russian

Trump is a Russian agent. Prove me wrong.

I do not have to prove you wrong. The way the law works all the burden of proof is on you doofy

He he he

Hi turds

This isn't a court of law. Still lost I see, lack of credibility will do that to you.

And you still enjoy proving that you cant make me flinch

Lol

Did you fart again

I'm not trying to make you flinch, I'm just pointing out what an idiot you are. As in when you make a claim you don't feel it necessary to actually present proof. When others make a claim you say something retarded about how the law works.

Your idea of non-debate as a debate tactic demonstrates you don't know what debate is.

Impeach already moron

Do it or shit yourself

 

[HappyJoy]

Then why bring the Constitution into this?

Anyway, I've never said it's illegal to show the identity of the whistle blower, doesn't mean Congress is legally obliged to do it. It's irresponsible to name the person since the right has fetishezed the person's identity.

Now, name the statute that says Congress or Schiff has to devolve the identity.

Because all LAWS, FEDERAL, STATE and LOCAL have to be CONGRUENT with the Principles laid down in THE CONSTITUTION.

You asked a stupid question wanting me to reference a specific law in the Constitution, it was dumb.

One of them is DUE PROCESS, which declares that All Accused persons have the right to see evidence that is against them, and have the right to face their accusers.

This right cannot be abridged, circumscribed, or denied.

Impeachment isn't a criminal trial, there is no legal requirement for the whistle blower to testify. Whistle blower testimony isn't even being used in the impeachment hearing. The whistle blower is about as relevant to an anonymous 911 call.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

1. unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Sorry, the whistle blower isn't a witness and an impeachment hearing does not take place in a court of law.

Of course the president could always sue, why hasn't he?

You doo not know that

I don't now that the whistle blower isn't a witness? Yes, I do know that.

I don't know that an impeachment hearing does not take place in a court of law? Yes, I do know that.

I don't know that the president could sue? Yes, the president could sue, he'd most likely lose but he could try. Why hasn't he?

 

[Frannie]

Because all LAWS, FEDERAL, STATE and LOCAL have to be CONGRUENT with the Principles laid down in THE CONSTITUTION.

You asked a stupid question wanting me to reference a specific law in the Constitution, it was dumb.

One of them is DUE PROCESS, which declares that All Accused persons have the right to see evidence that is against them, and have the right to face their accusers.

This right cannot be abridged, circumscribed, or denied.

Impeachment isn't a criminal trial, there is no legal requirement for the whistle blower to testify. Whistle blower testimony isn't even being used in the impeachment hearing. The whistle blower is about as relevant to an anonymous 911 call.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

1. unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Sorry, the whistle blower isn't a witness and an impeachment hearing does not take place in a court of law.

Of course the president could always sue, why hasn't he?

You doo not know that

I don't now that the whistle blower isn't a witness? Yes, I do know that.

I don't know that an impeachment hearing does not take place in a court of law? Yes, I do know that.

I don't know that the president could sue? Yes, the president could sue, he'd most likely lose but he could try. Why hasn't he?

You know nothing....

You may think you do but you do not