Posted on 10/26/2019 8:01:14 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The anonymous whistleblower who is at the center of impeachment inquiry is quietly slipping into the sidelines as Democrats say the individual’s testimony is no longer necessary.
Meanwhile, Republicans have raised concerns over the lack of testimony from the whistleblower, saying that the individual’s testimony is required to ensure due process and fairness.
The Washington Post reported on Thursday that several Democrats have said that they no longer need to hear from the whistleblower because they have gathered enough information from recent depositions obtained in secret hearings to back allegations against President Donald Trump.
The report also said, citing a person familiar with the House investigation, that there are no active efforts to bring in the whistleblower before lawmakers.
The whistleblower filed a complaint in August (pdf) accusing the president of pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political opponent during a call in July. The allegations prompted the House to launch an impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24 to probe for any wrongdoing on the part of the president. The Democrat-led inquiry has attracted intense criticism for its process, in particular, its use of secret closed-door hearings and selective leaks of witness testimony.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
There isn’t a whistleblower and no one on the left wants to step up. Schifftbird can’t do it and he’s the only one dumb enough too do it. A Sham.
Nancy’s new rule is they have to Impeach Trump before you find out about the evidence
Spoiler Alert! If you don't want to know who the mole turns out to be, stop reading now.
-
-
-
-
-
-
It turns out that Kevin Costner's character is the mole. In other words, Adam Schiff is Yuri.
I agree. There is no whistleblower, the whole thing is just another one of Shift’s parodys.
Sean Young was pretty hot in No Way Out.
Too bad she turned out to be insane.
One of my all-time favorite flicks.
10 hot, 10 crazy?
Have no fear. The Whistleblower will be brought out, again, and again whenever it is deemed useful by the Democrats. For now it is too risky to have him testify against the transcript, because some minor discrepancy might be found. However the Democrats will always be able to refer to him or her, and dredge up the emotional impact.
The “whistleblower” will not testify.
Everything will be kept secret.
The Rats will put together a list of allegations and declare them proven.
The Rats will vote to impeach.
The question is: how will the Pub senators react?
The Rats will vote to impeach.
The question is: how will the Pub senators react?
I don’t think that’s a question. Romney and the rest will hold out for a Trump wounding “bipartisan” investigation of the impeachment charges. Senate business will grind to a halt for weeks/months and Trump will join Clinton as an impeached President.
One American News; their news gal that covers DC coined a very fitting term for the Democrat’s whistleblower. She called him/her the whistle leaker. Definitely more accurate!
Once the senate gets the charges, Trump will already have been impeached by the house.
Now playing, the Hillary Clinton orchestra.
What’s your point? Clinton was impeached and lost his law license, then finished his 2nd term. Nixon never was impeached, he resigned. Only because the voters abandoned him. Trump won’t do that as long as us deplorables don’t go wobbly. IMO
The Republicans, perhaps PDJT, should DEMAND the opportunity to cross examine the whistleblower because they have evidence that Schiff and his staff helped write the complaint.
[[She called him/her the whistle leaker. ]]
Bladder Leaker might be more appropriate
“The “whistleblower” will not testify. Everything will be kept secret.”
This is the interesting part of this. By releasing information about a communication the president made after he requested a secure line to talk to a foreign leader, the ‘whistleblower’ has violated federal law concerning the release of sensitive information he was not supposed to have heard.
One of the three requirements that determine the realization/discovery of sensitive information, let alone the repeating of it to anyone, and being in the chain that get it released to a public news source, is the term, ‘need to know.” The only people that were in that status were the two presidents, and anyone allowed by the ranking officer at that time, the president. So he was aware of anyone in the room that was privy to the information within the call.
By repeating the information to another individual that didn’t have the need as recognized by the president , he and the people that got the info are in violation of DOd 5200.1, vol 3.
If sensitive info is released to the media, a report is to be generated and it is defined within DoD Manual 5200.01, Volume 3, February 24, 2012, APPENDIX 2 TO ENCLOSURE 6, DOJ MEDIA LEAK QUESTIONNAIRE, page 103.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/520001_vol3.pdf
COMSEC is defined as the protection resulting from all measures designed to deny unauthorized persons information of value that might be derived from the possession and study of telecommunications and to ensure the authenticity of such communications. COMSEC includes crypto security, mission security, transmission security, and physical security of COMSEC material and information.
Compromise is an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
Under 18 US CODE 798, Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government or obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
So if the whistleblower actually exists, and he told someone about the call from the president to a foreign leader, he is guilty of COMSEC violations. And furthermore, anyone they told that passed the information is guilty of the same.
Sorry about the length, but there is a lot of info to pass. And it isn’t sensitive.
rwood
Thanks for the post. This isn’t Watergate and we aren’t as dumb to the facts as my folks were when all there was, was Cronkite on tv. We have more info now. The Dems still live in the past. Trump ain’t Nixon and I ain’t in the dark like my folks were.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
