Posted on 01/29/2020 11:09:37 AM PST by blueyon
BREAKING: The 1 witness transcript Schiff won't release (out of 18) talks about Schiff and the "whistleblower"--and how the inspector general (an Obama holdover) who facilitated the "whistleblower," failed to investigate prior contacts between the "whistleblower" & Schiff's staff
Exactly, how can they have a trial if ALL the evidence is not presented....Use the Dims own arguments against them
And... Actually this was known since before the Senate trail. Old news. Are any Republicans going to question Schiff about this? I doubt it.
I have yet to figure out how to translate Tweets. Does this mean that the transcript has been released and, if so, how does one find it?
Paul Sperry Bump! A real Journalist!
Old news.
Not “breaking” at all.
Without testimony of witness 18 & not being able to confront this whistle blower (if there really is one) violates the confrontation clause & trump’s right to due process
Do you mean to ask if Schiff is "Obstructing Congress" ,
while they are having an impeachment hearing based on " Obstructing Congress" ?
It is the proverbial :" Do as I say ,.. not do as I do " !
sarc/ off
bttt
How are they able to try the President and withhold potentially exculpatory evidence? In a criminal trial, this could be criminal.
True but when Paul Sperry announces it, it means he likely ha has got the goods on it.
Before it was Ratcliff who pointed to Atkinson transcript left out by Schiff which Ratclioff had seen but was not able to disclose because it’s been classified.
But Sperry has a powerful team and it’s a good bet he;s got the goods on #18.
The whistleblower’s talk with Schiff is likely the tip of the iceberg. I suspect the whistleblower played a big role in conducting the CIAs investigation of the Russian influence. He probably met directly with Brennan.
Unhappy trails to us.
IOW, he's a bit "more" than just an Obama holdover. He is quite dirty.
1st questions was to the Republican counsel, it sounded a little hostile. Romney, Collins, and Murkowski.
How can the subject even be brought up in the Senate? Q&A?
Then there is no point in talking of witnesses until all is know, including transcripts (unredacted) from those witnesses already disposed!!!!!!!!!!!!! END OF SUBJECT! ACQUIT!
If they want to TRULY treat this like it a “trial”, then wouldn’t this be akin to the prosecution withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense?
Fairly well explained Bongino https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H13fTsIh9K8&feature=youtu.be starting 26:30ish
“Atkinson transcript “ Ok what is in the transcript, have not heard this before. Would really like to know... do I have to wait
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.