A report from the Wall Street Journal outlines a request by lawyers for the fake CIA ‘whistleblower’ that ultimately spells doom for the entire phony construct of the impeachment construction by anonymous complaint.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting the anonymous gossipers’ lawyers are now requesting official impeachment testimony by letters not an in-person appearance. If this is accurate such a request speaks directly to the abject stupidity of the claim:
WASHINGTON—Lawyers for the CIA officer whose whistleblower complaint helped ignite an impeachment inquiry into President Trump have asked Congress whether their client could submit testimony in writing instead of appearing in person, according to people familiar with the matter.
The request reflects concerns about whether the whistleblower could testify to Democrats and Republicans without revealing his identity, and fears that doing so would lead to it being publicly leaked, jeopardizing his personal safety. The intelligence committees haven’t yet responded to the inquiry about potential written testimony, the people said.
Spokeswomen for the House and Senate intelligence committees didn’t respond to requests to comment. (read more)
It was already ridiculous to think a presidential impeachment, to remove the most powerful elected political representative of The United States, could continue based on an anonymous complaint. However, expecting the same complainant/accuser to remain invisible during the process is so far beyond nonsensical, the light from where nonsense emanates wouldn’t reach this narrative for a year.
Yes, feel free to pummel the left-wing nuts based on the absurdity of this request. Only the most raving Moonbat imaginable would think they could impeach a sitting U.S. President via a ‘Dear Sir’ complaint letter to congress.
These are obviously not stable-minded people.
Why is the left ALWAYS so afraid of having their words, statements, positions and policies viewed in the open light?
It’s not going to be based on an anonymous complaint, as the anonymous author of the bullshit article on Breitbart suggests.
It’s going to be based on evidence and testimony gathered as a result of that complaint, filed by someone who the President has made statements against containing thinly veiled threats. If the identity of that person were revealed, he or she would have to be put in a safe house and in a bullet-proof vest to venture outside.
This is as effing stupid as asserting that the evidence and testimony gathered by Robert Mueller and the conclusions based upon them are somehow invalid because somebody considers the reasons for initiating the investigation insufficient.
????
Every single link in the post above is to the SAME article.
It comes from the WALL STREET JOURNAL.
What are you referring to?
Meanwhile, back on earth in the US of A, people are being reminded that many of the original colonies refused to sign the original Constitution UNLESS it safeguarded citizens from what England had done to people.
One of those required safeguards is found in the 6th Amendment.
It reads:
It has to be in public, too.
And, the accused must be informed of the “crimes” against him.
What crime other than Red Man Bad has President Trump committed.
And, Schiff, making up a narrative as if it were an actual transcript ought to be grounds for recusal.
@Nan G:
I’m referring to the fact that the complaint only brought the telephone call to the Inspector General’s attention, and then to the attention of Congress and the press. The complaint itself isn’t evidence, any more than a telephone call to the police reporting a suspected crime is itself evidence. The person who alerted the I.G. isn’t a witness. He or she only provided information that has resulted in evidence and testimony being gathered. The transcript was the first actual evidence. It implicated people who will be called on to provide testimony and documents.
Pretending the case rests on the initial complaint is nonsense. It’s a deliberate attempt to deflect attention away from the facts that actually do matter.
@Greg:
Are you F**KING serious? It ALREADY IS BASED ON AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT. Not only anonymous, but second or third hand hearsay. Furthermore, we already know that the complaint refers to a phone conversation somewhere in some alternative universe because it in no way, form or fashion relates to the actual phone conversation, which we have the actual transcript of. Damn, Greg… some people aren’t as staggeringly stupid as the audiences of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or NBC.
Again… WTF? We’ve seen the report and we’ve seen Mueller’s testimony. NO collusion, NO obstruction, NO crimes. Yes, one is just as stupid as the other. And unconstitutional and un-American. Putin sends you his heartfelt thanks.
Yeah, and then the transcript was released. End of THAT scam to anyone with cognitive senses, but not Democrats. The ICIG had to change the IC rules on the fly to even give this complaint the limited, stretched, imaginative validity it has, and THAT only exists in the biased, hateful minds of whiny, crybaby sore losers.
We now know the “whistle blower” is a Biden companion, so now the whole scam closes the circle. It’s all driven by Biden to cover his own and his corrupt family’s asses and Democrats are using it to try, again, to interfere with a Presidential election.
Grow the f**k up.
@Deplorable Me: Maybe we can blame Greg’s mental state on Agent Orange.
@Randy: Is that another Trump reference? Agent Orange is driving all the Democrat to hysterics.
@Deplorable Me, #5:
I am not only serious; I am also correct. Post #4 is completely accurate. The anonymous complaint only raised the issue.
If someone calls the police to report a robbery, the telephone call isn’t the evidence of the crime. It’s only what first brought the crime to the attention of the authorities. In the courtroom, the proceedings will focus on the circumstances of the crime itself. The call isn’t the evidence.
This is the same simple-minded diversionary b.s. they’ve used in an effort to discredit the Mueller investigation. It would never work in a courtroom.
@Greg:
WHAT issue? There is no issue. The anonymous, second-hand complaint is totally false and unrelated by fact to the call. So, the anonymous, second-hand, hearsay complaint is EVERYTHING.
If the police show up and find that the reported robbery was never committed… that the articles reported stolen were never stolen, who do you think gets investigated and charged? That’s the situation here; an anonymous LIAR made a false complaint that has already been proven totally false by the release of the transcript. The accused crime NEVER HAPPENED. That’s why all the hearings and testimony the Democrats play-act at are held in secret and then they leak what they think benefits their lies. They are already leaking from the Yovanovitch hearing, which is supposed to be closed.
These crooks could very well not get away with it this time. Trump is in hot pursuit and they are feeding him more evidence with every lie.
@Deplorable Me: There is a good potential the whistle blower is really a leaker or a spy for Biden. Now, that is a crime and should be prosecuted!
“Trump is in hot pursuit” LOL Conjures up the image of an obese senior, riding a golf cart, arms flailing,and hair blowing—slowed only slightly by the body of a bald “fixer” he purposely runs over.
Will DT be saying “Rudy who” by next week.? Will Rudy go the way of Cohen? Will Trump care?
@Rich Wheeler: Will you tell us what impeachable crime Trump has committed?
@Deplorable Me: They cannot. All smoke and mirrors.
As you know impeachment by The House and conviction by The Senate does not require the commission of a crime.
BTW Bill I believe YOU know a member of Congress CAN’T be impeached—would you plz tell Donald.
Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s Opening Statement Before Congress
Here’s an excerpt:
That’s is what a patriot and career diplomat sounds like, in case anyone has forgotten. Many have been lost since Trump purged the State Department of talent, dedication, professionalism, and expertise.
The sooner the Trump administration is taken down, the better.
Yeah, sort of.
But how big is this Dept and how did it get so big?
At the start of WWI The US Dept of State was ~300 people in total.
By WWII it grew to 700 people.
By 1980 there were 10,000 people in it.
Now, it has 75,000.
Sounds to me like it was in dire need of being hollowed out.
One of the promises candidate Trump made to the American voters was, if elected, he would get the deadwood out of EVERY part of government.
May the purging continue.
@Nan G, #16:
There were over 11 million U.S. visas issued during 2016. There were also over 21.4 million U.S. passports issued that same year. State Department personnel handle that. In addition, State Department personnel handle U.S. diplomatic relations with the governments of 195 foreign nations. They serve the needs of all U.S. citizens traveling or living abroad. In 2016, the count of U.S. citizens living abroad was estimated to number around 9 million. That same year, an estimated 80 million Americans traveled abroad. The State Department has liaison personnel that coordinate with the DoD, serving military personnel and their families stationed abroad. State requires support personnel with extensive specialized background knowledge of a multitude of foreign cultures, languages, current events, and their unique historical context.
75,000 sounds like a lot, until you stop to consider the enormous scale of all of the things for which the State Department is responsible. It’s not like a private company, where you can narrowly focus on highly specific needs relevant only to your particular area of activity and not worry about the rest. State has to address it all, everywhere, and pretty much all the time. They have to have enough information and expertise to be able to anticipate, not just react. Impair that capability, and the nation is put at increased risk.
@Greg: When I had to work with the Clinton state department hold overs while in Iraq, there needs to be a purge frequently. If it was not for the contractors that were hired to supplement the State Department staff, there would have been many more $billions flushed down the Tigris. The state department is supposed to implement the executive branch vision, not substitute their own vision. State department members are not elected by the people. Implementing their own vision is unacceptable unless approve by the executive and that violates the election of the people. That is the whole reason the left is trying to invalidate the will of the people in the 2016 election. This woman should have been fired.
Listen to this and see how much you can make a case that Greg is not a commie!
@Richard Wheeler:
Well, at least THAT is settled; you know of NO impeachable offense Trump has committed.
So, then, what would Trump be impeached, tried and convicted FOR? Politics? I guess so because that is all these losers are using against Trump. But, that is not what impeachment is for. Impeachment is the process to remove a President from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors”… NOT for winning an election and upsetting liberals.
So, in the liberal view, all that is needed for impeachment is enough of a majority to vote it through and the political will to remove a duly elected President from office for purely political reasons. I see.
@Greg:
Wrong. She served under Obama and Hillary and there is nothing honorable about that. She worked with Biden to promote corruption.
Sure. No doubt she got wealthy helping the Biden’s collect graft there.
You two crybabies DO realize we have and have read the transcript of the call… right? This is like the lies about Obama’s economy, calling abject failure a “boom”. NONE of the accusations about the call in any way resemble reality.
@Randy: Well, you know when Democrats interfere in elections of other countries or assist foreign countries to interfere in our elections, it’s OK because they do it in the name of liberalism, socialism and overcoming the constraints of our Constitution. Using our legal electoral system is not implementing the police state they want quickly enough.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/schiff-says-he-should-have-been-much-more-clear-about-whistleblower-contact
Schiff should have been “more clear”… as in NOT LYING HIS ASS OFF. Why are all the Democrat heroes such wormy, scumbag weasels?
@Deplorable Me:
Schiff just can’t be truthful. Even the article goes on to say:
“The whistleblower reached out and made contact with one of the committee aides beforehand (before filing the complaint), who then told Schiff about the conversation but reportedly didn’t reveal the whistleblower’s identity. ”
We know that Schiff was fully aware that there was going to be a ‘whistleblower” complaint filed. The man is a habitual liar.
Nancy Pelosi has no moral compass or she would remove such a liar from that committee.
@retire05: Pelosi, who pledged to make ethics a priority, has neither a compass or morals. She is so afraid of losing that gavel that she kowtows to the clamoring garbage that thinks impeachment is just another political gambit to build an uninformed constituency on. While I welcome the Democrats destroying themselves following this path, it is harmful and destructive to the nation as a whole.
What can provide more clarity of the ethics of Democrats than them holding something like Schiff in high regard? It also shows that Pelosi is anything BUT a leader. The Democrats are providing the darkest chapter in US government.