Protect Whistleblower Identity

[stjames1_53]

Why would I admit that? you haven't pointed out how he is not a WB.

the IG said he complied fully with the law. He is a WB.

It doesn't matter anyway. WB laws do not prevent the WB from appearing in court . do they?

Wb's cannot accuse from the shadow, They are required to present their claims, in this instance, before all parties.
WB laws only protect him for inappropriate actions after the fact.
Hitler has accused you for murdering millions. heard from a WB. Now, do you have the Right to face that accuser?
The only reason the WB is not present is because he doesn't exist or the dems are running a block formation to protect him from what, exactly?

[Peter1469]

My post that you quoted speaks for itself and is an accurate description of this clown show. The House impeachment hearing lacked any of what Americans consider to be basic fairness. It was designed to create a false narrative and the "media" was more than happy to support this false narrative in its "reports" to Americans via their propaganda heavy "news" casts.

Basically the Dems do not have the law or the facts on their side. So they create a narrative intended to appeal to emotion. It is a sign of weakness.

The 6th amendment is already being violated in this trial as it is.

-impartial jury? nope. as carolina pointed out 4 of the jurors are competing for his job. McConnel and Lindsey have vowed not to be impartial.
-compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. sounds like that might be violated too.

If you are arguing that the accused should face the accuser purely as a matter of convention and not compulsion, you are still on shaky ground. I don't think you can pick and choose what parts of a traditional trial to conform with. If you insist on facing the accuser then you should also allow documents and witnesses. You should also acquire a truly impartial jury, not a partisan one.



excuse me??? please tell me you dont actually believe any of that. Peter. please tell me you dont.
GOP and Dems had equal access to witnesses in the SCIF. equal time to ask questions. taking turns. Something like 100 GOP members could walk into there any time. Also, they certainly were not secret. Everyone knew the depositions were going on.





Peter, are you aware that the only questions that Schiff disallowed were those that could have been used to determine the identity of the WB?


I am a little confused. I dont understand what you are trying to say here. please restate it.


His fictional account was preambled with an explanation that it was abridged and not verbatim.
"Schiff explicitly said that he was trying to describe "the essence" of Trump’s message "shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words." He never tried to read the president’s remarks in full, nor did he pretend to offer Trump’s words." -politifact


I must be stupid then. I do not think he is a liar any more than you or I are liars. The so-called lies he has been accused of are easily rebutted. You may not be aware that there has been a GOP campaign to discredit the Democrats best orator. I think you have been victimized by that campaign. Calling someone a liar is a difficult thing. As a lawyer, wouldn't you agree? To use that word "lie" you must know the mistruth is intentional. I think I have addressed most of the accusations of him lying. Is there any one in particular you would like to point out?

Lindsey Graham does not seem to think Adam Schiff is a clown. On trial day 1 he was reported to have been shaking Schiff hand and complimenting him on his presentation. And I can't blame Lindsey. Schiff's presentation these last few days has been stellar. not so much the other house managers. Jeffreys was pretty good though.



Few if any ever believed this would remove Trump. We did believe it would sanction him for what we truly believe he did. Impeachment was the goal. Not necessarily removal. To let Trump continue such behaviour with no consequences would be a tacit approval. It would green light future presidents for similar behaviour.


Sorry to hear that you think I am weird.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Eric Ciaramella, Adam Schiff and Mr. Vindman must testify

The name of the man many believe to be the “whistleblower,” Eric Ciaramella (EC), whose complaint triggered the circus we’ve been forced to endure, continues to pop up in the most unexpected of places. As these incidents multiply, it’s becoming clearer by the day that EC, the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, who received his “urgent” complaint, bloviator Adam Schiff and Sean Misko, EC’s former colleague at the National Security Council with whom he has a “bro-like” relationship, must all be questioned under oath immediately. If EC is the individual who filed the complaint, then this is the greatest “hit and run” in American political history.

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-v...ects-the-dots/

[MMC]

My post that you quoted speaks for itself and is an accurate description of this clown show. The House impeachment hearing lacked any of what Americans consider to be basic fairness. It was designed to create a false narrative and the "media" was more than happy to support this false narrative in its "reports" to Americans via their propaganda heavy "news" casts.

Basically the Dems do not have the law or the facts on their side. So they create a narrative intended to appeal to emotion. It is a sign of weakness.

While the Lame Stream media sensationalizes what the Democrats say. Eventually the American People will have to deal with the Lame Stream Media in the most extreme way.