As President Trump says, 'where's the whistleblower?'

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...WOY?li=BBnb7Kz


It has been nearly a month since legislators released the whistleblower complaint that prompted multiple congressional committees’ probes into President Donald Trump and the administration’s actions in Ukraine. In the time since that complaint came to light, it’s been rapid-fire witnesses on Capitol Hill -- but the whistleblower has remained largely out of the picture.

"Where's the Whistleblower?" Trump tweeted on Wednesday morning.
Last week, Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence committee, said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that they want to make sure to identify other evidence pertinent to the investigation and that, "it may not be necessary to take steps that might reveal the whistleblower's identity to do that."
In a letter on Wednesday to Schiff, Reps. Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes and Michael McCaul said that they were surprised by his announcement that they will not receive testimony from the "anonymous intelligence community employee whose complaint initiated the so-called impeachment inquiry."
"You had earlier committed that the employee would provide 'unfiltered' testimony 'very soon,' only to reverse course following revelations that the employee had a bias against President Donald Trump and that you had received a secret, early account of the allegations," the letter from the ranking members of the oversight, intelligence and foreign affairs committees said. "As the so-called impeachment inquiry gathers information that contradicts the employee's allegations, we ask that you arrange for the Committees to receive public testimony from the employee and all individuals he or she relied upon in formulating the complaint."
An aide to Schiff declined to comment when contacted by ABC News.
Democrats in the House had been leaning toward some sort of arrangement that would shield the whistleblower's identity to protect from disclosure, because there were concerns that Republican staffers or lawmakers could leak the identity of the official if they took part in any proceedings, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
MORE: Republicans storm secure room, force delay in questioning of top defense official on Ukraine aid
Sen. Richard Burr on Tuesday claimed that the whistleblower's attorneys are not cooperating with his own panel's inquiry.
"This is a very serious charge the whistleblower has made," Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday. "I cannot envision a scenario where we would not want not want to have legal counsel staff talk with the whistleblower in person."
Burr, who said the Senate committee had specifically asked the individual for an interview, said that the lawyers "haven't even offered to make them available."
"They haven't been specific as to their reason," Burr said, later adding that he didn't know "how to put into context the whistleblower's claim."
"I've read the transcript. Is that a high crimes and misdemeanors, the conversation that went on? I don't see it. That's my judgment," he said.
MORE: LINK Senate Intel chairman intends to recall DNI, inspector general in Ukraine probe back to the Hill
Mark Zaid, who is representing the whistleblower, pushed back against Burr's characterization of their talks.
"We have been in repeated contact with both the Majority and Minority of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees and have been clear that what happens with one would happen with both in a non-partisan manner," Zaid told ABC News in a statement.
"Given the obvious security concerns associated with the whistleblower's identity, addressing the process that has occurred, which is always important, is candidly not time sensitive and can certainly be dealt with at a later date or through alternative means that enable the Committee to learn what is needed to accomplish its oversight authority," Zaid said.
The Senate intelligence committee's investigation is focused on examining the whistleblowing process. And despite the snag with the whistleblower's lawyers, Burr said his committee's probe continues.
"We're talking to the individuals that are involved in the process," Burr said Tuesday, naming Intelligence Inspector General Michael Atkinson, DNI Joseph Maguire, CIA General Counsel Courtney Elwood, and others at the Justice Department.
Burr noted that he specifically wants to have Atkinson walk through the process of how he investigated the whistleblower's complaint, a 14-day mandated process, and said he wants to ask witnesses, "How many people did the whistleblower go and talk to before there was an official whistleblower complaint made? Or was there a referral by multiple places? If so, what was the action on the referral?"
The chairman held out the possibility that the scope of his committee's investigation could widen.
"I'm only concerned with the whistleblower, the accusation, and the process that they went through," Burr said of his panel's investigation, and if at the end of that there's a reason to widen the scope of it, Burr said, "If when I get through that, there's a reason to open the aperture, we'll make a decision as to whether we do that. But understanding the claim, how it came about, what process they went through, I mean that's at the heart of counterintelligence."


The DPST house is conducting a double secret probation star chamber impeachment investigation - and refusing to allow any Republicans to be present at hearings.

This is a total mockery of our system of law and Constitution. The DPST's have no shame at the precedents they are setting, or how their Trump hatred means more than serving the country.

Vote in 2020!!!!!

There was never any whistleblower. There was a guy that Lawfare, Schiff and various Dims could float the paperwork with. When the anonymous paperwork was insufficient, they enlisted the IG to change the paperwork and "validate it". The IG is in on it too.

Once the "whistleblower" was established, Schiff could justify holding this charade behind closed door.

That was the purpose of the whistleblower. To facilitate the fishing expedition behind closed doors and let conjecture do the damage. The media is compliant. Schiff keeps them in the loop by releasing "damaging" nuggets every so often. Schiff does the investigation in a deposition setting so Dims, Republicans and their "bombshells" can't legally discuss what was said in an open forum.

If they held the hearings in open forums it would quickly become a farce and the impeachment bid would be over. But the Dims learned something about the Mueller probe. That they could spoon feed the media for two years "bombshells" and at the end of it, when it was all disproven, they still had a narrative that their base would buy.

At least the Republicans Representatives grew some balls and stormed the SCIF room yesterday. If I was Chief Justice Roberts I'd meet with the House and Senate leadership and tell them "I'm not running a two month long impeachment trial in the Senate because the Dims didn't allow basic due process procedures that were practiced in the other impeachments."

GNF - Thank You , Sir
Amen.


And - good luck to the Astros.

^^^ 100% agree

Frankly, a lot of policos would have folded under the Dim harrassment.
Amusing that Mr T standing up to them infuriates them to the point of acting like 4yr olds throwing a temper tantrum.

The DPST house is conducting a double secret probation star chamber impeachment investigation - and refusing to allow any Republicans to be present at hearings. Originally Posted by oeb11

false.. any Republican member of a committee conducting the inquiry can be present.. they choose not to be.

And - good luck to the Astros. Originally Posted by oeb11

the Astros need a Hell of a lot more than luck..

false.. any Republican member of a committee conducting the inquiry can be present.. they choose not to be.




the Astros need a Hell of a lot more than luck.. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

you must be kidding right? are you claiming that none of the Republican committee members are attending?


bullshit.

you must be kidding right? are you claiming that none of the Republican committee members are attending?


bullshit. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

your team keeps saying they are not allowed in. you disagree? good.

your team keeps saying they are not allowed in. you disagree? good. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Are you just pretending to be stupid, or are you genuinely ignorant of the fact that Schitty had Gaetz kicked out of one of the hearings? That's not "hearsay". That's a matter of public record.

Are you just pretending to be stupid, or are you genuinely ignorant of the fact that Schitty had Gaetz kicked out of one of the hearings? That's not "hearsay". That's a matter of public record. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

are you dumb or fucking retarded, no understanding that Gaetz is one guy out of 100+ who can be present? typical right-wing shitheadedness, using one example to imply to all examples.

Are you just pretending to be stupid, or are you genuinely ignorant of the fact that Schitty had Gaetz kicked out of one of the hearings? That's not "hearsay". That's a matter of public record. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

He was not on the committee. Republican's that were on the proper committee were allowed in.

you must be kidding right? are you claiming that none of the Republican committee members are attending?


bullshit. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No....He is saying that that dickhead was not allowed in because he was not on the committee interviewing the witness. Republicans' are allowed in despite what some would have you believe.

No....He is saying that that dickhead was not allowed in because he was not on the committee interviewing the witness. Republicans' are allowed in despite what some would have you believe.
Originally Posted by WTF

uh No, the ChungMeister claims the Republican committee members aren't attending.


butt WTF do you know?

uh No, the ChungMeister claims the Republican committee members aren't attending.


butt WTF do you know? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

So would you tell IB that Republican's on the proper committee can attend the hearing.

Evidently IB thinks Gaetz should be able to attend them all.

are you dumb or fucking retarded, no understanding that Gaetz is one guy out of 100+ who can be present? typical right-wing shitheadedness, using one example to imply to all examples. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Was Rosenstein lying when he claimed that his remark about wearing a wire to a meeting with Trump was a joke?

An intelligent person knows that only by WITNESSING a person making such a remark -- or any remark -- can one begin to understand whether the remark was made as a jest or in earnest ... or as a deceptive lie. Watching a witness testify is one of the greatest tools for actually understanding a witness and making a determination regarding the veracity of a witness.

Gaetz understands that being denied a place in the hearing is to be denied a substantial part of understanding what is actually said in such a hearing, shithead, especially since dim-retards are so quick to mischaracterize everything to their own advantage.

He was not on the committee. Republican's that were on the proper committee were allowed in. Originally Posted by WTF

As explained by Rep Andy Biggs in his interview yesterday, no where in the House rules is it stipulated that a Congressman or woman can be excluded from such a hearing because they are not a sitting member on that committee. No where in the House rules is it stipulated that a Congressman or woman aren't to be allowed a copy of the transcript of such hearings. Your whole argument is based on a lib-retard lie.