- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why the Whistleblower Must Testify
Posted on 11/13/19 at 9:10 am
Posted on 11/13/19 at 9:10 am
There is a ridiculous MSM collusion of conclusion that the WB should not be "exposed". Why? After all, we are told the WB brings nothing to the table other than 2nd hand observations. Now that we have 1st hand accounts, the narrative is "We no longer need the WB to testify." Obviously, following that logic, once the transcript was released, we no longer needed anyone to testify. Yet here we are.
So at this stage, why should the WB testify?
(1) The complaint hurt US national security and the Presidency (not Trump, but the Presidency). Future world leaders can no longer have conversations with a US President w/o worry that the contents could be released. A future POTUS might receive dangerously limited info due to a leader's reticence to risk public release of more complete information.
(2) There is concern the WB created his complaint for partisan reasons, or worse, because he was personally politically compromised. We need to know the extent of the WB's involvement with Biden dalliances in Ukraine, and with Chalupa's Ukrainian interference solicitations in the 2016 election.
(3) The WB complaint follows a similar pattern. As has occurred several times, it is a leak misconstruing actual content of a phone conversation between Trump and a world leader. Was the WB a source of previous leaks?
(4) There is concern the WB broke protocol (and perhaps the law) in discussing the conversation (Classified material by definition) with Congressional staffers prior to filing his complaint. Did he?
(5) There is supposition the complaint was coordinated and originated from a group, rather than an individual. i.e., it was designed for maximum partisan effect rather than simple concern. Was it? Were those individuals authorized to receive the information? Who were they? What was their motivation?
(6) There is talk that Adam Schiff had a major hand in constructing the WB complaint. What did Schiff know, and when did he know it?
(7) Strozk-Page texts reference an IC spy in the WH. Was that the WB?
They reference "Charlie". Ciaramella is pronounced Char-a-mella. Was Ciamella ever referred to as Charlie? Was he in contact with Strozk or Page or others in the FBI? Was he being (or had he been) directed in such actions?
(8) The Whistleblower apparently included a claim of 1st hand knowledge in his complaint. Yet the actual Whistleblower Report included no 1st hand material. So either the WB was duplicitous and filed a false report, or he has more information not included in his complaint. He must testify to clear this up.
(9) Finally, POTUS has a right to face and cross-examine his accuser.
So at this stage, why should the WB testify?
(1) The complaint hurt US national security and the Presidency (not Trump, but the Presidency). Future world leaders can no longer have conversations with a US President w/o worry that the contents could be released. A future POTUS might receive dangerously limited info due to a leader's reticence to risk public release of more complete information.
(2) There is concern the WB created his complaint for partisan reasons, or worse, because he was personally politically compromised. We need to know the extent of the WB's involvement with Biden dalliances in Ukraine, and with Chalupa's Ukrainian interference solicitations in the 2016 election.
(3) The WB complaint follows a similar pattern. As has occurred several times, it is a leak misconstruing actual content of a phone conversation between Trump and a world leader. Was the WB a source of previous leaks?
(4) There is concern the WB broke protocol (and perhaps the law) in discussing the conversation (Classified material by definition) with Congressional staffers prior to filing his complaint. Did he?
(5) There is supposition the complaint was coordinated and originated from a group, rather than an individual. i.e., it was designed for maximum partisan effect rather than simple concern. Was it? Were those individuals authorized to receive the information? Who were they? What was their motivation?
(6) There is talk that Adam Schiff had a major hand in constructing the WB complaint. What did Schiff know, and when did he know it?
(7) Strozk-Page texts reference an IC spy in the WH. Was that the WB?
They reference "Charlie". Ciaramella is pronounced Char-a-mella. Was Ciamella ever referred to as Charlie? Was he in contact with Strozk or Page or others in the FBI? Was he being (or had he been) directed in such actions?
(8) The Whistleblower apparently included a claim of 1st hand knowledge in his complaint. Yet the actual Whistleblower Report included no 1st hand material. So either the WB was duplicitous and filed a false report, or he has more information not included in his complaint. He must testify to clear this up.
(9) Finally, POTUS has a right to face and cross-examine his accuser.
5
Posted on 11/13/19 at 9:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Finally, POTUS has a right to face and cross-examine his accuser.
Rules and law don't apply when it comes to taking down that bad orange man.
/proggy
Posted on 11/13/19 at 9:12 am to NC_Tigah
The whistleblower must testify bc he’s essential to the coup.
Posted on 11/13/19 at 2:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
(1) The complaint hurt US national security and the Presidency (not Trump, but the Presidency). Future world leaders can no longer have conversations with a US President w/o worry that the contents could be released. A future POTUS might receive dangerously limited info due to a leader's reticence to risk public release of more complete information
Whistleblower included potentially sensitive or classified material in an attachment -- he had nothing to do with making it public.
quote:
(2) There is concern the WB created his complaint for partisan reasons, or worse, because he was personally politically compromised. We need to know the extent of the WB's involvement with Biden dalliances in Ukraine, and with Chalupa's Ukrainian interference solicitations in the 2016 election
Is any of this relevant to the events described in the complaint and corroborated by Sondland, Volker, Taylor, etc?
quote:
(3) The WB complaint follows a similar pattern. As has occurred several times, it is a leak misconstruing actual content of a phone conversation between Trump and a world leader. Was the WB a source of previous leaks?
Link?
quote:
(4) There is concern the WB broke protocol (and perhaps the law) in discussing the conversation (Classified material by definition) with Congressional staffers prior to filing his complaint. Did he?
Who is concerned about this?
quote:
(5) There is supposition the complaint was coordinated and originated from a group, rather than an individual. i.e., it was designed for maximum partisan effect rather than simple concern. Was it? Were those individuals authorized to receive the information? Who were they? What was their motivation?
Based on what information?
quote:
(6) There is talk that Adam Schiff had a major hand in constructing the WB complaint. What did Schiff know, and when did he know it?
Based on what information?
quote:
(7) Strozk-Page texts reference an IC spy in the WH. Was that the WB?
They reference "Charlie". Ciaramella is pronounced Char-a-mella. Was Ciamella ever referred to as Charlie? Was he in contact with Strozk or Page or others in the FBI? Was he being (or had he been) directed in such actions?
Link?
quote:
(8) The Whistleblower apparently included a claim of 1st hand knowledge in his complaint. Yet the actual Whistleblower Report included no 1st hand material. So either the WB was duplicitous and filed a false report, or he has more information not included in his complaint. He must testify to clear this up
The complaint made this very clear and so did the IC officials
quote:
(9) Finally, POTUS has a right to face and cross-examine his accuser.
It will be the House who is accusing him if he is impeached
Posted on 11/13/19 at 2:34 pm to bmy
bmy the Rexcatur of this topic, I notice you have avoided the hearing thread? 
Your boy Schiff for brains is shitting all over the place.
Your boy Schiff for brains is shitting all over the place.
Posted on 11/13/19 at 2:35 pm to bmy
There’s our thief giving his opinion that no one wants. Sad
Posted on 11/13/19 at 2:38 pm to bmy
That we have a poster arguing that the source of the complaint forming the basis for this entire impeachment inquiry shouldn't be subjected to questioning by the House is as absurd a proposition as I've ever heard.
"Democracy dies in darkness, except for when it hurts Trump."
-bmy
"Democracy dies in darkness, except for when it hurts Trump."
-bmy
Posted on 11/13/19 at 2:40 pm to NC_Tigah
Maybe Commissioner Schiff can spotlight a whistle in the sky and the phantom WB will appear.
Posted on 11/13/19 at 2:42 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
That we have a poster arguing that the source of the complaint forming the basis for this entire impeachment inquiry shouldn't be subjected to questioning by the House is as absurd a proposition as I've ever heard.
Let's round out the absurdity with, and Adam Schiff doesn't know his name.
Posted on 11/13/19 at 2:43 pm to Erin Go Bragh
I guess he is only known as Deep Throat to Schiff.
I’ll just leave that one there.
I’ll just leave that one there.
Posted on 11/13/19 at 2:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
(7) Strozk-Page texts reference an IC spy in the WH. Was that the WB?
They reference "Charlie". Ciaramella is pronounced Char-a-mella. Was Ciamella ever referred to as Charlie? Was he in contact with Strozk or Page or others in the FBI? Was he being (or had he been) directed in such actions?
This is where this is going. Book it!
Posted on 11/13/19 at 3:22 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
That we have a poster arguing that the source of the complaint forming the basis for this entire impeachment inquiry shouldn't be subjected to questioning by the House is as absurd a proposition as I've ever heard.
"Democracy dies in darkness, except for when it hurts Trump."
-bmy
I didn't say he shouldn't testify
I just don't see the point in it -- the people subpoena'd should be the people who gave him this information.Posted on 11/13/19 at 3:27 pm to bmy
quote:
bmy
Other than being a lonely, worthless, sewer dwelling rat, and a lying sack of shite, why do you constantly upvote yourself?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News