What difference does it make who the whistle-blower is if the information is correct as it is shown to be???

Why is it a witch hunt for the FBI to investigate Trump (with warrants) based on information obtained by an Australian diplomat where the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton and where the Trump team met with the Russians to obtain this dirt....But it is not a witch hunt for Trump to pressure the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden and his son Hunter with no evidence and no warrants....Can anyone explain why Trump thinks it is okay for him to dig dirt and launch a witch hunt against his political rival???

Yadda wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2019 at 11:26am:


They'd have to verify the story first.  Considering it's sources are based in pure conspiracy theory to defend Trump, until you find a smoking gun don't expect it to get any airtime, but even if it did, does it change anything?

SadKangaroo wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2019 at 11:32am:


And then they'd have to go to jail for exposing the identity of a CIA agent.

Those LEFTISTS in the MSM are such cowards. Look at Hannity - a whole show where he promises to name names, then gets carried away and "forgets" to do it.

So typical of the leftards.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-ukraine-whistleblower-suddenly-wont-te...

Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Suddenly Won't Testify; Lawyers Break Off Negotiations Amid New Revelations

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/01/2019 - 13:25
A CIA officer who filed a second-hand whistleblower complaint against President Trump has gotten cold feet about testifying after revelations emerged that he worked with Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan, and a DNC operative who sought dirt on President Trump from officials in Ukraine's former government.



According to the Washington Examiner, discussions with the whistleblower - revealed by RealClearInvestigations as 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella have been halted, "and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first's claims."

Ciaramella complained that President Trump abused his office when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as claims related to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in 2016.

On Thursday, a top National Security Council official who was present on a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky testified that he saw nothing illegal about the conversation.

"I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed," said Tim Morrison, former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call between the two leaders.


And now, the partisan whistleblowers have cold feet;

"There is no indication that either of the original whistleblowers will be called to testify or appear before the Senate or House Intelligence committees. There is no further discussion ongoing between the legal team and the committees," said the Examiner's source.

The whistleblower is a career CIA officer with expertise in Ukraine policy who served on the White House National Security Council during the Obama administration, when 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was "point man" for Ukraine, and during the early months of the Trump administration. -Washington Examiner

In other words, House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump over a second-hand whistleblower complaint by a partisan CIA officer, and neither he nor his source will actually testify about it (for now...).

On Thursday, the House passed a resolution establishing a framework for Trump impeachment proceedings, belatedly granting Republicans the ability to subpoena witnesses, but only if Schiff and fellow Democrats on the Intelligence Committee agree.

Mark Zaid, who along with Andrew Bakaj is an attorney for both the original whistleblower and the second whistleblower, told the Washington Examiner the legal team was willing to work with lawmakers so long as anonymity is ensured. “We remain committed to cooperating with any congressional oversight committee's requests so long as it properly protects and ensures the anonymity of our clients,” Zaid said.

On Wednesday, Zaid and Bakaj declined to confirm or deny in a statement to the Washington Examiner that Eric Ciaramella, 33, a career CIA analyst and former Ukraine director on the NSC, was the whistleblower after a report by RealClearInvestigations. -Washington Examiner

In September, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, who lied about contacts with Ciaramella (and hired two Ciaramella associates as staffers) said that the whistleblower "would like to speak to our committee."

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/11/impeachment-theater.html

Impeachment Theater
Ukrainegate is the new Russiagate. The 'whistleblower complain' is the new 'dirty dossier'. The 'former' MI6 spy Christopher Steele wrote the dossier. The current CIA spy Eric Ciaramella wrote the 'complain':

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_expose...

Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
Further, Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.

And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

The whole impeachment show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake.



The Democrats have chosen the wrong issue, Ukraine, where they themselves have a lot of ballast. The choice of a Trump phonecall with the Ukrainian president as the item to hang the impeachment on is especially dumb. Trump's call was less incriminating than Biden's pressure on the Ukrainian president to help his son's paymaster. It is also a mistake to let the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff run the impeachment process. Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the Obama National Security Council, had advised him.

The process will create a lot of collateral damage. It will hurt a number people involved in it, but it will not hurt Trump with his electorate. It will not end with impeachment. I believe, like Noam Chomsky, that it will, in the end, even help Trump:

"Is it politically wise? I frankly doubt it. I think it’ll turn out pretty much like the Mueller report, which, that I thought was also a political mistake. What’ll happen is probably the House will impeach, goes to the Senate. The Republican senators are utterly craven. They’re terrified of Trump’s voting base. So they’ll vote to turn down the impeachment request. Trump will come along, say I’m vindicated. Say it was the Deep State and the treacherous Dems trying to overturn the election. Oh, vote for me."
Trump can be beaten by good policies. Instead of offering any the Democrats try to defeat him with theater. But Trump is a much better showman than Schiff or any other Democrat. It nearly looks as if they want Trump to win.

Yadda wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2019 at 2:14pm:


You're ignoring all the evidence they already have though.

You're all being disingenuous about the entire process relying on the whistleblower.

That's how it started but it's progressed well beyond that now.

You're all just parroting, and championing something that means absolutely nothing.

This is how desperate you lot are.

it_is_the_light wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2019 at 2:39pm:


Yeah, but again, what does that matter?

Their testimony at this point doesn't matter.  You all were saying it was hearsay anyway right? 

So why not go directly to the people on the calls with Trump who reported their concerns which is what guided the whistleblower to take action in the first place?

And at the same time, you're saying Trump and anyone he directs not to, shouldn't cooperate with the enquiry, but now you're demanding that someone else cooperate?

Pick a position you spineless tards...

Either the Whistleblower's testimony would only be hearsay and worthless or what they have to say can be used against Trump so they need to testify.

And if you insist they testify and cooperate then you must demand the same from anyone else who is asked to give evidence despite what Trump tells them to do.

Pretty simple stuff.

If you demand more of other than you do of Trump, your contributions are worthless.

Rider wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2019 at 3:16pm:


So you're saying it's perfectly fine to one minute hold the position,

"The whistleblower is only offering hearsay and this isn't enough to impeach the President.  This is a witch hunt and the Republicans should ignore subpoenas and not comply with the hearings!"

And then the next:

"The whistleblower must testify to the Impeachment Enquiry because without their testimony we cannot continue so they must comply with subpoenas to front the hearings"

You're just changing the goalposts as it suits you...

If the whistleblower has no first-hand accounts and can only offer hearsay then forget them, focus on the people who were on the calls and since you're happy to force people to comply with subpoenas we should be forcing Bolton to give evidence.

But you don't want any of that, do you?

Quote:


Exactly.

I know the concept of hypocrisy is totally lost on people like you Rider because you hold one set of rules for those you support and a separate one for those you oppose, but now we're at the point where you tards are holding separate and competing beliefs over the exact same subject, both an attempt to support Trump and attach the constitutional process of holding him to account for breaking the law.

You really have nothing left at this point.  You can't claim the process is illegal, you can't defend the substance of the process so now you're only left trying to target the procedure of how it's being conducted.

It's telling of how back you all know the situation to be, even if you won't admit it, possibly even to yourselves.