Posted on 11/07/2019 8:11:24 PM PST by bitt
“...under oath...” doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot anymore. This isn’t grand daddy’s America. Liars are gonna lie and smirk in your face.
Why do these people roll over so easily when the Dems want them to?
Like it or not, the WB's name is already plastered all over the internet media.
Everybody but these ignorant politicians knows who this guy is.
And they know his partisan background and his reputation for hating Trump.
The director of national intelligence has an obligation by law to not expose his name and to prevent retaliation against him.
But otherwise, it's open season for anybody else, including politicians, the media and private citizens to release his name and they are not breaking the law.
We have a bunch of clowns running the show. But then I digress....
It is, but even that is mangled in certain cases. That said, the right, the the extent it is enforced, exists post-indictment. The parallel here would be post-articles-of-impeachment.
That said, I think the better angle in this case is to flip the table, and accuse the so-called whistleblower. He is a leaker. There is a possibility the so-called whistleblower committed a crime. There is no right to be an anonymous criminal.
Or is that too idealistic?
If you really think this, go back and re-read the story of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.
The fat young girl who was supposedly on the phone with Trayvon testified, but the corrupt judge withheld her identity until the moment she appeared in court. This deprived the defense of the opportunity to do a background investigation on her and be prepared with a line of questioning.
Fortunately she was so inept that she came off poorly and Zimmerman was acquitted, as he should have been.
In this case it would handicap the President's case immensely if the "whistleblower" identity was not know well before the Senate trial.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
We have all fallen for the Ciaramella name, hook, line and sinker. What if there is a second one, or what if his name is just a ruse and there is really someone else?
Since we control the Senate. I doubt there is a huge issue, but the pretend secrecy about this makes me wonder if they are hiding someone different by throwing out the name of a low-level, low-wattage hack.
Not up to you douche
I think they must have pictures of Burr in “Leather Lad” regalia, in an S&M dungeon, wearing buttless chaps.
Obviously, somebody has him on a leash.
Burr is playing tiddlywinks while the Rats are burning down the house.
Well the Dems set the rules so what do you expect. He is not a whistleblower, he is a spy.
“He who shall not be named.”
The real issue here isn’t the whistle-blower’s identity; its preventing him from being questioned. As long as Congress pretends they don’t know who he is, they can’t ask him to come in to experience adversarial questions.
Burr is not going to run in 2022. Unfortunately, he will do damage until then.
Burr is the swamp. The senate intel committee believes CIA lies about Russia.
I’m serious.
We need to blow this up by posting the guy’s name in every available public space.
Wave it on signs in sports crowds. Put it on t-shirts and walk into live TV broadcasts. Hire planes to tow it around the sky on banners.
I would at least consider the possibility that Ciamarella (you can't spell it without C-I-A) is a fictitious character or a decoy to hide the identity of the real traitor.
I think that train already left the station.
Seriously asking...what reason do they have in trying to keep the name secret...when we all know it?
Burr has not supported the President or even been fair in his committee chairmanship. Time to go
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.