Posted on 01/29/2020 8:47:07 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Is it now clear the “whistle blower” status isn’t to protect Ciaramella, but Biden?
Biden AND OTHERS in the swamp.
Cruz is 0 for 2 on questions to managers, imo
Schiff does not answer and pontificates
“Were both sides given questions in advance, in order to prepare slides/charts, etc., beforehand?”
Seems so. I think I caught a glimpse of Donna Brazille skulking around the House Managers’ table funneling questions. She’s an expert, y’know.
Shith places all of the blame on "they" when it was HIS committee that rejected the LEGAL path to obtaining the witness evidence and testimony.
Will the whistleblower soon have out a book by anonymous so he can collect his pay off from the democrat publishing house laundry?
LOL....Donna Brazille???? Was she providing the managers with answers, ahead of time, too?
I know. I’m just so sick of the Good being punished and the Bad being rewarded. At least President Trump and his team are fighting the miscreants.
Excellent - thanks!!!!!
Schiff is losing it. He is not helping HIS case.
Shouldn’t the “Adverse witness” assertion apply to the missing deposition of atkinson and the “Whistleblower”?
I wouldn’t be surprised!
quite the contrary!! Cruz hit a home run on asking that last question!!!!
Schiff’s non answer spoke VOLUMES!!!!
Except that is not the only question. The statute doesn't just say, if it is urgent, you have to forward it. It talks about ``urgent concern'' as a defined term. If the House managers want to come and cast accusations that the political and career officials at the Office of Legal Counsel, which we all know is a very respected office of the Department of Justice, provides opinions for the executive branch on what governing law is, they should come backed up with analysis. ...Remember, what we are talking about here is a head-of-state communication between the President of the United States and another head of state. This isn't some CIA operation overseas. This isn't the NSA's doing something. This isn't any intelligence activity going on within the intelligence community under the supervision of the DNI. It is the head of the executive branch, in the exercising of his constitutional authority, engaging in foreign relations with a foreign head of state. ...
That makes sense. This statute was meant to provide for an ability of the inspector general's of the intelligence community, in overseeing the activities of the intelligence community, to receive reports about what was going on at intelligence agencies, those who were members of the intelligence community, and if there were fraud, waste, abuse-- something unlawful--in those activities. It was not meant to create an inspector general of the Presidency, an inspector general of the Oval Office, to purport to determine whether the President, in exercising his constitutional authorities, had done something that should be reported.
There is quite a bit more in Philbin's presentation, but it is not long. It is simple, it is clear, and it is direct.
We are not dealing with a whistleblower under the statute.
Schiff is protecting a leaker. That could be a crime.
If the senate allows witnesses it makes itsel subservient to the House since they are performing work at the direction of the House.
sadly, just you, me, and a few others recognized a non-answer
Philbin referring to the House managers’ sloppy lawyering...
OUCH.
The congress critters would have to be shaking their heads at Schiff’s denial that his staff didn’t tell him what the whistleblower said. They all have staffs and they darn well know that would never happen.
-PJ
“”””””””Schiff: My staff are remarkable and trustworthy people. The President’s staff are liars.””””””””””””
He really is a nutcase.
I believe it has, indirectly.
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.