[politicket]

Asking a question about two people that have worked together is NOT outing the whistleblower.

We can play semantics all day long. The facts are that the name is known, but not mentioned by name. Forcing the hand of the Chief Justice to mention the name at all is putting him in a position that he will not take - and I don't blame him.

[John W]

Of course the fellow is just another coup plotter, not a whistle blower.

[redshawk]

Well there’s got to be a way to ask the question.

[pnut22]

Can the house team, if the time comes and I hope it doesn’t. put Misko and Ciaramella on their desired witness list? Ciaramella is not the whistle blower until someone says that he is.

[rollo tomasi]

Please cite the law that permits a member of the Senate from exposing the name of a whistleblower where the House has already completed an investigation?

There is no enumerated confidentiality statute pertaining to outing the whistleblower unless its the Inspector General or staff.

The 18th witness' testimony Schiff is hiding revealed a lot of dubious shenanigans about this subject (Allegedly). The public has the right to know as well as Trump's VI amendment rights. Again, the House is finished with their investigation, hence any protections under the Inspector General Act of 1978 are null and void.

[enumerated]

“Forcing the hand of the Chief Justice to mention the name at all is putting him in a position that he will not take - and I don’t blame him.”

How would you like to be convicted of a crime and not be allowed to confront your accuser? How would you like it if your defense council could not cross-examine the prosecution’s key witness to verify credibility and explore potential conflicts of interest?

That is completely unfair and devoid of due process. This is all wrong and Roberts just put his big fat thumb on the scales of justice..

...but you don’t blame him.