Original whistleblower wants to testify...

baddave

Senior Member
i guess the whistler and the dems have huddled up and got their lies together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The FoxNews story blathers the statement, "the House has launched a formal impeachment inquiry."

The is a blatantly false and misleading statement. It is also at the core of what is happening on Capitol Hill. The United States House of Representatives cannot launch anything, not even a rowboat, on the public statement of one individual. Not even if the individual is a member of the House and elected as Speaker of the House.

What IS happening is the democrat party, without a vote of the full house, has decided to try and find a fig leaf of justification for voting to impeach the President of the United States. The disadvantage they face is that there is no precedent for their action and anyone capable of rational thought will realize that, without a vote authorizing the inquiry, committee actions (like subpoenas) do not have the force of law or the power to compel. But the democrats believe there are greater advantages. First, as is obvious from the reporting, the media will not report the distinction or even care that their reporting is dishonest.

But the democrats also believe they gain the advantage of not having to follow any of the normal rules of the House. They are holding "hearings" without allowing any House Member who is not a democrat to have any opportunity to select witnesses, deny GOP Representatives the opportunity to question some witnesses, and the democrats believe that they can completely control the information made public by their inquiry.

Once again, proof that the post Ailes FoxNews is just as far left as the other corporate globalist media outlets!
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
All of this is a sham! A fraud perpetrated on the American
People who all too often are mindless sheep.

All one has to do is know the Peter Schiff orchestrated this wissle blower initiative. That is actual fact. None This farce is based on hard evidence and facts but rather hearsay and bloviated conjecture.

Anyone who cannot see this is in on the farce.
 
I'm a little lost on one point. I keep hearing a talking point that the president has the right to face his accuser, the whistle blower. Isn't that akin to saying I couldn't be investigated and convicted by law enforcement if a crime stoppers tip started the investigation? I can't face the accuser, but I can still be convicted based on the facts of the investigation. I just dont follow the logic.
 
I'm a little lost on one point. I keep hearing a talking point that the president has the right to face his accuser, the whistle blower. Isn't that akin to saying I couldn't be investigated and convicted by law enforcement if a crime stoppers tip started the investigation? I can't face the accuser, but I can still be convicted based on the facts of the investigation. I just dont follow the logic.
Not very conversant with the Constitution are you.
 
Not very conversant with the Constitution are you.
That was really just an insult. What point are you making? Do you have the legal right to confront a tip line caller, such as crime stoppers, in your legal opinion? The whistle blower need not even testify. They are merely telling the authorities, look over here. I would agree, if they give testimony you have a right to cross them. However; the Republican written whistle blower law is clear, they can remain anonymous.
 
Last edited:
I think Muducker, an attorney, will tell you that a person cannot be convicted on anonymous hearsay testimony in a court of law.

That is why this case is being tried in the court of public opinion by the Democrats. Where the defendant, i.e., the President can't confront his accuser to refute the "whisleblower's testimony.
 
I think Muducker, an attorney, will tell you that a person cannot be convicted on anonymous hearsay testimony in a court of law.

That is why this case is being tried in the court of public opinion by the Democrats. Where the defendant, i.e., the President can't confront his accuser to refute the "whisleblower's testimony.
Cold you be convicted if anonymous hearsay leads to evidence through an investigation? Such as an anonymous tip line? If Muduck is an attorney and want to argue the Republican whistle blower law is unconstitutional, he needs to argue that with the courts, not me.
 
Last edited:
Top