Eric Ciaramella - whistleblower

Stacyhs said:
That! They want to identify the whistleblower so they can discredit him/her as a Dem or NeverTrumper as if that makes all the House witness testimony moot. They want to kill the messenger and ignore the message.
Click to expand...

Just like they do whenever any embarrassing or news of criminal activity is leaked. They whine about the leaker to distract from the leaked activity.
 
That Graham tweet is precious: If Trump is not allowed to confront his accuser it won't be a fair trial. Correct, because it was never going to be fair to begin with.

It could be interesting if Graham wants to call witnesses and Mitch doesn't. I kind of do hope the Senate goes this route - it may make it marginally more likely that other witnesses will be called as well.

ETA: What is the law anyway on outing the whistleblower? Can he testify under a fake name with a bag over his head?
 
Last edited:
Armitage72 said:
McConnell says he isn't going to allow any witnesses to testify to the Senate.




Unless, of course, he only means no witnesses called by the Democrats.
Click to expand...

To provide more clarity, he isn't allowing in the initial rule process. However, once it gets going, the house attorney can try and get them, and if the vote for passes, McConnell cant stop it.
 
Minoosh said:
That Graham tweet is precious: If Trump is not allowed to confront his accuser it won't be a fair trial. Correct, because it was never going to be fair to begin with.
Click to expand...

If they don't use testimony from the whistleblower and build their case from information from other sources, then from the standpoint of the trial the whistleblower isn't the accuser.
 
Suddenly said:
If they don't use testimony from the whistleblower and build their case from information from other sources, then from the standpoint of the trial the whistleblower isn't the accuser.
Click to expand...
And that right only applies to criminal trials.
 
Suddenly said:
If they don't use testimony from the whistleblower and build their case from information from other sources, then from the standpoint of the trial the whistleblower isn't the accuser.
Click to expand...

They all know that the whistleblower isn't essential to the trial. Whatever s/he has to say isn't important anymore because of the other witnesses who have corroborated everything in the complaint. What they really want is to identify him/her.
 
Minoosh said:
That Graham tweet is precious: If Trump is not allowed to confront his accuser it won't be a fair trial. Correct, because it was never going to be fair to begin with.
>snip>
Click to expand...

That is precious. Does Graham think having senators who have made it clear they have already made up their minds no matter what the evidence makes a fair trial?
 
smartcooky said:
The ONLY reason GOP wants him to testify is because it will afford some of their biggest wankers an opportunity to distract, deflect and obfuscate the facts and generally turn things into a circus the way Jim "shouty-mouth" Jordan and Mark "some of my best friends are black" Meadows tried to do in the House hearings.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think it's the only reason. They also want to find out who in Trump's inner circle ratted Trump out to him. I'm voting for Kellyanne.
 
"Spartacus" is the name of the whistleblower.
Now you know what you must say!
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
If they don't use testimony from the whistleblower and build their case from information from other sources, then from the standpoint of the trial the whistleblower isn't the accuser.
Click to expand...
Graham's tweet specified the "anonymous accuser/whistleblower," though. Not some gaggle of House Democrats, or any of the envoy-type people. So it sounds like Graham wants to call at least one witness.
 
Stacyhs said:
That is precious. Does Graham think having senators who have made it clear they have already made up their minds no matter what the evidence makes a fair trial?
Click to expand...
It's worth posting the whole tweet:

I WILL DO everything in my power to ensure President Trump can confront his anonymous accuser/whistleblower if there is a Senate trial.

If these two conditions are not met – which every American is entitled to – this will not be a fair proceeding.
Click to expand...

He only says that without the whistleblower it won't be fair. He doesn't say it *will* be fair *with* the whistleblower. It's actually kind of a masterfully ambiguous statement.

It's a 2-part tweet. The above is the 2nd part. Here's the first part:

I WILL NOT support an Article of Impeachment based on hearsay evidence.
Click to expand...

It sure sounds like he is talking about calling at least one witness. But I think he likes talking in riddles. The only witness he cares about, I'm sure, is the whistleblower. I'm tempted to read more into his statement - that he is willing to call witnesses, plural. But I doubt if he'd really do that. It would make it harder to say, "Move along, folks, there's nothing to see here" with the likes of Bolton and Giuliani testifying. People would want to see that train wreck.
 
Minoosh said:
It's worth posting the whole tweet:



He only says that without the whistleblower it won't be fair. He doesn't say it *will* be fair *with* the whistleblower. It's actually kind of a masterfully ambiguous statement.

It's a 2-part tweet. The above is the 2nd part. Here's the first part:

I WILL NOT support an Article of Impeachment based on hearsay evidence
Click to expand...

It sure sounds like he is talking about calling at least one witness. But I think he likes talking in riddles. The only witness he cares about, I'm sure, is the whistleblower. I'm tempted to read more into his statement - that he is willing to call witnesses, plural. But I doubt if he'd really do that. It would make it harder to say, "Move along, folks, there's nothing to see here" with the likes of Bolton and Giuliani testifying. People would want to see that train wreck.
Click to expand...

Nice...considering it's Trump who is blocking all those with first hand knowledge from testifying.
 
Minoosh said:
That Graham tweet is precious: If Trump is not allowed to confront his accuser it won't be a fair trial. Correct, because it was never going to be fair to begin with.

It could be interesting if Graham wants to call witnesses and Mitch doesn't. I kind of do hope the Senate goes this route - it may make it marginally more likely that other witnesses will be called as well.

ETA: What is the law anyway on outing the whistleblower? Can he testify under a fake name with a bag over his head?
Click to expand...

Like I was saying, the GOP Lawyer/legislators know full well they are lying:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham
A native of Central, South Carolina, Graham received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1981. Most of his active duty within his span of military service happened from 1982 to 1988 when he served with the Judge Advocate General's Corps in the United States Air Force, as a defense attorney and then with the Air Force's chief prosecutor in Europe based in West Germany. ...

Graham worked as a lawyer in private practice before serving one term in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1993 to 1995
Click to expand...



Stacyhs said:
That is precious. Does Graham think having senators who have made it clear they have already made up their minds no matter what the evidence makes a fair trial?
Click to expand...
That too. ^
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom