Close Please enter your Username and Password


bigblock46 73M
12288 posts
12/2/2019 5:56 am
"Whistleblower" Testimony Is Vital


Democrats and Republicans have been fighting over whether the person who filed a complaint about President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—sparking the impeachment inquiry now underway against Trump—should be called testify publicly.

I believe the person, who is not technically a whistleblower, should be required testify before the House Intelligence Committee. Democrats who control the committee disagree. They killed a motion subpoena the so-called whistleblower, who has said through his attorney that he wants to remain anonymous.

Impeaching and removing a president is perhaps the most consequential thing Congress can do, short of declaring war.

In the case of a first-term president, impeachment deprives the American people of the chance to pass judgment on his actions and decide if they want to reelect him.

The American people need to know as much as possible about what the president is accused of. Yet the impeachment inquiry against Trump has been marked by secret proceedings, rules favoring one party over the other, and explosive accusations by people who may not even have firsthand knowledge. These are not the marks of a legitimate process. Indeed, they actively undercut the people’s trust.

As then-Sen. Joe Biden said during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998: “We in Congress had better be very careful before we upset [the people’s] decision and make darn sure … that our decision to impeach him was based on principle and not politics.”

Current House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., had some good advice back in 1998, when he was already serving in the House.

“There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment, when impeachment is supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other,” Nadler said 21 ago. “Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”

Congress should heed that but wise and very relevant advice of Joe Biden and Jerrold Nadler today.

bigblock46 73M
9815 posts
12/2/2019 6:03 am

All the evidence not the assumptions and presumptions.


dusty117 69M
1060 posts
12/2/2019 12:06 pm

Block, you left out the most important part of the story … Trump threatened the whistleblower.


bigblock46 73M
9815 posts
12/2/2019 3:05 pm

    Quoting dusty117:
    Block, you left out the most important part of the story … Trump threatened the whistleblower.
Again you attempt to change the topic. My suggestion is if you want to talk about the subject you brought up, write your own blog. Now if you don't like the suggestion I gave you, tough, the whistleblower testimony is very important to whether or not we overturn the will of 63 million of your fellow Americans.


hobsonschoice 71F
3269 posts
12/2/2019 3:52 pm

What difference will the whistle blowers testimony make? That's it, just one simple question which I do believe is on topic.


dusty117 69M
1060 posts
12/2/2019 7:29 pm

    Quoting bigblock46:
    Again you attempt to change the topic. My suggestion is if you want to talk about the subject you brought up, write your own blog. Now if you don't like the suggestion I gave you, tough, the whistleblower testimony is very important to whether or not we overturn the will of 63 million of your fellow Americans.
Whistleblower's testimony is vital .. really, are you sure about that?

63 million voters elected Trump … yeah Block that's right, every President gets elected. That was then, and this is now.

In case you're not getting the news, the House of Representatives already made a damn good case for bribery and they didn't NEED any testimony from the whistleblower to do it … so how it's "vital"?


bigblock46 73M
9815 posts
12/3/2019 4:29 am

    Quoting hobsonschoice:
    What difference will the whistle blowers testimony make? That's it, just one simple question which I do believe is on topic.
If and when the whistleblower testifies under oath, inconvenient truths will erupt.

The whistleblower would have to answer problematic questions that include these: What was the full extent of the whistleblower’s prior coordination with Chairman Schiff, his staff, and any other people he cooperated with while preparing the complaint? What are the whistleblower’s political biases and connections to Democratic politicians? How does the whistleblower explain the inaccuracies in the complaint? What contact did the whistleblower have with the media, which appears to be ongoing?”

Also it follows adherence to the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. The Rights to hear the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Not to mention that Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi and the Democrats were for the whistleblower’s testimony before they were against it.


Skariff2 67M
2926 posts
12/3/2019 9:04 am

Rather than having to deny the undeniable, the GOP membership seeks to confirm the information from the whistleblower. Unfortunately, the whistleblower is protected by law from identification for the very reason the GOP wants to learn of his/her identity, protection from verbal and perhaps even physical assault. Your position falls directly into that scenario which is perfectly predictable. Neither President Trump nor his loyal but grossly misled followers have a clue about the workings of our government and the laws passed by our government to protect her citizenry. You are under the misunderstanding the government is a hindrance to our way of life, when, in fact, it guarantees our way of life.

Prejudice cannot be conquered with logic, logic didn't instill it and logic cannot eradicate it.


hobsonschoice 71F
3269 posts
12/3/2019 10:52 am

    Quoting bigblock46:
    If and when the whistleblower testifies under oath, inconvenient truths will erupt.

    The whistleblower would have to answer problematic questions that include these: What was the full extent of the whistleblower’s prior coordination with Chairman Schiff, his staff, and any other people he cooperated with while preparing the complaint? What are the whistleblower’s political biases and connections to Democratic politicians? How does the whistleblower explain the inaccuracies in the complaint? What contact did the whistleblower have with the media, which appears to be ongoing?”

    Also it follows adherence to the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. The Rights to hear the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    Not to mention that Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi and the Democrats were for the whistleblower’s testimony before they were against it.
Thanks to Deroy Murdock, Foxnews.com


bigblock46 73M
9815 posts
12/4/2019 4:07 am

    Quoting Skariff2:
    Rather than having to deny the undeniable, the GOP membership seeks to confirm the information from the whistleblower. Unfortunately, the whistleblower is protected by law from identification for the very reason the GOP wants to learn of his/her identity, protection from verbal and perhaps even physical assault. Your position falls directly into that scenario which is perfectly predictable. Neither President Trump nor his loyal but grossly misled followers have a clue about the workings of our government and the laws passed by our government to protect her citizenry. You are under the misunderstanding the government is a hindrance to our way of life, when, in fact, it guarantees our way of life.
Where were you during the Clinton Impeachment? Did you come to the defense of the shoddy treatment given to Linda Tripp, the whistleblower in that case or did you join in.

For daring to undermine a Democratic President, the media had nothing but contempt for Tripp, who journalists disdained as a “pathetic, self-destroying older loser,” a “spy-provacateur,” and a “treacherous, back-stabbing, good-for-nothing enemy of the truth.” CNBC’s Geraldo Rivera said Tripp was a “betrayer on the order of Benedict Arnold,” while Newsweek tagged her a “friend-betraying Cruella de Vil.”

Linda Tripp testified in Clinton sex scandal, June 30, 1998.


Skariff2 67M
2926 posts
12/4/2019 1:29 pm

    Quoting bigblock46:
    Where were you during the Clinton Impeachment? Did you come to the defense of the shoddy treatment given to Linda Tripp, the whistleblower in that case or did you join in.

    For daring to undermine a Democratic President, the media had nothing but contempt for Tripp, who journalists disdained as a “pathetic, self-destroying older loser,” a “spy-provacateur,” and a “treacherous, back-stabbing, good-for-nothing enemy of the truth.” CNBC’s Geraldo Rivera said Tripp was a “betrayer on the order of Benedict Arnold,” while Newsweek tagged her a “friend-betraying Cruella de Vil.”

    Linda Tripp testified in Clinton sex scandal, June 30, 1998.
Linda Tripp was hired by the GOP, she wasn't a whistleblower entitled to the same protections today's laws provide. Besides, President Trump has done more damage to the United States in three years than any other president has in eight. Now I realize you fail to understand that, but the truth has always been a foreigner to you anyway.

Prejudice cannot be conquered with logic, logic didn't instill it and logic cannot eradicate it.


bigblock46 73M
9815 posts
12/4/2019 2:03 pm

    Quoting Skariff2:
    Linda Tripp was hired by the GOP, she wasn't a whistleblower entitled to the same protections today's laws provide. Besides, President Trump has done more damage to the United States in three years than any other president has in eight. Now I realize you fail to understand that, but the truth has always been a foreigner to you anyway.
Linda Tripp was actually a holdover from the George H W Bush administration as we have been led to believe this one is a holdover from the Obama administration. She isn't entitled to protection, so you must be OK with the hell she was placed through.