WH officials refuse to testify

The president, as he is want to do, is threatening to reveal the name of the whistleblower which most certainly will compromise his safety and endanger him to retaliation by any number of rabid red hatters who are beside themselves that Trump’s abuse of power has been outed, and corroborated by many other witnesses that have testified under oath.

Trump should NOT be talking about a whistleblower that he is federally mandated to protect. But then he implicates himself regularly with his impetuous tweeting…

No worries. The “whistleblower” has already been outed for several weeks now. Still alive and kicking. Thank goodness it wasn’t a whistleblower testifying against the Clintons. We know how that works out, amiright? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Safety compromised, like red-hatters yelling at the WB in a public restaurant while dining with his family? Or, having eggs thrown at him while walking into a hotel? Or protestors outside his home screaming and scaring his wife and small children? That sort of endangerment?

The name of the pseudo-whistleblower is already known by everybody in Washington DC…and anyone who keeps up with the news.

You should try it sometime.

1 Like

How can Adam Schiff cut off anyone who mentions the name of the whistle blower if he is telling the truth that he does not KNOW the name of the whistle blower? H-h-h-m-m-m-m??

1 Like
1 Like

“FBI raid on the residence of whistleblower Dennis Nathan Cain who reportedly disclosed information about the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One transaction.”

In the discussion of the July 25 phone call, Nunes asked of Vindman if he had discussed this phone call with anyone outside of the White House. Vindman asserted that he had, and detailed that he discussed things with George Kent — a witness from last week — as well as ‘’ an individual in the intelligence community ’’. Nunes bored in to ask from which of the seventeen intelligence agencies did that individual derive?

It was at this time that Adam Schiff interjected. ‘’ We need to protect the whistleblower ’’, he declared, interrupting Nunes. He advised the witness about possibly revealing the identity.

1 Like

Easy when you write the rules.

I thought you guys were strict constitutionalists…

The house writes the damn rules, get over it…

OMG, Sondland, the man that can NEVER be accused of being a ‘never Trumper’, is dropping the presidents ass in the grease, and that, just in his opening statement. He hasn’t even entered questioning yet…:flushed::flushed::flushed::flushed::flushed:

OMG, Sondland, the man that can NEVER be accused of being a ‘never Trumper’, is dropping the presidents ass in the grease, and that, just in his opening statement. He hasn’t even entered questioning yet

Start a thread on that if it makes you feel better.

In the meantime, Sondland is cementing the fact of a QPQ, outlining that Trump, to his alarm, held up congressionally appropriated funds…

Sondland asked, and answered the question in his opening statement, “was there a quid pro quo? YES!!!”

Can you spell impeachment.

So, you like the Democrat cast of the Schiff show are in favor of sending US aid to corrupt regimes. The President as cash register blindly passing out foreign aid. :roll_eyes:

I didn’t argue the rules only that Shiff must be lying if he cuts off questioning that he claims will expose the identity of the whistleblower if he does not know the name of the whistleblower.
Can’t you understand that simple contradiction?

For the most part, I’m a life long critic of foreign aid. But it’s very much a US federal policy that transcends administrations, and in this case, was appropriated by Congress, and tied to the investigation of Biden, by Trump, as Sondland today cemented in his VERY damaging (to the POTUS) testimony this morning.

No, you lie.
Sondland clearly stated Trump told in in a face to face conversation, “I want no Quid Po Quo”.
“I have no evidence tying President Trump
to withholding aid.
I presumed it.”

The whole issue of the whistleblower is moot. We have witness testimony corroborating it all. Can’t you understand that?

Can’t you understand all corroboration is hearsay? Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

No it’s not. But even if it was, the courts are full of precedent that hearsay is admissible. :man_shrugging: