All he knows is hearsay, why would the whistleblower...

[John Barron]

In the military we have hot lines to report fraud waste and abuse. I fully support the reporting of wrong doing. However at some point the accused has the right to confront his/her accuser. Thus far as far as I can tell Schiff hasn't allowed any Republican to question the accuser.

Do you think Trump will come in front of the house under oath to confront the accuser?

[Eagle_Eye]

Do you think Trump will come in front of the house under oath to confront the accuser?

How is that confronting his accuser? If I'm not mistaken the accused attorneys do the confronting for him in a court of law.
The whistleblower needs to be confronted by Trumps attorneys in a closed door session to keep his identity secret. No pressure of being outed to the public.

[John Barron]

How is that confronting his accuser? If I'm not mistaken the accused attorneys do the confronting for him in a court of law.
The whistleblower needs to be confronted by Trumps attorneys in a closed door session to keep his identity secret. No pressure of being outed to the public.

They can confront the WB lawyers then.

[Trumpet]

the whistleblower is going to have to publically testify sooner or later, you do know that right?

kicking and screaming or otherwise, schifty is on record saying he doesn't know who he is... that's going to hurt when we find out that's a lie huh?

There has been plenty of quality witnesses who have corroborated the whistleblower's account, so what's the point in going after the whistleblower??????? Going after the whistleblower is merely an attempted distraction from the impeachment hearing, because the GOP have got nothing else to offer.

[ThatOwlWoman]

In the military we have hot lines to report fraud waste and abuse. I fully support the reporting of wrong doing. However at some point the accused has the right to confront his/her accuser. Thus far as far as I can tell Schiff hasn't allowed any Republican to question the accuser. Let alone the accused.

As you know I'm not a fan of Trump, but this whole thing reeks of a kangaroo court.

It's not court, and there are no accusers, only witnesses. The WB's report at this point is moot. Witnesses are coming forward -- some of whom were directly involved -- to verify that what the WB reported is the truth. 45 asked for Ukraine to investigate a political rival in exchange for already-approved military aid. Aid that Cheeto withheld pending a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens. Why do you think he wanted Zelensky to make a public announcement of such an investigation? Do you think that such an announcement might have cast doubt in voters' minds about Biden -- even if it came up empty? Hell, you ppl are trying to claim that Biden's kid was engaging in suspicious and probably corrupt activities -- with absolutely ZERO evidence. What do you think would happen if the Ukrainians had announced an actual investigation?

[ThatOwlWoman]

How is that confronting his accuser? If I'm not mistaken the accused attorneys do the confronting for him in a court of law.
The whistleblower needs to be confronted by Trumps attorneys in a closed door session to keep his identity secret. No pressure of being outed to the public.

There is no purpose to be served by confronting the original whistleblower. As you guys all screeched about a few weeks ago -- hearsay. What's to be gained by questioning him? The names of the employees who told him what they heard? So those ppl can be retaliated against? They have no WB protection; they could be fired.

And that's why the Toadstool wants the WB confronted. He wants to root out all the "disloyalty." That's what the rest of us call patriotism.

[Eagle_Eye]

There is no purpose to be served by confronting the original whistleblower. As you guys all screeched about a few weeks ago -- hearsay. What's to be gained by questioning him? The names of the employees who told him what they heard? So those ppl can be retaliated against? They have no WB protection; they could be fired.

And that's why the Toadstool wants the WB confronted. He wants to root out all the "disloyalty." That's what the rest of us call patriotism.

So far the star witnesses on day one's testimony was all hearsay not on one talked to the president directly. So they WB's hearsay testimony would mean nothing but the ambassador's hearsay testimony is the smoking gun. I don't think so laughing.

[ThatOwlWoman]

So far the star witnesses on day one's testimony was all hearsay not on one talked to the president directly. So they WB's hearsay testimony would mean nothing but the ambassador's hearsay testimony is the smoking gun. I don't think so laughing.

What do you want to bet the (D)s have that aide lined up to testify? There would be no point in the ambassador mentioning the aide's account if they weren't planning to present the aide's testimony as well, eh? I'm sure Col. Vindman will also be testifying as to his first-hand knowledge of the phone call that he was on.

So what do you think about a POTUS using his private attorney as a pseudo-diplomat to visit other countries and seek dirt on his political rivals? It's sounding to me like you're just fine with this. Apparently it's also okay to offer/withhold U.S. taxpayer-funded and Congress-approved aid in order to get such dirt. I guess you'll be okay if a (D) does this too?

[Micawber]

The whistleblower statute exists entirely for the purpose of preventing what Beagle cry suggests.

The whistleblower, for all we know, has testified already. Or may be on the list without his identity known.
In any event destruction of his/her credibility doesn't accomplish anything for them, as the salient facts
are already agreed upon beyond any attempt to augment. Nothing Pukes can do but make little silly lying denials about what flows from all
the known fact.

Criminals. How they sleep nights knowing they turned coat on the USA for such a slug potus and Putin, I don't know,

[Eagle_Eye]

What do you want to bet the (D)s have that aide lined up to testify? There would be no point in the ambassador mentioning the aide's account if they weren't planning to present the aide's testimony as well, eh? I'm sure Col. Vindman will also be testifying as to his first-hand knowledge of the phone call that he was on.

So what do you think about a POTUS using his private attorney as a pseudo-diplomat to visit other countries and seek dirt on his political rivals? It's sounding to me like you're just fine with this. Apparently it's also okay to offer/withhold U.S. taxpayer-funded and Congress-approved aid in order to get such dirt. I guess you'll be okay if a (D) does this too?

So far this "inquiry" has been a joke. Oh I am sure the Dems have a whole parade of second hand knowledge. I am equally sure the R's have a few witnesses that will cast doubt but like all Washington comedy shows we will just have to sit back and enjoy the show. I will watch on and off depending on what is going on.

As I have told you and others I really don't care what the House does it's the Senate that counts.

[Getin the ring]

As I have told you and others I really don't care what the House does it's the Senate that counts.

that's the funny part,

there is no end game here for the Democrats, and they know it

[ThatOwlWoman]

So far this "inquiry" has been a joke. Oh I am sure the Dems have a whole parade of second hand knowledge. I am equally sure the R's have a few witnesses that will cast doubt but like all Washington comedy shows we will just have to sit back and enjoy the show. I will watch on and off depending on what is going on.

As I have told you and others I really don't care what the House does it's the Senate that counts.

You still haven't answered what you think about a POTUS using his position to get dirt on political enemies.

[TOP]

that's the funny part,

there is no end game here for the Democrats, and they know it

Very true (And Public opinion isn't going there way....Americans have no interest in this...)

[Getin the ring]

You still haven't answered what you think about a POTUS using his position to get dirt on political enemies.

and you still havnt answered what "policy put forth by republicans promotes white at the expense of people of color"

so irrelevant comes to mind

[TOP]

and you still havnt answered what "policy put forth by republicans promotes white at the expense of people of color"

so irrelevant comes to mind

Indeed