Republicans blocked in what
Democrats charge is effort
to uncover whistleblower
Washington Examiner,
by
David M. Drucker
Original Article
Posted By: M2,
10/30/2019 7:22:08 AM
House Republicans are complaining that House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff has blocked efforts to uncover whom Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman spoke with about concerns that President Trump abused his power in dealings with Ukraine, efforts Democrats charge were designed to discover the identity of the whistleblower.
Democrats who heard at least some portion of the testimony Tuesday by Vindman said the Republicans were pressuring him to reveal the identity of the whistleblower, whose complaint first surfaced the allegations that sparked the impeachment process. Republicans did not deny the claim.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
kdog 10/30/2019 7:50:49 AM (No. 221692)
I suspect he spoke to Adam Schiff directly.
5 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
BarryNo 10/30/2019 8:03:30 AM (No. 221710)
A whistleblower is someone who takes a moral stand of speaking the truth in the face of power that reveals illegal and improper practices to the perfume of the public. He or she does not hide in the shadows.
In America, every human has the right to confront and cross-examine their accuser. The whistleblower may have the right to be protected, but NOT concealed.
There is significant evidence that the whistleblower is an imaginary construct created for the political benefit of the Democrats. Schiff is already guilty of witness tampering, and the Democrats guilty of abuse of power in preventing Trump's supporters from cross-examining witnesses, doing discovery, and for that matter calling their own witnesses. They are violating every principle of the protections granted by the Constitution.
15 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
starboard 10/30/2019 8:45:34 AM (No. 221748)
Vindman was a plant who said absolutely nothing. Basically he said he had concerns. That's all he said. What a bombshell! In fact, Vindman may have committed a crime by saying he spoke to others after the meeting about something that was classified. The Dems have nothing but BS.
11 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
aasilver 10/30/2019 9:06:18 AM (No. 221776)
The whistle blower is ..............Adam Schitff.
8 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
john56 10/30/2019 10:07:31 AM (No. 221849)
An example of how "the chairman may allow" as proposed in Nasty Nancy's non-impeachment resolution resolution.
Charlie Brown has a better chance of kicking the football when Lucy holds it than times when "the chairman may allow."
2 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
cor-vet 10/30/2019 11:02:29 AM (No. 221896)
Lt. Col. Vindman needs to be assigned, by the CiC, to a un-accompanied post in the remotest part of Alaska, staring at a radar screen, looking for a Russian invasion.
0 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
bighambone 10/30/2019 11:16:47 AM (No. 221913)
I believe that the federal whistleblower laws were enacted to give federal employees a way to report wrongdoing within the bureaucratic federal agency where they are employed to shield them them from being retaliated against by their federal agency managers and supervisors. I don’t think that those laws require that such whistleblower’s identities never be revealed, especially if the whistleblowers are providing witness evidence, even hearsay, thus making them exempt from being cross examined in proceedings that results in something so serious as the impeachment and removal from office of the elected President of the USA thus effectively undoing a presidential election.
Beyond that, this episode appears to be a gross misuse of the federal whistleblower blows by the leftist and liberal Democrats for their partisan political purposes, because those whistleblower laws were never contemplated to relate to policy decisions made by the President, or to White House Operations involving the President’s constitutional authority to decide what the foreign policies of the USA will be. The Constitution gives the President the authority to ultimately decide the foreign policy of the USA, and not to subordinate civilian and military “Deep State” oriented bureaucrats who object in one way or another to the President’s foreign policy decisions, some of who the Democrats are now using as witnesses to impeach the President. If the Democrats don’t like the President’s “America First” foreign policy agenda then the proper course of action for the Democrats to take is to defeat the President in the upcoming election in November 2019 by opposing the President’s “America First” foreign policy agenda, which they obviously know they have very low odds of doing since a big majority of the American people who actually vote support the President’s “America First” foreign policy agenda.
1 person likes this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Starboard_side 10/30/2019 11:36:57 AM (No. 221935)
#3, I believe his concerns were they might open investigations into what was happening in the previous administration, and how it would expose the corruption, including some assisting Hillary in 2016 (foreign interference).
They are trying to spin his concern into sounding like Trump did something wrong, but Trump has every right to inquiry what happened to the $7 billion that is unaccounted for.
1 person likes this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Luke21 10/30/2019 12:51:02 PM (No. 222026)
They write these ghastly headlines that obfuscate what happened. .
1 person likes this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
DVC 10/30/2019 3:35:00 PM (No. 222188)
Vindman needs to be court martialed, ASAP. Fired before that.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "M2"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)