flyangler

WSJ: Whistleblower #1 refuses live testimony

Rate this topic

79 posts in this topic

Will only answer questions in writing and not live, even via remote link guaranteeing anonymity. So, no live cross-examine possible. 

 

I wonder why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ukraine Whistleblower May Not Testify In Person

Lawmakers are awaiting an appearance Friday by the former Ukraine ambassador

By 

Dustin Volz and 

Warren P. Strobel

Updated Oct. 10, 2019 6:55 pm ET

Negotiations between the whistleblower’s legal team and the intelligence committees over his potential testimony have played out for weeks, largely out of public view. Photo: saul loeb/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The request reflects concerns about whether the whistleblower could testify to Democrats and Republicans without revealing his identity, and fears that doing so would lead to it being publicly leaked, jeopardizing his personal safety. The intelligence committees haven't yet responded to the inquiry about potential written testimony, the people said. 

Spokeswomen for the House and Senate intelligence committees didn’t respond to requests to comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Whistle Blower is not going to remain a secret much longer. When you try to take out the president you have to stand up and say why he must go. Millions of citizens voted for him and they have rights, too. They have the right to ask questions and explore the accusation thoroughly. 
 

If the crime was so heinous and the evidence so compelling......why the need to  hide things from us ? Because the commies know that this is nothing more than another witch hunt and the longer they can disguise that the better for them.

 

I want to see him answer this question....Mr Whistle Blower....was it a crime for you to receive the classified information that you obtained, and did you then transmit that classified information to others ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, The Dude said:

Makes sense. We don’t need his testimony.

You do if the career professional notetakers come forward and say there was not QPQ, nothing nefarious in the ellipsisws , etc. 

 

This is based on an implication of a threat,  not an overt one. Frank and many others are basing their judgements on the hope the transcript was doctored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 mins ago, The Dude said:

Makes sense. We don’t need his testimony.

I know, lying has gotten the Dems this far. May as well ride out the lie with more! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, Markushook said:

I know, lying has gotten the Dems this far. May as well ride out the lie with more! 

We have the transcript and texts that back this patriot up. Let’s focus on those involved instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 mins ago, The Dude said:

Makes sense. We don’t need his testimony.

Agreed.

It should be dead in the water.

The fact that they are keeping this charade going is shameful.

 

 

Ukraine

 

lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 mins ago, tomkaz said:

Will only answer questions in writing and not live, even via remote link guaranteeing anonymity. So, no live cross-examine possible. 

 

I wonder why? 

There is already $50.000 for his head from a bunch of wack jobs, would you risk it??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.