One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Does Anyone Doubt This?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 next>>
Nov 5, 2019 07:35:32   #
Liberty Tree
 
If it were Republicans trying to impeach a Democrat President and there was a whistle blower the MSM would have already outed that person and would be doing everything to discredit him. Think back how the women who accused Clinton were treated.

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 07:57:22   #
Kevyn
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
If it were Republicans trying to impeach a Democrat President and there was a whistle blower the MSM would have already outed that person and would be doing everything to discredit him. Think back how the women who accused Clinton were treated.


The whistleblower is legally protected from exposure, his or her testimony is irrelevant. As far as that gos the act of the idiot Pumpkinfuhrer encouraging people to expose them is soliciting a crime and that in itself is an impeachable offense. Essentially mob boss “Donny five chins” trying to find out who in his organization fingered him for his crimes so he can settle the score.

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 07:58:20   #
CarryOn
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
If it were Republicans trying to impeach a Democrat President and there was a whistle blower the MSM would have already outed that person and would be doing everything to discredit him. Think back how the women who accused Clinton were treated.


No doubt at all ... his life would be in shambles already ...

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 08:29:15   #
peg w
 
The whistleblower deserves to reman anonymous. Thats the law. I do think it is possible for him to testify by phone or written statements. He did the right thing, and so many people backed him up that I think his testimony is unnecessary.

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 08:43:41   #
byronglimish Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
peg w wrote:
The whistleblower deserves to reman anonymous. Thats the law. I do think it is possible for him to testify by phone or written statements. He did the right thing, and so many people backed him up that I think his testimony is unnecessary.


You bought the Mueller witch hunt hook line and sinker too..did you not?

But that's right you don't debate, you spew and run to your safe space.

The schiffblower was supposedly going to testify.

In a proper process, no matter how many hearsay people testify.

That doesn't stop the primary witness from taking the stand.

In a legitimate court setting hearsay is inadmissible.

You people show your support for liars and reprobate scumbags.

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 08:52:39   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
If it were Republicans trying to impeach a Democrat President and there was a whistle blower the MSM would have already outed that person and would be doing everything to discredit him. Think back how the women who accused Clinton were treated.


The Clinton experience is exactly why the whistleblower law was passed.

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 08:57:54   #
Hug
 
The whistleblower is a criminal and should be arrested and brought to justice.

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 09:00:29   #
byronglimish Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
lpnmajor wrote:
The Clinton experience is exactly why the whistleblower law was passed.


And you also find Adam Schiff a male with impeccable character....yes?

That's a question that no one on the left will stand up and answer directly.

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 09:19:31   #
Seth
 
Kevyn wrote:
The whistleblower is legally protected from exposure, his or her testimony is irrelevant. As far as that gos the act of the idiot Pumpkinfuhrer encouraging people to expose them is soliciting a crime and that in itself is an impeachable offense. Essentially mob boss “Donny five chins” trying to find out who in his organization fingered him for his crimes so he can settle the score.


On the other hand, the accused, according to the Constitution, has the right to confront his accusers, so where does that get us?

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 09:38:15   #
Kevyn
 
Seth wrote:
On the other hand, the accused, according to the Constitution, has the right to confront his accusers, so where does that get us?


The accuser is not the whistleblower any more than someone who hears a burglar alarm and calls the police is. The president will have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses at the senate trial if there is one. And even this is unnecessary because the right to face your accuser only pertains to a criminal trial and an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial it is a constitutionally endorsed legislative action with no criminal penalty.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government. The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings.

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 09:43:48   #
Singularity
 
Seth wrote:
On the other hand, the accused, according to the Constitution, has the right to confront his accusers, so where does that get us?


The right to due process, of which confronting accusers is one, protect a citizen from actions by the State that threaten loss of life, liberty or property. The impeachment process concerns removal from office, only. Job security is not constitutionally guaranteed and removal is not an abridgement of any civil right.

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 09:55:05   #
CarryOn
 
peg w wrote:
The whistleblower deserves to reman anonymous. Thats the law. I do think it is possible for him to testify by phone or written statements. He did the right thing, and so many people backed him up that I think his testimony is unnecessary.



IF he is a genuine, apolitical "whistleblower" in the true sense of the word …. AND follows proper procedures in the process of filing the claim ….. AND there is a real, definable, serious offense of which he has first hand knowledge and proof …. then he should be afforded reasonable protections.

But if there is cause to believe that the wb may be part of a nefarious plot to begin impeachment proceedings in an ongoing effort by shifty members of Congress to unseat a duly elected President … for nothing more than their own hate toward said President …. then his motives and methods deserve the greatest scrutiny. And, if he is found to be nothing more than a tool for shifty, then wb protection should be tossed and he should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

This cannot become the norm in our government. And if shifty and his ilk are successful in their efforts, then there is nothing that can protect any future President of either party from some low-life, low-level bottom feeder ….. who manages to get assigned to the wh staff …. from starting the same kind of circus …… with the security of knowing he will never be held accountable because the wb protection laws … and his buddies in Congress …. will provide cover.

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 09:55:37   #
Seth
 
Kevyn wrote:
The accuser is not the whistleblower any more than someone who hears a burglar alarm and calls the police is. The president will have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses at the senate trial if there is one. And even this is unnecessary because the right to face your accuser only pertains to a criminal trial and an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial it is a constitutionally endorsed legislative action with no criminal penalty.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government. The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings.
The accuser is not the whistleblower any more than... (show quote)


Right, and by the standards of today's Democrats, this all depends upon which foot the shoe is on...

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 10:01:12   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
Kevyn wrote:
The whistleblower is legally protected from exposure, his or her testimony is irrelevant. As far as that gos the act of the idiot Pumpkinfuhrer encouraging people to expose them is soliciting a crime and that in itself is an impeachable offense. Essentially mob boss “Donny five chins” trying to find out who in his organization fingered him for his crimes so he can settle the score.


I believe you'll find that the whistleblower is legally protected only so far as repercussions on his job and position. Unfortunately, ever since the new House of Representatives took seat, we're working under their Soviet style rules which Progressives don't mind as long as THIS TIME they get the desired results.

| Reply
Nov 5, 2019 10:02:56   #
working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina
 
byronglimish wrote:
And you also find Adam Schiff a male with impeccable character....yes?

That's a question that no one on the left will stand up and answer directly.


Nice deflection, and totally ignoring his point. Just like the people who scream about House is going about it's impeachment proceedings , you don't want to acknowledge that it was your side that set up the current rules and laws being followed.

Just wait until the next Democrat President behaves in ways that you find dictatorial....there will be a one word answer.....Trump. And you'll complain about that also, with no sense of irony.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.