Then there should be no objection to her testimony and the DOJ officials with who were on the call.
You keep using that phrase as though you think you have some authority to make such a ruling or decision.
You donât. You arenât a judge and you arenât a lawyer and you donât get to decide who does or doesnât testify.
The house has already issued a subpoena for her testimonyâŚ
Great, and Trump has told them to stuff it.
The correct word is obstructedâŚ
No, the correct word is âseparation of powersâ. Congress is not entitled to everything the want just because they want it.
Hell at this point we donât even know if the call actually took place.
Is failure without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas an impeachable offense?
Indeed, I love the argument that the person at the top of the org chart of the IC is not part of the IC.
The same person they point out has complete power to declassify anythingâŚ
1 Like
Weâve already determined that the house can declare anything to be an impeachable offense.
They then have to prove their case in the Senate where the trial occurs.
Good luck meeting that bar without a contempt citation by a judge for a refusal to cooperate with an order to produce.
Read the law
(b)PurposeThe purpose of the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community isâ
(1)
to create an objective and effective office, appropriately accountable to Congress, to initiate and conduct independent investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews on programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence;
The President doesnât answer to the DNI, the DNI has no authority over or responsibility over the President, itâs the other way around.
Yes it was, according to a lawyer in the firm involved with the situation (though not THE lawyer) whoâs not connected to it. But he explains the legalese in this episode of âThe Investigationâ podcast. Very informative for those who care to know the real story.
The lawyer is going to defend his/her client no matter what.
Just think Jezcoe, if you didnât know about all the corruption, you wouldnât have to be upset about it!
2 Likes
I suspect that âwhistleblower oneâ, âwhistleblower twoâ and the new named whistleblower three may all be the same person, or at least that one and two were reporting what they heard from three. Which would make the three testimonies actually only one. Kind of like the fake confirmation we saw in the Fusion GPS dosier, where one source cites others who merely repeated what they had heard from the one original source.
1 Like
I was looking for the thread on Hunter Biden stepping down from his Chinese brokerage board. Funny that I did not see one and who knew Hunter was still on the take as his dad was currently running?
Was news to meâŚNot any of the mirrored WB though.
As I said in the post if you read it the lawyer in the podcast has nothing to do with the whistleblower other than the fact that heâs in the same law firm. But heâs not the lawyer handling the case or connected with it.
Seriously? Wow.
You do realize that the parade of witnesses testifying to the corruption of Trumpâs Ukraine policies that began on Friday and will continue all this week does represent the testimony of different people?
Or have you followed the lead of www.foxnews.com and chosen to ignore the mounting evidence?
opposed to the real Ukraine sandal with Biden. Now thatâs crazy!
