Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(129,096 posts) Thu Oct 24, 2019, 09:00 PM Oct 2019

Democrats say whistleblower's testimony is unnecessary as other witnesses come forward

Source: Washington Post

The whistleblower who initially unmasked President Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine for political favors has moved steadily toward the periphery of the House impeachment inquiry as several Democrats said Thursday they have ample testimony from senior Trump administration officials to back his claims.

Democrats were once prepared to take extraordinary steps to preserve the whistleblower’s identity under questioning, considering him central to their investigation. But over the past month, they have grown cold to the idea of exposing him to additional scrutiny after several witnesses described how Trump leveraged access and military aid to secure a promise from Ukraine to launch investigations that could help his 2020 reelection bid.

“I think it’s quite clear we have a surfeit of evidence that corroborates in full every aspect of what happened and the policy they were pursuing,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), a member of the Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees.

A person familiar with the discussions between the whistleblower and House investigators, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private talks, said Thursday that there are no active efforts to arrange for the individual’s testimony. A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), who is leading the inquiry, declined to comment.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-say-whistleblowers-testimony-unnecessary-as-other-witnesses-come-forward/2019/10/24/d77cb62c-f687-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html

I think that Bill Taylor was their money shot.

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Democrats say whistleblower's testimony is unnecessary as other witnesses come forward (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 OP

This is probably good for the sake of the Whistleblower's safety. Marie Marie Oct 2019 #1

is it certain that the whistleblower isn't someone who already testified? Orangepeel Oct 2019 #2

If they did, the blabbermouth GOP members on the 3 Committees BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #3

Same Concept As Watergate modrepub Oct 2019 #4

In fact BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #5

The name of the WhistleBlower is: Mike Mulvaney. NCjack Oct 2019 #6

I think it's because the WB's testimony was second hand. JohnnyRingo Oct 2019 #7

Later news reports corrected the record about that BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #8

Marie Marie

(9,999 posts)

1. This is probably good for the sake of the Whistleblower's safety.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Oct 24, 2019, 10:25 PM

Oct 2019

Orangepeel

(13,933 posts)

2. is it certain that the whistleblower isn't someone who already testified?

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Oct 24, 2019, 10:31 PM

Oct 2019

not that I think we need to know.

BumRushDaShow

(129,096 posts)

3. If they did, the blabbermouth GOP members on the 3 Committees

Reply to Orangepeel (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 25, 2019, 05:37 AM

Oct 2019

would have had a field day. Apparently the whistleblower is an intelligence employee and those who have already testified have mainly been diplomats or those working with diplomats, with the latest individual coming from DOD. The rest of those requested to testify (mostly the big guys) have refused so far.

modrepub

(3,496 posts)

4. Same Concept As Watergate

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Oct 25, 2019, 07:39 AM

Oct 2019

ID of "deep throat" was never made until well after Nixon left office.

BumRushDaShow

(129,096 posts)

5. In fact

Reply to modrepub (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 25, 2019, 07:46 AM

Oct 2019

it didn't happen until a few years before he died (just over 30 years after Watergate). But then back during the '70s, there weren't any "whistleblower" laws either so he did his thing by leaks.

NCjack

(10,279 posts)

6. The name of the WhistleBlower is: Mike Mulvaney.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Oct 25, 2019, 11:10 AM

Oct 2019

He already testified in public several days ago.

PS: Mike doesn't want any protection.

JohnnyRingo

(18,636 posts)

7. I think it's because the WB's testimony was second hand.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Oct 25, 2019, 12:08 PM

Oct 2019

As such there may have been some inconsistencies with later first hand testimony. It's better not to muddy the waters by allowing republicans cross examination. They would make him the central witness in discrediting the whole case.

BumRushDaShow

(129,096 posts)

8. Later news reports corrected the record about that

Reply to JohnnyRingo (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 25, 2019, 12:30 PM

Oct 2019

I.e., that no, not all of the whistleblower's account was "2nd hand", which was a RW talking point that shouldn't be repeated here. The IG even had to come out publicly to knock down the ridiculous talking point -

But on Monday night, the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community released a rare public statement that debunked Trumpworld’s latest distraction and disinformation campaign. Contrary to what Trump and McCarthy claimed, the inspector general said it had vetted the whistleblower’s allegations — most troubling of all, that Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election” — and found them to be both “urgent” and “credible.”

Here’s the kicker: According to the inspector general, the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower noted on the form he submitted with his complaints that he had both firsthand and indirect knowledge of the events described in the complaint. The intelligence community inspector general vetted this and found that the whistleblower had “direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct.“ And no, the inspector general added, the whistleblower did not benefit from some new form that made it easier for him to submit his complaint about Trump. Not that it would’ve mattered because, again, as the inspector general explained, the whistleblower had direct, firsthand knowledge of certain allegations made in his complaint.

“The whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018,” the inspector general’s new statement says. “The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible.”

Mark Zaid, a Washington, D.C. lawyer whose firm represents the whistleblower, reacted to the inspector general’s rare public statement by saying on Twitter: “The whistleblower allegations will be governed by the rule of law and facts; disinformation conspiracy theories will not impede the process.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-whistleblower-ukraine-disinformation-right-wing-mccarthy-graham-893214/

I expect that the bigger issue here is that the subsequent testimony from those who were "in the room" and who were participating in the various parts of these goings-on, resulted in "smoking gun" narratives directly from some of the "designated players" in the processes, so whatever the whistleblower might say at this point is superfluous.

Reply to this discussion