Whistleblower offers Republicans testimony as Trump pushes to unmask

[webfact]

Whistleblower offers Republicans testimony as Trump pushes to unmask

By Doina Chiacu and Andrea Shalal

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S., before his departure to New York, November 2, 2019. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. official whose whistleblower complaint led to the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump offered to communicate directly with Republicans on the intelligence committee leading the inquiry, his lawyers said on Sunday.

 

The action was in response to Republican efforts, led by Trump, to unmask the whistleblower, a member of the U.S. intelligence community whose identity has not been released, lawyer Mark Zaid said. Republicans have "sought to expose our client's identity which could jeopardise their safety, as well as that of their family," Zaid wrote on Twitter.

 

News of the offer came as Trump called on the whistleblower to come forward, in a stark departure from norms in such cases.

 

"The Whistleblower got it sooo wrong that HE must come forward," Trump said in a morning Twitter post.

 

Later outside the White House, Trump called the whistleblower an "Obama guy" and a fraud and said, "The whistleblower should be revealed."

 

Republicans have complained that the impeachment inquiry in the Democratic-led House of Representatives has been unfair to them and to Trump, and that they have been restricted in their questioning of witnesses. The inquiry has followed established House rules.

 

The Republican president is under increasing pressure as the House of Representatives forges ahead with its investigation of whether Trump solicited help from Ukraine as he seeks re-election next year. Leaders of the Democratic-controlled House expect to begin public hearings in the next few weeks.

 

The inquiry was launched on Sept. 24 after a whistleblower complaint from the unidentified U.S. intelligence official who was concerned that the president's actions on Ukraine were illegal and jeopardized national security.

 

As the inquiry enters its sixth week, however, the whistleblower's testimony, based on second-hand information provided by other U.S. officials, is not likely to be the most important.

 

Lawmakers leading the inquiry have since heard first-hand accounts from U.S. officials including former National Security Council member Alexander Vindman that describe Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate the 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as accusations he used $391 million in U.S. aid as leverage.

 

A White House summary of a phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy showed Trump asking his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate the Bidens.

 

Democrat Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, said last month that the whistleblower's testimony might not be necessary.

 

The whistleblower initially offered to answer questions in writing if submitted by the House Intelligence Committee as a whole.

 

Zaid said the new offer, made on Saturday to top intelligence panel Republican Devin Nunes, reflected the client's desire to have the complaint handled in a nonpartisan way.

 

"Let me be absolutely clear: Our willingness to cooperate has not changed. What we object to and find offensive, however, is the effort to uncover the identity of the whistleblower," added Andrew Bakaj, another of the whistleblower's lawyers.

 

Nunes' office did not return a request for comment.

 

Longstanding Intelligence Committee policy is to protect whistleblowers' anonymity.

 

Trump has repeatedly lashed out at the whistleblower and called for his identity to be made public. He denies any impropriety and says the impeachment is politically motivated.

 

"They have the right to remain anonymous," Schiff said after Vindman's deposition last week.

 

(Reporting by Doina Chiacu and Andrea Shalal; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Daniel Wallis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-11-04

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[sirineou]

Never mind the message, just shoot the messenger.

Create a new message "No anonymity, everybody keep your mouths shut"

[Crazy Alex]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Never mind the message, just shoot the messenger.

Create a new message "No anonymity, everybody keep your mouths shut"

Or we can observe the Constitution, which gives the accused the right to face their accuser.

[Chomper Higgot]

Unmasking a Whistleblower is a felony.

 

Again Trump believes he is above the law.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Crazy Alex said:

Or we can observe the Constitution, which gives the accused the right to face their accuser.

In a criminal prosecution.

 

Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.

 

Quit your secondhand gaslighting 

[TopDeadSenter]

15 minutes ago, webfact said:

Democrat Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, said last month that the whistleblower's testimony might not be necessary.

Frantic backpeddling as expected. This whole escapade was centered around the whistleblowers testimony. Seems the whistleblower had nothing other than hatred of Trump. So, now the important thing is to unmask him/her and find out what motivation they had for starting this latest farce. I would put money on them having close relations with the democrat bigwigs. Hope we find out soon, and then Trump can get back to keeping America great.

[J Town]

6 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Or we can observe the Constitution, which gives the accused the right to face their accuser.

I hesitate to waste the effort, but can't let <deleted> like this just fly loose. Trump has threatened harm to the whistle blower should his or her identity become public. There are very clear laws in place to protect people who expose crimes against this exact retribution. How is this a difficult concept to grasp?

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Or we can observe the Constitution, which gives the accused the right to face their accuser.

Again with the republican talking points.

In due course, 

"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." ... The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings. "

   This is not a Trial, this is simply inquiry hearing to which both Democrat an republican members of the appropriate committee have access.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Frantic backpeddling as expected. This whole escapade was centered around the whistleblowers testimony. Seems the whistleblower had nothing other than hatred of Trump. So, now the important thing is to unmask him/her and find out what motivation they had for starting this latest farce. I would put money on them having close relations with the democrat bigwigs. Hope we find out soon, and then Trump can get back to keeping America great.

Why do you need to know who he is?

 

It has nothing to do with who it is, its about the evidence.

[J Town]

7 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Frantic backpeddling as expected. This whole escapade was centered around the whistleblowers testimony. Seems the whistleblower had nothing other than hatred of Trump. So, now the important thing is to unmask him/her and find out what motivation they had for starting this latest farce. I would put money on them having close relations with the democrat bigwigs. Hope we find out soon, and then Trump can get back to keeping America great.

Heavy sigh . . . NOT back pedaling. With the large number of witnesses who have come forth giving testimony corroborating the initial exposing of Trump's crimes, the whistle blower is now moot.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by J Town

[Tug]

Just now, J Town said:

Heavy sigh . . . NOT back pedaling. With the large number of witnesses who have come forth giving testimony corroborating the initial exposing Trump's crimes, the whistle blower is now moot.

They know they are just gas lighting it’s what they do I guess if it’s all ya got oh well

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Frantic backpeddling as expected. This whole escapade was centered around the whistleblowers testimony. Seems the whistleblower had nothing other than hatred of Trump. So, now the important thing is to unmask him/her and find out what motivation they had for starting this latest farce. I would put money on them having close relations with the democrat bigwigs. Hope we find out soon, and then Trump can get back to keeping America great.

Somebody else who doesn’t understand the law and who has managed to dodge news that Trump himself released a sanitized ‘summary’ of the telephone call confirming much of what was in the whistleblower’s legitimate and legally protected report.

 

Since Trump released his ‘doctored’ report other witnesses have come forward and confirmed even more damning incidents.

 

We now know where the real transcripts of Trump’s calls were illegitimately hidden and the name of the WH lawyer who managed the hiding.

 

The wheels are dropping off Trump’s regime, stay tuned for more.

[Colabamumbai]

When was America ever great. How much longer can you put up with Trump? 

[spiekerjozef]

this is even more hilarious then the brexit

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Why do you need to know who he is?

 

It has nothing to do with who it is, its about the evidence.

Witness credibility, a crucial part of any fact finding endeavour especially for third party information and innuendo.

 

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

Witness credibility, a crucial part of any fact finding endeavour especially for third party information and innuendo.

 

The president confirmed the whistleblowers account. He is now not needed. What is now done is to get evidence from those directly involved. Which is being done.

 

you do understand you can anonymously report a crime. Its investigated and the person reporting it is not a witness nor gives evidence.

[J Town]

17 minutes ago, rabas said:

Witness credibility, a crucial part of any fact finding endeavour especially for third party information and innuendo.

 

No. An overwhelming number of FIRST HAND witnesses have come forth corroborating Trump's crimes. Just today Trump tweeted out that he DID do a quid pro quo, that there was nothing wrong with it, and in the same tweet said there was no quid pro quo. Do you remember when his attorney (long before Rudy) told Trump he should not under any circumstances testify before Mueller cuz he (Trump) was incapable of telling the truth?

 

Who cares who called the fire department to report a fire? It's quite obvious when there is a fire. You don't need to id the caller unless you want to thank them for their heroic diligence.

[Nyezhov]

19 minutes ago, Sujo said:

you do understand you can anonymously report a crime. Its investigated and the person reporting it is not a witness nor gives evidence.

if a person is known, they will be a witness and may have to give evidence. Anonymous tips you must mean. This isnt an anonymous tip here. The "whistleblower" has no legal entitlement to anonymity outside the statue he filed his false statement under.

6 minutes ago, J Town said:

Who cares who called the fire department to report a fire? It's quite obvious when there is a fire. You don't need to id the caller unless you want to thank them for their heroic diligence.

Well if they are the ones who set the fire......

[ballpoint]

Just now, Nyezhov said:

Well if they are the ones who set the fire......

So you're saying Trump's the whistleblower?

[Bundooman]

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

Or we can observe the Constitution, which gives the accused the right to face their accuser.

If you actually did that - Trump would be long gone!

[J Town]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

if a person is known, they will be a witness and may have to give evidence. Anonymous tips you must mean. This isnt an anonymous tip here. The "whistleblower" has no legal entitlement to anonymity outside the statue he filed his false statement under.

Well if they are the ones who set the fire......

Wow. Just wow. You really don't get it, do you? The Republicans are grasping in desperation at any distraction, and Faux Noise sheep follow. There is now more than enough first hand evidence of Trump's crimes to make the whistle blower moot. JUST TODAY Trump tweeted he DID do the quid pro quo, that there was nothing wrong in doing so, then in the same tweet said there was no quid pro quo. Trump has the attention span of a gnat and is endangering the country.  Allies no longer feel safe working with a mad man, national security secrets are being divulged at an alarming rate by this man who hasn't a clue, and even his cabinet is starting to publicly state that there was a blatant conspiracy by Trump, Rudy et al to run a shadow foreign policy. HOW is this defensible?!?

[Emdog]

"The Whistleblower got it sooo wrong that HE must come forward," Trump said in a morning Twitter post.

IF he or she got it wrong, it should be very simple to prove that. But they can't

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In a criminal prosecution.

 

Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.

 

Quit your secondhand gaslighting 

 

Should Congress vote to impeach Trump, a trial will be held in the Senate. 

 

At a trial the accused should be allowed to face their accuser.

 

Stop trying to play semantics for political gain.

[Sujo]

29 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Should Congress vote to impeach Trump, a trial will be held in the Senate. 

 

At a trial the accused should be allowed to face their accuser.

 

Stop trying to play semantics for political gain.

This is not a criminal trial. It is a political trial. Whistleblower protection is in place.

 

He is not an accuser in the real sense. Like you would not be an an accuser if you called police to say you think a robbery was taking place. If they find a robbery you would not need be giving evidence as the evidence is already there.

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

Witness credibility, a crucial part of any fact finding endeavour especially for third party information and innuendo.

 

Nice try. Too late for that. There are already FIRST HAND witnesses on record and they will be publicly testifying. 

[spidermike007]

There are specific laws in place to protect whistleblowers, for a dozen valid reasons. Trump attempting to unmask this person is just another area where he is attempting to prove to the nation, that he is above the law. And and all laws. The fact is, he is not. And his downward trajectory cannot be arrested at this stage. He is going down in a big way, and he has only his lowly self to blame.

 

There are currently three options:

1. Impeachment

2. Resignation

3. Losing the next election in a humiliating fashion, then being jailed after being charged by the SDNY.

 

Good bye Don Donald. Few are going to miss you.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Emdog said:

"The Whistleblower got it sooo wrong that HE must come forward," Trump said in a morning Twitter post.

IF he or she got it wrong, it should be very simple to prove that. But they can't

 

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

The president confirmed the whistleblowers account. He is now not needed. What is now done is to get evidence from those directly involved. Which is being done.

1. The president denies!

2. The president confirms!

 

One, if not both of you must be wrong.

[Berkshire]

The only reason, and I mean the ONLY reason Trump wants to know who the whistleblower is, is to attack this person.  And of course, he'll send his rabid dogs after this person as well.  The GOP does not want to know the facts or substance because it's already there for all to see.  They'll find a reason to attack this person's credibility, whether he/she is a democrat, or criticized Trump, or speaks a foreign language...or God-forbid, if this person happens to be of non-white ethnicity.  Nevermind that Trump is guilty as sin, Republicans really don't care about that.  The entire GOP, up and down, is just absolutely corrupt. 

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Colabamumbai said:

When was America ever great. How much longer can you put up with Trump? 

That's a loaded question. Our constitution is great. However the 45 Maga slogan is clearly about when America was much more white. 

[Jingthing]

14 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

There are specific laws in place to protect whistleblowers, for a dozen valid reasons. Trump attempting to unmask this person is just another area where he is attempting to prove to the nation, that he is above the law. And and all laws. The fact is, he is not. And his downward trajectory cannot be arrested at this stage. He is going down in a big way, and he has only his lowly self to blame.

 

There are currently three options:

1. Impeachment

2. Resignation

3. Losing the next election in a humiliating fashion, then being jailed after being charged by the SDNY.

 

Good bye Don Donald. Few are going to miss you.

Sad to say option 4 is that 45 could be reelected. Tragic but possible.