Schiff Stops Witness From Testifying to 'Protect Whistleblower' He Says He Doesn't Know

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member


What's strange about this part of the testimony is that Vindman already testified under oath that he did not know the identity of the whistleblower. How could he "out" the identity of the whistleblower if he does not know who it is? Further, Schiff also claims to not know the identity of the super-secret whistleblower, but he stopped Vindman from identifying the person he says he spoke to in the intelligence community about the Ukranian phone call. Vindman stated he spoke to "two U.S. officials with appropriate need to know...Department of State, Deputy Secretary George Kent...and an individual in the intelligence community." When Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) asked him to identify which intelligence community the second person was in, Adam Schiff interrupted him and instructed the witness not to continue lest he out the whistleblower everyone claims not to know.

"We need to protect the whistleblower," said Schiff, amid groans and grumbling around the gallery. "I want to advise the witness accordingly." After that interruption, Vindman refused to answer the question "on advice of counsel."

I think a lot of us would like to know the answer to Nunes's next question: "You said in your deposition that you did not know who the whistleblower was. How is it possible for you to name these people and out the whistleblower?"


https://pjmedia.com/trending/watch-...protect-whistleblower-he-says-he-doesnt-know/
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
This is where Vindman perjured himself (or, at least, came right up to the line).

This is where Schiff showed himself to be a liar. Yup, @Grumpy is absolutely correct.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Rommey

Rommey

Well-Known Member
The GOP should have asked flat out if Vindman knew or spoke to Eric Ciarmella.
If we take him at his word that he didn't know the whistleblower, he wouldn't be outing the whistleblower even if he acknowledged he knew or spoke to him, because in his mind he isn't the whistleblower. If we take Schiff at his word, he couldn't prevent or obstruct the answer because he presumedly doesn't know who the whistleblower is either.
 
S

Stjohns3269

Active Member
Who cares who the whistle blower is?

So someone calls the police and reports a crime , the police show up and discover the crime and a number of corroborating witnesses willing to testify why does it matter who called the police?
 
Rommey

Rommey

Well-Known Member
Stjohns3269 said:
Who cares who the whistle blower is?

So someone calls the police and reports a crime , the police show up and discover the crime and a number of corroborating witnesses willing to testify why does it matter who called the police?
Click to expand...
To take your analogy further, when every witness says they "heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend..." at some point they are going to want to:
  1. Talk to the person who called the police
  2. Talk to the friend of the friends to corroborate the validity of the person who called the police.

It's all about credibility.
 
S

Stjohns3269

Active Member
Rommey said:
To take your analogy further, when every witness says they "heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend..." at some point they are going to want to:
  1. Talk to the person who called the police
  2. Talk to the friend of the friends to corroborate the validity of the person who called the police.
It's all about credibility.
Click to expand...

1. That is absolutely true and the inspector general and director of national intelligence have interviewed the whistleblower and have both determined he or she was credible , had the proper clearance and was working in a need to know capacity.

2. .Since then 6 white officials and the “read out “ of the call all confirm the whistle blowers account

Once the police arrive on the scene and see a dead body, and the attacker and 6 people on the scene confirm what happened the person who called the police becomes irrelevant.
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Stjohns3269 said:
following the law as it applies to whistle blowers and the protection afforded them.
Click to expand...
So you should be able to cite those laws right? Show me where in the ICWPA, PPD-19, or Title VI of the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2015 provides for WB anonymity other than by the ICIG?
 
Rommey

Rommey

Well-Known Member
Stjohns3269 said:
1. That is absolutely true and the inspector general and director of national intelligence have interviewed the whistleblower and have both determined he or she was credible , had the proper clearance and was working in a need to know capacity.
Click to expand...
That is akin to a court accepting an affidavit the police submit of the witness' testimony instead of hearing from the witness themselves.

2. .Since then 6 white officials and the “read out “ of the call all confirm the whistle blowers account
Click to expand...
The whistleblowers account is his opinion of other people's opinions. The officials also only confirm their opinions agree with the whistleblower's opinions.

Once the police arrive on the scene and see a dead body, and the attacker and 6 people on the scene confirm what happened the person who called the police becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Except the police have arrived and can't seem to find the dead body. What they have is witnesses claiming there is a dead body somewhere.
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Stjohns3269 said:
Who cares who the whistle blower is?

So someone calls the police and reports a crime , the police show up and discover the crime and a number of corroborating witnesses willing to testify why does it matter who called the police?
Click to expand...

I see. So, someone accuses you of a crime and you don't get to confront your accuser. That person gets to remain anonymous. And you're okay with that?
 
GregV814

GregV814

Well-Known Member
I don’t know why the whistleblower is fearing for life, whoever crosses the Clinton’s ends up dead under bizzare circumstances.
Who died that conflicted with republicans??
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
GregV814 said:
I don’t know why the whistleblower is fearing for life, whoever crosses the Clinton’s ends up dead under bizzare circumstances.
Who died that conflicted with republicans??
Click to expand...

You know, if the WB's LIFE is in danger, having his identity known (snicker) would be the best protection.
Seriously, if he was REALLY unknown, then if something bad happened to him, it'd be an easy thing to make sure no one ever found out.

But I snicker because - we ALL know his name. It's the Emperor's New Clothes - a truth we all know, but no one's allowed to SAY.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
What kind of dimwit MUST return under a different guise, pretending they're someone else?
If you have to come back and PRETEND you're someone else - why should anyone think you're not a lunatic?
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
SamSpade said:
You know, if the WB's LIFE is in danger, having his identity known (snicker) would be the best protection.
Seriously, if he was REALLY unknown, then if something bad happened to him, it'd be an easy thing to make sure no one ever found out.

But I snicker because - we ALL know his name. It's the Emperor's New Clothes - a truth we all know, but no one's allowed to SAY.
Click to expand...

It's just another example of people like Schiff living in this world where everyone outside of it are too stupid to see what's going on.

On the WB's part... the guy is a coward. Wearing a mask while throwing a cement-laden milkshake at the president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top