IS THIS WHY THE WHISTLEBLOWER WON'T BE TESTIFYING?

BECAUSE HE MAY HAVE VIOLATED LAWS AND CAPITALIZED ON HIS 'LEAKS'.

THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2019.

WHEN DID SCHIFF "MAKE IT CLEAR THE WHISTLEBLOWER WILL NOT BE TESTIFYING" AS THE REPUBLICANS REQUESTED?

NOVEMBER 10, 2019. 

A complaint recently filed with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) reportedly alleges that the “whistleblower” who triggered the partisan impeachment inquiry may have broken federal law by indirectly soliciting money from mainly anonymous sources, potentially including foreigners, via a GoFundMe page.

The GoFundMe page in question has raised over $227,000 so far. In collaboration with impeachment whistleblower lawyers from the Compass Rose Legal Group, Whistleblower Aid helped start the GoFundMe page in question back in September.

Filed on November 8, the complaint alleges that the leaker that sparked the impeachment probe is capitalizing on his position within the intelligence community to generate funds in violation of the law.

IT'S A MEDIA CIRCUS AND SCHIFF IS CHIEF CLOWN, A GAME OF CHESS AND SCHIFF CAN'T EVEN PLAY CHECKERS, A CHARGE THAT NEEDS HARD EVIDENCE AND NOT HEARSAY AND SCHIFF FAILS TO PROVIDE IT.

SOMEBODY GET THE DEMOCRATS A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS.

BY THE WAY, THE FIRST U.S. CONGRESSMAN NAMED CIARAMELLA ON NOV.11, BUT MISSPELLED HIS NAME IN THE TWEET. 

REP. DAN BISHOP NEEDS AN EDITOR.

SCHIFF NEEDS PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND A BIG, STRONG "KEEPER".

IF ANYONE LIKED SCHIFF, THEY'D INTERVENE BEFORE HE GOES POSTAL. 


WHAT'S COMING UP WILL BE A TRIAL FOR IMPEACHMENT, ATTENDED BY A JUDGE, CHIEF  JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.
THE JURY WILL BE THE U.S. SENATE. 

WASHINGTON POST MADE A CASE FOR TRUMP'S RIGHTS WHEN THEY WROTE,
"Under the Constitution, the House has the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to TRY impeachment charges, with a two-thirds majority required for CONVICTION."

IT IS A TRIAL, THE CRIMES TRUMP IS CHARGED WITH ARE "HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS" AND TRUMP WILL BE TRIED BECAUSE THIS IS A TRIAL, AND THERE CAN BE A CONVICTION. 

THANKS, WaPo, YOU MADE THE CASE QUITE WELL THAT JUST AS RAND PAUL AND LINDSAY GRAHAM, BOTH OF WHOM HAVE LAW DEGREES, STATED,  “The founders of our country clearly set out in the Bill of Rights to ensure that government would not deprive anyone of their rights without a fair opportunity to defend themselves. Confronting one’s accuser is integral to this. Rights in the Bill of Rights are not limiting. They certainly should apply to the president of the United States as much as to any other citizen. This right to face your accuser is fundamental to fairness."

THEN WaPo STATES...
"The president’s lawyers would have the opportunity to defend him from any charges in a Senate trial."

THERE ARE THOSE WORDS AGAIN, SOME OF THE SAME WORDS AS ARE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION'S CONFRONTATION CLAUSE!
"LAWYERS...DEFEND...CHARGES...TRIAL". 
IT BECOMES A TRIAL AND ALL CITIZENS CAN CONFRONT ACCUSERS AT TRIAL.
THE CONSTITUTION EXCLUDES NO ONE FROM THAT RIGHT...NOT EVEN DONALD TRUMP.  

OLD WaPo GOES ON TO ADMIT, "Neither the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA) nor any related statutes guarantees anonymity for whistleblowers."

SO, IF HE DOES NOT REMAIN ANONYMOUS, AND SINCE HE WAS NAMED BY A U.S. CONGRESSMAN ON NOVEMBER 11th, HE IS NO LONGER ANONYMOUS, AND SINCE HE ACCUSES THE PRESIDENT OF "HIGH CRIMES", THIS FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER CAN, ASSUREDLY, BE ASKED TO FACE THE MAN HE ACCUSED OF THOSE CRIMES, YES?

LOGIC ALONE DICTATES TRUMP'S RIGHTS AS A U.S. CITIZEN, PERIOD, THE END,  AND THAT IS ANOTHER REASON THE DEMOCRATS ARE PULLING CIARAMELLA'S ''TESTIMONY', THAT AND THEY KNOW IT'S MERELY HEARSAY EVIDENCE.


EVEN New York Times columnist Bret Stephens has repeatedly intimated that, to him, “high crimes and misdemeanors” requires ordinary criminality. He recently wrote, “I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the [Ukraine] call.”

'THE ATLANTIC' REACHED FOR THE SAME BRASS RING THAT WaPo DID AND THEY ALSO FAIL.
"Moreover, the founders, both during the ratification period and afterward, identified multiple noncriminal acts they believed to be impeachable. At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison and Wilson Nicholas said abuse of the pardon power would be impeachable. Impeachment, some founders said, would also follow from receipt of foreign emoluments or presidential efforts to secure by trickery Senate ratification of a disadvantageous treaty. During the first Congress of 1789, Madison even argued that presidents could be impeached for “wanton removal of meritorious officers.”

DEAR ATLANTIC, WHAT THE OLD FOUNDERS "SAID" AND WHAT'S CLEARLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT THE SAME.

WHAT THEY "SAID" WASN'T WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION NOR RATIFIED BY THE STATES. WHAT THEY "SAID" OR "ARGUED" DOESN'T MEAN DOODLY-SQUAT.

THE CHARGE, C-H-A-R-G-E, OF HIGH CRIMES, C-R-I-M-E-S,  WHICH CONVENES A TRIAL IN THE SENATE COURT (OR IN A COURTROOM ANYWHERE), MEANS THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE MUST APPLY.

ONE LEGAL "EXPERT" STATED "The text of the Sixth Amendment literally limits its applicability to criminal prosecutions,” Steve Vladeck (a CNN stooge-puppet) said. “Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.”
THE HELL IT ISN'T, STEVIE!
TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF "HIGH CRIMES" WHICH MAKES THIS THING A DEFINITE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. TO BE FOUND GUILTY WOULD DAMNED SURE BRAND TRUMP AS A CRIMINAL.

AS USA TODAY WROTE, "The Senate would acquit or convict the president."

WHO CAN, BY LAW, BY THE CONSTITUTION, ACQUIT OR CONVICT ANY CITIZEN OF THE U.S. OF CRIMES?
A JURY OF HIS PEERS.

REHNQUIST WAS WRONG, WASN'T HE?
THE SENATORS DO BECOME JURORS AND THE SENATE BECOMES A COURTROOM.

BUT THERE WILL PROBABLY NOT BE A "STAR WITNESS"...THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE FROM A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT, ANOTHER CIA AGENT WHO HATES TRUMP AND STARTED A CAMPAIGN TO IMPEACH HIM IN 2017, A CHEAP WHORE LEAKER, AN ACCUSER AFRAID TO FACE THE ACCUSED.





//WW