'No further discussion': Talks halt between whistleblower lawyers and Schiff staff amid expectation

[Cyber Liberty]

@mystery-ak

Forget political parties/politics - consider any whistleblower whose information will cause trouble for millions of people one way or another - if the whistleblower name is released, his/her life may/will be in danger and maybe for the rest of his/her life.  I am for not releasing the name.

IF it is CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella, as long as that name is not legally identified as the person, he is likely safe in his person.  Should he be legally identified in this proceeding, his life is not safe now and forever.

A lot of people are raising the question of whether this CIA/NSC agent deserves Whistleblower protections, considering he didn't witness the event and what's been released seems to suggest he may have made it up.  I do know the rule requiring first-hand information was changed for this person, which I think is a bit odd.  I also know if he made it up out of whole cloth with Schiff's help he does have some legal liability.

Calling oneself a "whistle blower" is not a "Get out of Jail Free" card under a scenario like that.

He may find himself safely inside a jail cell. 

[sneakypete]

Ahm shocked! SHOCKED,AH TELLS YA!

I was expecting fireworks,clowns (not the ones in expensive suits),semi-neekid dancing girls,and FREE BEER FOR EVERYONE! Maybe even a little weed for the ones from Ca,and crack for the ones from Dee troit.

[sneakypete]

How the hell is this even possible?   

@Right_in_Virginia

It was Bull-Bush from the beginning. They figured if they just thew enough "stuff" out there that some of it would stick to the wall. It didn't,and now they have no idea what to do.

Other than blame it on Trump for not having the decency to be guilty,that is.

[sneakypete]

Once again - I'm typing slow just for you @Once-Ler - he IS NOT a "whistleblower" in any commonly understood sense of that word.  He IS a part, a coconspirator if you like, of the ongoing effort to undo the 2016 presidential election.

@Bigun

AND.....,if he testifies under oath,he has to worry about perjury.

[sneakypete]

I understand Schiff may not want that, but I think the people want to hear from him.  I wanna know why McConnell and Graham can't subpoena him.

@Once-Ler

Don't know about McConnell,but Lady Lindsey won't unless he has no choice. I could be wrong,but I have long suspected he had his heart set on Trump having to step down so he/she/multiple choice would raise it's dainty little hand and say "I will serve!"

[The_Reader_David]

Face down the Dems' stagecraft. Subpoena the suspected leakblower and ask him, under oath, if he is the leakblower.

This is why the rules the 'Rats voted in for the public hearings allow Schiff (or whichever 'Rat chairman is running a particular hearing) to refuse a request from the ranking minority (GOP) member to subpoena witnesses:  they want to make sure the hearings can't be turned into an inquiry into the deep state's machinations against Trump.

[Cyber Liberty]

This is why the rules the 'Rats voted in for the public hearings allow Schiff (or whichever 'Rat chairman is running a particular hearing) to refuse a request from the ranking minority (GOP) member to subpoena witnesses:  they want to make sure the hearings can't be turned into an inquiry into the deep state's machinations against Trump.

...which is why the suggestions I've seen floated are about subpoenaing Schitt and his CIA/NSC buddy before the Senate.  Hence the names Graham and McConnell.