Will Ukraine Whistleblower Testify in Writing?

by Daveda Gruber:

The whistleblower who is at the center of the Democratic impeachment inquiry  would like to testify in writing and skip any testimony in person.

Congress hasn’t responded to the whistleblower who claims that he or she has information on the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Lawyers for  the anonymous whistleblower, who is allegedly a CIA officer, have asked lawmakers if their client can submit testimony in writing.

Congress has not yet answered the request but they are dead set to protect the identity of the whistleblower.

The safety and media scrutiny over the whistleblower’s identity is a concern of the Democrats.

Both the president and Republicans alike believe that Trump should have an opportunity to confront his accuser.

Reports have come out that the whistleblower could have partisan motives. It has been acknowledged by attorneys for the whistleblower. Anti-Trump attorney, Mark Zaid said that he/she is a registered Democrat and has worked with 2020 Democratic contender Joe Biden. Zaid added that his client had “contact” with current presidential contenders “from both parties.”

The attorneys said, “The whistleblower is not the story. To date, virtually every substantive allegation has been confirmed by other sources. For that reason the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant.”

The impeachment inquiry was launched after the whistleblower filed a complaint in the summer about Trump asking for Ukraine to investigate the former vice president and his son, Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine.

In recent activity on Twitter, Trump has asked, “why aren’t we entitled to interview & learn everything about the Whistleblower, and also the person who gave all of the false information to him.”

It has not yet been confirmed if lawmakers will hold a forum with the whistleblower in someplace other than the U.S. Capitol complex.

A secure facility exists on Capitol Hill. Also, various quarters of government could hold the hearing. Facilities ranging from the Department of Justice to the intelligence community are available.

All options are up for grabs.

Ambassador Blocked from Testifying in “Kangaroo Court”

by Daveda Gruber:

Tensions are likely to rise between House Democrats and the Trump administration as the White House has ordered the U.S. ambassador to the European Union not to appear at a deposition on the Ukraine controversy.

The deposition of Gordon Sondland, who is a wealthy hotel owner, philanthropist and contributor to political campaigns, was planned for Tuesday. Songland had agreed to appear voluntarily for a closed session

The Democrats have allegedly indicated that they will approach the matter as an obstruction of its investigation into the controversy surrounding  President Trump’s phone call on the twenty-fifth of July with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Robert Luskin, who is an attorney for Songland, said that the order came from the State Department. Songland is required to follow the direction of the department.

Luskin, in a statement said that Songland “is profoundly disappointed that he will not be able to testify.”

The statement says, “Ambassador Sondland hopes that the issues raised by the State Department that preclude his testimony will be resolved promptly.  He stands ready to testify on short notice, whenever he is permitted to appear.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., allegedly plans to draft a subpoena which would make it easier to try to secure Songland’s testimony later in the day.

Songland’s testimony is warranted by Democrats because he had texted with a top U.S. diplomat, Bill Taylor, over allegations of a quid pro quo.

Taylor wrote, “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”

In his follow-up text he wrote, “As I said over the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Sondland responded to the texts by defending the president and writing, “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.”

The phone call between Trump and Zelensky referred to is part of the whistleblower complaint which states that Trump urged Zelensky to look into possible interference by Ukraine in the 2016 election and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden’s conduct in that country.

Democrats are claiming that Trump used $400 million in military aid as leverage in a quid pro quo in exchange for the Ukrainians to investigate a political opponent. The Democrats have opened an impeachment inquiry over the said phone call.

Subpoenas to top administration and White House officials have already been sent to the Pentagon and the White House Office of Management and Budget for documents that relate to reports that Trump had ordered then-acting OMB Chief Mick Mulvaney to freeze aid to Ukraine.

Trump adamantly denies all of the claims made by Democratic lawmakers.

Trump tweeted:

Schiff: Whistleblower to Speak before Congress

by Daveda Gruber:

On Sunday House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., announced that an agreement had been reached with the House and the whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump in regard to the July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Schiff was a guest on ABC’s “This Week” and explained that the agreement with the whistleblower and his or her lawyers has been settled.  He also made it clear that the identity of the whistleblower would be protected.

Schiff said, “As with [acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph] Mcguire, that whistleblower will be allowed to come in without White House or DOJ lawyers to tell him or her what they can or can’t say.”

Schiff also added, “We are taking all the precautions we can to protect the whistleblower’s identity. With President Trump’s threats, you can imagine the security concerns here.”

Schiff’s concern with the anonymity of the whistleblower comes after Trump allegedly threatened “the person” who he said gave information to the whistleblower when he spoke with staff from the U.S. mission to the United Nations at a private event in New York.

The whistleblower remains unnamed at this point but much is on the table regarding the testimony to be given before Congress.

Republications will have to pick a side because the impeachment of a president is no small matter.

Trump will also have pressure on himself to rebut the core contentions of the aforementioned phone call.

In an audio posted by The Los Angeles Times Trump said, “Who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”

On Sunday Schiff was on NBC’s “Meet The Press.” On that show Schiff said that the president’s behavior was so “egregious” that House lawmakers were forced to open an impeachment inquiry relating to his call with the Ukrainian leader.

Schiff said, “The gravamen of the offense here is the president using the power of his office to coerce a foreign nation into helping his presidential campaign to once again interfere in our election, and at the same time withholding foreign aid that country so desperately needs to fight off who? The Russians.”

He also added, “The situation demands that we move forward with the inquiry.”

The Democrats, if not all of them, then at least the progressive ones want to impeach President Trump and have given the rest of their party no alternative but to initiate an inquiry into impeachment. The fact that no vote to do so was implemented doesn’t seem to bother lawmakers.

Folks, I don’t know about you but, I read the readout of the phone call in question. From the information given, at this point, it appears that former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, have a lot more to worry about than Trump.

I’ve always said that the wheels of justice move very slowly but I’ve never waited this long to see justice being served. After all, there is a video which shows that the elder Biden used quid pro quo in getting the top Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, fired.

Biden allegedly wanted the prosecutor ousted to protect his son, Hunter, from being investigated. That fact is adamantly denied by Biden.

The Ukraine’s largest private gas company, Burisma, hired the younger Biden and paid him up to $50,000 a month.

Stayed tuned folks, corruption is abundant in government but the end result of that finding doesn’t necessarily tell the whole story.

Is your popcorn ready? Mine is.