Trump Wants to 'Interview' Whistle-Blower
Source: New York Times
WASHINGTON President Trump on Tuesday kept his focus on an anonymous whistle-blower, asking why he was not entitled to interview the person, a day after he said the White House was trying to find out the persons identity, despite institutional directives and confidentiality protections.
In addition to interviewing the so-called Whistleblower, Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on Tuesday, he would also like to interview the person who gave all of the false information to him. On Sunday, Mr. Trump tweeted, Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser.
Mr. Trumps focus on the whistle-blower is one of several ways the White House has addressed the complaint which alleged that Mr. Trump was using his office for personal gain and the phone call at the center of it between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. Mr. Trump has repeatedly defended his conversation with Mr. Zelensky as perfect.
Mr. Trump is particularly focused on the source of the information the whistle-blower disclosed and the fact that much of the whistle-blowers most serious allegations were not witnessed firsthand .
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-wants-to-interview-whistle-blower/ar-AAI7yUZ?li=BBnb7Kz
Hey shit for brains, the right you speak of is the right to face your accuser in a court of law. Why can't Giuliani explain that to you or are you too dense to listen?
5X
(3,971 posts)LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,536 posts)The Law According to Trump.
Bleacher Creature
(11,235 posts)Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)Entitled?
No, you are not entitled to anything special in this case. You are supposed to be a servant of the people and adhere to the oath of office you took. That means you are subject to the laws of the nation AND you are supposed to strive always to uphold them, not break them. Check the Constitution. You are desecrating it all the time.
What a pompous bag of hubris. He really takes the cake.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)He has really slip since yesterday. Beyond Section 8 stuff.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)I imagine he can testify too?
LOL, this is like the accused bank robber demanding to interview the witnesses at the bank while the detectives are investigating.
erronis
(14,941 posts)May take some repeating since some of his "saner" reps may try to convince him otherwise.
Perseus
(4,341 posts)"Stupid is as stupid does."...boy, is that guy stupid.
It always makes me wonder how a stupid person like trump can get so many people to ruin their lives and reputation in order to please him...what do they see in him? Even his personal aspect is repugnant, and I am not saying it now, I have always thought so about him, what is it that makes people loose everything they have worked for all their lives knowing that they will either be thrown under the bus at any time, or get caught and their reputation will go to the toilet?
IronLionZion
(45,250 posts)With a bone saw
FakeNoose
(32,328 posts)Remember when Putin said he wanted to "interview" Michael McFaul and Bill Browder? Pootie wanted Chump to send McFaul and Browder to Moscow. So yeah, there's no way either of them would ever have returned.
George II
(67,782 posts)BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Thats not how this works.
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)DownriverDem
(6,205 posts)a**! Who in their right mind would meet with trump? He said that the whistleblower is a spy and should be treated as such. Here's another situation where we all know he meant that the whistleblower should be killed. Please protect the whistleblower.
ancianita
(35,812 posts)TeamPooka
(24,155 posts)C Moon
(12,188 posts)justgamma
(3,660 posts)there are a lot of people that want to "interview" Benedict Donald under oath. I'd pay to hear that.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)First of all, asswipe, impeachment is not a US court of law. It's really more like a grand jury. There are things you don't get. You don't get to face the accuser there. You also don't get attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. Those things sort of defeat the whole purpose if everyone can just say, "Nah, I don't think I'll testify."
Second, if the accuser had to be a be a first-hand witness then a lot of crimes would go investigated and unpunished. Most notably here, Linda Tripp from the Clinton era was not a first-hand witness to anything. Didn't matter to the Republicans that she was 100% hearsay.
Your accuser is not 100% hearsay. They have first-hand knowledge.
Lulu KC
(2,547 posts)He wanted to interview you.
What goes around, dude.
Aussie105
(5,211 posts)Astonishing that Trump even considered this.
Doesn't know, doesn't care about due process in this instance. Same as ever, really.
I bet his toilet paper has miniature copies of the Constitution printed on every sheet.
(Google it, it exists.)
https://binged.it/2p78Bah
link:https://binged.it/2p78Bah
dalton99a
(81,062 posts)Lock him up.
(6,873 posts)for life and that means every subject must comply to his every mad whim!
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,483 posts).........
Nitram
(22,663 posts)liberalla
(9,165 posts)yellowcanine
(35,692 posts)Yeah right.