Impeachment hearings

[Guest]

It doesn't say that and I didn't say that.

In response to Doc's assertion that whistleblower protections exist for a reason you responded "so does the Constitution." What does that mean if you don't think it somehow rebuts his argument about the law existing to protect the whistle blower?

Rand Paul didn't attempt to out the whistle blower. How would we know the name of the whistleblower if the name is not known even by Schiff?

So what if Schiff knows his name? How does that change the fact that Paul did out the whistle blower?

Why do you say Schiff lied about the whistle blower? The White House knew about the whistle blower before Schiff did.

In order to present a defense that the whistleblower was not sincerely bringing what he believed to be an illegal act or wrong doing by the President but rather a insincere smear and attempt to bring him out of office.

This theory doesn't hold water because at this point it doesn't matter if the whistle blower was sincere. The inspector general said he was genuine, his concerns were legit and his claims credible. What the whistle blower outlined in his complaint has been corroborated by numerous government officials before, during and after the impeachment inquiry - including first hand witnesses.


Aug. 12: A whistleblower complaint bearing this date and intended for Congress states: “In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” The complaint is addressed to Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It does not reach them until Sept. 25.

Aug. 14: The whistleblower’s original complaint to the CIA is brought up by Courtney Simmons Elwood, general counsel for the CIA, during a call involving U.S. national security officials, including John Eisenberg, a White House lawyer, and John Demers, who leads the Justice Department’s national security division, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Aug. 15: Demers goes to the White House to review materials associated with the Zelensky call.

Aug. 26: Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community, sends a letter to the acting director of national intelligence informing him that the IG’s office has received a complaint addressed to Congress of “urgent concern” about a call between Trump and Zelensky. The inspector general says he believes the conversation could have amounted to a federal campaign finance crime.

Aug. 28: Politico reports that the military aid to Ukraine is on hold, setting off a scramble among diplomats in Ukraine and the United States.

Sept. 3: The Justice Department’s office of legal counsel sends a memorandum to a lawyer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, finding that the “alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community” and concludes that the Aug. 12 complaint does not meet the statutory requirement as a matter of “urgent concern” that would require it to be forwarded to Congress.

Sept. 9: The inspector general for the intelligence community sends a letter to Schiff and Devin Nunes, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, about the whistleblower’s complaint, saying that withholding it “does not appear to be consistent with past practice” because the acting DNI, Joseph Maguire, is not permitting its release to Congress. Atkinson, the inspector general, said in the letter that he is working with Maguire to try to bring the whistleblower’s concerns to Congress.

Sept. 11: The White House informs lawmakers that it is releasing $250 million in military aid to Ukraine.

Sept. 19: Atkinson testifies behind closed doors to members of the House Intelligence Committee about the whistleblower’s complaint. Atkinson does not give details about the substance of the complaint.

Sept. 24: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces that the House is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry, saying, “No one is above the law.” Judge Napolitano claims Trump committed a crime by soliciting aid from a foreign government as well as blocking the inspector general from transmitting the complaint to Congress: https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-nap ... tted-crime

Sept. 25: The White House releases a rough transcript of the president’s July 25 call with Zelensky, confirming that Trump has pushed Ukraine’s leader to work with Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to investigate Biden and his son. The Justice Department releases a statement saying prosecutors reviewed the inspector general’s referral about a possible campaign finance violation and determined that no crime was committed. The whistleblower’s Aug. 12 complaint is also transmitted to Congress.

Sept. 26: The House Intelligence Committee releases a redacted version of the whistleblower complaint. The committee also receives testimony from Maguire, who says the whistleblower “did the right thing” by coming forward to report concerns over the White House’s handling of the call between Trump and Ukraine’s leader.

[_EAllusion]

In order to present a defense that the whistleblower was not sincerely bringing what he believed to be an illegal act or wrong doing by the President but rather a insincere smear and attempt to bring him out of office. As Rand Paul stated he was overheard talking about doing so before coming forward as a whistleblower.

mikwut

Is the whistleblower's report being used as evidence or the anonymous tip that led to evidence being found? I think you know the answer. The report has been extensively corroborated, making the motives of the whistleblower irrelevant, but it's the extensive corroboration and elaboration that is being used the case for the President's wrongdoing, not the report that led to the investigation that found that evidence.

It serves no purpose to out the whistleblower at this point other to bring vengeance against that person and to intimidate future whistleblower's from coming forward. It is thuggish behavior you are endorsing in your quixotic attempt to be an apologist egregious abuse of power.

[_MissTish]

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Explain to me again why Trump needed to send his personal lawyer and known criminals to ‘investigate’ the Bidens when he had the full power of not only the DoJ to use, but the State department, too?

- Doc

Asking for a friend, myself.

I understand he was representing his client.

mikwut

So the investigation of the Bidens done by Giuliani was a personal service for his client, and he was not conducting policy?

[_EAllusion]

Doc,

There are no games. I stand by my post. There does not exist in this country any trial where the accused must take the stand in order to assert his primary and fundamental constitutional right to confront one's accuser.

Trump has no constitutional right to face the whistleblower. The sixth amendment pertains to criminal trials not impeachment, and it can be argued that the whistle blower isn't technically an accuser. If you read the official whistle blower complaint, it is a summary of "concerns" based on information obtained by other first hand witnesses. He never once accused Trump of violating the law, but reported his experience and let investigators look into it further. That's not an accusation of being a criminal.

The whistleblower isn't being used as a witness. That's not even a obscure technical distinction. Mikwut is an attorney. He knows that the 6th amendment doesn't mean criminal defendants have a constitutional right to confront anonymous tipsters in court. Yet he said this anyway.

[Guest]

It serves no purpose to out the whistleblower at this point other to bring vengeance against that person and to intimidate future whistleblower's from coming forward. It is thuggish behavior you are endorsing in your quixotic attempt to be an apologist egregious abuse of power.

I believe the Supreme Court also ruled you can't retaliate against whistleblowers, so, you know. The GOP through their proxies did. And that's a problem, putting it mildly.

- Doc

[_Morley]

The whistleblower isn't being used as a witness. That's not even a obscure technical distinction. Mikwut is an attorney. He knows that the 6th amendment doesn't mean criminal defendants have a constitutional right to confront anonymous tipsters in court. Yet he said this anyway.

Attorney or not, he's disingenuous as hell.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Welp. Dershowitz quit, and is claiming he didn’t say stuff. Because, you know, the defense isn’t an utter crap show of humanity at this point.

Cooh.

- Doc

[_mikwut]

Doc, E and Icurus,

Jesus. It is like you guys have legal precedent for every issue just locked up nice and tidy when the reality is legal precedent is presently being made and set. Here is what I originally said to Doc:

Why is the whistleblower so sacrosanct balanced against confronting ones accuser found in the constitution?

Look forward to the discussion.

That is the discussion I invited Doc into respecting a balancing of two principles. One, the principle of being able to cross examine one's accuser. Two, that the whistleblower should be provided protections above and beyond his job security. The reason for the discussion is because this is the first time we have an impeachment proceeding with a whistleblower, it is not like deepthoat with Nixon. There is always a balancing of principles in impeachment proceedings, and constitutional principles have great weight, its just the Senate is who gets to decide. That is exactly where we will be tomorrow when the Senate decides on witnesses. That is why democrats (rightly) argue that every trial has witnesses. Well, impeachments don't have to in the Senate. The Senate decides that. But its a balancing discussion.

It is alleged the whistleblower had nefarious motives by some Republicans. Rand Paul believes there exists credible evidence that the whistleblower was known to have been discussing taking down the President before the complaint itself.

Where I was hoping the discussion would go is to the crossroads that we are currently at with witnesses. The Senate, is the arbiter to decide if the whistleblower should appear as a witness and be cross examined, at least by the Senate. How that is argued is the same discussion I was inviting to have with Doc. I thought a valuable weighing of the importance past simple draconian doctrine could happen. Just as the democrats rightly argue so would Republicans argue on constitutional principles. Administrative proceedings for example give great weight in important matters for witnesses to be questioned, because of the criminal principle. And whether that constitutional principle should apply to impeachment, and in what manner is up to the Senate. It isn't mandated but the principle itself isn't therefore vanquished right out of American jurisprudence. Each house of Congress determines its rules of proceedings.

Intelligence community whistleblowers don't receive protection if they raise just differing opinions on policy matters, only if they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations. They can get protection from congressional intelligence committees, which this whistleblower did. That is the first cross examination question at a fundamental level that should be asked of the whistleblower, to articulate, based only on the phone call what law was he relying on. And that is where Schiff comes into play, was the whistleblower given guidance? Questioning that with credible evidence is perfectly fair play among other important issues, that our greatest weapon for getting past BS in all of jurisprudence, namely cross examination should be utilized.

mikwut

[_aussieguy55]

Whenever I hear Dershowitz's name mention The phrase "I kept my underwear on" pops into my head.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ok, mikwut. I’ll give you the whistleblower if you give me any and all witnesses the Democrats see fit to put in front of the Senate, to include the President. Deal?

- Doc