Judge critical of Trump administration's attempt to control testimony of former official

[gdgyva]

It does require an investigation before a vote don't you think? That is what is happening now and has been done up to now according to the rules set by the GOP.

and that investigation will be ending soon with the willing witnesses

then what?

that is MY question

 

[JasperL]

Bring the process out in the open, make it public and let's see this so called whistleblower testify so we can assess his credibility if he has any. There's only one reason to keep this thing secret and that is because making it public will show what a weak, politically driven attack it is.

We don't need the whistleblower with "hearsay!!" second hand!! information to testify. those with FIRST HAND knowledge have testified. They can confirm or not all the allegations in that initial complaint.

Remember when what he said was worthless because all he did was hear stuff from others? I do! Now it's key to hear from him so you can smear him, not because you care what information he has. You don't care or shouldn't because it doesn't matter anymore.

 

[veritas1]

We don't need the whistleblower with "hearsay!!" second hand!! information to testify. those with FIRST HAND knowledge have testified. They can confirm or not all the allegations in that initial complaint.

Remember when what he said was worthless because all he did was hear stuff from others? I do! Now it's key to hear from him so you can smear him, not because you care what information he has. You don't care or shouldn't because it doesn't matter anymore.

They can't confirm anything not in the call transcript. All they can do is offer an opinion. Also, the so called WB has only been allowed to make a hearsay complaint because the Dems altered the rules in August. Prior to that, firsthand info was required and NOBODY with firsthand info has lodged a complaint. The WB appears to have deep Dem ties and Trump animosities if the guy being named is the right one. He worked with Schiff, Biden and Brennan as well as being involved in Ukraine of all places. So, yea, we want to see this guy and subject him to public questioning and scrutiny. Funny, but Schiff is the guy who is now adamant that the WB isn't necessary. I can now understand his concern.

 

[apdst]

I think this tactic of controlling testimony can easily balloon into obstruction right quick.

It's ok for Schiff to control testimony?

 

[GDViking]

I think this tactic of controlling testimony can easily balloon into obstruction right quick.

I believe it already has...

 

[GDViking]

Bring the process out in the open, make it public and let's see this so called whistleblower testify so we can assess his credibility if he has any. There's only one reason to keep this thing secret and that is because making it public will show what a weak, politically driven attack it is.

The whistleblowers Jo. Is done.just consider it an anonymous call to crime stoppers.

The call proved to be credible, trump confessed, we are way past the original call...

 

[veritas1]

The whistleblowers Jo. Is done.just consider it an anonymous call to crime stoppers.

The call proved to be credible, trump confessed, we are way past the original call...

The call transcript is all the evidence you have. The rest is just opinion from people inclined not to like Trump or his policies. The WB needs to be grilled so we can see exactly how all this BS went down between him and the Dems.

 

[GDViking]

The call transcript is all the evidence you have. The rest is just opinion from people inclined not to like Trump or his policies. The WB needs to be grilled so we can see exactly how all this BS went down between him and the Dems.

No he doesn't, it is completely irrelevant why he shared the information or who he is, all that he needed to do was bring a crime to the attention of the proper authorities, and follow proper procedures.

He did that, his accusations proved to be 100% credible, his part in all this is over...

 

[veritas1]

No he doesn't, it is completely irrelevant why he shared the information or who he is, all that he needed to do was bring a crime to the attention of the proper authorities, and follow proper procedures.

He did that, his accusations proved to be 100% credible, his part in all this is over...

It's not irrelevant at all. He met with Schiff three weeks beforehand. What transpired between them? What axe does this guy have to grind with Trump? These are very relevant points. As for his "complaint" it's proving to be very weak sauce.

 

[JasperL]

They can't confirm anything not in the call transcript. All they can do is offer an opinion. Also, the so called WB has only been allowed to make a hearsay complaint because the Dems altered the rules in August. Prior to that, firsthand info was required and NOBODY with firsthand info has lodged a complaint. The WB appears to have deep Dem ties and Trump animosities if the guy being named is the right one. He worked with Schiff, Biden and Brennan as well as being involved in Ukraine of all places. So, yea, we want to see this guy and subject him to public questioning and scrutiny. Funny, but Schiff is the guy who is now adamant that the WB isn't necessary. I can now understand his concern.

Of course they can. Lots of those testifying were directly involved in negotiating with Ukraine, and lots happened before and after the call. It all matters. Pretending that we have to blinker ourselves to just the not-transcript is a stupid as hell right wing talking point that no one not a moron accepts as a legitimate requirement.

And the "dems" didn't change the requirements for WB complaints. The law is what it is. You can read it. And any interpretation of it for purposes of a complaint and whether it was credible was up to the Trump appointed IC IG.

You're just making **** up as if facts are optional.

 

[GDViking]

It's not irrelevant at all. He met with Schiff three weeks beforehand. What transpired between them? What axe does this guy have to grind with Trump? These are very relevant points. As for his "complaint" it's proving to be very weak sauce.

No he wasn't, he contacted one of his aids inquiring how to go through the process, which is standard practice.

But keep trying to make business as usual seem nefarious...

Weak sauce trump ****ing admitted to it, even his cherry picked transcript proves he's guilty!!!:lamo

As to his reasons, they are completely irrelevant, the information was valid his reasons for sharing plays no part in anything...

 

[JasperL]

The call transcript is all the evidence you have. The rest is just opinion from people inclined not to like Trump or his policies. The WB needs to be grilled so we can see exactly how all this BS went down between him and the Dems.

So facts are the new "opinion?"

And of course it's absurd to say the call not-transcript is all the evidence. Who believes that who isn't genuinely stupid?

I also hate to tell you this, but it's actually OK for people not to like Trump or his policies, and believing that doesn't change what happened. It appears the standard you're trying and failing hilariously to establish is only Trump ass-kissers are allowed to testify and be taken seriously.

Wait a minute!!! That guy doesn't approve of me sending my lawyer to the thugs to negotiate a secret deal to put my political rival under investigation!!! He cannot be trusted!!! HE OPPOSES NAKED ABUSE OF POWER!!! UNFAIR!

 

[independentusa]

Bring the process out in the open, make it public and let's see this so called whistleblower testify so we can assess his credibility if he has any. There's only one reason to keep this thing secret and that is because making it public will show what a weak, politically driven attack it is.

Is there really any reason to have the whistleblower testify, really, except to be able to punish him for doing the right thing. After all of the Trump supporters first said his testimony was not worth anything because it was hearsay, now you want him to testify, especially considering all his information is being testified to in the closed door meetings by people who had first hand knowledge of the Ukraine call and what went before the call and afterward. And the meetings you call "secret" were what the rules set by the GOP were called closed door as you well know. That line no longer works for you who wish to protect the president.

 

[Logical1]

Judge critical of Trump administration's attempt to control testimony of former official

Former White House counsel Don McGahn



This federal judge appears to not be sympathetic to the White House argument that it can order people that have been issued a subpoena by the House to refuse to testify.

Her ruling will set the precedent for all such WH stonewalling refusals.

Who appointed that judge????

 

[veritas1]

Of course they can. Lots of those testifying were directly involved in negotiating with Ukraine, and lots happened before and after the call. It all matters. Pretending that we have to blinker ourselves to just the not-transcript is a stupid as hell right wing talking point that no one not a moron accepts as a legitimate requirement.

And the "dems" didn't change the requirements for WB complaints. The law is what it is. You can read it. And any interpretation of it for purposes of a complaint and whether it was credible was up to the Trump appointed IC IG.

You're just making **** up as if facts are optional.

BS. I have previously posted both the old and new language of the WB rule. It always required firsthand knowledge. BTW, why didn't any of these people with firsthand knowledge who are supposedly so concerned now, make a WB complaint? That seems quite odd given the "threat to the republic" the screeching leftists keep talking about. The whole thing is a fraud and will be revealed as such. It's just another Dem political operation like the Russia collusion nonsense. If not, then bring forth the WB. Let's see him testify publicly.

 

[veritas1]

Is there really any reason to have the whistleblower testify, really, except to be able to punish him for doing the right thing. After all of the Trump supporters first said his testimony was not worth anything because it was hearsay, now you want him to testify, especially considering all his information is being testified to in the closed door meetings by people who had first hand knowledge of the Ukraine call and what went before the call and afterward. And the meetings you call "secret" were what the rules set by the GOP were called closed door as you well know. That line no longer works for you who wish to protect the president.

If we are going to accord his testimony any value at all, we should be able to assess his credibility and see him answer questions from the GOP publicly, not under some controlled setting where everything is dictated by Schifty. His testimony isn't worth anything as secondhand info but we have a right to know his relationship to Democrats and his personal biases against Trump. The Dems rightly fear such exposure.

 

[JasperL]

BS. I have previously posted both the old and new language of the WB rule. It always required firsthand knowledge.

1) Instructions on a form are not the law, and the law does not require first/second/direct/indirect anything. It says the IC IG must determine that the complaint is credible. 2) the Trump appointed IC IG changed the instructions, not the left or Democrats or whoever is your latest boogeyman.

BTW, why didn't any of these people with firsthand knowledge who are supposedly so concerned now, make a WB complaint? That seems quite odd given the "threat to the republic" the screeching leftists keep talking about. The whole thing is a fraud and will be revealed as such. It's just another Dem political operation like the Russia collusion nonsense. If not, then bring forth the WB. Let's see him testify publicly.

We know a flood of them ran to their in-house counsel, so many it's lucky they didn't get injured in the stampede of covering their asses. So many people inside the WH, the IC and the state department and diplomatic corp shared the WB concerns.

 

[veritas1]

1) Instructions on a form are not the law, and the law does not require first/second/direct/indirect anything. It says the IC IG must determine that the complaint is credible. 2) the Trump appointed IC IG changed the instructions, not the left or Democrats or whoever is your latest boogeyman.



We know a flood of them ran to their in-house counsel, so many it's lucky they didn't get injured in the stampede of covering their asses. So many people inside the WH, the IC and the state department and diplomatic corp shared the WB concerns.

Then they should have filed WB complaints. I also have no way of knowing who had what concerns since their testimony has been kept from the public by Schifty and his cabal.

Re: WB complaints:


ICIG ICWSP Form 401, May 24, 2018: In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

As of August, 2019, that language disappeared.

 

[JasperL]

Then they should have filed WB complaints. I also have no way of knowing who had what concerns since their testimony has been kept from the public by Schifty and his cabal.

What they should have done is not relevant. One person DID file a complaint and it was credible, and has been mostly if not almost entirely verified as accurate. No one cares what you thought should have happened.

ICIG ICWSP Form 401, May 24, 2018: In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

As of August, 2019, that language disappeared.

We've had threads about this and instructions to a form are not the law. The complaint indicated the WB had both first and second hand knowledge. Whatever the instructions say, the IC IG is given the task, according to the law, to determine if the complaint is credible. He did that, determined it was, and that determination was entirely consistent with the LAW.

Now right wing hacks and liars are trying something like - the fruit of the poisonous tree defense. So if you can delegitimize the complaint, we'd never know about this stuff so, therefore, now that we do we are not allowed to legitimately consider it. It's BS.

 

[veritas1]

What they should have done is not relevant. One person DID file a complaint and it was credible, and has been mostly if not almost entirely verified as accurate. No one cares what you thought should have happened.



We've had threads about this and instructions to a form are not the law. The complaint indicated the WB had both first and second hand knowledge. Whatever the instructions say, the IC IG is given the task, according to the law, to determine if the complaint is credible. He did that, determined it was, and that determination was entirely consistent with the LAW.

Now right wing hacks and liars are trying something like - the fruit of the poisonous tree defense. So if you can delegitimize the complaint, we'd never know about this stuff so, therefore, now that we do we are not allowed to legitimately consider it. It's BS.

The WB was NOT a witness to the Zelensky call nor anything pertaining to Trump's communications with him and THAT was the basis for this entire charade. As for the WB language above, it is unequivocal and clear. It says the complaint will NOT be processed at all, not that it will be evaluated. This is plain and easy to read for everyone except liberals who ask you not to believe your lyin' eyes.

 

[JustHanging]

The courts will let Trump know when he has broken a law.

Exactly.

And until then it is the job of the best Evangelical Christians can produce to hinder justice in every way possible. Because that's the sign of a great Christian leader. :lamo


Is it any wonder that young people are turning away from Christianity when they see what actual Evangelical values are? Not what Evangelicals pay lip service to, but what they actually stand for. Keep up the great work RetiredUSN, you Christians doing a better job of encouraging atheism than I ever could.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Exactly.

And until then it is the job of the best Evangelical Christians can produce to hinder justice in every way possible. Because that's the sign of a great Christian leader. :lamo


Is it any wonder that young people are turning away from Christianity when they see what actual Evangelical values are? Not what Evangelicals pay lip service to, but what they actually stand for. Keep up the great work RetiredUSN, you Christians doing a better job of encouraging atheism than I ever could.

Evangelicals - Left wing radicals.

Pick your poison because they are about the same with different smells.

 

[JasperL]

The WB was NOT a witness to the Zelensky call nor anything pertaining to Trump's communications with him and THAT was the basis for this entire charade. As for the WB language above, it is unequivocal and clear. It says the complaint will NOT be processed at all, not that it will be evaluated. This is plain and easy to read for everyone except liberals who ask you not to believe your lyin' eyes.

Again, you're confusing instructions on a form with the law, and the law doesn't give a damn about the instructions. It was processed, found credible, because it was credible. You can wish the whole incident was buried, as the WH tried to do, but they failed, and now how it came to light just does not matter. No one violated any law in filing or evaluating the complaint, nor in finding it credible, passing it to the DNI, etc.

I mean, it's sad and all, boo hoo, that Trump got caught but no one cares that you're sad.

 

[jnug]

Judge critical of Trump administration's attempt to control testimony of former official

Former White House counsel Don McGahn



This federal judge appears to not be sympathetic to the White House argument that it can order people that have been issued a subpoena by the House to refuse to testify.

Her ruling will set the precedent for all such WH stonewalling refusals.

Hardly any Judge has been sympathetic to WH arguments as their briefs either from Trump Attorney's, WH attorney's or Justice Dept attorneys are utter and complete trash. Dooms them through the Appellate Courts as well. Trump clearly cannot get a good attorney to work for him and Sessions/Whittaker/Barr appear to have already hollowed out DOJ as Tillerson/Pompeo have hollowed out State.

 

[bongsaway]

The courts will not be on the side of this administration. Seems the silliness from the right is starting to get under the skin of some of these judges.