• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

PoS said:
Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff made clear on Saturday that the Ukraine whistleblower won't be testifying in the impeachment inquiry, arguing that the individual's testimony would be "redundant and unnecessary."

House Republicans earlier Saturday had submitted a list of witnesses to Democrats that they'd like to testify as part of the chamber's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump and Ukraine. The list included the whistleblower and former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden.
Click to expand...
Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?
Click to expand...
As someone must have said by now, the whistleblower gave a 2nd hand statement to what went on during the Trump/Ukraine telephone call. This opened an investigation. A number of witnesses who were ACTUALLY ON the call closely corroborated what the whistleblower stated. So, why would one know need to know who the WB is?

This is like someone anonymously calling in a building fire. The fire department shows up and sees the actual fire and spoke to witnesses who saw the fire start -- but Republicans are desperate to find who called in the fire.
 
washunut said:
I guess you folks have never of due process in this country. If the police do an illegal search that turns up evidence that someone did a crime, then nothing from the search can be used at trial. So if the original complaint falls under that category then the follow ups caused by the original WB complaint in this case is "poinsoned"

Now folks can say the impeachment process is not a trial and is just a political action (Stunt?). That being the case then folks in the House know they are voting on something that has no chance of actually convicting someone but has the effect of hopefully hurting the president and senators who do not vote to convict.

I wouldn't mind Trump losing in 2020 thus I am afraid this tactic will backfire as it did in 1998.
Click to expand...

Oh look, this slightly liberal poster once again spews conservative propaganda. Look how he effortlessly associates the whistleblower with an illegal search. so of course the ensuing investigation is a "stunt". The only good thing about your post is you acknowledge that the president broke the law and your feeble attempt to flail is an imaginary technicality. your conservative masters appreciate your obedience
 
Mycroft said:
Schiffty knows that the Republicans will hammer Ciaramella about his contact with Schiffy's office...who he talked to, when, what about, etc. Schiffty knows the Reps will hammer Ciaramella about his history...why was he fired by the WH in 2017, why was he let back into the WH and by whom, what relationship did he have with Biden, etc.

There is so much that will be exposed about the Dems and the Trump haters if the Reps have access to Ciaramella that Schiffty absolutely CANNOT allow him to testify.

But that's okay. If the House Dems are stupid enough to ever let this get to the Senate, then Ciaramella WILL be called, he WILL testify and, unless he outright lies, the truth WILL be revealed.
Click to expand...

And they will call Courtney Elwood, CIA general counsel and have her testify the whistleblower originally contacted her with his/her complaint. She notified the white house and then consulted with the DOJ with what she believed was a criminal referral so we are going to need the testimony of those in the DOJ. After several weeks of no action, the whistleblower then contacted the HPSCI staff who told the whistleblower to use the ICIG process. All of this will come out in open testimony.. This is going to be devastating line of testimony for the administration..
 
Last edited:
washunut said:
I guess you folks have never of due process in this country. If the police do an illegal search that turns up evidence that someone did a crime, then nothing from the search can be used at trial. So if the original complaint falls under that category then the follow ups caused by the original WB complaint in this case is "poinsoned"

Now folks can say the impeachment process is not a trial and is just a political action (Stunt?). That being the case then folks in the House know they are voting on something that has no chance of actually convicting someone but has the effect of hopefully hurting the president and senators who do not vote to convict.

I wouldn't mind Trump losing in 2020 thus I am afraid this tactic will backfire as it did in 1998.
Click to expand...

The problem, of course, is even if we accept the premise of your post, the WB isn't even alleged to have done anything illegal. The complaint was in accordance with the laws in place for such confidential disclosures. It went to IC IG who verified the complaint was credible. The IC IG and ANDI have said the complaint was filed in accordance with the law. If the GOP have questions about this, call the IC IG and ADNI. Call someone from DoJ to testify if the complaint was somehow illegal. The GOP can ask all of them if contact with the intended recipient of the complaint (HPSCI) and which can accept them directly breaks any U.S. law. They'll say, no, it doesn't.

We know that's not going to happen because the GOP don't care about the legality of the complaint - the search warrant in your theory. They want to drag him up in front of cameras and smear him any way they can to distract from the facts testified to by named people under oath.

So let's be honest about the motivation. Once we are we can have an HONEST discussion on calling him. Pretending there is some legitimate motive is just nonsense.
 
Perotista said:
You know I have been pretty much indifferent to this whole impeachment process. My main interest in it is how it will effect the upcoming elections. Getting information for my Perotista senate, house and presidency forecasts. Not whether Trump will be or won't be impeached. I put most of what I have seen and heard down to ultra high partisan political propaganda.

This throws a different light on the subject. I didn't comment on the thread of a lynching, mainly because I didn't care if Trump thought that or not or what others said about Trump's use of the word lynching. This in my opinion means Trump isn't going to get a fair hearing. That the Democrats have stacked and packed the Jury so to speak. I don't care if Trump is or isn't impeached. If Hillary had won, I wouldn't care if she was impeached or not. My disdain for both is ultra high. But in this case, I do think Trump's use of the word lynching seems to be correct.

It does seem the Democrats want to hide anything and everyone that might weaken their case. This is totally wrong. I'm still indifferent about impeachment knowing it is strictly a partisan affair, a battle between our two major parties which I don't belong to neither and highly dislike both. What it does is pique my interest beyond just how impeachment might effect the upcoming election.
Click to expand...

OK, then explain why you think calling the WB will contribute to a "fair hearing." Nothing he says about the facts matters, because the facts have been testified to under oath by those who participated, or are being prohibited from testifying by TRUMP. The Trump appointed IC IG and ANDI have testified that he complied with the law.

So, what part of his testimony do you think can add to a "fair hearing?" Since you agree with the word "lynching" then it must be something substantial, something that might even clear Trump. What is it that you're looking for with his testimony that's critical to understanding this event?
 
BlueTex said:
And they will call Courtney Elwood, CIA general counsel and have her testify the whistleblower originally contacted her with his/her complaint. She notified the white houseS and then consulted with the DOJ with what she believed was a criminal referral so we are going to need the testimony of those in the DOJ. After several weeks of no action, the whistleblower then contacted the HPSCI staff who told the whistleblower to use the ICIG process. All of this will come out in open testimony.. This is going to be devastating line of testimony for the administration..
Click to expand...

Actually, no they won't because Trump has blocked them from appearing.

That's what's so dishonest about this effort. They're clearly and obviously NOT interested in facts or the law. Everyone pretending it's about the facts is lying to us or themselves in some way.
 
To me, focusing on the whistle blower is an argument that the public doesn't have the right to know about this whole thing in the first place.

It is an attempt to unscramble an egg and nothing more.
 
PoS said:
Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?
Click to expand...
Thats it in a nutshell, the public is watching and waiting to hear both sides of this. The Democrats had weaks to select who they wanted to subpoena and they have given Republicans less than a week to submit their list of people.

Republicans submitted a list of 8 names, everytime Schiff denies a name from that list he removes 12.5% of testimony the Republicans would like to add to the record. The media dutifully cheers this behaviour on and boos every effort to clear the president's name.

Its left up to me, you, and every other voter to decide which of these people we wish to remain in power. Democrats better make one hell of a case to justify how they are conducting their "investigation" to impeach Trump. All this closed door nonsense and censoring of testimony is persuading me.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I know you Trump-bots don't have any respect for our laws and won't bend yourself to logic, but it is illegal to disclose the identity of a whistleblower.
Click to expand...

Is he a whistleblower? Gregg Jarrett says no:

As I first explained in a column six weeks ago, the so-called “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower at all. The complaint he filed against President Trump does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the ICWPA. That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community.

...So what should we call the fake “whistleblower”? It is more accurate to describe him as an undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gathering hearsay information intended to damage him.

Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the informant was aided and abetted by none other than Schiff and/or Schiff’s staff to invent a pretext for the impeachment of the president.

...To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government. Gregg Jarrett: Whistleblower not entitled to anonymity – He’s an informant acting as a Democratic operative | Fox News
 
PoS said:
Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?
Click to expand...

It's specious logic.


In point of fact, the WB is not the accuser, the WB is just an information provider, the accusers are those who draw up the articles of impeachment


It's the same reason why law enforcement doesn't call anonymous tippers on anonymous tip lines to court, doesn't call them "accusers' for the accuser is the District Attorney ( the gov ) the tippers are just info providers for the gov to confirm or deny.

Why? Because the WB is not the victim here, it's the United States, it's the constitution.

Now, in a victim crime, sure, the victim is the accuser, and the defendant has the right to face him or her.
 
Who is surprised? Schiff is not about to place this guy in a position in which he might face any questions. And for those who would prefer that such a circus have some relation to actual legal principles, remember that this isn't a legal proceeding, and that means they can abandon any and all principles or moral underpinnings with impunity. The pursuit of political power trumps all that kinda stuff.
 
nota bene said:
Is he a whistleblower? Gregg Jarrett says no:

As I first explained in a column six weeks ago, the so-called “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower at all. The complaint he filed against President Trump does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the ICWPA. That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community.

...So what should we call the fake “whistleblower”? It is more accurate to describe him as an undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gathering hearsay information intended to damage him.

Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the informant was aided and abetted by none other than Schiff and/or Schiff’s staff to invent a pretext for the impeachment of the president.

...To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government. Gregg Jarrett: Whistleblower not entitled to anonymity – He’s an informant acting as a Democratic operative | Fox News
Click to expand...

Jarrett hasn't practiced law in almost 20 years... I wouldn't take legal advice from a FoX New reporter so far removed from the actual practice of law...
 
nota bene said:
Is he a whistleblower? Gregg Jarrett says no:

As I first explained in a column six weeks ago, the so-called “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower at all. The complaint he filed against President Trump does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the ICWPA. That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community.

...So what should we call the fake “whistleblower”? It is more accurate to describe him as an undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gathering hearsay information intended to damage him.

Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the informant was aided and abetted by none other than Schiff and/or Schiff’s staff to invent a pretext for the impeachment of the president.

...To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government. Gregg Jarrett: Whistleblower not entitled to anonymity – He’s an informant acting as a Democratic operative | Fox News



This is why Schiff has worked sedulously to hide the informant’s identify and obstruct any questions by Republican House members about their relationship (or, if you like, “collusion”).
Click to expand...

Aren’t federal employees supposed to follow the laws and uphold the same constitution that elected officials swear an oath to uphold? If that is the case, and the president is acting against the law, shouldn’t the first obligation of federal employees be to call out these acts.
 
trouble13 said:
Thats it in a nutshell, the public is watching and waiting to hear both sides of this. The Democrats had weaks to select who they wanted to subpoena and they have given Republicans less than a week to submit their list of people.

Republicans submitted a list of 8 names, everytime Schiff denies a name from that list he removes 12.5% of testimony the Republicans would like to add to the record. The media dutifully cheers this behaviour on and boos every effort to clear the president's name.

Its left up to me, you, and every other voter to decide which of these people we wish to remain in power. Democrats better make one hell of a case to justify how they are conducting their "investigation" to impeach Trump. All this closed door nonsense and censoring of testimony is persuading me.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What I want to know is why Hillary isn't on the list, if they're going to rehash the Mueller investigation.
 
JasperL said:
OK, then explain why you think calling the WB will contribute to a "fair hearing." Nothing he says about the facts matters, because the facts have been testified to under oath by those who participated, or are being prohibited from testifying by TRUMP. The Trump appointed IC IG and ANDI have testified that he complied with the law.

So, what part of his testimony do you think can add to a "fair hearing?" Since you agree with the word "lynching" then it must be something substantial, something that might even clear Trump. What is it that you're looking for with his testimony that's critical to understanding this event?
Click to expand...

I don't know. As I stated I have been pretty much ignoring the whole thing as I chalked it up to ultra high partisan politics. I have to ask myself, would a judge refuse to allow the defense to call witness's it wants? I don't think so. We both know the hearing is just a matter of going through the motions. With 12 Democrats vs. 10 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee all articles of impeachment, the charges the Democrats want will pass and go to the house floor for a vote which all will pass there.

Denying the defense the right to call the witnesses they want doesn't seem very American to me. Even if the results are know today before anything formal begins. This seems more out of North Korea than America. A black mark on judicial process. But in the era of polarization and ultra high partisan politics, I suppose one could expect nothing less.

Now not allowing the defense its witnesses, could allow the scheming McConnell to use a little known senate procedure once tried, but failed by Robert Byrd just before Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in the senate. Seems tit for tat could come into play.

The final results are known today, so why the heck bother? Why not just let all of America decide the fate of Trump in Nov 2020. We know Trump will be impeached by the House, found not guilty by the senate. A total waste of time, energy and money just to please one major party's base.
 
Last edited:
humbolt said:
Who is surprised? Schiff is not about to place this guy in a position in which he might face any questions. And for those who would prefer that such a circus have some relation to actual legal principles, remember that this isn't a legal proceeding, and that means they can abandon any and all principles or moral underpinnings with impunity. The pursuit of political power trumps all that kinda stuff.
Click to expand...

There are few courts in our country who would ever require an anonymous whistleblower or tipster to testify. There is nothing unusual about how the house is treating the whistleblower.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yet you can't tell us WHY it's important who the whistleblower is or what specific gotcha testimony you think he can provide. Everything he reported in his whistleblower complaint has been confirmed under oath by Trump administration officials giving first hand accounts.
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer, but Im sure the GOP needs to have some questions answered, so why not allow an open hearing where they can question him/her? It's part of having a fair trial which everyone is supposed to be entitled to. Dont you agree?

As long as you ignore Trump's crimes while attempting to attack and distract, you're going to labeled a Trump-bot. If you actually wanted the truth you'd be railing against Trump trying to prevent everyone around him from testifying. You don't.
Click to expand...

Oh, so because I dont join in with your daily 3-minute hate of all things Trump then I must be on his side? Jesus H Christ. :roll::doh
 
nota bene said:
Is he a whistleblower? Gregg Jarrett says no:

As I first explained in a column six weeks ago, the so-called “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower at all. The complaint he filed against President Trump does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the ICWPA. That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community.

...So what should we call the fake “whistleblower”? It is more accurate to describe him as an undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gathering hearsay information intended to damage him.

Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the informant was aided and abetted by none other than Schiff and/or Schiff’s staff to invent a pretext for the impeachment of the president.

...To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government. Gregg Jarrett: Whistleblower not entitled to anonymity – He’s an informant acting as a Democratic operative | Fox News



This is why Schiff has worked sedulously to hide the informant’s identify and obstruct any questions by Republican House members about their relationship (or, if you like, “collusion”).
Click to expand...

Gregg Jarret? Mr CT himself. Not a reliable source, in my view.


The WB passed muster with both the ADNI and the IC IG.

There is no such evidence other than the fanciful musings of Fox news pundits, such as Gregg Jarret.
 
Perotista said:
I don't know. As I stated I have been pretty much ignoring the whole thing as I chalked it up to ultra high partisan politics. I have to ask myself, would a judge refuse to allow the defense to call witness's it wants? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

The whistleblower is not a witness, he/she is a tipster... No different than an anonymous tipster in many, many criminal cases...

We both know the hearing is just a matter of going through the motions. With 12 Democrats vs. 10 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee all articles of impeachment, the charges the Democrats want will pass and go to the house floor for a vote which all will pass there.

Denying the defense the right to call the witnesses they want doesn't seem very American to me. Even if the results are know today before anything formal begins. This seems more out of North Korea than America. A black mark on judicial process. But in the era of polarization and ultra high partisan politics, I suppose one could expect nothing less.
Click to expand...

The president will have every right to call witnesses during the senate trial, just like every other trial in this country. There is NO right to call witnesses during an investigation.

Now not allowing the defense its witnesses, could allow the scheming McConnell to use a little know senate procedure once tried, but failed by Robert Byrd just before Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in the senate. Seems tit for tat could come into play.
Click to expand...

If McConnell and the senate GOP want to treat this solemn process with a childish approach, they have every to do so..

The final results are known today, so why the heck bother? Why not just let all of America decide the fate of Trump in Nov 2020. We know Trump will be impeached by the House, found not guilty by the senate. A total waste of time, energy and money just to please one major party's base.
Click to expand...

The investigation is far from over... Even if Trump survives, there will be plenty of resignations and possibly criminal charges for some members of the administration. Nixon was not impeached and dozens of his staff ended up resigning in shame and some going to prison.
 
PoS said:
I am not a lawyer, but Im sure the GOP needs to have some questions answered, so why not allow an open hearing where they can question him/her? It's part of having a fair trial which everyone is supposed to be entitled to. Dont you agree?
Click to expand...

The impeachment inquiry is NOT a trial... That happens in the senate...
 
CaughtInThe said:
He's right AND he's trying to protect the whistleblower and their family from being gunned down by crazy and Christian Republicans.

Are you religious?
Click to expand...

What is the deal with religion? Seems to be over the top squealing all the time about it?
Of course your statement is a big fat lie! :2wave:
 
trouble13 said:
Thats it in a nutshell, the public is watching and waiting to hear both sides of this. The Democrats had weaks to select who they wanted to subpoena and they have given Republicans less than a week to submit their list of people.

Republicans submitted a list of 8 names, everytime Schiff denies a name from that list he removes 12.5% of testimony the Republicans would like to add to the record. The media dutifully cheers this behaviour on and boos every effort to clear the president's name.

Its left up to me, you, and every other voter to decide which of these people we wish to remain in power. Democrats better make one hell of a case to justify how they are conducting their "investigation" to impeach Trump. All this closed door nonsense and censoring of testimony is persuading me.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Where do you get the idea that the Republicans were limited to eight witnesses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom