Trump impeachment: whistleblower will not testify in public, Democrats say

[JacksinPA]

Trump impeachment: whistleblower will not testify in public, Democrats say | US news | The Guardian

Battle for national opinion begins ahead of Wednesday hearings

The whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump will not testify in public, House intelligence chair Adam Schiff said.

“The committee ... will not facilitate efforts by President Trump and his allies in Congress to threaten, intimidate and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm,” Schiff said in a letter to ranking Republican Devin Nunes released on Saturday night.
=========================================
The news is already out. The Repubs involved have already been identified. Why put this guy (or gal) through an open hearing that will only confuse matters more + put a target on their back for MAGA freaks?

 

[Chomsky]

Hate to say it, but it looks like Dems are the only ones of the three political entities that are sticking to the rule of law.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hate to say it, but it looks like Dems are the only ones of the three political entities that are sticking to the rule of law.

Does "the rule of law" allow a WB to knowingly share classified content with uncleared persons? Why do you suppose that only a redacted version of the "WB" complaint has been issued? Do we know who else helped to produce (or has read) that initial document which contained (now redacted) classified data?

 

[Chomsky]

Does "the rule of law" allow a WB to knowingly share classified content with uncleared persons? Why do you suppose that only a redacted version of the "WB" complaint has been issued? Do we know who else helped to produce (or has read) that initial document which contained (now redacted) classified data?

I don't know the veracity of your claims, since I don't have access to the original document. But I do know the WB law provides protection for the WB.

And when I see the President's attacks on the WB, I see the wisdom of those that promulgated the law.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't know the veracity of your claims, since I don't have access to the original document. But I do know the WB law provides protection for the WB.

And when I see the President's attacks on the WB, I see the wisdom of those that promulgated the law.

Nobody will know if they are prevented from investigating the matter.

 

[Lutherf]

Trump impeachment: whistleblower will not testify in public, Democrats say | US news | The Guardian

Battle for national opinion begins ahead of Wednesday hearings

The whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump will not testify in public, House intelligence chair Adam Schiff said.

“The committee ... will not facilitate efforts by President Trump and his allies in Congress to threaten, intimidate and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm,” Schiff said in a letter to ranking Republican Devin Nunes released on Saturday night.
=========================================
The news is already out. The Repubs involved have already been identified. Why put this guy (or gal) through an open hearing that will only confuse matters more + put a target on their back for MAGA freaks?

The "whistleblower" should be questioned with regard to his coordination with Schiff's people. His report was based on personal opinion and second hand information rather than a legal precedent. That's all fine but, since there was nothing illegal or improper in Trump's contact with Zelensky it would be a good thing to know if this "alert" was part of a coordinated plan to attack Trump and influence the 2020 election.

 

[Chomsky]

Nobody will know if they are prevented from investigating the matter.

You realize the House can declassify information at it's prerogative, right?

 

[ttwtt78640]

You realize the House can declassify information at it's prerogative, right?

That is possible, but unusual and likely not to become legally retro-active.

Declassification by Congress | 28Pages.org

 

[Chomsky]

The "whistleblower" should be questioned with regard to his coordination with Schiff's people. His report was based on personal opinion and second hand information rather than a legal precedent. That's all fine but, since there was nothing illegal or improper in Trump's contact with Zelensky it would be a good thing to know if this "alert" was part of a coordinated plan to attack Trump and influence the 2020 election.

All impeachments are political. They are the ultimate expression of the people's will through their representatives. And your claim of, "nothing improper with Trump's contact with Zelensky", is the political question that is the crux of the matter.

This is how impeachment works - via the body politic. This is not a due process criminal court proceeding. In fact, it specifically is not a criminal proceeding.

 

[Chomsky]

That is possible, but unusual and likely not to become legally retro-active.

Declassification by Congress | 28Pages.org

That's a good find, thanks.

But after re-reading your earlier post, I'm not sure if your argument is the WB released classified data to Congress, or if Congress released classified data to the public?

 

[Lutherf]

All impeachments are political. They are the ultimate expression of the people's will through their representatives. And your claim of, "nothing improper with Trump's contact with Zelensky", is the political question that is the crux of the matter.

This is how impeachment works - via the body politic. This is not a due process criminal court proceeding. In fact, it specifically is not a criminal proceeding.

If impeachment is used to remove a duly elected president for purely political reasons then it is the antithesis of the "will of the people" and has become "the will of the political party". The purpose of impeachment is to get rid of a president that has committed extraordinary affronts to the the nation and has become a danger. Other than that the mechanism for removal is an election every 4 years and removal via a vote of the people. This impeachment is being conducted for PURELY political purposes and, in fact, is being conducted with the express intent to influence the vote of the people. That's a gross misuse of every principle upon which this nation was founded. Furthermore, it establishes a precedent for all future elections that will effectively nullify the Constitution.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Hell, they have so much evidence against Trump they don't even need the WB anymore.

That should worry the crap outta Trump's followers.

 

[Chomsky]

If impeachment is used to remove a duly elected president for purely political reasons then it is the antithesis of the "will of the people" and has become "the will of the political party". The purpose of impeachment is to get rid of a president that has committed extraordinary affronts to the the nation and has become a danger. Other than that the mechanism for removal is an election every 4 years and removal via a vote of the people. This impeachment is being conducted for PURELY political purposes and, in fact, is being conducted with the express intent to influence the vote of the people. That's a gross misuse of every principle upon which this nation was founded. Furthermore, it establishes a precedent for all future elections that will effectively nullify the Constitution.

To the bolded, with all respect, the current situation is indeed the "will of the People".

Trump won the 2016 election, true. But two years later after much transpired with Trump, the People put the Dems in charge of the House specifically to oppose Trump. Don't underestimate how badly the Dems - the People's majority - want Trump out.

You seem to be resting on the laurels of the 2016 election, ignoring what has transpired since - including in Nov 2018. Our founders specifically - and wisely - made provisions for the actions being taken today.

 

[iguanaman]

The "whistleblower" should be questioned with regard to his coordination with Schiff's people. His report was based on personal opinion and second hand information rather than a legal precedent. That's all fine but, since there was nothing illegal or improper in Trump's contact with Zelensky it would be a good thing to know if this "alert" was part of a coordinated plan to attack Trump and influence the 2020 election.

There is plenty wrong with withholding vital military aid to our ally in the war against Russian aggression. In fact it is giving aid and comfort to an enemy.

Trump froze military aid — as Ukrainian soldiers perished in battle - Los Angeles Times

 

[Chomsky]

Hell, they have so much evidence against Trump they don't even need the WB anymore.

That should worry the crap outta Trump's followers.

That's exactly it. No one really saw the floodgates opening in terms of witnesses and evidence coming forward.

So with it seeming the evidence against him will be overwhelming, Trump and his supporters are trying to give the country a permission slip to not evaluate the public evidence forthcoming.

It's all red herring.

 

[Lutherf]

To the bolded, with all respect, the current situation is indeed the "will of the People".

Trump won the 2016 election, true. But two years later after much transpired with Trump, the People put the Dems in charge of the House specifically to oppose Trump. Don't underestimate how badly the Dems - the People's majority - want Trump out.

You seem to be resting on the laurels of the 2016 election, ignoring what has transpired since - including in Nov 2018. Our founders specifically - and wisely - made provisions for the actions being taken today.

You're talking about the will of some people. That will is FAR from overwhelming.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's exactly it. No one really saw the floodgates opening in terms of witnesses and evidence coming forward.

So with it seeming the evidence against him will be overwhelming, Trump and his supporters are trying to give the country a permission slip to not evaluate the public evidence forthcoming.

It's all red herring.

Sure they did - the "WB" gave Schiff (et al) the names of his unnamed sources in his complaint. You don't think Pelosi was "all in" with her "official" impeachment inquiry before the "WB" complaint or the transcript was released simply on her "gut feeling" do you?

 

[Chomsky]

You're talking about the will of some people. That will is FAR from overwhelming.

You did not see those suburban and other Trump voters switch back to the Democratic Party? 41 seats, worth?

Is that an overwhelming majority? Perhaps not. But regardless, that's what the majority voters sent Pelosi to do. And they were furious when she dilly dallied. I assure you that many in this country, approximately half, believe Trump has abused his power enough to warrant removal. And a majority believe he should be investigated. And that's where we are now, reflected accurately in the House hearings. So I see an extremely democratic and warranted process, here.

The Constitution was set-up to make it easy to impeach, and hard to remove. The framers designed it to make it easy for the House to present evidence to the public, but then made the bar for removal higher. I believe this is as it should be.

In the end, the People will see the evidence presented in both chambers, and their political-will will be reflected in the outcome. If the People believe their will was not reflected in the outcome, they will further exert their will next November. Whatever the outcome though, this is what our founders indeed prescribed. And straight-up, I think it's reasonable. Put it before the People.

And while this post is long, I will add what might be another wrinkle here. I believe what we are seeing is a reaction against "the tyranny of the majority by the minority". Let's not forget that in 2016, the Electoral College over-ruled the will of the citizen majority. So we are seeing rule by the minority. And this may indeed occur again in 2020, causing more unrest. Obviously, this is all Constitutional. But it still causes unrest. Especially if the majority comes to desire to change the election laws to something they believe more equitably reflects the general public desires, but are stopped by legal or institutional obstruction. I'm not sure if this issue is being discussed, but it is now becoming a more common and prevalent problem in recent elections.

 

[Helix]

it's sad to lose the secondhand testimony that he could have provided. i suppose that we'll just have to settle for firsthand testimony.

 

[Chomsky]

Sure they did - the "WB" gave Schiff (et al) the names of his unnamed sources in his complaint. You don't think Pelosi was "all in" with her "official" impeachment inquiry before the "WB" complaint or the transcript was released simply on her "gut feeling" do you?

I was speaking initially. As the WB first came forward, I doubt any saw the depth and number of those involved, and the plethora that were willing to publicly refute Trump and come forward to testify.

 

[dcsports]

Let's not forget that in 2016, the Electoral College over-ruled the will of the citizen majority. So we are seeing rule by the minority. And this may indeed occur again in 2020, causing more unrest. Obviously, this is all Constitutional. But it still causes unrest. Especially if the majority comes to desire to change the election laws to something they believe more equitably reflects the general public desires, but are stopped by legal or institutional obstruction. I'm not sure if this issue is being discussed, but it is now becoming a more common and prevalent problem in recent elections.

Worth pointing out here that you can't really say that. Presidential elections are not won by the majority vote, and campaigns are not run on that basis. It may be nice to say 'Clinton won the majority!' but that's not a poll that was ever taken. It would be the equivalent of saying a baseball team won because they had more hits, or a football team won because they had a greater time of possession.

 

[dcsports]

Trump impeachment: whistleblower will not testify in public, Democrats say | US news | The Guardian

Battle for national opinion begins ahead of Wednesday hearings

The whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump will not testify in public, House intelligence chair Adam Schiff said.

“The committee ... will not facilitate efforts by President Trump and his allies in Congress to threaten, intimidate and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm,” Schiff said in a letter to ranking Republican Devin Nunes released on Saturday night.
=========================================
The news is already out. The Repubs involved have already been identified. Why put this guy (or gal) through an open hearing that will only confuse matters more + put a target on their back for MAGA freaks?

It really looks evasive on the part of Democrats, and casts additional suspicion. If they really want an open and fair process, they are going to have to do it in public.

I absolutely agree that his testimony is likely redundant. (You could say the same about most of the witnesses, at least those testifying in the 'intent' of the phone call -- when we have a transcript of the phone call).

HOWEVER, if there is an impeachment trial, Trump will be entitled to cross examine witnesses, and have access to any potentially exculpatory evidence. That would include the person bringing the initial complaint, and the motives for doing so. Hiding the testimony at this point only casts a shadow on the House process.

 

[Chomsky]

Worth pointing out here that you can't really say that. Presidential elections are not won by the majority vote, and campaigns are not run on that basis. It may be nice to say 'Clinton won the majority!' but that's not a poll that was ever taken. It would be the equivalent of saying a baseball team won because they had more hits, or a football team won because they had a greater time of possession.

Alright, I see the distinction you're trying to make.

But it is clear the majority of those casting votes did not want Trump. And to further effect, Trump's approval is steadfastly underwater. So unless you're willing to negate the voters and pollsters, I think I'll stay with my statement that Trump supporters are in the minority.

 

[Chomsky]

It really looks evasive on the part of Democrats, and casts additional suspicion. If they really want an open and fair process, they are going to have to do it in public.

I absolutely agree that his testimony is likely redundant. (You could say the same about most of the witnesses, at least those testifying in the 'intent' of the phone call -- when we have a transcript of the phone call).

HOWEVER, if there is an impeachment trial, Trump will be entitled to cross examine witnesses, and have access to any potentially exculpatory evidence. That would include the person bringing the initial complaint, and the motives for doing so. Hiding the testimony at this point only casts a shadow on the House process.

Actually there is no such entitlement, since this is not a criminal trial, is not judicially review-able, and there is no due process. However, I do believe the Roberts would give reasonable lee-way here if he believes McConnell & Trump are not trying to promote a circus-like atmosphere.

 

[Lutherf]

You did not see those suburban and other Trump voters switch back to the Democratic Party? 41 seats, worth?

Is that an overwhelming majority? Perhaps not. But regardless, that's what the majority voters sent Pelosi to do. And they were furious when she dilly dallied. I assure you that many in this country, approximately half, believe Trump has abused his power enough to warrant removal. And a majority believe he should be investigated. And that's where we are now, reflected accurately in the House hearings. So I see an extremely democratic and warranted process, here.

The Constitution was set-up to make it easy to impeach, and hard to remove. The framers designed it to make it easy for the House to present evidence to the public, but then made the bar for removal higher. I believe this is as it should be.

In the end, the People will see the evidence presented in both chambers, and their political-will will be reflected in the outcome. If the People believe their will was not reflected in the outcome, they will further exert their will next November. Whatever the outcome though, this is what our founders indeed prescribed. And straight-up, I think it's reasonable. Put it before the People.

And while this post is long, I will add what might be another wrinkle here. I believe what we are seeing is a reaction against "the tyranny of the majority by the minority". Let's not forget that in 2016, the Electoral College over-ruled the will of the citizen majority. So we are seeing rule by the minority. And this may indeed occur again in 2020, causing more unrest. Obviously, this is all Constitutional. But it still causes unrest. Especially if the majority comes to desire to change the election laws to something they believe more equitably reflects the general public desires, but are stopped by legal or institutional obstruction. I'm not sure if this issue is being discussed, but it is now becoming a more common and prevalent problem in recent elections.

If the left KNOWS that impeachment will not be supported by the senate and will have NO Republican support in either house then they are shooting themselves in the foot. The American public will look at their action as being a purely political attack (which it is) and they will pay dearly in the next election.

Yes, in 2018 a lot of people voted to get rid of Trump but that election happened BEFORE the Mueller report came out and exposed the Democrat narrative of "collusion" for the farce that it was. This impeachment is playing well with the Democrat base but beyond that base I'm pretty sure that you'll find little support and a healthy dose of disgust at the mockery Democrats are making of our institutions. If we add a report by Horowitz that shows FISA abuse and one by Durham that shows criminal behavior related to the 2016-2017 "investigations" we're more likely to see significant backlash against the Democrats.