Schiff and the Democrat are quite literally wanting to allow the complainer to testify (in private) with those members of Congress involved with the "impeachment hearings".
They are arguing that we cannot allow anyone to know who he is or question him about his known partisanship, motives, and whether or not he had reached out to any Congressional members prior to making his compliant.
While obviously this would be a move to make sure that the complainer is not discredited or that any illegal coordination was not exposed, the Democrats would have you believe that it's a matter of safety.
The problems with this logic are too many to list. But suffice it to say that the number one problem is that there is absolutely zero legal reasoning for this person to be allowed to avoid a public hearing where both Democrats and Republicans would be allowed to interview him for all of America to hear!
Regardless of the fact that the complaint was made public, the author of the complaint still does not enjoy any whistle blower status based on the interpretation of the statute by the Office of Legal Counsel.
55 comments:
So they are going to impeach Trump on "secret evidence". How very Russian of them.
Oh no. The evidence itself will be very public and open to all.
You mean the evidence the commissars only choose to make public.
It will have to be extensive, comprehensive, convincing evidence from numerous sources with firsthand information to support impeachment.
na, all it has to be is Hate for Trump.
Nov 9th, 2016 it started , Resist the Vote of the People.
Jane Alky Denise, it is all you done to date is HATE.
Most Americans don't buy into your bullshit.
55% of Americans approve of opening impeachment inquiry into President Trump, while 42% of Americans say President Trump deserves to be impeached over his dealings with Ukraine, new CBS News/YouGov poll finds. It's one of several polls showing growing support for impeachment proceedings amongst the American public.
You can be sure there won't be any "firsthand" information since the "whistleblower" would actually have to name his sources and have them put under oath.
If by some miracle that happens , then those sources will testify under oath "I never heard of this guy" and "I don't know what he's talking about."
Because the only way for this conspiracy to work is if the Whistleblower and his sources remain anonymous and unknown. Otherwise you will see them scatter like rats in the bright lights.
sMost Americans don't buy into your bullshit.
55% of Americans approve of opening impeachment inquiry into President Trump, while 42% of Americans say President Trump deserves to be impeached over his dealings
Is this another 540 adult bullshit poll?
This is the same shit we saw in 1974.
Just because of hate, anyone who dares differ with the President is anti rejection.
This is the greatest scandal ever.
He believes that he can do anything he wants as President.
You are buying into the swamp distraction attack on the Congress, that is obligated to inquire into the actions of the President! Not Hillary Clinton and her email practices.
Scott, you are a dupe. Look it up and look in the mirror and see what you have become.
The Director of Intelligence disagreed with you under oath!
"the author of the complaint still does not enjoy any whistle blower status based on the interpretation of the statute by the Office of Legal Counsel."
You are lying again Scott.
This is the greatest scandal ever.
This doesn't even rise to the level of using the IRS to punish your political opponents like Obama did.
He certainly wasn't impeached for that.
You are lying again Scott.
Actually no he's not. Just because you altered a form doesn't mean you changed the law. The law requires firsthand knowledge,
Oh no. The evidence itself will be very public and open to all.
Not if the witness is not allowed to be cross examined under oatch with all of America there to view it.
(With William Barr and a cop with handcuffs sitting in the audience if he/she lies)
The director of National Intelligence followed the Office of Legal counsel's guidance on whether or not the complainer was considered a whistle blower.
He refused to turn it over to Congress, until he was told to do so by the White House. Had he believed he was an actual whistle blower, he would have been obligated legal to turn the complaint over with or without the consent of the President.
James has made the argument that the fact that the process was done "by the books" makes it a legal whistle blower case. But, as is the way it works in the legal world, you can make your case to a Judge (or in this case the OLC) and make that case entirely by the books.
You can file your petition, your objection, your motion, or whatever you want to file. You can do so ENTIRELY BY THE BOOKS. It doesn't mean that the Judge will agree with you (simply because you did it by the books).
In this case, the complaint was done "by the books" - but the authority in this case (OLC and the DNI) determined it was not a valid whistle blower complaint.
Not if the witness is not allowed to be cross examined under oath with all of America there to view it.
Just like trump and his lies?????/ All he does is raise his voice and declare he is perfect!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAA!!!! And you accept him colluding with the russians and now ukraine........with out a care he is selling the country out for personal gain!!!! I wonder how much Ivanka has benefited from her china deal or Juniors benefitting from his dad having the AF stop at his hotels??????// BWAAAAAAAA!!!! Rudy looked like a mad man today.....waving a piece of paper claiming it was proof of something biden did!!!!! BWAAAA!!!!!
Office of Legal counsel's guidance on whether or not the complainer was considered a whistle blower.
All lead by trump appointees......just like the IG and DNI......who to believe???? No doubt you will support the ones that punted the decision through a very questionable logic trail.....Sorry Lil Scotty.....Mcguire stated it was done by the books.......or did you ignore that part like you usually do???????? BWAAAAA James wins, you keep following donnie off the cliff like a lemming...going to be and interesting week as more shit surfaces the you can't do anything about!!!!! Seems to me the tide has somewhat changed as more voters are coming out of their coma and seeing the query is needed!!!!!
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Now a congressional hearing is not exact like a public trial but when it comes to impeachment we should act as if it is.
ike a public trial but when it comes to impeachment we should act as if it is.
Another worthless opinion deserving of being ignored !!!!!!! Yeah.....everything you post is plagiarized....why is that cramps....are you embarrassed to post where you got that from??????? Why do you just hate the country???????
Well I guess liberals have decided they are not going to respect the views of the Office of Legal counsel as everyone in the legal community has for 230 years...
I would guess this change of heart over this 230 years of the entire executive branch following the guidance of the OLC would have to do with what exactly?
The bad orange man, no doubt?
Well Denny didn't feel I needed to make a cite since all adults with a minimal 10th grade education should recognize the 6th amendment to the constitution.
But then I forgot I was dealing with you.
House Socialist Democrats have already signaled much of the testimony will be behind closed doors.
why are they going to hide the truth from us.
Anything that looks like a star chamber prosecution will not go over well politically.
But anything close to a fair hearing will expose the ridiculousness of the charges and the malice of the people accusing the president.
Pick your poison.
why are they going to hide the truth from us.
Like the tax returns???? The actual transcript?? The Putin transcript???? The saudis Transcript?????? No wonder I call you the goat fucking idiot,......BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
This doesn't even rise to the level of using the IRS to punish your political opponents like Obama did.
Investigation process showed that he didn't do that.
Benghazi was investigated by the Republican majority found no evidence to support the charges.
You keep trying to distract attention from the President and his request for help from the President of Ukraine.
It had a quid pro quo.
to make a cite since all adults with a minimal 10th grade education should recognize the 6th amendment to the constitution.
Whatever you say, GED......dumb as a box of rocks.....BWAAAAAA!!!!!
The law requires firsthand knowledge, if it doesn't provide knowledge by others with first hand knowledge.
You are not a lawyer and prove it every time.
For the fourth time in American history, an impeachment inquiry into a sitting president has begun.
This time, the focus is whether President Trump courted foreign interference to hurt a leading political rival.
A whistle-blower complaint and phone call transcript show Mr. Trump repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate people and issues of political concern to Mr. Trump, including former Vice President Joe Biden. Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky met this week at the United Nation.
But it goes much deeper than that. New reporting shows that Mr. Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani ran what amounted to a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine that unfolded against the backdrop of elections in both countries.
ABC
NBC
CNN
ESPN
Have reporters attempting to find Joe Biden, right?
Conservatives have decided they are not going to respect the views of the founding fathers and the people who wrote the Constitution about 230 years ago, because they love the Orange monster.
you clearly Failed History as you failed at life.
Are you still suicidal?
God your public FB Meltdown was a pleasure to watch.
So was your crying about your eviction.
C.H. Truth said...
Oh no. The evidence itself will be very public and open to all.
Not if the witness is not allowed to be cross examined under oatch with all of America there to view it.
(With William Barr and a cop with handcuffs sitting in the audience if he/she lies)
Ch, you are surely not this stupid. I don't know whether the whistleblower will eventually have to testify publicly, but even if he or she would, what good would it do? She of he does not CLAIM to have firsthand evidence. He or she was quite open about that. And sothe people who must be cross examined are those the whistlebloer can name who expressed in his or her hearing their deep concern that the President had committed an illegal, impeachable offense.
SHEESH.
orange monster, alky?
what are you, a fucking 4 year old? is he under your bed?
greatest scandal ever, my ass. this is a contrived pile of nonsense brought to us by some nickledick TDS sufferer. honest legal experts admit there was no quid pro quo, and this is just the latest chapter in the ongoing saga -
"democrats refuse to accept the results of the 2016 presidential election."
here's the part i'm going to enjoy -
What if Trump takes advantage of Senate rules to turn the impeachment trial in the upper chamber into no-holds-barred investigations, with brutal cross-examinations of witnesses such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama?
Here’s why that could happen: First, Trump is a street fighter unlike anybody in the Oval Office since Andrew Jackson, and, if he doesn’t already know about Senate rules for the trial, the instant he learns about them, he will act accordingly. “Draining the swamp” could take on a whole new meaning.
Assuming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) approves, Trump’s defense lawyers for the trial will have wide latitude to call witnesses and subpoena documents. That could lead to devastating blows damaging Democrats for years to come, which possibility they would be foolhardy not to ponder seriously, given Trump’s love of political fisticuffs.
This was true even before the viral “Suddfluffel” circular, which recommends an impeachment trial become a cross-examination of Democrats, began making the rounds again on Facebook. Notwithstanding that pseudonymous author’s obvious bias in favor of Trump, he or she is certainly right about Senate rules. They are the exclusive province of the Senate majority, including the standards of evidence to be applied in determining the admissibility of evidence.
Even Snopes, which clearly is at least as biased against Trump as Suddfluffel is for the president, acknowledged that it can’t “say definitively what the president’s lawyers might be allowed to do.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/assessing-the-most-dangerous-what-ifs-of-the-democrats-impeach-trump-frenzy_3100040.html
drain the swamp?
heh.
if this looks like it's not going to end well for trump, he'll burn the whole fucking thing to the goddamn ground.
but even if he or she would, what good would it do?
it would put a name and a face to this third hand rumor monger's contrived pile of bullshit.
if this person has the courage of their convictions to create this much of a fucking problem they should have the courage to do so publicly.
that's not too much to ask. unless of course our intel community is chock full of fucking cowards.
an FBI full of corruption & incompetence and a CIA full of cowards. sounds about right.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Conservatives have decided they are not going to respect the views of the founding fathers and the people who wrote the Constitution about 230 years ago, because they love the Orange monster.
sorry alky. we're not the ones looking to throw away a constitution and the rules drafted 230 years ago because we lost a fucking election. but you are by your desire to shitcan the electoral college.
you can't win by the rules so you need to scrap the rule book.
you can't beat trump in a re-election battle so you must impeach him in advance of the election.
if he survives this i'm convinced you'll attempt to assassinate the man. you really are THAT fucked in the head.
It's not because he won the election.
It's what he has done since he was elected President.
He's not following the Constitution, or defending the country from all enemies foreign or domestic.
He is all about him!
The electoral college should be repealed. We should elect the only person who runs in a national wide election. The majority should win the election for President.
It's not going away, but it should!
Investigation process showed that he didn't do that.
Yeah, right.
In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. This led to wide condemnation of the agency and triggered several investigations, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder.
Initial reports described the selections as nearly exclusively of conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names. According to Republican lawmakers, liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, but at a lower rate than conservative groups. The Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee issued a report, which concluded that although some liberal groups were selected for additional review, the scrutiny that these groups received did not amount to targeting when compared to the greater scrutiny received by conservative groups. The report was criticized by the committee's Democratic minority, which said that the report ignored evidence that the IRS used keywords to identify both liberal and conservative groups.
You're such a hack.
MOVING TOWARD THE ENDGAME WITH TRUMP
Donald Trump has left America mentally and emotionally fatigued after nearly three years of manipulation of the news to keep the camera on himself, and of course simultaneously to drown out the criminal truth about Trump.
It is as if he predicted how long he might keep up the con job before the truth and the evidence of his crimes, at long last, might begin to be revealed. Thus, he has calculated the amount of daily hatred, division and irrelevancy he would need to conjure up in order to exact maximum fatigue before the fateful date arrived. It has, at long last. That leaves an important question: are Americans, who see him as he really is, too exhausted for the forthcoming battle, as some news outlets suggest?
I think not. My impression is a lot of people are tired of being made to feel impotent by the news media across the ideological spectrum, and just want to know where they can go to push a button or demonstrate or call their Congresspersons to get rid of the psychic wound of Donald Trump, and resume building a forward looking society, with political institutions that better reflect who we are collectively.
There is a perversity in the manner in which the Fox News and the MSNBCs of our media world just keep lobbing the ball in the air to force us to stay tuned in and selling ads for them, in a kind of daily ritual that goes nowhere except toward the remote control, and perhaps some sort of mental health diagnosis. The majority of Americans know what’s wrong with him, they just want a meaningful way to end it.
There is no doubt the constitutional battle of our lifetime has begun. There is enough in the materials already released to impeach him in a constitutionally fair forum, it is a matter of bringing it home and getting the job done. We tune into liberal news media hoping they will help bring us together around our task, but that expectation leaves most of us feeling empty and unfulfilled.
Both the liberal news media and the Democrats can still screw this up, with their tendency to beat simple and powerful facts into unrecognizable splinters. There’s nothing like having ten self-congratulatory television guests trying to out-intellectualize each other in a kind of hyper-excited, unconscious teenage sexual swarm.
Trump counts on this helping his goal of exhausting the public, creating an opening through which he can finish the greatest con job in the history of America, and hopefully resume control - which he never really gave up - of his greatly enhanced business empire. It’s our job to stop him.
It’s going to be a battle, Trump is a malicious counterpuncher willing to do anything to save his own rear end. But his support is cracking while ours solidifies. This will mean more people will leak information as they sense Trump is becoming less powerful, less lucky, and less charismatic. He looks increasingly hideous under pressure, and even many of his supporters dislike him personally. The Senate, regardless of our fear of losing, must be forced into a vote before the election.
It’s going to get rough, but our folks are ready. We just needed an opportunity. It’s here. . . .
Copyright 2019 by Charlie Abourezk.
The original claim was that the filters that the IRS's tax-exempt organizations unit had used were biased against right-wing groups. Now, it turns out that even that was not true. In addition to keywords like "tea party," the unit was also looking for words like "occupy," "progressive," and "green energy."
Actually, that information is not new. We have known for years that the IRS was using both left- and right-oriented search terms, but this report provides exhaustive documentation of that fact.
As tax professor Philip Hackney points out, the non-scandal was always a two-part story: (1) the IRS targeted right-wing groups for extra scrutiny, and (2) the Obama Administration had ordered them to do so.
We never had any proof that the second part was true. Indeed, as I argued all along, it would amount to political malpractice for the Obama people to engage in that kind of dirty trick, because it was so pointless. "We're going to win by having the IRS slow down tax-exempt status applications from tiny local Tea Party groups, none of which have enough money to tax in the first place."
Now, we have proof that the first prong of the non-scandal was never true. The IRS did use politically-oriented search terms to try to sort through applicants for inappropriate levels of political activity, but it did not do so on a partisan or ideological basis. And even so, they stopped using those search terms, in an effort to avoid even the appearance of political intent in their reviews.
For the fourth time in American history, an impeachment inquiry into a sitting president has begun.
Actually no it hasn't. There is no formal resolution for an impeachment inquiry that was voted on because (No surprise here) the Democrats are too chickenshit to hold one.
Subsequent hearings turned up no evidence Obama had ordered the IRS to target conservatives because the IRS did not in fact target conservatives. The fact some conservatives had a hard time dealing with the IRS did not prove the IRS is targeting conservatives any more than some conservatives having a hard time renewing their driver’s licenses would prove the DMV is targeting conservatives.
By Thanksgiving day, the House of Representatives will have a vote to charge the President of impeachable offenses.
For the chronically, willfully stupid.
The Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee issued a report, which concluded that although some liberal groups were selected for additional review, the scrutiny that these groups received did not amount to targeting when compared to the greater scrutiny received by conservative groups.
There was an investigation and
It concluded the Obama administration deliberately targeted their political opponents.
What if Trump takes advantage of Senate rules to turn the impeachment trial in the upper chamber into no-holds-barred investigations, with brutal cross-examinations of witnesses such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama?
Here’s why that could happen: First, Trump is a street fighter unlike anybody in the Oval Office since Andrew Jackson, and, if he doesn’t already know about Senate rules for the trial, the instant he learns about them, he will act accordingly. “Draining the swamp” could take on a whole new meaning.
He could also call previously immune congressmen and women like Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and put them under oath and subpoena documents like strategy memos, political papers, etc.
That will be something to see.
The Whistleblower,it was just announced,
is currently under Federal protection.
I hope he gets better protection than Epstein!
If you actually had read English.
It concluded the Obama administration did not deliberately targeted their political opponents.
I SAID:
The evidence itself will be very public and open to all.
CH SAID:
Not if the witness is not allowed to be cross examined under oatch with all of America there to view it.
(With William Barr and a cop with handcuffs sitting in the audience if he/she lies)
I SAY:
How dramatic!
Ch, you are surely not that stupid. I don't know whether the whistleblower will eventually have to testify publicly, but even if he or she would, what good would it do?
She of he does not CLAIM to have firsthand evidence.
He or she was quite open about that.
And so the only people who need to be cross examined are those the whistleblower has, he or she said, actually expressed in his or her hearing their deep concern that the President committed an illegal, impeachable offense.
SHEESH.
By Thanksgiving day, the House of Representatives will have a vote to charge the President of impeachable offenses.
And by December 25th, he will be found NOT GUILTY by the Senate
Merry Christmas! Exoneration!!!!!
So, you want to turn the impeachment trial in the Senate, into an investigation of President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
You don't give a shit about the Constitution, because you're political bias against people who dare to disagree with Trump are enemies of the people.
You want them charged with treason and put to death.
Barack Obama will have to testify in an open senate session. So will Eric Holder. Loretta Lynch Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Maxine Waters, Andrew McCabe, Peter Stoz.
You want to see a political colonoscopy? That's what you're going to have when Trump is finished with the Democrats,
Oh and James Comey and Loretta Lynch.
James...
The only person that the complainer named has already stated that he was not actually even part of the original phone call. So if that person has any information, then it's also second hand.
Otherwise the complainer has not offered anyone else that they could call as a witness. The complainer may not actually know ANYONE who actually provides first hand information.
Likely if the complainer did know someone, they would not have gotten so many facts wrong.
You are left with what a Judge would not allow to even be presented at trial to do what exactly, considering they don't pretend to have any actual "evidence" of any criminal wrong doing.
Perhaps when you put two and two together, you will see why this whole thing is a farce.
Post a Comment