Trump: Why aren't we entitled to 'learn everything about' the whistleblower?

Mycroft said:

It doesn't change the call at all. There's nothing in the call to change. It's completely benign.

But if those Congress pukes are breaking the law in their zeal to "get Trump", they need to answer for that.

Click to expand...

akyron said:

Says the one supporting the secret police.

Schiff Running ‘Soviet-Style’ Secret Basement Impeachment Hearings

"Schiff on Sunday defended his decision to keep the hearings secret from the American people, saying he feared that Republicans would defend the president"...


We have seen what this behavior leads to in the past.

The Great Purge of Stalin

"The Great Purge or the Great Terror was a politically motivated campaign in the Soviet Union from 1936 to 1938. Estimated 1 million people were executed. The secret police, under the reign of Joseph Stalin’s paranoia, killed more than 1,000 people per day – usually with a shot to the back of the head. Others were sent to die in concentration camps to starve and work."

Click to expand...

akyron said:

You can investigate the president or anyone by yourself. No vote necessary.

For the house to start impeachment officially, however, we have clear guidelines.

The process is followed in the interest of fairness, precedent, and institutional tradition.

"It is the intention of the Committee that its investigation
will be conducted in all respects on a fair, impartial and
bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. In this spirit, the power to
authorize subpoenas and other compulsory process is committed
by this resolution in the first instance to the Chairman and
the Ranking Minority Member acting jointly. If either declines
to act, the other may act alone, subject to the right of either
to refer the question to the Committee for decision prior to
issuance, and a meeting of the Committee will be convened
promptly to consider the question."

Both parties have equal subpoena power.

"On October 5, 1998, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported the resolution printed herein by a vote of 21
to 16, a quorum being present.
Need for the Resolution
Because the issue of impeachment is of such overwhelming
importance, the Committee decided that it must receive
authorization from the full House before proceeding on any
further course of action. Because impeachment is delegated
solely to the House of Representatives by the Constitution, the
full House of Representatives should be involved in critical
decision making regarding various stages of impeachment. With
the passage of H. Res. 525, the full House has already directed
the release of the Referral from the Independent Counsel, set
the parameters for public release of other related materials,
and directed the Committee to review the Referral and
accompanying materials in order to make a recommendation to the
House.
Also, a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry into
the conduct of a president is consistent with past practice.
According to Hind's Precedents, the ``impeachment of President
Johnson was set in motion by a resolution authorizing a general
investigation as to the execution of the laws.'' When the first
attempt to impeach President Johnson failed, the House
``referred to the Committee on Reconstruction the evidence
taken by the Judiciary Committee in the first attempt to
impeach President Johnson.'' 3 Hind's Precedents, Sec. 2408.
The impeachment investigation of President Nixon was
explicitly authorized by the full House. During debate of H.
Res. 803 in 1974, Congressman Rodino, then chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, stated:

We have reached the point when it is important that
the House explicitly confirm our responsibility under
the Constitution.
We are asking the House * * * to authorize and direct
the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate the
conduct of the President of the United States * * *.

* * * * * * *

Such a resolution has always been passed by the
House. The Committee has voted unanimously to recommend
that the House of Representatives adopt this
resolution. It is a necessary step if we are to meet
our obligations * * *."

"the Committee adopted, by voice vote, a number of protections
for the President. The President and his counsel shall be
invited to attend all executive session and open committee
hearings. The President's counsel may cross examine witnesses.
The President's counsel may make objections regarding the
pertinency of evidence. The President's counsel shall be
invited to suggest that the Committee receive additional
evidence. Lastly, the President or the President's counsel
shall be invited to respond to the evidence adduced by the
Committee at an appropriate time. The provisions will ensure
that the impeachment inquiry is fair to the President."

INVESTIGATORY POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WITH RESPECT TO ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY October 7, 1998

We have seen the desire to avoid legislative approval before. This may be why Nancy will not hold a vote legitimizing a literal "act of congress".

The act would legally endow Hitler with the power to create laws that did not require legislative approval

Click to expand...

akyron said:

A federal judge ordered the Justice Department to reveal some details related to secret grand jury information from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, as the House Judiciary Committee pursues evidence in its impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

The ruling by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell followed hours of contentious courtroom battles on Tuesday between lawyers representing the Trump administration and attorneys advocating for the Democrats in Congress.

For weeks, Democrats have been fighting the Justice Department for access to redacted portions of the 448-page Mueller report, specifically seeking grand jury material that is typically kept secret.

Howell told the Justice Department to provide by Tuesday evening more clarity about the FBI interview records from Mueller’s probe that it has already handed over to the House Judiciary Committee and to explain which witnesses it still plans to hand over records about to Congress.

The Justice Department quickly responded on Tuesday by revealing that, of the 33 individuals that the Democrats had requested FBI interview notes about, the Justice Department had already provided access to the notes for 17 of them.

“All of the FBI-302s produced to date have some level of redaction applied. Some are redacted only to protect agent and prosecutor names, personal identification information, and FBI file numbers, and thus may be 95% or more unredacted,” the Justice Department said. “Others, such as Porter and Dhillon, both senior Presidential advisors who had direct conversations with the President, are substantially redacted, perhaps as much as 75% or more. It is difficult to arrive at a precise estimation of the level of redaction in the FBI-302’s, however the Department estimates that many FBI-302s processed to date likely have 15-20% or less of the content redacted.”

The Justice Department also said that it “currently anticipates making the remaining FBI-302’s available under the agreed upon terms as processing is completed, so long as they do not adversely impact ongoing investigations and cases and subject to redaction and potential withholding in order to protect Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”

Howell gave House Democrats until Wednesday evening to identify whether any of the claims the Justice Department made Tuesday were inaccurate and to detail any times where they had challenged redactions in the FBI interview notes already handed over by the Justice Department.

Howell also told the Justice Department that, by Friday, it would need to identify how many requests to foreign governments Mueller made pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties contained grand jury information. Reaching out to foreign governments for help in Justice Department-run investigations is not uncommon, and as part of his probe Mueller made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence. The judge further told the Justice Department to identify whether, and how often, grand jury information collected during the Mueller’s investigation was shared with foreign governments under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(D), which guides the manner in which the government can disclose grand jury information in national security and counterintelligence cases.

Howell went on to direct the Justice Department to explain by Friday whether grand jury secrecy is the only basis for the redaction of material marked in the Mueller report as being withheld on the basis of grand jury secrecy, or whether other reasons for concealing that same information also apply. The judge also wants answers on why the Justice Department does not think it can lawfully release grand jury information to Congress."


The open hypocrisy of these people is stunning. Secret "hearings" indeed.

Click to expand...

Grand Mal said:

Mueller was instructed by Trumps A-G office to investigate Russian interference in the election. .

Click to expand...

dixon01767 said:

No, he was to investigate the Russian interference AND any collusion with the Trump campaign to do so. The only reason a special counsel was appointed was for this second part of the investigation.

Click to expand...

Grand Mal said:

What about the part of my post that you editted out? Do you think the investigation shouldn't have happened and what was found out should have stayed covered up?

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

There is no open American investigation into the Bidens.

Click to expand...

ClaraD said:

Right now it's just an investigation, that's why its called an inquiry

Click to expand...

akyron said:

Yes. Generic inquiry is the correct term and are a dime a dozen.

The media democrat operatives are being disingenuous.

Click to expand...

akyron said:

FYI.

Feb 2019

Click to expand...

ClaraD said:

No, because the end result will be either dismissal or articles of impeachment so it is an impeachment inquiry

Click to expand...

dixon01767 said:

Nobody thinks that. You kicked the **** out of the strawman.

Click to expand...

Grand Mal said:

So the investigation was a worthwhile effort. And well done.
It's no straw man argument. There's about a dozen conservatives here who say the whole thing was a waste of time and a failure. You've been here long enough, you've read it yourself. Try to guess how many times you've seen the term 'witch-hunt' referring to the Mueller investigation. Arguing that the investigation was needed is no straw man.
The Mueller investigation was necessary and ought to be a wake-up call. Russians will be sticking their fingers in again and who knows who else too. You guys need to be on guard.
And It's not a partisan issue. Both parties need to be aware.

Click to expand...