• 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!

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

haymarket said:
Your answer is the right one.

Trump is just being the usual Mafia don thug he is.
Click to expand...

Mafia guys like Trump always want to intimidate witnesses against them.
 
akyron said:
Yes. We can see why false accusations would be popular with the "facts don't matter" crowd.


Jussie Smollett’s neighbors cast doubt on his attack story
Claims against Kavanaugh Fall Apart
How the Media Covered False Smear of Covington Kids
Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart.

ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

We were talking specifically about the 6th amendment. You seem to have changed the topic to just reliability in general, I'm assuming because you realize you are wrong?
 
Mycroft said:
I would prefer to see a Special Prosecutor look into this whole thing...perhaps call Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and others before a Grand Jury to explain their actions.
Click to expand...

Of course you would.
Have at it I say.
You are just going to move your goal-posts accordingly, its all part and parcel of the ruse you come here to emit each day.
 
roughdraft274 said:
We were talking specifically about the 6th amendment. You seem to have changed the topic to just reliability in general, I'm assuming because you realize you are wrong?
Click to expand...

In what way?

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 4

Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III Section II

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."

The process of impeachment is a criminal trial, therefore defendants in an impeachment case are criminal defendants, such defendants would gain the protection of 5th and 6th Amendment Constitutional Rights.

The 5th and 6th Amendments were passed after the original Constitutional text, and take precedence over the original Constitutional text covering the process of impeachment.

That means Congress must afford all defendants the same rights they would have for a Court trial including:

The right to a speedy and public trial

The right to confront and compel witnesses before Congress

The right to Counsel

The right to remain silent

The right to “due process”

The protection against being tried twice for the same crime
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
This all is part of an ongoing attempt by the "intelligence community" to totally take over the government - or rather regain total control of the government.

They already have 100% absolute total control of ALL Democratic officials ala Chuck Schumer who confessed he does exactly as he is ordered by anyone and everyone in the "intelligence community." Most progressive (ie corporate-fascists) Democrats now are the same as Nazi Brownshirts.
Click to expand...

The "intelligence community" consists of civil servants who's only job is to protect you from foreign enemies. It appears you do not deserve that protection. In fact you are acting like a foreign agent out to undermine our Govt. and should be on their radar.
 
akyron said:
In what way?
Click to expand...

None of the links you posted have anything to do with the 6th Amendment. You are seeming to change your argument from 6th Amendment issues, to the problems with the reliability of anonymous reporting. Those are two different things. And either you are switching between them because you don't understand the 6th amendment or because you realize you were wrong and want to move on to another argument. Which one is it?
 
Pound4abrown said:
The trial yes.
Not the Impeachment itself.
Click to expand...

Apparently not today as for the first time in 150 years Nancy declared it a thing and did not call a vote. Why do you suppose she did that?
 
Why don't the people I threaten with death want to meet me?
 
Jay Falcon said:
~snipped the useless personal attack~

What do you want them interrogated for anyway?
Click to expand...

Well, in regard to the blower nonsense, I would ask both Nancy and Adam when they first read the Trump/Zelenskiy transcript. Both of them have intimated that they knew what was in the transcript BEFORE Trump released it. Get them under oath and ask them to explain themselves. Then, get others under oath and ask them. If there are any discrepancies...well, a Special Prosecutor would know how to proceed with unauthorized access to Presidential privileged information.
 
akyron said:
It is fascinating to watch democrats argue so vigorously against the sixth amendment.
Click to expand...
Here we go


"“The primary object of the [Confrontation Clause is] to prevent depositions of ex parte affidavits . . . [etc]
Click to expand...
The right to confront one's accuser specifically refers to criminal prosecutions. Did you not bother to actually read the 6th Amendment?

Amendment VI
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 defence. (emphasis added)

It does NOT mean that the accused can literally sit across the table from a witness and berate the individual to their heart's content. That would be witness tampering and/or obstruction of justice. Of course, we know Trump doesn't give a s*** about that, but yeah he's basically demanding to violate the law. And you are somehow trying to say that's OK, while wildly misinterpreting the Constitution.

Oh, and impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It's a political process. If the House impeaches Trump, then he will not be arrested; he won't be Mirandized; he won't have to post bail; if the Senate convicts him, he won't be fined and/or incarcerated and/or put under house arrest or receive any other type of punishment associated with a criminal conviction. He'll only be kicked out of office.


It is also interesting the bar was lowered so this latest cartoon show could start.
Click to expand...
It wasn't. You're repeating ignorant conspiracy theory BS. Whistleblowers have never been required to personally witness wrongdoing. Not to mention the WB did have some first-hand experience, and multiple claims in his complaint just happen to be true -- including problems with the call, its being placed on a "code server," Giuliani being involved, etc.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
No Hearsay Rule Change for Whistleblowers - FactCheck.org


A reasonable observant person will have little trouble picking out the fascists in the current scenario.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's pretty obvious that Trump is so deep into his delusional authoritarianism, that he convinced himself it's OK to violate US law. Sad!
 
akyron said:
Why should I allow you to limit me in any way? Democrats are not allowed to have slaves anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm not limiting you. I'm merely pointing out your evasiveness and seeming inability to stick on topic, likely because you were caught bloviating about the 6th amendment when you knew nothing about it.
 
Mycroft said:
I would prefer to see a Special Prosecutor look into this whole thing...perhaps call Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and others before a Grand Jury to explain their actions.
Click to expand...

As in exercising their Constitutional prerogatives. The Grand Jury would find that they did it.
 
iguanaman said:
The "intelligence community" consists of civil servants who's only job is to protect you from foreign enemies. It appears you do not deserve that protection. In fact you are acting like a foreign agent out to undermine our Govt. and should be on their radar.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true corporate fascist. But you have no real clue how administrative government works, do you?

At least we know you curse BLM for their accusations against police, since that is actually who "intelligence community" personnel are - federal cops.
 
Whistleblowers are no longer protected with their statements are publicly released. What the Democrats are claiming is that THEY get to know who the person is and even get to cross examine that person and release selective excepts to the MSM/press, but the accused and Republicans do not. That is just how extreme the Democratic Party has become in unlimited corruption and demanding one system that exempts them - and only them.

Once the "whistleblowers" statements were publicized, secrecy was over or otherwise it truly is absurd.

Understand, this is what Democrats in Congress (and on this forum) are really saying. They are saying that a president can be impeached on a non-man hearsay gossip mongering letter having no clue who wrote it, what the person knows or who the person is.

So, if I send a letter to the DOJ stating I want to remain anonymous claiming I heard things from other people about criminal conduct by Elizabeth Warren my identity would be kept secret and this would be basis for her being removed from the US Senate.
 
So many Democrats so much despise both logic and truth they do not see the absurd hypocrisy and absurdity of their claim. They are claiming that people in the intelligence community, members of Congress, Congressional staff members, and anyone else they want to can know the identity of the person - but that the President can't because...

They have nothing to fill in that blank with OTHER than claiming DEMOCRATIC politicians can break any laws they want to - while ranting the President has to follow rules they are exempt from.

Once the letter was released to the press and the press printed it, secrecy was over. More important, that person being in the CIA is an employee of the president, not an employee of Congress. It is the President's JOB to root out liars in the intelligence community using their position for partisan politics, not the job of Congress.
 
Waiting for anyone to quote the "Whistleblower Act" that claims that the identity of the whistleblower a secret from the President, but not others.

Quote the statute that says it is legal to release a Whistleblower statement to the press - and then it is required to hide the identity of the whistleblower from his/her superiors, which in this instance is the President.
 
joko104 said:
Spoken like a true corporate fascist. But you have no real clue how administrative government works, do you?

At least we know you curse BLM for their accusations against police, since that is actually who "intelligence community" personnel are - federal cops.
Click to expand...

LOL A fascist would try and discredit and destroy the apparatus that protects our freedoms. Oh wait... that is what you are doing.
 
joko104 said:
If the Democratic Party ever really got control of the government again they would slaughter 10s of millions of Americans and imprison 10s of millions more. They would make Hilter and Stalin seem like humanitarians and would outdo Pol Pot, which only murdered 25% of their population. The Democratic Party would murder at least 45% if they could.
Click to expand...

It usually takes a lot for me to put someone on "ignore" status, but congratulations, you did it. Buh bye.
 
akyron said:
Paywall. Useless.
Click to expand...

The pertinent text is in post.

You should try not to fail so regularly.

The choice to remain ignorant about the matter is your choice
 
Naturally, Trump does not understand why a law might exist to protect whistleblowers from people like him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom