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

So what then we should move forward with other things. Because you are basically ramming this impeachment through because you already know that would give warren a advance point because she’s weaker then trump. You know that Pence is not the popular choice. So if you stop the president from seeking reelection you have to find something that would be a impeachmentable case which it isn’t. I pray that this costs you people the midterms. You can have your political correctness oval office back, but, I pray that congress is bloody red and, yes, we are going to do the same thing as you are.

Chomsky said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sure, the majority casting votes did not want Trump - but in the only poll that matters, he won. The majority of Republicans didn't want Trump either - but our messed up primary system and a weird series of events put him on the ticket. (I'd bet the majority of Democrats didn't want Hillary either - but she had the right connections and no strong candidate wanted to run against her). We had the two of the worst candidates of modern history running, and Trump was the winner.

Despite the polls - which this early are meaningless - he's the incumbent and Democrats need to get their act together if they want to win.

Chomsky said:

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.

Click to expand...

yep

these are awful people.

Chomsky said:

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.

Click to expand...

While there are arguments both ways on whether a person being impeached is entitled to due process - it's ingrained into our legal culture, and the precedent is well established. There's no way that Roberts (or any chief justice) is going to disallow questioning of a potentially key witness.

dcsports said:

Sure, the majority casting votes did not want Trump - but in the only poll that matters, he won. The majority of Republicans didn't want Trump either - but our messed up primary system and a weird series of events put him on the ticket. (I'd bet the majority of Democrats didn't want Hillary either - but she had the right connections and no strong candidate wanted to run against her). We had the two of the worst candidates of modern history running, and Trump was the winner.

Despite the polls - which this early are meaningless - he's the incumbent and Democrats need to get their act together if they want to win.

Click to expand...

I couldn't' agree more with everything you wrote.

dcsports said:

While there are arguments both ways on whether a person being impeached is entitled to due process - it's ingrained into our legal culture, and the precedent is well established. There's no way that Roberts (or any chief justice) is going to disallow questioning of a potentially key witness.

Click to expand...

Quit honestly - beyond knowing Roberts will be presiding, I have only a vague idea of the protocols. What I do know is, the only rule is that there are no rules! And this was ratified in Nixon v U.S. Senate (judge Nixon - not President Nixon), where SCOTUS forever excused themselves from being allowed to review impeachment-removal.

Also let's not forget that while Roberts constitutionally must preside over the proceedings, the Senate can over-rule him in any matter whenever they see fit. In effect, Roberts is legally beholden to the wishes of Senators. But where Robert could be a danger to them, is politically. If he rules 'x', and the senators over-rule him stating 'y', there could be political consequences.

Chomsky said:

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.

Click to expand...

When this law was passed, no one in their right mind ever considered a WB report would involve a President.

Now for those of an age might well remember what the Republican Party once stood for.
Sadly for the US, that is not the case.

Regardless it involves a sitting President, applies to him as well.

Lutherf said:

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.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they believe they are doing it because it's the right thing and they are fulfilling their Constitutional duty? I very much believe so, personally.

Regardless, they are our representatives and as such they need to represent our wishes. The last numbers I saw were over 90% of the Dems want an impeachment inquiry, and well over 80% want impeachment right now. Are our representatives suppose to ignore us? The ones that put them in office? And conversely, the ones that can remove them?

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.

Click to expand...

Remains to be seen.

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.

Click to expand...

Alright, you are right about the bolded. But since then, Ukraine came about. Have you looked at the polling since then, in terms of impeachment and Trump's popularity now with Ukraine? The impeachment numbers have never been higher. Nhot even close. Imagine if the 2018 election occurred today. Wanna' bet instead of Trump losing 41 seats, it would be 50 or 60?

As for Durham, I see another Benghazi. No disrespect. But it's time to move-on from old history like the Clintons et al, and address the guy in the Oval Office trying to throw the upcoming election. That's the gravest danger we face. It strikes at the very heart of democracy.

JacksinPA said:

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?

Click to expand...

Why would the whistleblower need to testify in public if the facts of their complaint are corroborated by virtually every other witness?

CaughtInThe said:

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.

Click to expand...

It does. That's why they so desperately want the WB to appear publicly, so they can try and deflect from what happened by launching an undoubtedly despicable attack on the WB. I doubt it will be much different from their other attacks, particularly if the WB has brown skin:

JustHanging said:

Why would the whistleblower need to testify in public if the facts of their complaint are corroborated by virtually every other witness?

Click to expand...

The principles of due process and general fairness which have been enshrined into our legal system.

Yes, the constitution doesn't spell out that this is required of an impeachment, but they've applied it by precedent, and there would be howls of protest (rightfully) from all sides about this being a 'sham' (and it would be) if these principles aren't followed. We need it to be an open, fair, and public process.

And worth noting.... there is a lot of question marks regarding what's come out in this case.

Lutherf said:

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.

Click to expand...

I believe this is a huge risk for the Dems. They have gone too far to turn back now. It will be very interesting to see the reaction when the Senate shoots it down.

TamleeB said:

I believe this is a huge risk for the Dems. They have gone too far to turn back now. It will be very interesting to see the reaction when the Senate shoots it down.

Click to expand...

There is going to need to be a lot of clarity from the Republican side of WHY it gets shot down. If the GOP comes out with a "this is all about undoing 2016" narrative they will take a hit. If, instead, they explain that "high crimes and misdemeanors" really should include a crime or a misdemeanor instead of just "the Democrats say it's their job" they'll be better off. If Horowitz or Durham cast a little shade on the "Crossfire Hurricane" origins the Democrats are at serious risk of a massacre.