Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

[iguanaman]

I guess you folks have never of due process in this country. If the police do an illegal search that turns up evidence that someone did a crime, then nothing from the search can be used at trial. So if the original complaint falls under that category then the follow ups caused by the original WB complaint in this case is "poinsoned"

Now folks can say the impeachment process is not a trial and is just a political action (Stunt?). That being the case then folks in the House know they are voting on something that has no chance of actually convicting someone but has the effect of hopefully hurting the president and senators who do not vote to convict.

I wouldn't mind Trump losing in 2020 thus I am afraid this tactic will backfire as it did in 1998.

LOL First of all "due process" never takes place in a criminal inquiry. You should know that. There is nothing illegal about the WB complaint either. It was done according to the law. Second the point of impeaching Trump in the House is to force Republican senators to vote to acquit a President who obviously has been proven guilty of abusing his office by committing bribery and obstructing justice by withholding information and witnesses. The House doesn't really have a choice in this either. They would be derelict in their duty if they did not pursue impeachment.

 

[JasperL]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think both sides, Republicans and Democrats should be able to call all the witnesses they want. Some may be relevant, others not.

Right, but oddly you are completely silent about POTUS invoking an unlimited "privilege" argument to prevent his own staff from testifying or providing any of the requested documents. Your concern runs only ONE way - in the way that best helps Trump and the GOP. Your both sides narrative doesn't hide your obvious bias here.

 

[HumblePi]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think both sides, Republicans and Democrats should be able to call all the witnesses they want. Some may be relevant, others not.

There's no reason whatsoever to call witnesses that have nothing at all to do with the Ukraine scandal. Any so-called 'investigations' into Hillary Clinton (yes she was mentioned as a target) or Joe Biden is completely political witch-hunting for the sake of Trump's 2020 reelection, nothing else. Hunter Biden was cleared of any wrongdoing in 2015. If Donald Trump wanted to do an investigation into what he perceives was some kind of violations on the part of Joe Biden, he could have opened up a REAL investigation on his own in 2016, or 2017 or 2018 using our own intelligence agencies to do that investigation. But, he did not. He waited for the looming 2020 election to suddenly want Ukraine to do this for him once Joe Biden announced his candidacy. It's crystal clear why Trump suddenly decided this was a priority and to use a foreign government to accomplish his little dirt digging expedition and it is just absolutely wrong.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Does the defense call witnesses before a grand jury?

The House is not a Grand Jury. This is not a criminal investigation. It's a political witch hunt.
But I don't need to tell you that. Everyone already knows that fact!

 

[BlueTex]

The House is not a Grand Jury. This is not a criminal investigation. It's a political witch hunt.
But I don't need to tell you that. Everyone already knows that fact!

Can we conclude then that all the blathering about "due process" is just that, blathering?

 

[calamity]

It's working

Lindsey Graham: Impeachment inquiry is 'invalid' without whistleblower's testimony - CNNPolitics

 

[Mach]

The House is not a Grand Jury. This is not a criminal investigation. It's a political witch hunt.
But I don't need to tell you that. Everyone already knows that fact!

So you can't defend your position. don't fell bad, no Trump defender can, especially not on this matter.

The Senate will conduct a trial that is fair and balanced, presumably, and it will be presided over by Chief Justice Roberts.
The current investigators, can choose how they investigate. They have Constitutional authority to do so.
And, compared to other investigations, it's already more open and accessible than it probably should be, but Republicans cried that it wasn't public.
Now that it's public, they are crying that they need access to the Whistle-blower, Hunter Biden, and a partridge in a pear tree. Democrats aren't having it, as is appropriate.

The trial will be in the Senate, that's where prosecution and defense have rules and equal opportunity. You know this, you're just gaslighting.
And in that supposed trial, it's stacked IN FAVOR of Trump, because it's a terrible flawed system IN FAVOR of Republicans rights now, because of the Republican majority in the Senate. The only way it would be a fair trial, is if all those Republicans ignored their own job/chance at re-election, and make an entirely un-partisan judgement...which will never happen.

So if you want to complain about the systems, complain that the Senate "trial" portion, as a result of the jury being both stacked in favor of Trump, and entirely motivated by things other than the facts (their job!), you can clearly see that the Senate should afford equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats voting on impeachment only, and Judge Roberts would break a tie. Sounds more fair than the Senate farce that we'll no doubt see in December.

 

[SkyFox76]

I've said multiple times that even if the whistleblower was Hillary Clinton herself, it wouldn't change the fact that all of the central claims in the WB report have been corroborated and confirmed by multiple people with first hand knowledge under sworn testimony. And it wouldn't change the fact that the President extorted a foreign government to smear his rival and rig our election.

Apparently some of these people have the impression that it was the WB and their attorney who managed to create this who Ukraine/QPQ situation. It doesn't click that it was in fact the president and some around him making all the bad moves that were then reported on and now corroborated. It's the whole "look what you made me do" argument. Big meanie Trump hating attorney manipulated all of them into the perfect web. And then crunch!

 

[JasperL]

Wait - do you mean let the facts be gathered, evidence reviewed, and speculation ignored until the whole lot has been put together rather than participating in the non-stop 24/7 public trial where everyone gets their information from their favorite propaganda (aka News) sources that they use to make their premature judgements? You, sir/madam are an off the rails, a full-blown conspiracy theorist! ;-)

If history tells us one thing it's that what we think today is *never* the full story. Waiting for things to play out, preferably without all of the unnecessary drama that goes along with it, is the only thing that yields consistently accurate results. But that's no fun, is it?

Back to the topic, one thing that surprises me (but shouldn't) is that the actions taken by Trump are predictable and normal in the political arena. The only differentiation is that, allegedly, Trump acted in his personal interest (gee - never heard of any politician doing that!). However, I'd ask that if there were no election involved would it be wrong to investigate potential criminal activity? Of course not, so this is entirely about optics - what it appears to be - rather than what it is.

Mind you, I am no fan of Trump. At all. But the actions that are being used against him are really, really extreme. I agree with Perotista: Time will tell, and it's probably not in anyone's best interest to be consumed by politics as usual...

That's right - IF there was no election involved, this would be fine. So, name a single other crooked American with dealings in any country that was the subject of a very specific demand by Trump for a foreign country to put that U.S. citizen under it's own investigatory thumb, outside and in place of an official FBI or DoJ inquiry. I'd say we'll wait but of course there are no other examples, and I don't think you can find another example in the past 50 years of such a case.

That's the point. It's so outside normal channels that it is to my knowledge unheard of, a one off, never seen before, and it involved Trump's most likely opponent in the 2020 elections. You're asking us to treat it as routine, but it's just NOT routine. It's extraordinary in every sense, and not acceptable.

Let's say there was, however, a genuine concern about Joe Biden. OK, then it's MORE important than for perhaps any other person in the U.S. to investigate it through normal, official, channels, just because it involves someone with such a high profile, and the risk that the investigation will be seen as political hit job. Instead, Trump outsourced it to his personal attorney who was, by the way, also representing a couple of now indicted thugs also with business in Ukraine and who had targeted our Ambassador to Ukraine with a lie filled hit job to get her ousted. None of that is routine, normal, as it should have been done in a legitimate inquiry.

 

[Logical1]

But the so called whistle blower is the alpha liar in this kangaroo court. Of course he needs to appear.

 

[trixare4kids]

Wait - do you mean let the facts be gathered, evidence reviewed, and speculation ignored until the whole lot has been put together rather than participating in the non-stop 24/7 public trial where everyone gets their information from their favorite propaganda (aka News) sources that they use to make their premature judgements? You, sir/madam are an off the rails, a full-blown conspiracy theorist! ;-)

If history tells us one thing it's that what we think today is *never* the full story. Waiting for things to play out, preferably without all of the unnecessary drama that goes along with it, is the only thing that yields consistently accurate results. But that's no fun, is it?

Back to the topic, one thing that surprises me (but shouldn't) is that the actions taken by Trump are predictable and normal in the political arena. The only differentiation is that, allegedly, Trump acted in his personal interest (gee - never heard of any politician doing that!). However, I'd ask that if there were no election involved would it be wrong to investigate potential criminal activity? Of course not, so this is entirely about optics - what it appears to be - rather than what it is.

Mind you, I am no fan of Trump. At all. But the actions that are being used against him are really, really extreme. I agree with Perotista: Time will tell, and it's probably not in anyone's best interest to be consumed by politics as usual...

Excellent commentary, and welcome to the forum. :thumbs:

 

[calamity]

lol...there probably never was a whistleblower. But, Trump, like the cheater he is, assumed there was someone telling on him.


He's like the philandering husband who comes home late, hears his wife say, "I know where you've been," and then spills the beans. :lamo

 

[Marine Electric]

But the so called whistle blower is the alpha liar in this kangaroo court. Of course he needs to appear.

What did s/he lie about and why does s/he need to appear?

Explain?

 

[Cordelier]

This only applies to covert agents. Not all CIA employees are covert agents. There is no indication this particular CIA employee was a covert agent.

Without knowing their identity, though, that's a matter of conjecture, is it not? I'd say that the fact that they work for the CIA as opposed to, for example, the Department of Agriculture, leaves a reasonable possibility that they certainly could be classified as a "covert agent".

 

[Cordelier]

Valerie Plame was an actual covert agent at the time her identity was revealed...minus the cool car and cigarette darts of course.

All due respect, we only knew that because her identity was revealed. We can't say that for a fact yet with the WB.

 

[ClaraD]

It's working

Lindsey Graham: Impeachment inquiry is 'invalid' without whistleblower's testimony - CNNPolitics

have to wonder what Lindsey will say now. Hell he has been lying to South Carolinians for decades about being gay, I sure as hell don't expect he will be honest about this either.

 

[tosca1]

You obviously missed the entire spirit of the statute. For ****s sake, it's called the Whistleblower Protection Act.

:shock:

Did you read it? :lol:

There's no law that says you cannot reveal the identities of whistleblowers!

 

[tosca1]

Sorry - gave you the wrong law - try the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

50 USC §3121

Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

[USC02] 50 USC 3121: Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources


That's different. That's for agents working undercover!
Of course, identities of COVERT agents are protected!

Like someone working undercover to infiltrate the Mafia, or the informers used by cops to nail some bad guys - you know, like in the movies!

 

[Cordelier]

From 50 USC §3126 (4):

(4) The term "covert agent" means-
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency-
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and-
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

Just because the WB may currently be an analyst, it doesn't necessarily mean that he hasn't "served outside the United States" as a covert agent within the last 5 years.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

Because a lot of other officials have already confirmed it. Including ambassadors, envoys, other WH staff. And actually even Trump's Chief of Staff, and Trump himself.

The whistleblower's role is to blow the whistle, then step aside and let the investigation happen.

It's similar to someone pulling the fire alarm when there is a fire. Typically that person then steps aside and lets the firemen do their job. The firemen don't need to interview the person if they see all the flames raging on.

So I guess the Dems want to preserve the whistleblower. I mean, crazy like Trumpsters are, the WB might get killed.

Oh well, I didn't read the thread. I responded to the OP because I wanted to make the fire alarm analogy. I'm sure others here have already pointed to these ideas.

 

[Cordelier]

Because a lot of other officials have already confirmed it. Including ambassadors, envoys, other WH staff. And actually even Trump's Chief of Staff, and Trump himself.

The whistleblower's role is to blow the whistle, then step aside and let the investigation happen.

It's similar to someone pulling the fire alarm when there is a fire. Typically that person then steps aside and lets the firemen do their job. The firemen don't need to interview the person if they see all the flames raging on.

So I guess the Dems want to preserve the whistleblower. I mean, crazy like Trumpsters are, the WB might get killed.

Oh well, I didn't read the thread. I responded to the OP because I wanted to make the fire alarm analogy. I'm sure others here have already pointed to these ideas.

It isn't just the WB's safety that might be at risk here.... if he falls under the definition of "covert agent" and has served in the field within the last 5 years, uncovering his identity could expose ongoing operations and place operatives at risk. I don't know if that's the case, but it's certainly a possibility.

 

[digsbe]

The only reason Schiff doesn't want the whisteblower to have to give testimony is he knows it's likely their identity will compromise the legitimacy/bias behind this completely partisan sham of an impeachment inquiry. Thank goodness the Senate is sane enough to nearly make sure this stop dead in its tracks if the deeply partisan House Democrats want to abuse the chamber to attack the president without just cause.

 

[Marine Electric]

Did you read it? :lol:

There's no law that says you cannot reveal the identities of whistleblowers!

That's like saying it's legal to stab someone in the throat because the exact words aren't specifically annotated in the murder statute.

But I get it - you're desperate.

:2wave:

 

[SkyFox76]

How does knowing the ID of the WB change any of the facts of the case?

This is probably the 20th time this question has been asked. I've yet to see any answers other than trying to suggest the person had an axe to grind so he needs to be known. Or even better, his attorney hates Trump. :lamo

 

[Cordelier]

I just had a thought... remember back when President Trump came into office and he appointed Steve Bannon to the National Security Council and we all scratched our heads?

What if he did it because he planned to use foreign policy for partisan gain all along? What if he has been using it all along?