Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

[Perotista]

Admittedly, Lindsay Grahams are a dime a dozen. I don't trust the show horses. But I can appreciate the work horses. Senator Kennedy is a lot further to the right than I am, and I know he can dish out the red meat as much as anyone, but he can be fair as well. Kind of like Goldwater in '74.

I agree. Barry was sort of a political mentor to me. I back him in 1964 while still in High School. He was a straight shooter. It was time for Nixon to go, Goldwater knew this and told Nixon so. It might be time for Trump to go also. I don't know. I might be looking differently on this whole mess if the Democrats hadn't set out to destroy Trump since the day after the election. That certainly has tainted my thinking. I can't at the moment separate fact from fiction, political propaganda from the truth. I'm probably better off to just keep my mouth shut and my fingers off the keyboard until I can.

 

[apdst]

How the **** did you com upi with tha idiocy?

Is that English? Something related to a reaction ship, or something different? :lamo

 

[Perotista]

Yeah thats because the Republicans are wrong.

That's the problem isn't it. The Republicans think the Democrats are wrong, the Democrats think the Republicans are wrong. Stalemate, Mexican Stand Off. Usually in a case like that, I discard both Republicans and Democrats and take a good hard look at how independents, those not affiliated with either major party thinks about it or about any issue, policy or what have you. That does me no good on this. They just as split as the major parties. On average, roughly 35% support impeachment, 35% do not, the other 30% are in the not sure, undecided or plain don't care column. So basically we have a 50-50 split.

I suppose we'll just have to let this whole thing play out and whatever happens, happens.

 

[prometeus]

Is that English? Something related to a reaction ship, or something different? :lamo

Well at least you acknowledge that your post is complete idiocy, but cudos to you for pointing out my typos.

 

[Perotista]

You haven't heard a word, you just took the opportunity to criticize Democrats for not doing what they've done a lot of, but that you didn't know about because it doesn't matter to you, except as a club with which to beat Democrats...



And yet you can't even begin to explain what's unfair about not bringing the WB up to get smeared when he has nothing to add on the facts, and don't care that Trump is prohibiting all those closest to him from testifying or providing documents or other information, which it would seem would add to a "fair" process, but I guess not in your view. :roll:

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.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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

50 USC §3121

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The whistleblower wasn't engaging in espionage as a covert agent.

This is the relevant law:

50 U.S. Code SS 3033 - Inspector General of the Intelligence Community | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(3)The Inspector General is authorized to receive and investigate, pursuant to subsection (h), complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety. Once such complaint or information has been received from an employee of the intelligence community—
(A)the Inspector General shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosure is made to an official of the Department of Justice responsible or determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken, and this provision shall qualify as a withholding statute pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of section 552 of title 5 (commonly known as the “Freedom of Information Act”); and

There's also another part of the general inspector general/whistleblower regulations that apply to all whistleblowers throughout the government:

United States Code: Title 5a,7. Complaints by employees; disclosure of identity; reprisals | LII / Legal Information Institute

(b) The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.

 

[prometeus]

I might be looking differently on this whole mess if the Democrats hadn't set out to destroy Trump since the day after the election.

And the moron Trump kep feeding them with material every day. Just imagine, having won the election he had a golden oportunity to wipe away everything that made him the piece of crap that he is and come out as a uniter at a time we as a nation desperately needed it. Instead he doubled down and has shown that is truly is a piece of crap.

 

[BlueTex]

That is where the third co-equal branch comes in. The courts will decide which, if any, of the subpoenas issued by Congress are more important than executive privilege. It is almost like it was designed that way. To top it off, it works that way no matter which political party is in the white house or is in control of Congress. It makes it a little bit harder for the process to be purely partisan, which is probably why you do not like it.

There is no such thing as blanket executive privilege...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mach]

if you will involves our judicial process where one let's only the evidence, witness and stacks the jury to guarantee the preferred results.

Since this isn't a trial yet, it doesn't apply...the trial will be the one where it matters. But worse, the trial will be stacked in favor of Trump...the opposite of your attempt at criticism.

So what do you call the impending impeachment trial since it violates the standards you believe are important? A farce? Face it, the House investigation is proceeding more openly that 99% of investigations in the U.S.
The trial, will all be public, as trials typically are.

So you have nothing legitimate to be commenting on here, other than the fact that the eventual Senate trial, based on the fact that it's stacked in Trump's favor, will be a farce. The opposite of your attempt above.

If the House won't play by the rules, why should one expect the senate to do so? This in my mind is telling us there is something out there the House Democrats don't want the public to know or find out about.

The House is playing by the rules...the Republicans cried about it being private, but testimony has been made public, and next week will be a lot of public testimony.

Remember, this is just the investigation phase...investigations are normally private...this has a ton of public testimony out there, with public testimony this week and even televised.
In the TRIAL at the senate (the one that is unethically stacked in Trump's favor, like a lynching you remarked on), the rules will be similar to any other trial in that prosecution and defense will have turns.

And the outcome is stacked in Trump's favor, as a result of a Republican majority deciding the outcome. Oops.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Schiff and his staff already outed him in a transcript they released but failed to redact his name.

interesting, this would be news to me.

 

[SkyFox76]

The WB's motivations are far from irrelevant. He was the impetus to getting the impeachment ball rolling.

As has been said over and over again the WB's motivations don't mean diddly. What matters were the claims in the complaint and those claims have been verified not only by Trump, but also his administration and most of the people who have testified. If the claims had turned out to be lies then great, string him/her up. But they weren't lies so their part in this has passed.

 

[Cordelier]

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The whistleblower wasn't engaging in espionage as a covert agent.

This is the relevant law:

50 U.S. Code SS 3033 - Inspector General of the Intelligence Community | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute



There's also another part of the general inspector general/whistleblower regulations that apply to all whistleblowers throughout the government:

United States Code: Title 5a,7. Complaints by employees; disclosure of identity; reprisals | LII / Legal Information Institute

True... The Inspector General Act of 1978 is that right one... but he also is a CIA Employee and as such, is covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Anyone learning of his identity and subsequently revealing it would be in violation of that law.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

That's the problem isn't it.

Not really. If you examine the facts the Republicans are objectively and demonstrably wrong, unless the Republicans no longer believe in things like duty, honor, and country.

The President took an oath.

This was his oath:

Article II, Section One, Clause 8 - "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the impeachment clause:

Article II, 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.

This is the definition of high Crimes and Misdemeanors:

What Does ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ Actually Mean? - The Atlantic

President Trump abused the power of the office of the Presiden by attempting to extort President Zelenskyy into investigating his main political rival in an upcoming election in exchange for a sale of javelin missiles. It was later found out via Sondland and Taylor that this extortion attempt eventually came to include hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid authorized by Congress. We know it was not in U.S. national interests to withhold aid to Ukraine. The aid had bipartisan support in Congress, and the DOD, per the law which Trump himself signed, was tasked with certifying whether or not Ukraine had made enough progress to combat corruption. The DOD did certify this was true. The President's NSC was unanimous about their support for military aid to Ukraine. The only people who disagreed were Trump, and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. They argued that Ukraine needed to do more to combat corruption, but the only specific cases they could reference somehow happened to only concern Trump personally.

I suppose we'll just have to let this whole thing play out and whatever happens, happens.

I am very sympathetic to your approach and your political views. However, I have come to the conclusion that Trump and the burgeoning authoritarian ideology coalescing around him and his cult represent an existential threat to our Republic. When Trump's lawyers are in court arguing that Trump can never be criminally investigated because of unconstitutional ideas such as "absolute immunity" -- an idea which has no basis in our history, or laws, or the Constitution -- that's when we know they are on the wrong side of the argument.

 

[Crossfire]

There is no such thing as blanket executive privilege...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who suggested there was? The executive branch can claim executive privilege when they feel it is necessary, and then a court or several courts, up to and possibly including the Supreme Court will determine if it was justified. That is how it works, regardless of whether random internet forum guy agrees.

 

[justintime]

I suppose we'll just have to let this whole thing play out and whatever happens, happens.

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...

 

[calamity]

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?

Excellent troll move by Adam. He'll have the Right spewing spittle all week over this. :lamo

 

[BlueTex]

Who suggested there was? The executive branch can claim executive privilege when they feel it is necessary, and then a court or several courts, up to and possibly including the Supreme Court will determine if it was justified. That is how it works, regardless of whether random internet forum guy agrees.

They assert executive privilege during testimony, not in advance..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crossfire]

True... The Inspector General Act of 1978 is that right one... but he also is a CIA Employee and as such, is covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Anyone learning of his identity and subsequently revealing it would be in violation of that law.

It looks like that law covers "covert agents". I do not believe your run of the mill analyst is covered by that one.

 

[Cordelier]

I agree. Barry was sort of a political mentor to me. I back him in 1964 while still in High School. He was a straight shooter. It was time for Nixon to go, Goldwater knew this and told Nixon so. It might be time for Trump to go also. I don't know. I might be looking differently on this whole mess if the Democrats hadn't set out to destroy Trump since the day after the election. That certainly has tainted my thinking. I can't at the moment separate fact from fiction, political propaganda from the truth. I'm probably better off to just keep my mouth shut and my fingers off the keyboard until I can.

Hell, I don't think that's ever a good idea, Perotista. I know it seems like this has been going on since he came into office.... but let's face it, it's not like he hasn't been asking for it all along. He's certainly done more to ask for this than Clinton ever did, and look how rabidly they went after him! Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, White House Travel Office, Vince Foster, etc., etc.... just as soon as one got put to bed, another one popped up out of nothing. At least this is about something significant.

 

[Crossfire]

They assert executive privilege during testimony, not in advance..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess the courts will have to decide on that one, right?

 

[Cordelier]

It looks like that law covers "covert agents". I do not believe your run of the mill analyst is covered by that one.

I don't know... it covered Valerie Plame - it's not like she was 007.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

True... The Inspector General Act of 1978 is that right one... but he also is a CIA Employee and as such, is covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Anyone learning of his identity and subsequently revealing it would be in violation of that law.

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.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I don't know... it covered Valerie Plame - it's not like she was 007.

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

 

[Crossfire]

I don't know... it covered Valerie Plame - it's not like she was 007.

Perhaps because she worked in the field undercover. I do not know.

 

[JasperL]

You don't seem to understand, I don't give an owl's hoot if Trump is impeached and removed or not. But I want it done fairly, denying someone a witness or more that may or may not be relevant to what is taking place isn't in my judgement, fair. There's several definitions of lynching. One would be your old wild west lynch mobs who break a guy out of jail and string him up at the nearest tree or just grab someone and string him up with no trial or nothing. Another form of lynching if you will involves our judicial process where one let's only the evidence, witness and stacks the jury to guarantee the preferred results.

No one is preventing anyone with any knowledge of the activities in question from testifying. Rudy refuses, as do all those in the WH, on the orders of TRUMP who prohibits them from testifying, refuses to provide documents, or from cooperating in any way with the proceedings. The ACCUSED has veto over witnesses closest to him and who are therefore MOST able to testify under oath about what happened. That's so far from a LYNCHING in any rational sense that you can't see it from there with a telescope. It's in fact 180 degrees from a lynching. If anything what we're seeing is obstruction by the accused, POTUS.

And the JURY is the Senate. How is the House stacking the jury when more than half are Trump's most loyal defenders? It's just not a rational position.

If the House won't play by the rules, why should one expect the senate to do so? This in my mind is telling us there is something out there the House Democrats don't want the public to know or find out about.

I'll finish with this, all I have left to say is Hang Trump if you can.

It's just so predictable that in some posts you say you don't care whether he's impeached, but in every case you adopt in full the most extreme right wing talking points, including the bogus "lynching" narrative, and cannot defend them. You did it again above with "the House won't play by the rules" but I guarantee you cannot cite a single way these proceedings differ substantively in any way from past impeachment hearings - Nixon or Clinton.