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

[W_Heisenberg]

Answered in a previous post.

What MTAtech is posting is accurate and important.

Pay attention akyron.

 

[akyron]

You keep posting all these things that amount to strawman fallacies and non-sequitors. You are just trolling everyone at this point. The vast majority of Trump critics do not agree with what Kathy Griffin did.

Do you agree with Trump continually calling Schiff a traitor? Do you think that's okay?

I would disagree if schiff had not taken the time and effort to publicly and blatantly lie so obviously.



Schiff also accuses others of EXACTLY what he is caught doing.



It probably does not help that ukranians "arms dealers" are tossing schiff election parties as well.

 

[akyron]

What MTAtech is posting is accurate and important.

Pay attention akyron.

Important but not entirely accurate.

“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts,” said Kinkopf.
“When the Founders wanted to ensure accountability, they mostly relied on elections and the voters to hold government officials responsible for their actions,” said Whittington. “But what might fall into the category of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ was still quite unclear.”

They did not want congress to control the executive branch. They had enough of that type of behavior from english law. They were familiar with it but did not want to fall in that trap.

The Federalist No. 65

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Important but not entirely accurate.

“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts,” said Kinkopf.
“When the Founders wanted to ensure accountability, they mostly relied on elections and the voters to hold government officials responsible for their actions,” said Whittington. “But what might fall into the category of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ was still quite unclear.”

They did not want congress to control the executive branch. They had enough of that type of behavior from english law. They were familiar with it but did not want to fall in that trap.

The Federalist No. 65

Oh, so now you agree that "high crimes and misdemeanors" can mean something other than a violation of criminal law?

Are you now admitting that you were wrong and you did not understand what the term meant?

 

[MTAtech]

Important but not entirely accurate.

“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts,” said Kinkopf.
“When the Founders wanted to ensure accountability, they mostly relied on elections and the voters to hold government officials responsible for their actions,” said Whittington. “But what might fall into the category of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ was still quite unclear.”

They did not want congress to control the executive branch. They had enough of that type of behavior from english law. They were familiar with it but did not want to fall in that trap.

The Federalist No. 65

What part of "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment," do you not understand? There is no appeals process if the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, if such action was taken for non-criminal activity, that doesn't meet the akyron standard.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Donald Trump: 'Don't care' about GOP concerns over whistleblower

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump dismissed concerns Wednesday – including from some GOP lawmakers – about shielding a whistleblower at the center of allegations that he pressured Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.

Asked about those concerns, Trump responded: "I don't care."

--

Trump just generated another article of impeachment for himself.

 

[Visbek]

Important but not entirely accurate....

The text you quoted supports the fact that impeachment is not a criminal process. "Conduct that seriously harms the public," for example, does not necessarily mean that the POTUS actually violated any existing federal law. The article discusses Judge John Pickering, who was impeached not for criminal acts, but for being drunk on the bench and issuing incompetent rulings; and how Gerald Ford pointed out that "impeachable offenses are whatever a majority of the House considered them to be."

It also supports my point that the Constitution offers minimal guidance on the process ("This sparse history has given Congress relatively few opportunities to flesh out the bare bones of the constitutional text").

Founders wanted to ensure accountability, they mostly relied on elections and the voters to hold government officials responsible for their actions.

"Mostly" ≠ "Completely"

The point of the impeachment process is to remove a POTUS who is doing so much damage that the nation cannot afford to wait for the next election. We should also note that Nixon, and now Trump, are facing impeachment because of attempts to manipulate and subvert that electoral process.

They did not want congress to control the executive branch. They had enough of that type of behavior from english law. They were familiar with it but did not want to fall in that trap.

Yeah, here's the thing: There is a difference between laws and norms.

Legally, there are no restrictions on impeachment. Congress could use that process to toss out five Presidents in a row on trivial offenses. There is no appeals process for a POTUS who is removed from office. Congress has no legal obligation to offer any due process whatsoever.

What holds Congress back is norms, not laws. These are informal standards of behavior that most elected officials abide by. In case you missed it, though, Trump smashes a dozen norms a week. Thus, for Trump or his followers to squeal about the violation of norms is a tad hypocritical.

 

[Visbek]

Trump just generated another article of impeachment for himself.

I think that's the 3rd time this week, just from his Tweets. #MAGA

 

[Athanasius68]

What part of "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment," do you not understand? There is no appeals process if the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, if such action was taken for non-criminal activity, that doesn't meet the akyron standard.

And what part of "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States" is also similarly misunderstood? Lots, judging by many of the comments pertaining to some of the actions of Mr. Trump over the course of his term in office.
Can a president "abuse" his power? Certainly.
Can a Congress abuse its?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

And what part of "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States" is also similarly misunderstood?

Trump supporters are under the false assumption that this means Trump is above the law and can do whatever he wants.

 

[Athanasius68]

So exactly what do you think "high crimes" means if you think something other than criminal?

There needs be no crime for an impeachment to occur. An impeachment is a political act, and those who vote for impeachment are politically accountable for that vote.
Which is why the Democrats are looking for a crime in order to justify their actions. To take the weight off their political decision.

 

[Athanasius68]

Trump supporters are under the false assumption that this means Trump is above the law and can do whatever he wants.

Not at all.
Trump opponents however are under the false assumption this means Congressional statutes supercede Constitutional prerogatives.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Not at all.
Trump opponents however are under the false assumption this means Congressional statutes supercede Constitutional prerogatives.

Oh yeah, and what are you referring to specifically and what's your argument?

 

[akyron]

There needs be no crime for an impeachment to occur. An impeachment is a political act, and those who vote for impeachment are politically accountable for that vote.
Which is why the Democrats are looking for a crime in order to justify their actions. To take the weight off their political decision.

True enough. Misdemeanors are the other part.

I am wondering if we are considering winning the 2016 election a high crime or a misdemeanor.

It was "In the bag" up until the people voted. There has been a crazed reaction ever since.

Hillary Clinton would have a 95% chance of winning the election if it were held today

"If the US presidential election were held today, Hillary Clinton would have a 95% chance of winning the presidency by a margin of 108 electoral votes, according to the Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project.

The project uses a combination of factors — including weekly online surveys of as many as 16,000 Americans' voter preferences and hypothetical turnout rates for different demographics — to gauge which candidate is most likely to win the presidency."

I appreciate your well reasoned arguments.

 

[akyron]

if such action was taken for non-criminal activity, that doesn't meet the akyron standard.

True enough. We are back to orange man bad.

 

[ClaraD]

It is fascinating to watch democrats argue so vigorously against the sixth amendment.

"“The primary object of the [Confrontation Clause is] to prevent depositions of ex parte affidavits . . . being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief.”221 The right of confrontation is “[o]ne of the fundamental guarantees of life and liberty . . . long deemed so essential for the due protection of life and liberty that it is guarded against legislative and judicial action by provisions in the Constitution of the United States and in the constitutions of most if not of all the States composing the Union.”222 Before 1965, when the Court held the right to be protected against state abridgment,223 it had little need to clarify the relationship between the right of confrontation and the hearsay rule,224 because it could control the admission of hearsay through exercise of its supervisory powers over the inferior federal courts.225"

It is also interesting the bar was lowered so this latest cartoon show could start.

Intelligence community changed whistleblower rules to include hearsay shortly before complaint was filed

"The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”"

"“We learned from today’s reporting from a couple different sources, including The Federalist, that the form used to require as recently as a month ago or at least in the last year, the complaint had to be firsthand knowledge, and a number of other obligations, that it not be a matter of differences of policy. It has to be some very specific criteria. It doesn’t even cover the president, it only covers what happens in the intelligence community,” Dhillon said.

“The new form which is published on the website of the DNI for whistleblowers. It’s marked August 2019, so last month, around the time this whistleblower complaint,” she continued. “It has eliminated that first-hand knowledge requirement. And you see that reflected in the current complaint. It’s full of second-hand, third-hand and press reports and more.”

Dobbs listed several examples of what the Trump whistleblower complaint consists of, to include:

“I received information from multiple officials.”
“Officials have informed me.”
“Officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me.”
“I was told by White House officials.”

“It reads like the most preposterous document,” said Dobbs.

“There is a very good reason why we require firsthand knowledge and firsthand eyewitness testimony on these types of things,” said Dhillon. “It’s the most credible and most close to the facts. But more importantly, the type of complaint we are talking about today could not have been made under last year or earlier this year’s rules. It’s very significant that those rules were secretly, surreptitiously changed.”"


A reasonable observant person will have little trouble picking out the fascists in the current scenario.

If you cannot face your accuser, then you cannot be certain that what you are being accused of has any basis in fact. If the government could bring charges against someone without presenting the accuser claiming that you have done something against the law, then the government would be entirely free to make up whatever crime it wants, along with whatever evidence it wants, without any recourse of your own. This is how "trials" during the Inquisition were performed, and the decision by the Founding Fathers to include this right explicitly in the Constitution is a reflection of the abuses that such systems wrought in the past.

Impeachment is not a criminal trial

 

[akyron]

Impeachment is not a criminal trial

Better let the Chief Justice know he can sleep in that day. French toast!

 

[ClaraD]

Better let the Chief Justice know he can sleep in that day. French toast!

It’s not a criminal trial not subject to appeal....it’s a political process spelled out in the Constitution

 

[Integrityrespec]

Your answer is the right one.

Trump is just being the usual Mafia don thug he is.

The democrats have just found another route to try to impeach. Use a "whistleblower" who can remain anonymous, and make claims that they can then write their own script to support.

 

[akyron]

It’s not a criminal trial not subject to appeal....it’s a political process spelled out in the Constitution

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

 

[OpportunityCost]

This alleged “whistleblower”, traitor is a better word, should be investigated, his co-conspirators found out and they must all be executed for they have spoken against his excellency and Dear Leader President Trump.

His treasonous lies have assisted other subversive forces in the nation to attack the Great Leadership and Eternal Glory of President Trump who only seeks prosperity and justice in the land.

If these seditious forces, conspiring in the bowels of the deep state do not cease their attacks on the glorious leader of Trump and stop causing great discomfort to his good brain then they should face death, brought forth by the eternal glory and righteousness of his good brain, using his best words, some have said, the bestest words they’ve ever heard.

Hail Trump!

Hail The Dear Leader!

Death to all who speak against him!

A good example of "if you are going to poe, poe all out"

 

[Jetboogieman]

A good example of "if you are going to poe, poe all out"

 

[ClaraD]

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

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."

And

Legal Experts Say The Right To Confront Accusers Does Not Apply To Impeachment : NPR

 

[tres borrachos]

This alleged “whistleblower”, traitor is a better word, should be investigated, his co-conspirators found out and they must all be executed for they have spoken against his excellency and Dear Leader President Trump.

His treasonous lies have assisted other subversive forces in the nation to attack the Great Leadership and Eternal Glory of President Trump who only seeks prosperity and justice in the land.

If these seditious forces, conspiring in the bowels of the deep state do not cease their attacks on the glorious leader of Trump and stop causing great discomfort to his good brain then they should face death, brought forth by the eternal glory and righteousness of his good brain, using his best words, some have said, the bestest words they’ve ever heard.

Hail Trump!

Hail The Dear Leader!

Death to all who speak against him!

Our father, who art in the White House, hallowed be his name.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

There needs be no crime for an impeachment to occur. An impeachment is a political act, and those who vote for impeachment are politically accountable for that vote.

And a vote against impeachment also carries political implications.

A successful impeachment is simply 2/3rds of both houses of Congress agreeing that the president needs to be removed from office. If there is criminal behavior alleged, the DOJ or other prosecutors are free to pursue prosecution only after the president is removed. If there is no criminal behavior alleged, the president is still removed from office with a 2/3 vote by both houses. There is no appealing the Congressional decision.