The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (12 Viewers)

UncleTrvlingJim said:

Except that we know today by Vondland's testimony that whole sections of the call were left out.

Are you seriously ok, with every President from this day forward asking foreign heads of states that need something from us to publicly open up investigations into their political opponents outside of the DOJ but with a personal lawyer with no oversight? You're ok with that?



So, you don't believe in whistleblower protections as they currently stand?

Click to expand...

I honestly don't think Trump sees Biden as a political threat. The guy can't remember what state he is in most of the time. I think a president should be able to ask a foreign head of state to investigate potential wrong doing, absolutely, I guess you don't.

And I think an individual should always be able to face their accuser. I guess you don't.

And with that I am off for the night. 5am comes early.

The identity of this particular whistleblower has more reason than normal to be protected. There’s been a bounty placed on the identity. You had Trump with some line about what you do to spys. This individual’s life is legitimately at risk.

Intensesaint said:

I honestly don't think Trump sees Biden as a political threat. The guy can't remember what state he is in most of the time. I think a president should be able to ask a foreign head of state to investigate potential wrong doing, absolutely, I guess you don't.

And I think an individual should always be able to face their accuser. I guess you don't.

And with that I am off for the night. 5am comes early.

Click to expand...

I notice you didn't answer the questions I asked of DD about the threshold needed to investigate corruption and what form that investigation should take. Care to take a crack at it?

I have said repeatedly that I'm ok with investigating public officials and I explicitly said that investigating corruption is within the President's duties. I then asked what threshold are you ok with, and why does the Biden situation meet that threshold (or put another way, is the evidence against Biden any different that Trump and his kids business interests all over the globe and the deals the President is making with those countries on our behalf)?

You didn't answer it earlier.

I'll take your last crack there as an admission that you can't add anything of substance anymore. Seriously, what a pissy thing to say. I directly said that you should face your accuser in trial, and if the whistleblower's testimony is used as evidence in a trial, the President has the right to face his accuser. If you don't want to discuss this, just walk away without making up a fake argument.

The Inspector General Act says that they “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.”

yuyi64 said:

So how many heathcare bills has the House passed in the last few months? How many bills to lower prescription drugs? How many bills to fix Social Security once and for all? How many bills to repair/replace our aging infrastructure? Shall we go on?

Click to expand...

It looks like 9 bills have passed the house, and are waiting on the Senate, since September. I'm not going to speak on the merits of them. Also, looks like a few others of interest this year...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4860


https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4617 - this one has to do with reporting requirements for foreign election interference.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4407 - this and the next few all relate to small business






For prescriptions drugs,
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr987

The other bills are appropriations acts that may mention prescription drugs.

Infrastructure.

55 bills. The top one is about cyber security.
Access broadband act.
Looks like a few natural disaster acts.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

Or your just blinded by bias. If you're that far out of line from standard watchdog ethics, right?

We aren't at impeachment yet. We're at the investigation stage. If testimony from the whistleblower is used to impeach Trump and it goes to the Senate, then yes, Trump gets to face his accuser. However, there is no testimony that will be used to convict Trump that comes from the whistleblower. All the testimony that will be used is coming from the sources testifying.

Put this another way, what use would you or the Republicans get out of knowing the identity of the whistleblower other than to retaliate against them?

Click to expand...

Their credibility for one.

Lazybones said:

Their credibility for one.

Click to expand...

For what? The allegations have now been backed up by testimony in front of the committee. We now know that multiple people involved in the process have reported that the President was withholding aid for political purposes. What do you get out of the original whistleblower's identity? His or her testimony is not being used for an impeachment vote.

Intensesaint said:

The whistleblower is making an accusation against another person, that person that is the target of the accusation should have the right to face the person accusing them of wrong doing.

Click to expand...

Not saying this is incorrect philosophically, but it's incorrect legally. The actual law says that the identitites of whistle blower are to be kept anonymous for the sake of protecting them. The right to face the accuser only applies in a trial under the judicial branch. There is no such precedent for such a right in a Congressional process.

Put it this way the Inspector General Act specifically stated that they should not reveal the identity of the whistleblower. This was written well before the Trump presidency, so protecting this whistleblower is not a partisan act. It's considered standard to protect the identity of the whistleblowers in the federal government - this is not a new thing. This is also standard for all whistleblower protection laws.

Now you can't convict anyone based off a whistleblower tip. But if you find the testimony credible, you start an investigation. That's what happened here... the Trump appointed IG found the whistleblower's complaint to be credible and reported it to Congress. At that point Congress is allowed to investigate.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

For what? The allegations have now been backed up by testimony in front of the committee. We now know that multiple people involved in the process have reported that the President was withholding aid for political purposes. What do you get out of the original whistleblower's identity? His or her testimony is not being used for an impeachment vote.

Click to expand...

Here is the thing, you can't really hear one side of a "case" and simply say, "I can't think of any defense, I bet the defendant can't either" and let that be the basis for excluding the defendant from the process.

For example, I bet if you looked back at the comments made during the beginning of the Russia ordeal you would find they would not reflect the shenanigans that we are just now learning about.
We already know Schiff has lied about his office's contact with the whistleblower. What we don't know is the extent to which this entire thing has been orchestrated by people with less than pure motives. If we were only relying on the transcript, I guess you could argue that it does not matter. But we are going outside the transcript, and the credibility of witnesses is at issue.

I have seen people suggesting that it is off limits to question the LTC who testified today simply because he has, as far as we know, honorably served our nation in uniform. When did Democrats suddenly take that position? It must have happened in the last few days, because it was just last week that Secretary Clinton was calling Major Gabbard a Russian spy. I doubt Col. Oliver North has been invited to many functions at the DNC recently. General Flynn damn sure wasn't off limits.

I am not saying the LTC who testified today was anything other than 100% honest. What I am saying is that a case can look dramatically different from the time the prosecutor rests and the defendant rests. We should not prejudge the case and decide that the defendant does not need full access to the evidence.

Archies Ghost said:

The very nature of foreign relations is squeezing the other guy or avoiding getting squeezed.

It is hard to believe that the American Left is this naive about it, so one must believe that it is willful.

The only question is whether the squeeze put on Ukraine was in the national interest of the US or not. If it was in the national interest, it should not be contemplated as a pretext for impeachment except by parties interested in finding a crime to fit the predetermined sentence of impeachment.

A recent piece by Andrew McCarthy is relevent

Stop Claiming ‘No Quid Pro Quo’ | National Review

The President’s best Ukraine defense has always been that any quid pro quo demand was not close to an impeachable offense.

www.nationalreview.com

The rest of the piece is definitely worth reading.

:trump2:

Click to expand...

JimEverett said:

I know that impeachment can be based on whatever Congress wants to base it on, so that is not why I am asking this, but is there a law on the books that prohibits a President from asking for an investigation that touches upon a potential political rival and tying such a request to already approved aid funding?

Click to expand...

Dadsdream said:

No. It's political arm twisting and bullying, but it's not illegal.
It's a rich man's game and as such, hitting the other fellow in the pocketbook has always been fair game.

EDIT: Moreover, foreign aid falls under the State Department, which falls under the Executive Branch, under the Chief Executive, ie the President.
Attempts to place authority in such matters under the scrutiny of the Legislative Branch get shot down by the Judicial Branch based on Separation of Powers. Congress can cut off or add to the funding to the aid package , but they can't oversee its execution. There's still such a thing as a Pocket Veto, where the President simply does not act on something Congress has authorized.

You know, it really boggles my mind when people say they're going to fix this once their party gets in power. The thing they think they're going to do to "fix" the Separation of Powers is to do away with the Separation of Powers by giving it all to the Legislative Branch simply because they despise the current Chief Executive. It doesn't work that way. Sheesh!

Click to expand...

Again, I believe it depends on what you consider in the National interest vs the personal interest. I think Archie is correct. If within the national interest.. clearly. .then it's whatever. But if it's not, which I don't feel like it is, then it's a problem.

JimE, you made a point about a peace deal going south costing someone an election. Well, yeah. Not being able to execute the job of President, failing at things, will make it harder to be elected. While, on a technicality, that makes every single policy agenda item the president supports, "personal", it is still what they feel like is in the National interest.

No one is going to argue a President squeezing, let's say, Turkey, to stop attacking Syria is purely personal politics. It is in our interest to have geopolitical stability. If the focus is on US National interests, and especially if done with the appropriate consultation (Military, State Dept, White House legal), then any side personal benefit, is sort of whatever to me. No one is going to advocate a president looking good is impeachable. I mean, that's silly.

Side note: did the White House really do this? All the !!!!!

However....






Not a single word uttered about "fighting corruption" and not even a single word about Burisma. Is it in the National Interest to look into this? Is it in the National interest to make sure they state Burisma.. Biden... ?

Gordon Sondland's opening remarks state this..

After a series of delays, on July 25, 2019, President Trump called President Zelensky to congratulate him on the recently concluded Ukraine parliamentary elections, which in Ukraine are separate from the Presidential elections. This was an important call, and I was pleased to hear that it occurred.

But let me emphasize: I was not on that July 25, 2019 call and I did not see a transcript of that call until September 25, 2019, when the White House publicly released it. None of the brief and general call summaries I received contained any mention of Burisma or former Vice President Biden, nor even suggested that President Trump had made any kind of request of President Zelensky. I had heard afterwards that the July 25, 2019 call went well in solidifying a relationship between the two leaders.

Click to expand...

Later he says the deliverable was a public statement that "Ukraine was interesting in fighting corruption". Nothing more specific.

Vindman contradicts that.



Then you have Bill Taylor's whole story.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

Put it this way the Inspector General Act specifically stated that they should not reveal the identity of the whistleblower. This was written well before the Trump presidency, so protecting this whistleblower is not a partisan act. It's considered standard to protect the identity of the whistleblowers in the federal government - this is not a new thing. This is also standard for all whistleblower protection laws.

Now you can't convict anyone based off a whistleblower tip. But if you find the testimony credible, you start an investigation. That's what happened here... the Trump appointed IG found the whistleblower's complaint to be credible and reported it to Congress. At that point Congress is allowed to investigate.

Click to expand...

Adding to UncleTrvlingJim's comments.

If the whistle blower never testifies, then they are like an informer who provides a tip that leads to a criminal investigation. The accused does not have a right to know the identity of an informer, unless that informant is a witness in a trial. Even then, the informer's testimony during the trial is the only thing the accused has a right to know and confront.

There is no need or right to know who a whistle blower is unless they testify. The whistle blower complaint was a tip that started an investigation, it is not being relied on as evidence in the investigation. If the whistle blower testifies, then that testimony would be evidence and the House Republicans would have an opportunity to confront their testimony. Even if they do testify, the fact that they are the whistle blower is irrelevant to their actual testimony that they give while under oath.

The whistle blower might even be one of the people who have testified for all we know, so the whistle blower may have already been confronted by the House Republicans.

LA - L.A. said:

If the whistle blower never testifies, then they are like an informer who provides a tip that leads to a criminal investigation. The accused does not have a right to know the identity of an informer, unless that informant is a witness in a trial. Even then, the informer's testimony during the trial is the only thing the accused has a right to know and confront.

There is no need or right to know who a whistle blower is unless they testify. The whistle blower complaint was a tip that started an investigation, it is not being relied on as evidence in the investigation. If the whistle blower testifies, then that testimony would be evidence and the House Republicans would have an opportunity to confront their testimony. Even if they do testify, the fact that they are the whistle blower is irrelevant to their actual testimony they give under oath.

The whistle blower might even be one of the people who have testified for all we know, so the whistle blower may have already been confronted by the House Republicans.

Click to expand...

Yeah, does it matter? Seems like a lot of State Department and National Security / Intelligence personnel had their own misgivings and reported things to their appropriate legal departments.

For all we know, the Whistleblower is one of the various staff NSC lawyers, or State Department lawyers.

Beach Friends said:

... excluding the defendant from the process.

We should not prejudge the case and decide that the defendant does not need full access to the evidence.

Click to expand...

There is no case yet. There is no defendant.

Yeah it seems differently because of the incredibly public nature of the politics involved, but if the House does not vote to impeach, then there is no defendant and no evidence to access. If they do, then the defendant will exist and will have full access to evidence and interviewing/cross-examining the witnesses.

wardorican said:

Yeah, does it matter? Seems like a lot of State Department and National Security / Intelligence personnel had their own misgivings and reported things to their appropriate legal departments.

For all we know, the Whistleblower is one of the various staff NSC lawyers, or State Department lawyers.

Click to expand...

The only reason I can think of to know the identity of the whistle blower is to retaliate against them as a "snitch." That's the whole reason that their identities are kept confidential in the first place.

V Chip said:

There is no case yet. There is no defendant.

Yeah it seems differently because of the incredibly public nature of the politics involved, but if the House does not vote to impeach, then there is no defendant and no evidence to access. If they do, then the defendant will exist and will have full access to evidence and interviewing/cross-examining the witnesses.

Click to expand...

I know the House has not even voted to have an impeachment inquiry. That's just another problem the Democrats have.

Beach Friends said:

We should not prejudge the case and decide that the defendant does not need full access to the evidence.

Click to expand...

The whistle blower's complaint has been treated like a tip from an informer that has lead to an investigation.

The testimony given under oath is the evidence being gathered by the investigation.

It remains to be seen if the House actually presents a case for impeachment.

If the House presents a case for impeachment, then at that time everyone in the House will get a chance to mount a defense of Trump if they want to.

If the whistle blower complaint is presented as evidence as part of the case for impeachment, then at that time an argument can be made for calling the whistle blower as a witness. If the complaint is not used as evidence, then there is no right to confront the whistle blower for filing a complaint.

B4YOU said:

US Constitution
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.

The Constitution Says ‘Bribery’ Is Impeachable. What Does That Mean?

Now that Congress has launched an impeachment investigation into President Trump’s effort to use the Ukrainian government to target a political rival, much ink has been spilled on the question of whether Trump’s actions amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which he may be impeached. In...

www.lawfareblog.com

The Federal Bribery Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
. . . shall be fined under this title . . . or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both.

https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/public-integrity/a_guide_to_commonly_used_federal_statutes_in_public_corruption_cases.pdf

52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for- in
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

It seems that the issue, at least in part, depends on the notion of "value" in any sort of "foreign aid" situation, right?

I mean, is there not value to be gained in altering, in some way, the foreign aid of the country? Politically speaking? There has to be some sort of political value attached to any decision right? I wonder where the line is drawn.

How much political thought is allowable, according to you (speaking generally) in terms of decision making on things like foreign/military aid? I mean if a PResident asks Pakistan, for instance, if you do not invade India the US will increase aid by 30%? And further suppose, the PResident's political advisor consulted him on this particular "offer" - do you think that falls under the bribery statute?

If a President or presidential candidate gets value from a foreign country's investigation into a former sitting VP's family and potential general election competitor, isn't it fair to say a sitting President gets "value" from avoiding a war in South Asia?
And does it, or should it, make a difference if the President is in his first or second term? For example - the Iran nuclear deal that Obama made. Seems like a textbook case of bribery if you take some sort of personal political "value" gained by Obama. But he wasn't up for re-election. Should that make a difference?

And I am not arguing with you. I think you can look at my posts when this story broke and I was saying that quid-pro-quo would make it illegal. I am now just wondering how this works.

Beach Friends said:

I know the House has not even voted to have an impeachment inquiry. That's just another problem the Democrats have.

Click to expand...

Actually no -- that's a problem the Republicans have invented. You know by now as well as anyone there is no precedent to require a vote before beginning an inquiry.