The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[Beach Friends]

No he does not. But whoever outed him (if it is him and not just guesswork) commited a crime and right now even if it isn't him,, he and his family still face real and serious threats from the Trump fanatics.

What is the specific crime they committed?

 

[Beach Friends]

It's already moot. The whistleblower's report has already been determined to be credible and substantiated by other witnesses. The identity, testimony, favourite colour, etc., of the whistleblower are all already redundant.

You might have a point if he was on a tour of the White House and just happened to overhear the conversation and then rushed to the IG.

But that's not what happened. Apparently he had numerous conversations with different people, and that was the basis of his report.

The POTUS is entitled to explore fully how these conversations took place, the order in which they took place, whether the individual stories changed over time, whether Eric was in contact with a third party while the narrative was being developed, etc.

Apparently he was the pivot man, and it is fair game to get the full context so the defense can discover the extent to which one witness may have influenced another.

 

[Dragon]

You might have a point if he was on a tour of the White House and just happened to overhear the conversation and then rushed to the IG.

But that's not what happened. Apparently he had numerous conversations with different people, and that was the basis of his report.

The POTUS is entitled to explore fully how these conversations took place, the order in which they took place, whether the individual stories changed over time, whether Eric was in contact with a third party while the narrative was being developed, etc.

Apparently he was the pivot man, and it is fair game to get the full context so the defense can discover the extent to which one witness may have influenced another.

You still don't adress the fact that Trump himself and multiple sources including emails etc confirmed everything. Why don't you adresse that instead?

The only thing you're and Trump are asking for is a witchhunt to out anyone else who was uncomfortable with the fact that the president abused his position for personal gain and identify the "primary source"

 

[RobF]

The POTUS is entitled to explore fully how these conversations took place, the order in which they took place, whether the individual stories changed over time, whether Eric was in contact with a third party while the narrative was being developed, etc.

Apparently he was the pivot man, and it is fair game to get the full context so the defense can discover the extent to which one witness may have influenced another.

No. None of that is a thing. You demanded to know "What's the authority that says a whistleblower does not have to testify?" The question should be "What's the authority that says a whistleblower does have to testify?" and the answer is that there is no authority that says a whistleblower has to testify. Nor is there any need for them do so in this instance.

Because, again, the report has already been determined to be credible, with the witness accounts confirming it to be so, and backed up by the 'transcript' that Trump himself had released, all showing grave misbehaviour on Trump's part.

And because of the nature of the witnesses, along with the documentary evidence confirming this, including, again, the 'transcript' that Trump himself had released, there is no credibility whatsoever to the implied notion you're trying to push that the whistleblower could have somehow caused the multiple accounts of different witnesses from different backgrounds to be falsified, let alone the 'transcript'. It's an embarrassing line of defense at this point with no substance to it whatsoever. Even Ivanka Trump seems to be trying to walk it back.

 

[Burtifus]

Apparently he was the pivot man, and it is fair game to get the full context so the defense can discover the extent to which one witness may have influenced another.

That's a different distinction than "whistle blower" who merely points out suspected wrong doing. You're making an assertion that this individual may have been actively involved in the events in question. If so, I would agree with you and that makes him a witness. I'm not sure though I've seen that reported anywhere as anything more than innuendo or wishful thinking. The initial reports of the whistle blower were that he only had knowledge of these events via hearsay or 2nd hand.

 

[Beach Friends]

That's a different distinction than "whistle blower" who merely points out suspected wrong doing. You're making an assertion that this individual may have been actively involved in the events in question. If so, I would agree with you and that makes him a witness. I'm not sure though I've seen that reported anywhere as anything more than innuendo or wishful thinking. The initial reports of the whistle blower were that he only had knowledge of these events via hearsay or 2nd hand.

Exactly. He received his information through conversations with other people.

The defense is entitled to explore the who, what, when and where of those conversations.

Was the content of those prior statements consistent with present testimony? Did he relate the conversation from witness to another witness?

As I understand it, some of these witnesses are basing their opinions on the impressions of other witnesses. All the more reason to examine everyone who was involved.

Eric was obviously a party to those conversations. He is not shielded simply because he claims to be a whistleblower.

 

[Dragon]

Exactly. He received his information through conversations with other people.

The defense is entitled to explore the who, what, when and where of those conversations.

Was the content of those prior statements consistent with present testimony? Did he relate the conversation from witness to another witness?

As I understand it, some of these witnesses are basing their opinions on the impressions of other witnesses. All the more reason to examine everyone who was involved.

Eric was obviously a party to those conversations. He is not shielded simply because he claims to be a whistleblower.

As I said before. The only reason why Trump wants those names is to retaliate and no - since the whistleblower report has been confirmed by multiple source there is no other reason to ask whoever it is to testify.

(I can see you consistently keep using a name - despite no-one has been identified officially - by doing to you and others who do the same, endanger said individual regardsless of whether he is the whistleblower or not)

 

[Nebaghead]

Exactly. He received his information through conversations with other people.

The defense is entitled to explore the who, what, when and where of those conversations.

Was the content of those prior statements consistent with present testimony? Did he relate the conversation from witness to another witness?

As I understand it, some of these witnesses are basing their opinions on the impressions of other witnesses. All the more reason to examine everyone who was involved.

Eric was obviously a party to those conversations. He is not shielded simply because he claims to be a whistleblower.

How he heard about the concerns isn't up for questioning once it was confirmed. He pointed out a concern. Concern was researched and confirmed as true. End of story.

All witnesses will get questioned from both sides, that is all that is legally required. Getting the WB to testify is just a way to discredit the process even though everything that has been said is true. It's a similar tactic as when a woman is raped and they question her values and sex history. If she said no, it is rape.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Exactly. He received his information through conversations with other people.

The defense is entitled to explore the who, what, when and where of those conversations.

Was the content of those prior statements consistent with present testimony? Did he relate the conversation from witness to another witness?

As I understand it, some of these witnesses are basing their opinions on the impressions of other witnesses. All the more reason to examine everyone who was involved.

Eric was obviously a party to those conversations. He is not shielded simply because he claims to be a whistleblower.

Do you know for a fact that the whistleblower is named Eric or are you speculating?

As for the bold part: there is a process to filing a whistleblower complaint that actually does shield them in some manner.

 

[Beach Friends]

As I said before. The only reason why Trump wants those names is to retaliate and no - since the whistleblower report has been confirmed by multiple source there is no other reason to ask whoever it is to testify.

(I can see you consistently keep using a name - despite no-one has been identified officially - by doing to you and others who do the same, endanger said individual regardsless of whether he is the whistleblower or not)

And earlier you stated that it was a crime for anyone to disclose his name.

I say that is a myth.

I asked you to state specifically identify the crime.

If you responded, I missed it.

 

[Burtifus]

Eric was obviously a party to those conversations. He is not shielded simply because he claims to be a whistleblower.

That's not accurate, there are very real protections for whistle blowers (which I'd assume you agree with are a good thing). If there is proof that this person actively injected themselves into the situation that needs to be brought forward. If there isn't any, shouldn't the whistle blower protections remain? If we don't, we're invalidating those protections completely going forward.

 

[Dragon]

And earlier you stated that it was a crime for anyone to disclose his name.

I say that is a myth.

I asked you to state specifically identify the crime.

If you responded, I missed it.

https://us.cnn.com/2019/11/08/politics/legal-question-out-whistleblower/index.html

And you did not answer why you keep mentioning a name which haven't been verified and why you think it is ok to do so, even when it could endanger the person in question

 

[Beach Friends]

That's not accurate, there are very real protections for whistle blowers (which I'd assume you agree with are a good thing). If there is proof that this person actively injected themselves into the situation that needs to be brought forward. If there isn't any, shouldn't the whistle blower protections remain? If we don't, we're invalidating those protections completely going forward.

Just because there are some protections doesn't mean you get to make up protections on the fly.

The statutory protections are that the IG will not disclose the whistleblower's name unless he deems it necessary (or until he refers the case to the DOJ for prosecution); and he will not be retaliated against in his employment.

Show me where it says that a witness is shielded from testifying on the grounds that he is also a whistleblower.

 

[Nebaghead]

Just because there are some protections doesn't mean you get to make up protections on the fly.

The statutory protections are that the IG will not disclose the whistleblower's name unless he deems it necessary (or until he refers the case to the DOJ for prosecution); and he will not be retaliated against in his employment.

Show me where it says that a witness is shielded from testifying on the grounds that he is also a whistleblower.

Since it appears supboneas don't require WH staff to testify, I'm sure the WB can not show up either. You do realize his life is in danger if his name is released. From your comments, it appears you are OK with that outcome.

 

[Burtifus]

Show me where it says that a witness is shielded from testifying on the grounds that he is also a whistleblower.

I thinks that's the rub ... Can you show that he's actually a witness to anything? The IG would seem to be in the best position to make that determination and he hasn't found it necessary to disclose his identity.

What's the best outcome for your side on this? The whistle blower is a tried and true, AOC-loving, Democrat who actively injected himself into this situation to plant false testimony into the minds of administration supporting and appointed individuals? IMO, it just seems like more goal posts moving since the information coming out continues to be really bad for POTUS. First the whole thing was just hearsay, then the Dems were selectively leaking snippets of testimony, next there was no quid pro quo, then these were just "Never Trumpers", and now it's the whole thing falls apart if the whistle blower is a Democrat?

I can understand where those on the right see POTUS abusing his power here for political gain as distasteful but ultimately not illegal and therefore not impeachable, but I'm at a loss with the hoops we're jumping through to prove there's no there, there. The facts are really easy to follow here.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Forget about the Wookie!!!


These impeachment hearings will be about the testimonies of Fiona Hill, William Taylor, LTC Alexander Vindman, George Kent, Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland, and Marie Yovanovitch.

All of them have confirmed, one way or another that there was a concerted effort by trump and his minions to extort an announcement from the President of Ukraine that an investigation of the Bidens has been launched by his government. And once Giuliani and his cohorts are compelled to testify, along with WH staff, it will reveal the depths of this influence campaign against Ukraine.

 

[superchuck500]

The media started early on about the identity of the whistleblower being irrelevant. It’s almost as if they knew there would be credibility issues and wanted to get in front and control the narrative.

Or it could be that it’s actually not relevant - because it isn’t.

 

[superchuck500]

Exactly. He received his information through conversations with other people.

The defense is entitled to explore the who, what, when and where of those conversations.

Was the content of those prior statements consistent with present testimony? Did he relate the conversation from witness to another witness?

As I understand it, some of these witnesses are basing their opinions on the impressions of other witnesses. All the more reason to examine everyone who was involved.

Eric was obviously a party to those conversations. He is not shielded simply because he claims to be a whistleblower.

What is the relevance of this topic area for testimony and why is he material when you have access to the other alleged participants these “conversations”?