The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (6 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

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I ask- what if the WB is Hillary? Or the Easter Bunny?

I ask because it doesn’t matter. Their testimony is not material any more. It had been verified.

the whole point of keeping sources anonymous, whether it be anonymous news sources or whistleblowers, is to give the informant confidence that he or she won’t face retaliation. That is a universal trust we all have in this country right now. Once that trust is gone, it isn’t coming back.

I will say the though; I think there should be real, criminal consequences for fake anonymous sources or quotes for false reporting, or falsely filing a WB complaint.

the WhistleBlower is the friends we've made along the way

 

[JimEverett]

I ask- what if the WB is Hillary? Or the Easter Bunny?

I ask because it doesn’t matter. Their testimony is not material any more. It had been verified.

the whole point of keeping sources anonymous, whether it be anonymous news sources or whistleblowers, is to give the informant confidence that he or she won’t face retaliation. That is a universal trust we all have in this country right now. Once that trust is gone, it isn’t coming back.

I will say the though; I think there should be real, criminal consequences for fake anonymous sources or quotes for false reporting, or falsely filing a WB complaint.

I am not sure if you are talking about whistleblowers under this particular statute or whistleblowers in general.

Not sure about the former, but there is no "universal trust" of anonymity with respect to whistleblowers in general. Never has been, never will be.

As far as the former - I don't know about any universal trust of anonymity, although I doubt it, given that I would think a whistleblower is often times called upon to testify in anything that gets to the litigation stage.

 

[SaintForLife]

Why won't you simply provide the source of the alleged youtube image you posted as well as your source for the link that allegedly is to his youtube account?

It was from some random twitter account. I tried to give you the direct link to that particular part of his YouTube account, but for some reason the link didn't work. If you don't feel like going to YouTube and searching for MarkSZaidEsq and then to playlist you must not be too interested in finding out if it's accurate.

 

[superchuck500]

So Volker was suppose to testify today that he did not believe the Ukraine aid was tied to the Zelensky announcement - but today he revised his deposition testimony.

 

[wardorican]

I guess the question would be, is the focus on his speaking just a passing observation
Or is it a (perhaps subconscious) attempt to anticipate what the R spin cycle will do?

Bit of both. But more of just a passing observation. They actively tried to show how he wasn't trustworthy and violated the chain of command.

He had to whip out his performance evaluation (smart move) to shut that down.

 

[superchuck500]

I am not sure if you are talking about whistleblowers under this particular statute or whistleblowers in general.

Not sure about the former, but there is no "universal trust" of anonymity with respect to whistleblowers in general. Never has been, never will be.

As far as the former - I don't know about any universal trust of anonymity, although I doubt it, given that I would think a whistleblower is often times called upon to testify in anything that gets to the litigation stage.

Whistleblower protection relates to prohibited acts (that are employment related) that aim to protect the whistleblower from retaliation. I agree there is no statutory basis for anonymity but I suspect that in practice (and even perhaps in agency guidance) the identity of whistleblowers is kept anonymous except for when there is a need for it.

I think the WPA and related provisions in other statutes establish that there is a public policy in favor of protecting the whistleblower from retaliation that operates in practice, not just in word. Where a whistleblower's knowledge is material to the investigation, I think a whistleblower can be compelled to participate in the investigation, with safeguards in place to further the interest of protection against retaliation. I think where a whistleblower is a material witness to litigation, there is a basis for a whistleblower to seek safeguards, but a weighing of competing considerations will need to be done.

This happens all the time with sensitive evidence, as you well know. Typically, a judge is going to consider the competing interests and make a determination - and I agree that access to material information will likely outweigh a whistleblower's need for security against retaliation. But where the whistleblower isn't a material witness (in other words the are sources of information that not only do not qualify for whistleblower protection but are also better quality sources given their proximity to the events in question), then I think the weighing of interests should come out in favor of refusing access to the whistleblower.

I'm pretty confident that most whistleblower cases are fairly mundane matters for agency handling and generally not in the public forum. From time to time, there will be such a case - and on rare occasion, the subject matter will be of high interest to the public, and that will bring about risk to the whistleblower, not only in the context of prohibited employment practices (retaliation) but also that person's personal safety. And that's where it also becomes an ethical issue - not just an employment issue.

I mentioned it in the SR thread, but an analogy to consider is that of young children. In criminal cases and civil litigation that raises sensitive questions, testimony of young children is often disfavored unless the party seeking to present the child's testimony into evidence can make a showing that the child may have information that cannot be reasonably obtained from other sources. A judge typically isn't going to allow it for purely duplicative purposes.

That's how I see the whistleblower issue here. Unless there's a genuine foundation for it, I don't see how the need (which appears to be quite low) for the whistleblower's testimony outweighs the policy of whistleblower protection against retaliation and the ethical consideration of the personal safety of the individual. Speculation about the whistleblower's motives doesn't establish a foundation in my view - the whistleblower isn't providing anything into evidence so motive is irrelevant.

But this isn't a courtroom and the power ultimately rests with the majority to make the rules. In the House, Schiff (and ultimately Pelosi) don't see a interest in allowing it. It might be different if it goes to the Senate for trial.

 

[JRad]

I ask because it doesn’t matter.

It doesn't. The whisteblower could be a card carrying Trump supporter, and it wouldn't change anyone's mind. Which means the whistleblower's political leanings are totally irrelevant, and that's the only reason anyone wants the identity so bad.

must not be too interested in finding out if it's accurate.

What's on his YouTube account is totally irrelevant unless you have some way to verify he actually was behind the activity. It's beyond silly to imply otherwise.

 

[B4YOU]

Volker put together a statement for the Ukrainian President to support investigations in Americans involved in corruption. Guiliani insisted that specific language on Burisma and the 2016 election was a necessary condition or it wouldn't be sufficient for a meeting with Trump.

Any talk about Trump/Guiliani seeking general corruption investigations or Trump misspeaking doesn't hold water. Both Trump and his personal attorney, Guiliani, insisted on specific investigations into Democrats and Guiliani required specific language in the announcement.

This is more than one call. This is a concerted effort by Guiliani and Trump to get a specific announcement.

 

[FullMonte]

As far as the former - I don't know about any universal trust of anonymity, although I doubt it, given that I would think a whistleblower is often times called upon to testify in anything that gets to the litigation stage.

I'm not sure that they are called all that often to testify. I know that in the Clinton impeachment, Linda Tripp was the one who gave second hand information about what she heard from Monica Lewinsky. She was questioned by Ken Starr, but was not called to testify in the impeachment trial.

 

[FullMonte]

It doesn't. The whisteblower could be a card carrying Trump supporter, and it wouldn't change anyone's mind. Which means the whistleblower's political leanings are totally irrelevant, and that's the only reason anyone wants the identity so bad.

My take on the determination by republicans to question the whistleblower is this simple. What do they expect to get out of questioning him/her? Let's say they were allowed to question the whistleblower, and they got everything they wanted. He/she admits under oath that he hates Trump and has wanted him gone from the day he announced he was running. He/she admits that every single part of their complaint was based on second-hand information. Yipee...the republicans got what they want. So, what then? From a practical standpoint, what they have done, is impeached the credibility of the whistleblower as a witness, and have potentially made the whistleblower's complaint inadmissible as evidence. Ok.....so....what? That doesn't stop all of the other witness testimony and evidence from being used, and there is little to indicate that democrats were going to call the whistleblower as a witness.

The net result would be that republicans called a witness that the democrats weren't going to call, simply to make sure that democrats couldn't use that witness.

 

[B4YOU]

Morrison is testifying that Sondland told him the release of funds depended on the announcement. Morrison informed Bolton who told him to "tell the lawyers".

 

[st dude]

I am not sure if you are talking about whistleblowers under this particular statute or whistleblowers in general.

Not sure about the former, but there is no "universal trust" of anonymity with respect to whistleblowers in general. Never has been, never will be.

As far as the former - I don't know about any universal trust of anonymity, although I doubt it, given that I would think a whistleblower is often times called upon to testify in anything that gets to the litigation stage.

Jim, this is exactly what republicans want. They want you and me and everyone else debating about the anonymity of the whistleblower when basically everything attributed to the whsitleblowers complaint has been clearly proven by an array of unconnected witnesses with impeccable reputations. Today it was an aide to Mike Pence who confirmed quid pro quo.

Its ridiculous and upsetting to me to watch Jim Jordan and Nunes disparage witness after witness when they know damn well Trump witheld aid for political purposes.

So for me, I am not getting into the weeds to discuss whistleblower anonymity. Multiple sources from a variety of backgrounds have confirmed they were shocked when they heard the president link aid to his political agenda.

I would rather discuss the shocking lack of integrity being shown by those legislators using personal attacks and word games on witnesses who are obviously telling the truth. Sheesh, even the chief of staff admitted quid pro quo.

 

[superchuck500]

Volker put together a statement for the Ukrainian President to support investigations in Americans involved in corruption. Guiliani insisted that specific language on Burisma and the 2016 election was a necessary condition or it wouldn't be sufficient for a meeting with Trump.

Any talk about Trump/Guiliani seeking general corruption investigations or Trump misspeaking doesn't hold water. Both Trump and his personal attorney, Guiliani, insisted on specific investigations into Democrats and Guiliani required specific language in the announcement.

This is more than one call. This is a concerted effort by Guiliani and Trump to get a specific announcement.

"The deliverable"

 

[SaintForLife]

I am not sure if you are talking about whistleblowers under this particular statute or whistleblowers in general.

Not sure about the former, but there is no "universal trust" of anonymity with respect to whistleblowers in general. Never has been, never will be.

As far as the former - I don't know about any universal trust of anonymity, although I doubt it, given that I would think a whistleblower is often times called upon to testify in anything that gets to the litigation stage.

If the whistleblower law doesn't allow for anonymity, why is that such a huge talking point from the Democrats? The whistleblower will still be protected from retaliation. Has there been a history of keeping whistleblowers identities protected?

Schiff made many statements about the whistleblower testifying, but once it was reported that Schiff's office coordinated with the whistleblower he claimed his testimony wasn't needed. That raises plenty of red flags. When a whistleblower initiates an eventual impeachment against a President I don't see how the person shouldn't be required to testify. If everything was done properly by the whistleblower there shouldn't be any problem with him testifying. The question is what are they trying to hide.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is not how the internet works. If you're logged into your Google account in Chrome, or just logged into YouTube period, anyone who "likes" something on YouTube will cause it to show on your account. Does he have kids? Nieces? Nephews? Did they use a computer his account was logged in to?

I don't think he has any kids.

 

[B4YOU]

Can a mod please relocate this non-impeachment topic?

 

[JimEverett]

Whistleblower protection relates to prohibited acts (that are employment related) that aim to protect the whistleblower from retaliation. I agree there is no statutory basis for anonymity but I suspect that in practice (and even perhaps in agency guidance) the identity of whistleblowers is kept anonymous except for when there is a need for it.

I think the WPA and related provisions in other statutes establish that there is a public policy in favor of protecting the whistleblower from retaliation that operates in practice, not just in word. Where a whistleblower's knowledge is material to the investigation, I think a whistleblower can be compelled to participate in the investigation, with safeguards in place to further the interest of protection against retaliation. I think where a whistleblower is a material witness to litigation, there is a basis for a whistleblower to seek safeguards, but a weighing of competing considerations will need to be done.

This happens all the time with sensitive evidence, as you well know. Typically, a judge is going to consider the competing interests and make a determination - and I agree that access to material information will likely outweigh a whistleblower's need for security against retaliation. But where the whistleblower isn't a material witness (in other words the are sources of information that not only do not qualify for whistleblower protection but are also better quality sources given their proximity to the events in question), then I think the weighing of interests should come out in favor of refusing access to the whistleblower.

I'm pretty confident that most whistleblower cases are fairly mundane matters for agency handling and generally not in the public forum. From time to time, there will be such a case - and on rare occasion, the subject matter will be of high interest to the public, and that will bring about risk to the whistleblower, not only in the context of prohibited employment practices (retaliation) but also that person's personal safety. And that's where it also becomes an ethical issue - not just an employment issue.

I mentioned it in the SR thread, but an analogy to consider is that of young children. In criminal cases and civil litigation that raises sensitive questions, testimony of young children is often disfavored unless the party seeking to present the child's testimony into evidence can make a showing that the child may have information that cannot be reasonably obtained from other sources. A judge typically isn't going to allow it for purely duplicative purposes.

That's how I see the whistleblower issue here. Unless there's a genuine foundation for it, I don't see how the need (which appears to be quite low) for the whistleblower's testimony outweighs the policy of whistleblower protection against retaliation and the ethical consideration of the personal safety of the individual. Speculation about the whistleblower's motives doesn't establish a foundation in my view - the whistleblower isn't providing anything into evidence so motive is irrelevant.

But this isn't a courtroom and the power ultimately rests with the majority to make the rules. In the House, Schiff (and ultimately Pelosi) don't see a interest in allowing it. It might be different if it goes to the Senate for trial.

In a judicial sense the whistleblower, in this case, operates somewhat similarly to a CI in a criminal trial. And I find that allowing a I to remain anonymous is an injustice to defendants. It is an injustice even when a defendant cannot articulate a reason that the CI is material. The argument appears circular - I don't know if the CI is material because I don't know anything about him/her, etc.

But the bigger problem I have touches on your last paragraph - this is not a criminal case or a child welfare case. It is not even a true judicial case - its mostly a political case - which is exactly what impeachment was designed to be. And the idea that "the press" appears to be taking a side in this by not actively attempting to identify the person who started the process of impeachment strikes me as incredibly odd - almost as if they are taking a political side.

 

[MT15]

So this is what I saw happening: before the WB allegations were thoroughly confirmed and corroborated by multiple witnesses, sure the House committee wanted to hear from the WB. But, once they got their testimony from the actual people involved, they no longer needed to hear from the WB who was basing his complaint on secondhand information after all, correct? I mean the Rs complained day and night about secondhand information.

About this same time Trump and the right wing fringe media went into overdrive defaming the WB and causing Trump’s disciples to get all worked up. His or her safety and security is a real concern. There would be death threats and possibly worse.

When there are simple and realistic explanations it’s usually not a huge conspiracy. It’s just not.

 

[brandon]

Let's see what else is going on in the world besides impeachment.

The Best Stock Market Ever Heads Into Stocks’ Best Time of the Year

With the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite at record levels, equities are entering the six months that historically have been their strongest.

www.barrons.com

Ah. I see now.

Not gonna fly here. The stock market has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Otherwise, we really should have given Al Capone/El Chapo/basically any mob boss a break. They made lots of money for their constituents, too.