The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (19 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]

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.

Come on now, the IG didn't find it necessary to disclose the identity for his own purposes. That would be like if the IG turned over a case to the DOJ for prosecution and then the DOJ subsequently claimed that they could shield his name from the defense team even though he is otherwise a witness.

Let me give you an example, totally unrelated to politics.

Suppose someone files a lawsuit claiming a back injury after being in a car accident.

The defense lawyer asks, who did you talk to before deciding to go see a doctor?

The plaintiff responds, "my cousin, Chris Ciaramella."

Guess what? The defense can then go take Chris's deposition to ask him, such questions as, "what did the plaintiff tell you about his back?" "What did you observe about the plaintiff's condition?" "What did you tell him?" "Do you have any relationship with the Dr you suggested?"

Maybe none of those questions result in answers that tell you anything you could not have found out through the plaintiff himself.

But the plaintiff doesn't get to make the decision as to whether the defendant deposes that witness.

You don't get to decide how the other side presents his case. If you did, then your success rate shouldn't be less than 100%.

 

[superchuck500]

Come on now, the IG didn't find it necessary to disclose the identity for his own purposes. That would be like if the IG turned over a case to the DOJ for prosecution and then the DOJ subsequently claimed that they could shield his name from the defense team even though he is otherwise a witness.

Let me give you an example, totally unrelated to politics.

Suppose someone files a lawsuit claiming a back injury after being in a car accident.

The defense lawyer asks, who did you talk to before deciding to go see a doctor?

The plaintiff responds, "my cousin, Chris Ciaramella."

Guess what? The defense can then go take Chris's deposition to ask him, such questions as, "what did the plaintiff tell you about his back?" "What did you observe about the plaintiff's condition?" "What did you tell him?" "Do you have any relationship with the Dr you suggested?"

Maybe none of those questions result in answers that tell you anything you could not have found out through the plaintiff himself.

But the plaintiff doesn't get to make the decision as to whether the defendant deposes that witness.

You don't get to decide how the other side presents his case. If you did, then your success rate shouldn't be less than 100%.

First, the scope of civil discovery (your analogy) is very broad but efforts to obtain duplicative evidence are disfavored. If a defendant wishes to depose someone that is protected by public policy and who objects to the request, the court is going to undergo an analysis to determine whether to allow it.

The central questions will be:
- What is the purpose of the deposition (i.e. what potentially relevant information might this person have);
- Could the same potentially relevant information be obtained from other sources to whom the public policy protection does not apply; and
- What, if any, protective measures may need to be installed to mitigate the harm that the public policy aims to protect.

For instance, young children are typically not deposed when the party fails to articulate why the information obtained from other sources is insufficient.

 

[Beach Friends]

First, the scope of civil discovery (your analogy) is very broad but efforts to obtain duplicative evidence are disfavored. If a defendant wishes to depose someone that is protected by public policy and who objects to the request, the court is going to undergo an analysis to determine whether to allow it.

The central questions will be:
- What is the purpose of the deposition (i.e. what potentially relevant information might this person have);
- Could the same potentially relevant information be obtained from other sources to whom the public policy protection does not apply; and
- What, if any, protective measures may need to be installed to mitigate the harm that the public policy aims to protect.

For instance, young children are typically not deposed when the party fails to articulate why the information obtained from other sources is insufficient.

That's great, but I was simply using that analogy to illustrate that cousin Chris may have discoverable information by virtue of his conversation with the plaintiff in that case.

You don't disagree with that do you?

 

[superchuck500]

That's great, but I was simply using that analogy to illustrate that cousin Chris may have discoverable information by virtue of his conversation with the plaintiff in that case.

You don't disagree with that do you?

Generally speaking and as you presented it - no.

 

[Lazybones]

Why does the identity of the whistleblower matter when we have people whose identities are known that are corroborating the whistleblower's report under oath?

Then what’s the problem?

 

[Lazybones]

That's because Eric Ciaramella is a known democrat supporter.

He was fired from the National Security Council in 2017 for leaks.

Also worked with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa in the formation of the Trump-Russian narrative.

Who is this man you speak of? Is it legal to say his name?

 

[Lazybones]

If it's so relevant, would the whistleblower being a Republican change your opinion of the Ukraine events?

Depends. It doesn’t have anything to do with him being a democrat.

 

[Lazybones]

So if Epstein killed himself, I would expect Barr to resign since he is in charge of the prison it occured. Nope, just blame Clinton like she can have people killed at whim but some how wasn't able to win an election against Trump.

I think Barr is about to make some people look at life the same way Epstein did. This Ukraine stuff may wind up exploding all over the dems in Washington. We will see in due time.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Then what’s the problem?

You want him unmasked and have failed to articulate why. You have refused repeatedly to address the fact that sworn testimony corroborates the whistleblower's complaint. What reason is there to publicly name the person?

 

[Lazybones]

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"

The transcript of the call is there. It was released early on because it doesn’t indicate any crime. If everything is as easy as you put it, should be a slam dunk.

 

[Lazybones]

You want him unmasked and have failed to articulate why. You have refused repeatedly to address the fact that sworn testimony corroborates the whistleblower's complaint. What reason is there to publicly name the person?

You saw my retort. He is a compromised source. The media had been trying to protect him from day 1.

The current administration already released the transcript taking away any need for any whistle to be blown. The media and schiff never thought that would happen.

And if everything is so simple

1. Why be so secretive if everyone knew what was up (btw please link the slam dunk testimony everyone is referring to)
2. If the identity of the whistleblower is so important to be kept confidential, why did the people who “told” the whistleblower actually come forward? Why the middle mark?
3. I don’t care one way or the other. His record is out there and so is the presidents. I’m betting on trump.

 

[Dragon]

The transcript of the call is there. It was released early on because it doesn’t indicate any crime. If everything is as easy as you put it, should be a slam dunk.

You mean the incomplete transcript? If you read any of the official sworn statements from witnesses you can read that several says parts are missing.

And you still haven't answered why you keep mentioning that name knowing that it might actually put him and his family in danger. You have done it again and again and again today...

 

[JRad]

Depends. It doesn’t have anything to do with him being a democrat.

Then why do we keep seeing this narrative about this angry democrat in the photo? Why does political affiliation matter at all? It's being mentioned way too much to have nothing to do with them being a democrat or not.

 

[Beach Friends]

You mean the incomplete transcript? If you read any of the official sworn statements from witnesses you can read that several says parts are missing.

And you still haven't answered why you keep mentioning that name knowing that it might actually put him and his family in danger. You have done it again and again and again today...

Chris Ciaramella's name has been out there for weeks. Why are you acting as though we are the first ones to mention it?

Personally, I think he would be safer if he went ahead and testified. Remember, Epstein was not in danger because of testimony he had already given, but because powerful people were afraid of what he would say if he decided to flip.

Why are you not curious about what the man who purportedly initiated the investigation would say under cross examination?

 

[Dragon]

For once I don't know if that IS the name
Secondly I don't believe in mentioning names if it can endanger someone or their families. There are reasons why the major news networks does NOT mention any names and yet you do so in every second post today and without any definite proof what so ever that it is even the right person

And thirdly - Everything the whistleblower has reported has been supported by sworn testemony from other witnessses and even by Trumps own words,

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You saw my retort. He is a compromised source. The media had been trying to protect him from day 1.

The current administration already released the transcript taking away any need for any whistle to be blown. The media and schiff never thought that would happen.

And if everything is so simple

1. Why be so secretive if everyone knew what was up (btw please link the slam dunk testimony everyone is referring to)
2. If the identity of the whistleblower is so important to be kept confidential, why did the people who “told” the whistleblower actually come forward? Why the middle mark?
3. I don’t care one way or the other. His record is out there and so is the presidents. I’m betting on trump.

How is the whistleblower a compromised source? Was the transcript released by the White House 100% accurate? How can the whistleblower's record be "out there" when nobody has confirmed their identity? Why does it matter that the whistleblower chose to remain unidentified?

You are making outright claims, so these are pretty basic questions that you should be able to answer.

As for damning testimony and statements:

Rudy Giulani admits it was all for Trump's personal gain:

Giuliani: Ukraine quid pro quo intended to benefit Trump personally - Washington Examiner

After the White House released the transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump had a defense. He could argue that his mention of the $400 million aid package for Ukraine, and his suggestion that Ukraine investigate Joe and Hunter Biden...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Alexander Vindman was on the call when Trump sought a public announcement specifically into Burisma:

White House official says Trump made a quid pro quo “demand” of Ukraine’s president

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s full testimony to the House Democrat-led impeachment inquiry is bad news for Trump.

www.vox.com

Gordon Sondland says that he was aware that the congressionally approved military aid was now being tied to an announcement from Preseident Zelensky:

Gordon Sondland Revises Impeachment Testimony to Acknowledge Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

The new statement makes key updates to his earlier testimony from last month

time.com

 

[Nebaghead]

I think Barr is about to make some people look at life the same way Epstein did. This Ukraine stuff may wind up exploding all over the dems in Washington. We will see in due time.

Barr and Trump playing 845D chess or something? There is jack shirt that will explode on the dems in a way they will commit suicide. This is utter non-sense.

Please provide a link from a reputable source with these egregrious Democrat actions that Barr will be unleashing on the democrats.

 

[Nebaghead]

Chris Ciaramella's name has been out there for weeks. Why are you acting as though we are the first ones to mention it?

Personally, I think he would be safer if he went ahead and testified. Remember, Epstein was not in danger because of testimony he had already given, but because powerful people were afraid of what he would say if he decided to flip.

Why are you not curious about what the man who purportedly initiated the investigation would say under cross examination?

Because everything he has said has been found true by multiple sources. Now it sounds like Bolton is about to unleash more evidence against Trump about meetings that they weren't even aware of.

You aren't going to give up on your guy, that is all this is. No evidence will change your mind. You will keep harping on how this started rather than what has been discovered. There is no way we are going to change your mind.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/john-bolton-ukraine.html