Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[oxmixmudd]

Specious reasoning. Retaliation can only really happen in secret and not when it's a national news story that everybody is talking about. Seriously, if the dude's identity was announced today, and Trump were to then make some retaliatory move against him, how do you think that would play for Trump?

Judging from you and others, I would expect the Trump supporters to justify it and 'rally by their man'. I have yet to see a moral line Trump can cross and lose his support as a consequence - with the possible exception of his abandonment of the Kurds - and that only in a very small part. Further, no such action would ever take place in a way that could be proven to be directly tied to Trump. Which is why the whistle blower's identity must be protected.

But beyond that, there's the matter that if answers are submitted anonymously in writing then House members will not be allowed to assess the witnesses credentials and credibility, or observe his demeanor under questioning; and what guarantee is there that the anonymous answers are really coming directly from the witness himself and aren't being parsed by his lawyers first, or prepared by a committee, possibly with input from members of Congress and others who have a vested interest in him delivering the "correct" answers?

Again I say, if they can pull this on the President of the United States then what's to stop them from pulling it on you?

Excuse making. Whistle blower laws exist to encourage people with inside knowledge of a crime to raise the red flag. They do not subject a person that might be charged as a result of an investigation to a loss of the right to confront their accuser if they are charged. Nor does it keep a person from being protected as 'innocent until proven guilty' even if they are charged. AFAIK, the only way the accused would not see who his accusers are at an actual trial would be if they were not called as a witness. Indeed, since the persons identity as the actual whistle blower is protected, they could be a part of the in person testimony against the accused as a witness w/o ever actually being identified as the actual whistle blower. In which case both elements are preserved. The accused sees all his accusers, but never knows which was, or even if any of them are, the actual whistle-blower.



Jim

[Teallaura]

1. Grand jury testimony isn’t publicly released in an investigation.
2. An investigation, by a special counsel, doesn’t follow the same rules as a house impeachment investigation does.

Keep trying to excuse away whatever the democrats say or do. Reality: democrats are determined to get rid of Trump, no matter what.

Grand juries aren't convened to investigate - EVER!
Deposition is part of discovery, not investigation.

NEITHER are used as part of an inquiry!

[Teallaura]

Impeachment proceedings are, in fact, analogous to grand jury investigations and initial depositions are not public for many of the same reasons: you want witnesses to be able to talk, you want interviewers to be free of the need for public performance, you want to avoid witnesses trying to corroborate stories.

If you give this stuff a bit of thought, all that is evident.

--Sam

Impeachment procedings aren't analogous to grand juries - and sure as heck not in the investigation/inquiry phase.

Quit making this stuff up!

[rogue06]

Impeachment procedings aren't analogous to grand juries - and sure as heck not in the investigation/inquiry phase.

Quit making this stuff up!

Awhile back someone opined that the best way to tell if the Democrats are serious about impeachment they'll do everything in the open and allow Republicans on the committee subpoena powers and the right to cross examine witnesses. If they fail to do this then it is nothing but a cheap stunt.


Guess which one it is shaping up as?

[Sam]

Impeachment procedings aren't analogous to grand juries - and sure as heck not in the investigation/inquiry phase.

Quit making this stuff up!

Yes, they are, and it's a relatively simple analogy: just as you don't have a criminal trial without an indictment, you don't have a Senate trial without an impeachment. The House votes to impeach after collecting evidence and holding a hearing, just as a grand jury votes to indict after evidence is collected and presented.

Impeachment in the House is analogous, though not identical, to a grand jury indictment just as a Senate trial is analogous, though not identical to, a criminal trial.

I mean, com'on:

Source: Impeachment In the United States. Wikipedia. Accessed 2019.10.11

Impeachment in the United States is the process by which a legislature (usually in the form of the lower house) brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury.

© Copyright Original Source

--Sam

[Sam]

Awhile back someone opined that the best way to tell if the Democrats are serious about impeachment they'll do everything in the open and allow Republicans on the committee subpoena powers and the right to cross examine witnesses. If they fail to do this then it is nothing but a cheap stunt.


Guess which one it is shaping up as?

Congressional Republicans have the ability to cross-examine witnesses (or have their staff do it during staff depositions). Acting DNI Maguire's testimony was just held in a public hearing, with Republican congressmen given their equal time.

Y'all are leaning way over your skis.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

That is not how it works. Not sure if you know it though. Your identity (if it met the whistle-blower standard) would be withheld, but nothing would happen to me (or sam) unless what you 'heard' could be supported with real evidence. whistle blower statutes don't keep a person from facing their accuser if they are charged with a crime. It just alerts the authorities to a potential problem. If they where not protected then far fewer people would be willing to take the risk of letting the authorities know something is amiss.

Jim

And yet, that’s just what you want done to Trump. You want him accused without having basic rights. If they can trample the rights of a president, they don’t like, what can they do to you?

[Sam]

And yet, that’s just what you want done to Trump. You want him accused without having basic rights. If they can trample the rights of a president, they don’t like, what can they do to you?

What rights is Trump being denied in an impeachment hearing? 6A doesn't apply to the Senate trial, let alone the House hearing.

--Sam

[oxmixmudd]

And yet, that’s just what you want done to Trump. You want him accused without having basic rights. If they can trample the rights of a president, they don’t like, what can they do to you?

No - Trump has not been tried yet. And even if he is, during the trial itself, there would be no need to name any of the witnesses against him as 'the whistle blower'. Assuming he is impeached, he'll know who is bringing the evidence used against him. But he may never know who the whistle blower is.

Why all this concern about a person doing something illegal being given the right to know who reported him to the police? Sounds like you ascribe to the 'he's a snitch' mentality that condemns the person reporting the crime and excuses the person committing the crime - the 'mob' mentality.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Impeachment proceedings are, in fact, analogous to grand jury investigations and initial depositions are not public for many of the same reasons: you want witnesses to be able to talk, you want interviewers to be free of the need for public performance, you want to avoid witnesses trying to corroborate stories.

If you give this stuff a bit of thought, all that is evident.

--Sam

So there was no house vote for impeachment investigation of Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton?

[lilpixieofterror]

No - Trump has not been tried yet. And even if he is, during the trial itself, there would be no need to name any of the witnesses against him as 'the whistle blower'. Assuming he is impeached, he'll know who is bringing the evidence used against him. But he may never know who the whistle blower is.

Why all this concern about a person doing something illegal being given the right to know who reported him to the police? Sounds like you ascribe to the 'he's a snitch' mentality that condemns the person reporting the crime and excuses the person committing the crime - the 'mob' mentality.


Jim

It’s called the 6th amendment. Maybe you’ve heard of it.

As usual, you make up lies about me to support your hatred. Here’s the reality,

You have the right to face your accuser, in open court, to cross exam witness, to protest your innocence, and to know the charges against you.

Stop lying about my motives, those are my motives. That everyone, including people Jim hates, have constitutional rights.

[oxmixmudd]

It’s called the 6th amendment. Maybe you’ve heard of it.

It apparently doesn't apply. Is there a precedent that strikes down a whistle-blower law because it violates the 6th amendment?

As I pointed out, there is no issue here. And, you have not presented any counter argument to the case I made.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

It apparently doesn't apply. Is there a precedent that strikes down a whistle-blower law because it violates the 6th amendment?

As I pointed out, there is no issue here. And, you have not presented any counter argument to the case I made.

Jim

Yeah there is, the constitution makes it clear that the accused have rights. I know you hate Trump and people Jim hates shouldn’t have rights, but everyone entitled to know what they are charged with, to face their accusers, to know the evidence against them, and to be able to cross exam all of this to prove their innocence.

Has their been a vote, on the house floor, to move forward? Yes or no?

[lilpixieofterror]

Grand juries aren't convened to investigate - EVER!
Deposition is part of discovery, not investigation.

NEITHER are used as part of an inquiry!

But Trump is guilty, we just need to know what he is guilty of first.

[Sam]

It apparently doesn't apply. Is there a precedent that strikes down a whistle-blower law because it violates the 6th amendment?

As I pointed out, there is no issue here. And, you have not presented any counter argument to the case I made.

Jim

The Sixth Amendment explicitly applies to criminal trials. The Senate trial is not a criminal trial (according to historical precedent, case law, & the Congressional Research Service) so 6A doesn't apply there. Even if it did, impeachment hearings in the House are not a trial and 6A definitely doesn't apply there.

Just a talking point stubbornly resistant to factual correction.

--Sam