Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Charles
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Sorry. I was spending time with my daughters and my in-laws this weekend, and my TWeb time was very limited. And to be quite frank, I don't care any more. It's not like my comments will change any of your minds...
    They will not if you cannot support them or provide yourself what you ask others to provide.

    And here is what you left out of Roy's post:

    Multiple Donald Trump defenders have demanded that people quote the exact statute that Trump has allegedly broken.

    But they won't do the same for Joe Biden's alleged offences.
    Last edited by Charles; 10-07-2019, 09:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Unanswered. .
    Sorry. I was spending time with my daughters and my in-laws this weekend, and my TWeb time was very limited. And to be quite frank, I don't care any more. It's not like my comments will change any of your minds...

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Unanswered.

    Multiple Donald Trump defenders have demanded that people quote the exact statute that Trump has allegedly broken.

    But they won't do the same for Joe Biden's alleged offences.
    Not to mention the fact that the breaking of a law is not necessary in order that a president commit an impeachable action. Abuse of power is impeachable, though not necessarily a criminal act. Besides that, there was a quid pro quo with respect to Ukraine, and it's in writing and it's signed by Zelenski.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Unanswered.

    Multiple Donald Trump defenders have demanded that people quote the exact statute that Trump has allegedly broken.

    But they won't do the same for Joe Biden's alleged offences.
    Interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat
    I knew which one you were inferring, but I find it better to pin you guys down when you are specific in writing.
    ...
    US Ethics laws.
    But you don't want to be pinned down yourself, do you.

    Which US ethics law or statute is Biden suspected of breaking?
    Unanswered.

    Multiple Donald Trump defenders have demanded that people quote the exact statute that Trump has allegedly broken.

    But they won't do the same for Joe Biden's alleged offences.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    ...
    --Sam
    Did you say something?

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    ISTM we need to question the Constitutionality of protections for even "real" whistleblowers. Trump was right: He has -- or at least *should* have -- the right to confront his accuser(s).
    The Constitution treats impeachment as a criminal trial in two separate sections. No where does it exclude impeachment from Due Process or the Sixth Amendment.

    Politically, failing to produce witnesses or to grant due process would be suicide.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    The Senate sets its own trial rules - or had you forgotten?

    The protection from reprisal doesn't overrule the Sixth Amendment.

    The House can't control the Senate - any courtesy (like extending whistle blower protection despite violation of the statute) extended by the House IS NOT BINDING on the Senate.

    The removal of a duly elected President requires transparency. No, if the House brings articles, there WILL BE an open trial and the accused WILL get the chance to face his accusers. And the American people will bear witness - no stupid camera tricks; for that you have to establish a danger to the witnesses life - which seriously undermines the credibility of CIA assigned to the White House.

    The Dems can't have it only their way - there had better be some sunlight soon or people are going to start smelling the Dems' rat.

    Since this pertains to the discussion and since you don't wish me to post in the new thread you made (don't think you can ban people from threads in the OP, by memory), I'll put it here.

    You say that impeachment trials are criminal trials but this has not been the standard throughout the history of impeachment, as the Congressional Research Service's report on the subject explains. While some have argued that impeachment is a criminal trial, others have pointed to case law that establishes criminal convictions as depriving a person of "life, liberty, and property". The standard of proof for impeachment, likewise, has changed throughout history and between senators, with some applying the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt and others applying a lower standard like preponderance of evidence.

    There is, in other words, no set standard and no set category for impeachment. By historical standards, then, impeachment trials cannot be criminal trials, whatever else one might call them.

    Source: CRS Report for Congress. Standard of Proof in Senate Impeachment Proceedings. Thomas B. Ripy. Legislative Attorney. American Law Division

    In sum, the Senate has traditionally left the choice of the applicable standard of proof to each individual Senator. While rejecting a motion to make the criminal standard the standard in the Claiborne impeachment, the discussion made clear that it was simply a decision to allow each member to make that choice and not a repudiation of the standard itself. Individuals might apply that or any other standard of their choice. A walk through history and an examination of the discussions of legal commentators may aid individuals in weighing their choices, but provides no definitive answers. Indeed, such an exercise is perhaps most useful in highlighting basic questions that members will want to ask themselves when searching for the appropriate standard.

    © Copyright Original Source



    --Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    ISTM we need to question the Constitutionality of protections for even "real" whistleblowers. Trump was right: He has -- or at least *should* have -- the right to confront his accuser(s).
    In a criminal proceeding, he does -- though, as mentioned earlier, the right is not absolute.

    But Trump is not yet a defendant in a criminal proceeding and the whistleblower is not an "accuser" in any sense that would have legal weight. If a bank employee provides the FBI a ledger showing that the manager has been stealing from the till, the ledger is evidence and the manager doesn't necessarily have any right to face the employee who provided the ledger in court.

    If Trump wants to bring a libel case against the whistleblower, let him. The truth of an allegation is a powerful defense and Trump couldn't very well complain about Zaid and Bakaj getting access to all sorts of documents and depositions in discovery.

    --Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    I demonstrated reading comprehension that you were unable to do - probably because you mistook purpose for specific section in the statute. The first guy isn't a whistleblower - he isn't entitled to protection from a statute he/she violated.
    ...
    ISTM we need to question the Constitutionality of protections for even "real" whistleblowers. Trump was right: He has -- or at least *should* have -- the right to confront his accuser(s).

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    ... and blah, blah, blah...
    Who cares what you think, Pinocchio?

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    You can try, I guess.

    ...
    --Sam
    No, I proved that you are a liar. You could have reasonably misunderstood the original post - but I immediately clarified that the 'that' in the third sentence referred to both previous sentences. YOU don't get to tell ME what I meant. Stating as fact that I said something I did not say and that the inference YOU made is what I said when I demonstrated otherwise is A FLAT OUT LIE.

    Dodge and distract as hard as you can - but you are a proven LIAR.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Right, right - we should just let the Dems have their little coup and not involve things like transparency and due process.

    The Sixth will be applied because Graham just made it political suicide for the Senate not to. Why the heck did you think he was saying that so early?


    Whatsamatta? Don't you like sunshine?

    ... and this is another example of why:

    You wrote that Trump has the right to meet his accusers, thus necessitating the identity of the whistleblower be made public.

    I responded that whistleblower protection laws would allow for anonymity to avoid retaliation.

    You wrote that such protections don't "overrule the Sixth Amendment", thereby arguing that Trump has a constitutional right to face his accusers.

    I responded that the Sixth Amendment applies to criminal proceedings, which impeachment is not.


    Now there's another example of a factual statement (whistleblower protection laws do not overrule Trump's constitutional rights under 6A) that is in some error: Trump doesn't have 6A rights during an impeachment hearing or Senate trial. But, instead of copping to the mistake, you doubled down by arguing that the Sixth Amendment "will be applied" (that's not how constitutional amendments work, exactly!) because Graham has made it politically damaging not to do so.

    The argument, you see, changed: instead of Trump's constitutional rights overriding the whistleblower's statutory protections, now you argue that the whistleblower's statutory protections can be disregarded for political expediency. It would have been easier to simply admit a mistake -- you utilized a talking point that has been widely circulated among right-wing sources for the last week but has no actual significance -- but instead have now made a bigger mistake by refusing to reassess what you said and bring it into line with a rational argument.

    But someone's gonna point those problems out. And it doesn't do anyone any good to resort to calling them a liar or desperate as a defense mechanism.

    --Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post

    I am officially calling you a liar. You falsely, maliciously and intentionally misconstrued my comments despite clarification and repeated quotation.

    If you feel the need to lie about what I said, what else are you lying about?
    You can try, I guess.

    I explained how, given what you wrote concerning the ICIG and a judge, that you were making a factual error. I'm fine accepting your clarification but I'm pointing out that it's totally incoherent: the statute already provides for IC whistleblowers to go directly to Congress. There'd be no remedy necessary for a judge to "overrule the IG". Personally, I'd rather be wrong on a correctable fact than persisting in an incoherent argument.

    End of the road, the only other option would be a whistleblower goes to court to overrule the ICIG and the judge makes the complaint ... public? The judge rules that DOJ has to investigate? Both would be just as incoherent as the above.

    So I don't know what you think I'm lying about but, as I'll explain more in the next post, I can't be very bothered by it.

    --Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    The pertinent posts:


    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    And that none of them have come forward publicly...
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Multiple new clients for Bakaj & Zaid, the attorneys representing the whistleblower.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]40112[/ATTACH]
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Didn't you join the argument recently that the first whistleblower probably broke the law because they talked to someone other than ICIG and didn't adhere to (a wrong interpretation of) the ICWPA?
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    I demonstrated reading comprehension that you were unable to do - probably because you mistook purpose for specific section in the statute. The first guy isn't a whistleblower - he isn't entitled to protection from a statute he/she violated.

    So, ya got no argument against the obvious issue that two weeks in we still have no named accusers, huh? Obviously not since you attack me with your pretentiously declared victory instead of addressing the point.

    Reality is beginning to set in - if no one goes on record with credible firsthand testimony this latest circus is gonna collapse, too.
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    The torturous reading y'all were trying to use of ICWPA has been dealt with, both in regards to the statutory context, the legislative history, and the opinion of the Trump-appointed officials in charge of enforcing the statute. Screaming against the wind on that one.

    "No named accusers" is a rather absurd hill to die on when the ICIG is known and has the actual, real-life job of fielding these complaints to determine their credibility while shielding the people making the complaints from political reprisal ... say by a President who has called them traitors and spies.

    The ICIG determined that the original whistleblower's complaint was both 1) credible and 2) included firsthand knowledge of elements of the complaint. Recall that the complaint contains more than just the summary transcript of Trump's call, some still classified and redacted.

    At the very least, y'all need to keep yourselves in a straight line: if the first whistleblower isn't a "real" whistleblower, entitled to legal protection, because they talked about the complaint with someone that wasn't the ICIG, on what basis are you complaining that the new whistleblowers aren't making their complaints in public?

    What, in your opinion, should someone with classified information of an administration's abuse be doing in this situation?

    --Sam
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Cutting out the indignant, and pretentious, bluster...


    Following the law as set out in the statute. Going first to the IG exactly as stated in the statute.

    IF, and only if, that fails and the whistle blower is convinced that the allegation needs to be made public, the next stop is a court. Let a judge over rule the IG - or decide not to - rather than playing self righteously stupid.


    Now, what about the/these other 'whistle blowers'? Why haven't they filed complaints or come forward?

    They are still hiding in the dark. Why? It's way too late to argue they fear reprisal - according (only) to you, the first one is protected by statute - so why hasn't he come forward at least?
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Actually, the ICWPA directs that a whistleblower go to Congress, not court, with the complaint if the ICIG doesn't refer the matter up the chain. "Coming forward" (i.e., "going public") with classified information is exactly the conduct that ICWPA was created to prevent.

    So often now, I'm getting my posts cropped by people complaining that it's "tripe" or "bluster" who go on to make false statements of fact. Weird!

    Any road, NYT on the new whistleblower folk:

    Source: Legal Team Says It Represents a Second Whistle-Blower Over Trump and Ukraine. Annie Karni. NYT. 2019.10.06

    Mr. Zaid confirmed a report by the ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos on his show, “This Week,” which said the new whistle-blower had already been interviewed by the intelligence community’s inspector general’s office, but had not yet communicated with any congressional committees.

    Another member of the legal team confirmed on Twitter that the firm was now representing “multiple whistleblowers” but declined to comment further.

    © Copyright Original Source



    One of the new persons appears to be an employee the ICIG had interviewed to determine the credibility of the first complaint -- in other words, one of the people Trump was calling a "spy" (and you know what we did with spies back in the good ol' days, he told the audience). Unclear whether that person has new information past what was previously used for corroboration or whether they'll file their own complaint.

    --Sam
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Reading comprehension still an issue, huh?


    That, here, refers to BOTH previous sentences.

    YOU are the only one to misrepresent ANYTHING.

    Desperation doesn't suit you.


    And then you add three paragraphs without ACTUALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

    All you've got is bluster.
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    As you wrote it:

    Step 1: Go to ICIG

    Step 2: If ICIG declines to refer, go to a judge to overrule ICIG

    Nowhere in ICWPA does it stipulate that a whistleblower is to take their complaint to a judge to "overrule" the ICIG's referral. They go to Congress, notifying ICIG & DNI that they're doing so.

    It would be unlawful -- illegal, even -- for the whistleblower to, at any point, take a complaint containing classified information to a judge. If a whistleblower tried to sue for the complaint's release, the judge wouldn't overrule the ICIG, they'd just point out that the statute already provides the remedy: take it straight to either intelligence committee in Congress.

    --Sam
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Word for word EXACT copy of my post:



    Source
    *formatting left as rendered


    And the relevant portion:

    Following the law as set out in the statute. Going first to the IG exactly as stated in the statute.

    IF, and only if, that fails ...


    Don't pull that stunt again.
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Yes, first go the ICIG and then go to the court. That's what you wrote.

    But the ICWPA says first go to the ICIG and then go directly to Congress. The sequence you wrote not only doesn't comport to the statute, it doesn't make sense if you're now trying to include going to Congress after the ICIG. Why go to a judge to overrule the ICIG if the whistleblower has already taken the complaint to Congress? For what?

    As you wrote it, it was wrong. That happens; easy enough to brush off. As you're trying to argue it was written now, it's incoherent; does not and cannot make sense, stepwise. Better to say "I didn't know/forgot the statute had that provision" than "I meant to argue something that doesn't make any sense."

    --Sam

    I am officially calling you a liar. You falsely, maliciously and intentionally misconstrued my comments despite clarification and repeated quotation.

    If you feel the need to lie about what I said, what else are you lying about?

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
0 responses
1 view
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
16 responses
189 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
419 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Working...
X