The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[Ibanez]

Yeah. The Dems gave the Reps what they asked for. I guess they didn’t want open hearings and due process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No the Dems didn’t give the Reps what they asked for- Fair and Open hearings with Due Process. The ‘Fair’ and ‘Due Process’ parts got left out.

That’s odd. That isn’t what I read in the actual resolution (or whatever it’s called)

[Ibanez]

Yeah. The Dems gave the Reps what they asked for. I guess they didn’t want open hearings and due process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or they think the whole thing is a sham. If there was something to this, I have not doubt that plenty of the "Never Trumper" conks (think JSO types) would have voted in favor of this. Remember, only one side of Schiffs private hearings have been leaked to the media so far

Of course they think it’s a sham. If they believe that, vote for the transparency and prove that it’s a sham. Sounds easy enough.


Unless they know otherwise.

[BDKJMU]

Or they think the whole thing is a sham. If there was something to this, I have not doubt that plenty of the "Never Trumper" conks (think JSO types) would have voted in favor of this. Remember, only one side of Schiffs private hearings have been leaked to the media so far

Of course they think it’s a sham. If they believe that, vote for the transparency and prove that it’s a sham. Sounds easy enough.


Unless they know otherwise.

The minority can’t force a vote for transparency if there isn’t a vote for transparency to vote for.

[Ibanez]

Of course they think it’s a sham. If they believe that, vote for the transparency and prove that it’s a sham. Sounds easy enough.


Unless they know otherwise.

The minority can’t force a vote for transparency if there isn’t a vote for transparency to vote for.

But there was...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

The minority can’t force a vote for transparency if there isn’t a vote for transparency to vote for.

But there was...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No there wasn’t...

[Ibanez]

But there was...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No there wasn’t...

The Resolution called for the procedures to be public. To allow both sides to call witnesses. Both sides are allowed to question witnesses. What more do you want? The inquiry is going to happen, you might as well deal with it.

Have you read HR 660? I don't think you have.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... n/660/text



Also, per Fox News

The Democrats’ resolution specifies that Republicans in the minority on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees will have the authority, with the concurrence of committee chairs in the majority, to subpoena witnesses and compel their testimony.

If the chair does not consent, the minority can appeal to the full committee. It is common in other proceedings for committee chairs to essentially have veto authority over subpoenas sought by ranking minority members.

The measure also sets the stage for proceedings to move into a public setting soon.

The resolution authorizes the Intelligence Committee to conduct an "open hearing or hearings" in which minority Republicans have equal time to question witnesses.

And, after that hearing is concluded, "to allow for a full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house- ... mpeachment

[BDKJMU]

No there wasn’t...

The Democrats’ resolution specifies that Republicans in the minority on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees will have the authority, with the concurrence of committee chairs in the majority, to subpoena witnesses and compel their testimony.

If the conks want to bring forth any witnesses with exculpatory testimony for Trump, they have to get Schift's approval, which of course he will have zero incentive to allow.

What kind of transparency is that?

[Ibanez]

If the conks want to bring forth any witnesses with exculpatory testimony for Trump, they have to get Schift's approval, which of course he will have zero incentive to allow.

What kind of transparency is that?

In an open process, you honestly think the witness would be denied? Something tells me that any credible witness brought by the Republicans would be allowed. Otherwise, the Democrats run a huge risk of appearing to be denying POTUS the ability to defend himself. The Dems may loathe Trump, but they appear to be ready to make this as legit as possible . Right now the Dems are essentially holding a grand jury, which has no due process.

Btw, that wouldn't be a transparency issue. Probably more like due process. Ivy, can I get a ruling?


According to the Constitution, there's very little guidance.

[Skjellyfetti]

BDK's example definitely isn't about transparency. And, I don't think it's a due process issue either. It isn't a trial. It's akin to a Grand Jury deciding whether there is enough evidence to go to trial. The defense doesn't get to call witnesses in a Grand Jury.

And, which witnesses that Republicans want to testify have had subpoenaed rejected?

[Ivytalk]

If the conks want to bring forth any witnesses with exculpatory testimony for Trump, they have to get Schift's approval, which of course he will have zero incentive to allow.

What kind of transparency is that?

In an open process, you honestly think the witness would be denied? Something tells me that any credible witness brought by the Republicans would be allowed. Otherwise, the Democrats run a huge risk of appearing to be denying POTUS the ability to defend himself. The Dems may loathe Trump, but they appear to be ready to make this as legit as possible . Right now the Dems are essentially holding a grand jury, which has no due process.

Btw, that wouldn't be a transparency issue. Probably more like due process. Ivy, can I get a ruling?


According to the Constitution, there's very little guidance.

This is roughly analogous to a grand jury proceeding, but grand juries, of course, are randomly selected from among the citizenry and are not political. The Democrats on the Intelligence (sic) Committee will reach a preordained political result, as will the full House. It’s just a den of Analjellies.

[BDKJMU]

If the conks want to bring forth any witnesses with exculpatory testimony for Trump, they have to get Schift's approval, which of course he will have zero incentive to allow.

What kind of transparency is that?

In an open process, you honestly think the witness would be denied? Something tells me that any credible witness brought by the Republicans would be allowed. Otherwise, the Democrats run a huge risk of appearing to be denying POTUS the ability to defend himself. The Dems may loathe Trump, but they appear to be ready to make this as legit as possible . Right now the Dems are essentially holding a grand jury, which has no due process.

Btw, that wouldn't be a transparency issue. Probably more like due process. Ivy, can I get a ruling?


According to the Constitution, there's very little guidance.

I expect nothing less from the donks..
They just want to give the facade of it being legit..

[BDKJMU]

BDK's example definitely isn't about transparency. And, I don't think it's a due process issue either. It isn't a trial. It's akin to a Grand Jury deciding whether there is enough evidence to go to trial. The defense doesn't get to call witnesses in a Grand Jury.

And, which witnesses that Republicans want to testify have had subpoenaed rejected?

Like Ivy said, Grand Jury's are RANDOMLY selected, NON POLITICAL from among the populace. There's nothing randomly selected or non political about this at all. So it's not akin to a grand jury.

[Skjellyfetti]

It's akin to a Grand Jury except as outlined in the Constitution... which gives the House the sole power of impeachment. It doesn't say the House should appoint a random selection of the populace.

You keep thinking this is akin trial, which it isn't. The analogy isn't a trial but a Grand Jury. Yes, impeachment is unique. It's not 100% analogous to any other process. Do you think this is the first impeachment that is political?

It sounds like your gripe is with the Constitution.

[∞∞∞]

The House has given the White House every opportunity to present their case, and still has an open invitation for the Administration to give any evidence and/or testimony in their favor.

The Executive has decided to stonewall the offer, or it literally has nothing which helps them.

[CID1990]

The House has given the White House every opportunity to present their case, and still has an open invitation for the Administration to give any evidence and/or testimony in their favor.

The Executive has decided to stonewall the offer, or it literally has nothing which helps them.

That is no different from the arguments that the "inquiry" lacks transparency.

There will be a public component once actual impeachment proceedings begin at which time the WH will certainly offer their own witnesses

Frankly I wouldn't participate in any ad hoc proceedings, either - which is what this is so far.

[∞∞∞]

The House has given the White House every opportunity to present their case, and still has an open invitation for the Administration to give any evidence and/or testimony in their favor.

The Executive has decided to stonewall the offer, or it literally has nothing which helps them.

That is no different from the arguments that the "inquiry" lacks transparency.

There will be a public component once actual impeachment proceedings begin at which time the WH will certainly offer their own witnesses

Frankly I wouldn't participate in any ad hoc proceedings, either - which is what this is so far.

The Dems have offered the House GOP to bring whatever witness or evidence they want.

But that doesn't play into the GOP narrative, or once again, they have nothing which helps.

[CID1990]

That is no different from the arguments that the "inquiry" lacks transparency.

There will be a public component once actual impeachment proceedings begin at which time the WH will certainly offer their own witnesses

Frankly I wouldn't participate in any ad hoc proceedings, either - which is what this is so far.

The Dems have offered the House GOP to bring whatever witness or evidence they want.

But that doesn't play into the GOP narrative, or once again, they have nothing which helps.

WHOOSH!

[css75]

In an open process, you honestly think the witness would be denied? Something tells me that any credible witness brought by the Republicans would be allowed. Otherwise, the Democrats run a huge risk of appearing to be denying POTUS the ability to defend himself. The Dems may loathe Trump, but they appear to be ready to make this as legit as possible . Right now the Dems are essentially holding a grand jury, which has no due process.

Btw, that wouldn't be a transparency issue. Probably more like due process. Ivy, can I get a ruling?


According to the Constitution, there's very little guidance.

I expect nothing less from the donks..
They just want to give the facade of it being legit..

Which of course it is not. Schiff is probably the worst person ever to head a committee like this. He setup the so called whistleblower, still says he has solid evidence of collusion, among his dirty tactics.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Imagine if Nunes still had the gavel.

You and BDK were probably two of the guys on here arguing that Republicans "won" in 2018.

[SDHornet]

The House has given the White House every opportunity to present their case, and still has an open invitation for the Administration to give any evidence and/or testimony in their favor.

The Executive has decided to stonewall the offer, or it literally has nothing which helps them.

That is no different from the arguments that the "inquiry" lacks transparency.

There will be a public component once actual impeachment proceedings begin at which time the WH will certainly offer their own witnesses

Frankly I wouldn't participate in any ad hoc proceedings, either - which is what this is so far.

Yup. Zero need to do anything until they have to. The burden of proof is on the accuser(s).

[kalm]

That is no different from the arguments that the "inquiry" lacks transparency.

There will be a public component once actual impeachment proceedings begin at which time the WH will certainly offer their own witnesses

Frankly I wouldn't participate in any ad hoc proceedings, either - which is what this is so far.

Yup. Zero need to do anything until they have to. The burden of proof is on the accuser(s).

Agree. So why all the hand wringing about process? If the laws are on your side you argue the laws, not the process.

[SDHornet]

Yup. Zero need to do anything until they have to. The burden of proof is on the accuser(s).

Agree. So why all the hand wringing about process? If the laws are on your side you argue the laws, not the process.

Which part of the process? The part where the whistleblower rules were changed to get hearsay on the docket? Or the formalized impeachment inquiry rules where everything and anything has to be approved by Schiff?

And btw, where the hell is JSO to tell us all how the impeachment polls have been holding up over the last month?

[SDHornet]

[Skjellyfetti]

The part where the whistleblower rules were changed to get hearsay on the docket?

The whistleblower rules weren't changed to allow hearsay.

Or the formalized impeachment inquiry rules where everything and anything has to be approved by Schiff?

It's the way house committees work and have always worked. Was Nunes giving Schiff unilateral subpoena power when he had the gavel? Of course not

Impeachment inquiries work the same way.

The House worked the same during the Clinton impeachment inquiry. I posted the relevant rule from each a few pages back.

[Ivytalk]

From Jelly’s Rules of Order (2d ed.).

The butthurt is great in our little armchair parliamentarian. Lost to GaSo yet again.