Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[cubby]

is the democrats case so weak that it can't withstand knowing who the whistleblower is? It's sad that they're hiding things.

Is the Republicans ignorance of the law so great that they don't understand that the whistleblower is irrelevant? It's sad they're so fucking stupid.

Finding out the identity of the whistleblower has no bearing on any part of the investigation nor the impeachment inquiry. Trump's GOP wants to know it because they want to attack them personally.

[Grapemask]

is the democrats case so weak that it can't withstand knowing who the whistleblower is? It's sad that they're hiding things.

Is the Republican case so weak that it necessitates bitching about the identity of a third party, when multiple firsthand accounts have testified regarding all of the details in that report?

As cubby said above, the whistleblower is irrelevant at this point. It's like fighting over a wikipedia article when you have all of the sources it uses.

[Xeones]

is the democrats case so weak that it can't withstand knowing who the whistleblower is? It's sad that they're hiding things.

The American case is in no way dependent upon the whistleblower for anything at this point.

The law demands he be protected.

[kaelleria]

is the democrats case so weak that it can't withstand knowing who the whistleblower is? It's sad that they're hiding things.

They don't want the whistleblower to testify because there are legitimately crazy people on the right who want to kill them.

They've offered to testify in writing and honestly everything has been corroborated by others.

What will change if you know the whistleblowers identity? Nothing.

[Ripster42]

So Ghouliani's defense is that he went to negotiate with a foreign government as a non federal employee on behalf of Trump.


Hmmm

So a logan act violation?

[Wyrt]

is the democrats case so weak that it can't withstand knowing who the whistleblower is? It's sad that they're hiding things.

1. Whistleblowers are protected by law.
2. The Whistleblower's testimony is no longer needed as other officials from the Trump Administration have already testified to the same facts.

[Ripster42]

1. Whistleblowers are protected by law.
2. The Whistleblower's testimony is no longer needed as other officials from the Trump Administration have already testified to the same facts.

IIRC their testimony wouldn't be allowed under the standard rules of evidence anyway as it was second hand. @cubby correct me if I'm wrong.

[cubby]

IIRC their testimony wouldn't be allowed under the standard rules of evidence anyway as it was second hand. @cubby correct me if I'm wrong.

Unless there is an exception to the Hearsay rule for whistleblower testimony then yes, it would be technically inadmissible in court.

However, the rules of procedure for the Impeachment Inquiry and Trial are pretty wide open, and do not necessarily need to conform to Federal Rules of Procedure. Moreover, the Whistleblower rules are set up so that the whistleblower doesn't have to testify. The IG investigates the claims that were brought forth by the Whistleblower and determines whether the issue should be pursued.

The Whistleblower has no part of this process outside of getting it started initially. And the laws protecting them (partially written by Senator Grassley (R)) are draconian in protecting their identity. Donald Trump, Jr should be arrested right now.

[Dontrike]

is the democrats case so weak that it can't withstand knowing who the whistleblower is? It's sad that they're hiding things.

Is Trumpster's case so weak that the identity of the person is more important than the information? Attack the messenger rather than the message.

[Ripster42]

However, the rules of procedure for the Impeachment Inquiry and Trial are pretty wide open, and do not necessarily need to conform to Federal Rules of Procedure.

Yeah, I know, which is why I mentioned standard rules of evidence. My comment was more towards how the GOP is complaining about the process not being fair and open, when the whistleblower wouldn't even be going into a court room in an instance like this. IE, demands towards the whistleblower don't make any sense from the foundation the GOP is publicly claiming as justification even if they weren't protected by statute.

[Skulltaker]

Is Trumpster's case so weak that the identity of the person is more important than the information? Attack the messenger rather than the message.

Maybe they plan to retaliate.

[cubby]

Yeah, I know, which is why I mentioned standard rules of evidence. My comment was more towards how the GOP is complaining about the process not being fair and open, when the whistleblower wouldn't even be going into a court room in an instance like this. IE, demands towards the whistleblower don't make any sense from the foundation the GOP is publicly claiming as justification even if they weren't protected by statute.

I know you know, I just tend to answer questions directly and then add extra info in case others are reading and don't know the details like we happen to on this issue. I agree with what you're saying as well. The GOP points of attack have almost no foundation in reality at this point. Just more and more of attack the process and messenger and ignore the facts.

[Orbitus]

is the democrats case so weak that it can't withstand knowing who the whistleblower is? It's sad that they're hiding things.

No, the case is so strong, that we don't need him or her anymore. There are literally over what? A dozen witnesses WITH RECORDS that say that Trump is fucked and did a quid pro quo now. The only thing that knowing the name of the whistleblower does, is radicalize people to have him killed like Cesar Sayoc did after listening to Trump for a few years on the campaign trail and in the White House when he sent bombs to CNN, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Maxine Waters, and other prominent Democrats.

[PACOX]

Imagine you are a Congressional Republican. Now imagine you're still harping on about the Whistleblower even though dozens of people have testified against Trump.

Now imagine you still think this is all about one Whistleblower when Ukraine is now starting to corroborate the allegations against the administration.

[Kaleredar]

It sure is weird how all these people, who are more or less 'loyalists' or people willing to keep their mouths shut, keep saying that the Ukraine call was weird, qpq, extortion.

They're trying to normalize it.

Make it a matter of "maybe he did do it, but it wasn't illegal."

[Grapemask]

From the crazy side of the aisle, Fox is trying to claim Yovanovitch perjured herself in testimony. At issue is that she said she did not personally respond to an August 14 email about the Ukraine matter, while emails show she did respond. But this is purely semantics: Yovanovitch responded to the email, but in that email states that she is not responding to the Ukraine matter and has handed it off to someone else to respond to, wholly consistent with her testimony.

Fox is also cracking down hard on that article's comment section, deleting all comments that mention this. Just a daily reminder that Fox News is not a valid source of factually accurate information.

[Captain N]

Fox is also cracking down hard on that article's comment section, deleting all comments that mention this. Just a daily reminder that Fox News is not a valid source of factually accurate information.

So what do you think the odds are of the "Woke Independents" who slammed CNN and CBS for making mistakes will condemn Fox News literally trying to cover up the fact that they got caught lying?

[Kallisto]

So what do you think the odds are of the "Woke Independents" who slammed CNN and CBS for making mistakes will condemn Fox News literally trying to cover up the fact that they got caught lying?

*Looks at hell* sorry it has not frozen over so don't count on it. Certainly not a weak attack paragraph with 2/3s of it being attacks on cnn/cbs

[Flarelaine]

Is the Republican case so weak that it necessitates bitching about the identity of a third party, when multiple firsthand accounts have testified regarding all of the details in that report?

As cubby said above, the whistleblower is irrelevant at this point. It's like fighting over a wikipedia article when you have all of the sources it uses.

Do you know how much fight goes into Wikipedia articles? There's a reason some of them get locked. Like the one on Taiwan (which claims it is a state).

[Grapemask]

Do you know how much fight goes into Wikipedia articles? There's a reason some of them get locked. Like the one on Taiwan (which claims it is a state).

Republicans are basically in a position where they're arguing that anything China or the Taiwanese say about its statehood can't be true, because of the dubious nature of its wikipedia article. The kind of bizarre argument that makes you sit down and worry over just how bad the American education system has become.