Well primarily because he’s an IC leaker - not a whistle blower- as there’s clearly nothing to blow the whistle on. He’s colluded with Schiff and Vindman and needs to be investigated. That starts with Eric Ciaramella being questioned as a witness.
So will Trump's appointee Sondland plead the Fifth today?
- Thread starter Syskatine
- Start date
Well primarily because he’s an IC leaker - not a whistle blower- as there’s clearly nothing to blow the whistle on. He’s colluded with Schiff and Vindman and needs to be investigated. That starts with Eric Ciaramella being questioned as a witness.
Agreed that this is not a criminal proceeding. Beyond that, you're just making stuff up based on how you feel.
The identity of the WB is irrelevant if there are numerous other witnesses willing to go on record corroborating his claim.
Where are the people willing to go on record to refute it?
Good soldier. But I know you don't really believe this.
Even if his identity were disclosed, it is immaterial to the sworn testimony. Anyone willing to say it went down differently is free to testify as well.
Uh, no. As JD said a few weeks ago, this is a purely political process. The political leanings of the WB, as well as every other person involved, are relevant.
You're robbing the testimony of context to fit a narrative that just doesn't add up.
Trump got caught red-handed with the whistleblower complaint, so OF COURSE he's going to say no QPQ at that point.
It's like getting caught going out your window at 1 am and claiming you were on your way to the library.
Not much context to "no quid pro quo." Especially when there is no real evidence of a quid pro quo. All the more reason to know who the WB is, and what specific facts caused him to blow the whistle.
Why is the political leanings of the WB relevant? It doesn't change any of the testimony that we have already heard. Let's pretend that the WB turns out to be Hilary Clinton. How does that change anything? Does that mean we now don't believe anything that Sondland said? You guys already think Vindman is a Dem operative. Does he become a double Dem operative if you find out that the WB is a never Trumper?
Man o man the Dems star star witness bombed big time today. Utterly destroyed. Carry on.
If the WB got anything wrong, any of the called witnesses could have said so.
You are grasping at straws here.
Because we live in a free society, and as a people, we're entitled to know who may or may not be undoing an election. We should also be vigilant about that freedom, hence, the demand for transparency.
These are not grand jury proceedings. Not even close to analogous. If they were, we would not know anything until it reached the Senate. BY its very nature, the HoR can not exercise that kind of secrecy.
Two-thirds of the Senate. That's who will or won't "undo" an election. Now you know.
They'll have all of the information necessary to make their decision...as provided for in the Constitution. The identity of a reluctant informant whose claims have been either corroborated or refuted is not necessary.
cool, so really all of this due process face your accuser stuff is just politics not some kind of actual procedural requirement.
Here's the deal.
The impeachment process is not rigidly analogous to anything else in the civil or criminal legal system. Yet you keep trying to make that connection the times when it benefits your narrative, and severing it when it does does not.
Was a 23-page opening statement necessary? Sorry to repeat myself, but this is a political process. Regardless of the outcome, the result will affect future elections. Hence, the American people should know who this guy is, whether or not he's some political hack, and any people he may have interacted with prior to blowing the whistle.
The mob never really wants CI's to testify. They want them too afraid of retribution to do so. Hence the need for WB protection in the first place. It's not that hard, folks.
Shouldn't the analogy be that you and your crew were talking about stopping someone from robbing a bank and a concerned citizen imagined you were plotting a bank robbery ...
Due process is more than just procedural, counselor. It also encompasses the broad term of "fundamental fairness."
I guess you can always hope to have the conviction overturned on a fundamental fairness appeal.
I'm doing no such thing. All I'm asking for is a process that is fundamentally fair. In the USA, "fundamental fairness" generally gives an accused every feasible chance to obtain favorable evidence.
It's happened numerous times, in both criminal and civil cases. It's also, for example, how the 1st Amendment, which specifically applies to Congress, gets applied to state and local governments as well.
Where is it written that in this political process the American people *should* know the identity?
Constitution? Bill of Rights? Magna Carta? King James Bible? Declaration of Independence? War and Peace? Sean Hannity's head?
In a legal proceeding...right?
If someone makes false or misleading claims about you, the response of an innocent person is to offer evidence and witnesses to the contrary, not ask "who told you that"?
And if one and only one person heard this, there wouldn't be much of a case if they didn't testify.
If a dozen other people were all willing to speak to the exact same thing, there would be a much better case.
HR: Mr. Wino, we have received a report that you have been falsifying your expense reports.
Response A: Absolutely not. All of my expenses are well documented and per company policy to the best of my knowledge. Which ones would you like to discuss?
Response B: Who told you that? They must be never-Wino'er. It's a coup, I tell you!
See, if I did falsify my reports, it doesn't matter that I think it was Rick in logistics who ratted me out because he was jealous of my promotion. It only matters whether or not I violated a policy that could reasonably result in my termination.
We are a free and self-governing people. If a president can be impeached based on an anonymous bureaucrat (who may or may not have his own political agenda) filing a form, with the accompanying adverse effects on the country, then we are less free. For sure, I realize you'll never be convinced of this until an anomymous Republican blows the whistle on a dmocrat president, but in the meantime do not confuse yourself with people who believe fairness and justice.
That’s one way of looking at it.
If somebody repeated a rumor about me, such as cheating on my wife, I wouldn’t offer evidence to the contrary. I just know I haven’t cheated on her. So to be blunt, I’d like to know where you heard it so I’d know whose ass to kick.
