The Impeachment Inquiry

[Ur Dead]

Heard a talking point that leads to the conclusion, the impeachment
committee may be breaking the law.
They want to use information by the whisleblower. They want the whisleblowers name to be supressed.
But the law states that any information used in a case must have all
information, and sources revealed.
Otherwise you can not use the information.
If the name of the whisleblower is revealed then it may come to light the
motive of the person revealing the information. This leads the person, may be
discredited or may be known be have gained the information through
hearsay , second or third hand sources. And not have reliable
credentials or information itself.
The Democrats want to use the information and keep the name from being revealed. This is the violation of the law.
Either you present the information and reveal the sources or
you keep your sources out and can not present the information.
You can not make new laws on the fly.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The irony is that everyone already knows the whistleblower's name--Eric Ciaramella--and we already know that he is a registered Democrat and was an analyst whose specialty was Ukraine, including working with at least one Ukranian-American on several projects. Go look on page 138 or 139 in the main Trump thread---I posted all available info about the whistleblower.

[Skyweir]

Ur dead do you have a link to that information you have just shared? I cannot see it as being accurate. It seems to fly in the face of whistleblower protections.

But it is the US and things may be very different there.

Hashi if nothing HAS to be proven why all the hoo hah about proof, evidence, second hand testimony etc?

That makes not much sense to me at all.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Laws about whistleblower protections do not apply to private citizens, so we can broadcast the name all we want.

Why all the hoo hah anout proof and evidence? Simple--television ratings, to sell news stories, and to look like they are doing something about Trump for the voters back home. It is all circus for them. They know that the average citizen thinks "impeachment" is something bad but it really is only a slap on the wrist.

[Zarathustra]

Democrats ignore Ukrainian denials of pressure by Trump

Consider these pleas from Ukrainians that they never felt abused by Trump and any supposed strings between $391 million in military aid that was temporarily withheld and demands that they investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and their ties to the Burisma natural gas company (on whose board Hunter reportedly was paid $50,000 per month to serve) and Kiev's earlier probes of Burisma.

Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky discussed all of this in a July 25 phone call, around which Ukrainegate revolves.

Consider the following statements:

"I know what the conversation was about, and I think there was no pressure," Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told the Hromadske news outlet Sept. 21. "This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers."

"Nobody can put pressure on me because I am the president of an independent state," Zelensky told Russia's Rossiya 24 news channel Sept. 25 at the United Nations General Assembly. "The only one person by the way who can put pressure on me ... is my son, who is 6 years old."

"Nobody pushed me," Zelensky told journalists at a joint appearance that afternoon with Trump at the U.N.

"I'm telling you - no, there was no such connection," between military aid and investigations, a senior Ukrainian official told Time magazine Sept. 25.

"I was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed" on military assistance or a meeting between Zelensky and Trump, Ukraine's president told Kyodo News Oct. 5.

"There was no pressure or blackmail from the U.S.," Zelensky said in Kiev during an Oct. 10 "press marathon" with some 300 journalists who took turns interviewing him in small groups. "This call influenced only one thing. We needed to secure a meeting, that it was necessary to meet with the president," he said. "I wanted to show him our team, our young team. I wanted to get him into Ukraine."

"I had no idea the military aid was held up" at the time of the call with Trump, Zelensky said Oct. 10. Much like making a bomb threat while staying silent about the explosive device, it would have been tough for Trump to bribe or extort Zelensky without informing him that this security relief had been paused to ascertain whether Zelensky would keep his anti-corruption campaign promises.

Kiev learned about this delay in late August. Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence discussed this in Warsaw on Sept. 1. The assistance was released 10 days later.

"And after this meeting, the U.S. unlocked the aid and added $140 million," Zelensky said. "That's why there was no blackmail."

Why is the second- and third-hand testimony of people who weren't on the call given more credence than the direct, firsthand testimony of the guy who is the alleged "victim" in all of this??? Answer: because he's not saying what Dems want to hear. The one person who would know if he was pressured, extorted, bribed, etc. is telling the world that he wasn't, and no one is listening.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Why is the second- and third-hand testimony of people who weren't on the call given more credence than the direct, firsthand testimony of the guy who is the alleged "victim" in all of this??? Answer: because he's not saying what Dems want to hear. The one person who would know if he was pressured, extorted, bribed, etc. is telling the world that he wasn't, and no one is listening.

Zelensky's testimony does not fit the narrative and the media wants only what fits the narrative.

What if Zelensky testified before the impeachment inquiry? Would they allow that, or listen to him?

[DoctorGamgee]

Zelensky's testimony does not fit the narrative and the media wants only what fits the narrative.

What if Zelensky testified before the impeachment inquiry? Would they allow that, or listen to him?

Does anyone think he would be asked?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No, of course not. Even if he did the talking point would be "he was told what to say".

[Skyweir]

LOL Even Trump can testify before any of the hearings. Id imagine a foreign national could volunteer the same.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

LOL Even Trump can testify before any of the hearings. Id imagine a foreign national could volunteer the same.

What would happen if Trump volunteered to come testify?

[Skyweir]

Fox News has cherry picked a number of statements, some of which Zelensky made IN Trumps presence. What would you expect him to say with the POTUS and man who can provide military aid you need ... right there, next to you?

Furthermore, many of these statements were made AFTER the Ukraine had received military aid from the US.

From the above cited link

Kiev learned about this delay in late August. Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence discussed this in Warsaw on Sept. 1. The assistance was released 10 days later.

Do you expect a foreign head of state to disparage a state that is assisting them with foreign aid? It might be an anathema to Trump but even the most inexperienced know the value of diplomacy.

[TheFallen]

If this ever got anywhere near any sort of trial - not that it ever will, because it is not intended to, nor ever was by the Dems - not to name or or identify certain witnesses giving testimony against Trump would be utterly and blatantly anti-constitutional in itself. There's a central constitutional right to be able to face one's accusers.

Hashi if nothing HAS to be proven why all the hoo hah about proof, evidence, second hand testimony etc?

That makes not much sense to me at all.

It makes perfect sense.

As Hashi has just reiterated and as I mentioned before, this is not about impeachment - nor has it ever been. It's about mudslinging.

It's about the Dems seeking maximum media airtime and column inches to badmouth Trump and make allegations that the Dems know will never either get properly truth-tested or result in any action. It's pure electioneering with a view to 2020, and that's all.

Still think that claim is just "speculation and BS", Sky?

Remember, the Dem-controlled HoR needs no reason or proof whatsoever to put Trump forward for impeachment - and the Dems are of course well aware of this.

The Dems are equally well aware that there is precisely zero chance of the Pub controlled Senate voting to remove Trump - especially given the super-majority required. And if the HoR did impeach Trump and the Senate then didn't vote to remove him from office, the Dems know that Trump would be given huge amounts of ammo to milk that as another exoneration.

The Dems do NOT want to push this through to impeachment - that's bloody obvious to anyone capable of the smallest shred of dispassionate objectivity.

Instead, this is just the latest in a series of attempts to play to the peanut gallery, nothing more. And it's both a divisive and - for the Dems - counter-productive waste of time. This idee fixe is stopping them sorting out their own shit, which desperately needs doing.

As I and others keep saying, how about the Dems actually come up with a viable candidate with realistic policies? The obsessional single strategy Dem mantra of "Trump is deplorable - and so is anyone supporting him!" is very definitely not going to work any better than it did in 2016 - and quite possibly worse.

But both lamentably and shamefully, the Dems are just too self-radicalised, too self-righteous and frankly too fucking dumb to be able to work this out.

[Skyweir]

As to the devious motivations I cannot say, I believe that there are people genuinely concerned about misuse of power and using bribery ... not necessarily to have the Bidens actually investigated ... but to have them announce they will ... as that is enough for the purpose of mudslinging.

Its always about mudslinging with Trump. Hes the quintessential mudslinger.


No I believe the outcome will be articles of impeachment. Possibly even a trial.

But I wager London to a brick the Inquiry would LOVE yo hear from Trump. Trump, Mulvaney, Bolton, et al. The whole lot of them.

The whistleblower report isnt just going to evaporate ... all that we have heard isnt just going to slip into unconsciousness.

Its about wrongdoing... Trump is not above the law. He wants to be ... thats utterly understandable. All wrongdoers want to get away with their wrongdoings ... all criminals want to get away with their crimes.

I do not believe that Pelosi who fought against impeachment ... agreed to the inquiry because of the damning allegations in the whistleblower report.

The very fact that Trump would hold a state to ransom to get dirt on Biden ... the only Dem candidate he perceived as a threat.

Hes got to stop seeking foreign states assistance to secure his personal future electoral victory.

As to the Dems ... you have the gallery of candidates before you ... theres no one else hiding in the wings.

And they can run candidates and hold an inquiry ... it's not just one or the other is it?

[Avatar]

It is possible and must be proven for every offence.

How can you prove what was happening inside somebodies head? Hell, in most cases, people don't understand what is going on inside their own heads when they act in certain ways.

People make assumptions about other's motivations, and then act as if those assumptions were true.

Because the only person who knows somebodies motivation is themself. And that means it's my word against yours.

People just have the unshakeable conviction that it is their own assumption that is right.

--A

[Skyweir]

I hear you but all crimes comprise a guilty ACT and a guilty MIND ... ie intent.

You cannot convict a person of any crime unless you can prove mens rea or the guilty mind.

Its jurisprudentially established law and the burden of proof rests with the Crown or the State making the allegations.

Is it different in non commonwealth countries? I dont know but that is the law and what is required.

I agree its hard to know whats going on in someone else's head but there exists legal principles, and established tests to bridge that seemingly insurmountable gap.

Its why we have the ordinary person test, or the man on the Clapham omnibus test ... to introduce relatable actions, words, reactions. What would the average joe do, say, how would they react?

But in criminal law its absolute. Both actus reus and mens rea must be proven in order to secure a finding of guilt.

But again an Impeachment Inquiry isnt equivalent time a criminal trial ... and clearly there are different standards to be established.

[Avatar]

Haha, like I said...people / the court / whoever will make an assumption based on what they believe is true.

Proof of a thought is laughable. "I thought of it first."

The closest we can come is possibility or likelihood. (Not even probability because probability is a mathematical concept.)

--A

[TheFallen]

Jesus, the lack of logical and intellectual rigour here is as laughable as it is mildly terrifying.

You cannot convict a person of any crime unless you can prove mens rea or the guilty mind.

Correct. And yet, literally just before that utterly accurate posting , we have this...

The very fact that Trump would hold a state to ransom to get dirt on Biden ... the only Dem candidate he perceived as a threat.

Hes got to stop seeking foreign states assistance to secure his personal future electoral victory.

Geez, paradox much? Your assertion is a proven fact, is it? You were in Trump's head, were you? You've got access to his innermost thoughts, do you? "The very fact..."

No Sky, none of that is in the least a fact. You've not posted anything factual. It's all merely your agenda-driven belief, conjecture, opinion or interpretation, which okay may match with the actual facts... or just as equally may not. And I for one can't see how this will ever be proven one way or the other?

As such, your statement is merely and entirely subjective and thus is simply an assertion, holding zero certainty and zero evidentiary value. And presenting your personal subjective assumption as to Trump's motives as "fact"... no, actually, baldly stating that your mere opinion is a "very fact" is at best crushingly naive and un-self-aware or worse, deliberately propagandist and malign.

I'm personally getting a bit tired of people who can't seem to distinguish between personal supposition and fact and who are incapable of acknowledging the literally yawning difference between the two. There's fake news presented as fact all over the Internet... do we honestly have to adopt - whether knowingly or not - the same partisan tactics here in the Tank too? Can't we strive for a little dispassionate objectivity and in so doing, see things for no more and no less than they are in reality? Can't we weigh things up against an objective and unskewed scale, rather than arbitrarily ascribing to them the weight that we'd like them to have - and then fervently and repeatedly maintaining that our supposition is "factual"?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No I believe the outcome will be articles of impeachment. Possibly even a trial.

On this we actually agree--eventually the House will move to actual impeachment and the vote will be to impeach him. After that, it moves to the Senate, which is where the "trial" portion occurs, including having the VP recuse himself from his post as "President of the Senate" while the Chief Justice presides over the hearings. That vote won't take very long and will be not to remove Trump from office, which is their equivalent of finding him "not guilty".

What then?

[wayfriend]

What then?

Trump will know that no one will try to impeach him again, no matter how criminally and unconstitionally he acts.

Then the fun really starts.

Jesus, the lack of logical and intellectual rigour here is as laughable as it is mildly terrifying.

I find the propensity for insulting people and malevolent misinformation not funny at all, and terrifying in a way that is far beyond mild.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

What then?

Trump will know that no one will try to impeach him again, no matter how criminally and unconstitionally he acts.

That is why they should be fielding a viable candidate and work to vote him out as opposed to impeachment.

*************

Sondland confirmed some quid pro quo--which is not a crime, by the way--but also said Biden did not come up on the phone call and no one who was on the call had a problem with it.