Democrats using Intel Committee to keep impeachment facts hidden from the public, says WSJ's Kim Str

civilwarbuff · Oct 14, 2019

Once more:

civilwarbuff said:
The real question is why are they holding an 'impeachment query' through the intelligence committee and not the judiciary committee where it should be and historically has been? The author makes a good point of being able to shroud the inquisition (IMO) in secrecy as opposed to the more open forum of the judiciary committee.

Why?

The judiciary committee is the proper place for an impeachment inquiry since if articles of impeachment are drafted the research and background will be familiar to the ones who write the articles since they will have already heard the testimony and viewed the evidence.

Tom 1 · Oct 14, 2019

NightHawkeye said:
Clearly, you think only your ideas match reality.

Good luck with that. Seriously.

Lol as a general rule I don’t, no, but in your post that I was responding to you reduced things that can actually be found out about and discussed factually to a collection of random notions that have little if anything to do with the actual events.

Tom 1 · Oct 14, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
The person or person's that filed a whistle blower complaint surely exist but there is a question as to whether the whistle they claim to be blowing is a real one or not. As the transcript of the call is available it seems that the whistleblower's testimony would be superfluous, irrelevant or , like Schiff's attempt at "parody", humorously incorrect.

A partial, edited transcript is available. Reports of serious wrongdoing by a whistle blower in any context can’t simply be dismissed out of hand because the alleged perpetrator claims innocence. C’mon, what you are presenting here is hardly a serious argument.

Speedwell · Oct 14, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
According to the Democrats it has.....

Individual committees are working on several aspects of it. Then their work will be turned over the House Judiciary Committee for consideration. That is when the official impeachment inquiry will begin.

If they were that serious about impeachment, Pelosi would not have adjourned the House. After all, it is not like they have to go home and campaign.

They haven't all gone home. They're still busy doing committee work, holding hearings and carrying out investigations leading to a full scale impeachment inquiry.

If the so called 'whistleblower' really had serious evidence of wrong doing the Democrats would have had him testify by now. They just like the dog and pony show they have going.

He doesn't have to testify publicly until the President's trial comes up in the Senate, and maybe not even then.

civilwarbuff · Oct 14, 2019

"If the so called 'whistleblower' really had serious evidence of wrong doing the Democrats would have had him testify by now."

Tom Farebrother said:
I don’t get this idea at all.

What part don't you get? The part that if the so called whistleblower had real evidence that the Democrats would want to get his testimony NOW before, as has been suggested here, Trump 'gets to him' and he changes his mind?.....that part?

civilwarbuff · Oct 14, 2019

Speedwell said:
He doesn't have to testify publicly until the President's trial comes up in the Senate, and maybe not even then.

They can't even get him to testify privately let alone publicly.
As of 10/14......Adam Schiff Says Whistleblower May Not Testify, Safety ‘Primary Interest’
...and this after all the claims of him 'WANTING" and 'AGREEING' to testify.....sounds like a whole lot of nothing.....again. "Mueller ver. 2.0".....

grasping the after wind · Oct 14, 2019

Tom Farebrother said:
A partial, edited transcript is available. Reports of serious wrongdoing by a whistle blower in any context can’t simply be dismissed out of hand because the alleged perpetrator claims innocence. C’mon, what you are presenting here is hardly a serious argument.

I would submit that is what you are presenting when you claim that a transcript of the relevant part of the conversation and the testimony of both participants in that conversation should hold less weight than a hearsay complaint.

civilwarbuff · Oct 14, 2019

Tom Farebrother said:
A partial, edited transcript is available.

An unclassified version....
Trump's Ukraine call transcript: Read the document

Fantine · Oct 14, 2019

It is imperative to keep the identity of the whistleblower(s) secret. There are now several. Sadly, it may also be necessary to keep the whistleblower's identity secret from some of the committee members themselves. Devin Nunes has had a history of breaking confidence with his committee and sharing information with the president. Stay out of the bushes, Devin!

Tom 1 · Oct 14, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
An unclassified version....
Trump's Ukraine call transcript: Read the document

Yeah I did read it, the ellipses mark the missing parts.

Matt5 · Oct 14, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
Democrats using Intel Committee to keep impeachment facts hidden from the public, says WSJ's Kim Strassel

Democrats will lie, cheat, steal and tolerate those who do in order to get rid of Trump, or at least damage him for the next election. Next they'll elect Elizabeth Warren as the next president.

The US is at a tipping point where it's about to permanently tip into the dark-side.

grasping the after wind · Oct 14, 2019

Fantine said:
It is imperative to keep the identity of the whistleblower(s) secret. There are now several. Sadly, it may also be necessary to keep the whistleblower's identity secret from some of the committee members themselves. Devin Nunes has had a history of breaking confidence with his committee and sharing information with the president. Stay out of the bushes, Devin!

Why is it imperative to keep the identity of the whistleblowers secret? Could it be that knowing who they are would lead one to disbelieve them? How does one judge the veracity of the complainants without knowing who they are where they got their information from and whether they have either an axe to grind or an agenda to pursue? If impeachment is to be pursued, then the President would, like all other citizens , have the legal right to face his accusers. Secret courts and secret witnesses are only found in totalitarian systems. Perhaps some would prefer that sort of governance but I am still fond of due process.

Tom 1 · Oct 14, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
I would submit that is what you are presenting when you claim that a transcript of the relevant part of the conversation and the testimony of both participants in that conversation should hold less weight than a hearsay complaint.

Would you take that approach to any scenario? I’m sure the justice system would have a lot less work to do if they just asked people to state if they were guilty or not and took them at their word, so it might have some benefits. Call me cynical though, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it might not always be treated with good faith.

grasping the after wind · Oct 14, 2019

Tom Farebrother said:
Yeah it did read it, the ellipses mark the missing parts.

Could you point out where there is an ellipses in that transcript as I have not been able to locate it.

grasping the after wind · Oct 14, 2019

Tom Farebrother said:
Would you take that approach to any scenario? I’m sure the justice system would have a lot less work to do if they just asked people to state if they were guilty or not and took them at their word, so it might have some benefits. Call me cynical though, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it might not always be treated with good faith.

Can you point out where hearsay is considered more reliable than a written transcript and the testimony of those directly involved in a conversation.

Speedwell · Oct 14, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
Why is it imperative to keep the identity of the whistleblowers secret? Could it be that knowing who they are would lead one to disbelieve them? How does one judge the veracity of the complainants without knowing who they are where they got their information from and whether they have either an axe to grind or an agenda to pursue? If impeachment is to be pursued, then the President would, like all other citizens , have the legal right to face his accusers. Secret courts and secret witnesses are only found in totalitarian systems. Perhaps some would prefer that sort of governance but I am still fond of due process.

What "secret courts?" The court in this case will be the Republican controlled Senate of the United States.

grasping the after wind · Oct 14, 2019

Speedwell said:
What "secret courts?" The court in this case will be the Republican controlled Senate of the United States.

The Intel Committee. I noticed you did not object to the secret witnesses part. Why should the House leadership allow the Senate to expose them as political hacks pursuing their political agenda when they can simply hold faux trials with secret witnesses and shape a narrative based upon what they permit to be leaked without ever sending the matter to the Senate?

Speedwell · Oct 14, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
The Intel Committee. I noticed you did not object to the secret witnesses part. Why should the House leadership allow the Senate to expose them as political hacks pursuing their political agenda when they can simply hold faux trials with secret witnesses and shape a narrative based upon what they permit to be leaked without ever sending the matter to the Senate?

Because the President can't be removed from office with a "shaped narrative." There has to be trial in the Senate. All you can do with a "shaped narrative" is insult the President. I suppose you think that in itself is a serious crime against the Chosen One which would need to be avenged, but it actually wouldn't hurt him any. Sticks and stones, don't you know...

civilwarbuff · Oct 14, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
without ever sending the matter to the Senate?

I believe there is a very good chance that the House will not allow a vote to proceed on Articles of Impeachment or even get to the point of drafting such articles. I believe their intention is to inflict 'death by a thousand cuts'.....just let insinuations, innuendo and snippets of info with little or no context to be leaked hoping to do as much damage before the presidential election as possible. Out of all the 'bombshells' that Schiff & Co bragged about over the past few years....where are they? They were simply grasping at wisps of smoke....so far they have avoided getting burned but their luck will run out eventually.

Tom 1 · Oct 14, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
Could you point out where there is an ellipses in that transcript as I have not been able to locate it.

Here’s are a couple - ‘I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.’

If you scroll through it there are a few more.

Democrats using Intel Committee to keep impeachment facts hidden from the public, says WSJ's Kim Str

Well-Known Member

Optimistic sceptic

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

That's grasping after the wind

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

That's grasping after the wind

Optimistic sceptic

That's grasping after the wind

That's grasping after the wind

Well-Known Member

That's grasping after the wind

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Optimistic sceptic

Similar threads