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

[cow451]

About to? You’re thinking of November 2016. Now it’s about righting this ship that’s clearly gone way off course.

And the Captain has no plans on going down with the ship.

 

[Tom 1]

Sorry I missed the post where you answered the ellipses questions but have found it now.
Do you have knowledge that those ellipses are hiding something?

Perhaps they are only there for decoration?

I keep bringing up hearsay because hearsay is not reliable , never has been and is understood in law not to be. I am not interested in discussing a hearsay complaint when a transcript of the conversation the complaint is alleging to be based upon has contradicted points in that complaint that were leaked to the public. If the leaks were inaccurate and misrepresented what was in the complaint and the complaint was not directly contradicted in any point , then I might be persuaded to change my mind on the usefulness of that complaint but would still remain somewhat skeptical of both the motives for and the accuracy of the complaint. I would just not dismiss it summarily as I now do. If you have first hand , not hearsay, evidence you would like to discuss about what might have been included in the conversation but omitted from the transcript, I would be happy to discuss that. Someone saying that someone else told them that someone else altogether did something is not enough to convince me of anything.

Um I don't really want to get into the middle of some discussion you are having with yourself. If you have some concrete reason, based on the actual content of the whistle blower's report, to believe that it should not be trusted then that's something that might be worth discussing.

If you have first hand , not hearsay, evidence you would like to discuss about what might have been included in the conversation but omitted from the transcript, I would be happy to discuss that. Someone saying that someone else told them that someone else altogether did something is not enough to convince me of anything

What is the relevance of any of this?

 

[cow451]

Accurate description of what the dems were attempting at that time.


Perjury trap - Wikipedia
Perjury trap - Wikipedia
Perjury trap. A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Most often a perjury trap is employed because the prosecutor is unable to prosecute the defendant on other charges.

Trapping Trump in a lie takes less than five minutes unless he is reading a prepared text.

 

[civilwarbuff]

So now you have decided that adding embellishments to your made up scenario lends it more credence?

What embellishment?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Trapping Trump in a lie takes less than five minutes unless he is reading a prepared text.

Still, he was right to avoid what was likely an illegal perjury trap....as per the definition.

 

[Belk]

What embellishment?

The embellishment that "The Don" is going to attack the whistle blower. That you believe this based on "what posters on the forum" are saying. Those Embellishments to an already made up scenario were the Democrats would rush to have the whistle blower testify.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The embellishment that "The Don" is going to attack the whistle blower. That you believe this based on "what posters on the forum" are saying. Those Embellishments to an already made up scenario were the Democrats would rush to have the whistle blower testify.

So, you don't agree that posters on this forum believe that Trump goes after people who oppose him?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

And the Captain has no plans on going down with the ship.

When the captain isn’t trying to steer the ship off course he’s actively trying to fill it with water.

 

[Speedwell]

Words have meanings. "Never would " means one thing "Why would" means something else.

Sorry. I thought you meant it as a rhetorical question.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Accurate description of what the dems were attempting at that time.


Perjury trap - Wikipedia
Perjury trap - Wikipedia
Perjury trap. A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Most often a perjury trap is employed because the prosecutor is unable to prosecute the defendant on other charges.

Really? They were going to go after Trump for something unrelated to his campaign's alleged dealings with Russia? What might that be?

If you read the FULL definition of a perjury trap, it makes it clear that it only applies to cases where the prosecutor asks the witness about a topic unrelated to the current proceeding.

1756. Perjury Cases -- Special Problems And Defenses -- Perjury Trap

 

[Fantine]

If their identities are revealed they will need witness protection, I'm sure.

How long did Epstein survive in his maximum security prison? Although he had not testified?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Sorry. I thought you meant it as a rhetorical question.

I did. That still doesn't turn Why would into Never would.

 

[Belk]

So, you don't agree that posters on this forum believe that Trump goes after people who oppose him?

Irrelevant. I don't agree that Democrats would rush to have this person testify and that not doing so is evidence of nefarious purpose.

 

[Arcangl86]

I wonder what the overlap is between people calling for the House investigation to be completely public and those who supported keeping chunks of the Mueller Report redacted, even from Congress.

 

[Tom 1]

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?

I don't know if picking a perspective of one element of an issue and trying to second guess it, based on limited info, gets you very far. Whatever the process is they will have to present something coherent at the end of it.
The whistle blower has submitted the report, your congress on the one hand is doing what they think they need to do to process it and anything else relevant, the White House are doing whatever they can to throw spanners in the works. It's too early to say who will come out of it with the most convincing narrative.

 

[cow451]

Still, he was right to avoid what was likely an illegal perjury trap....as per the definition.

It isn’t illegal to subpoena someone to testify. It can be contested.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Irrelevant. I don't agree that Democrats would rush to have this person testify and that not doing so is evidence of nefarious purpose.

Your opinion is duly noted.....

 

[Hank77]

Congressional Democrats are skirting the past precedent of using the Judiciary Committee to impeach the president, and are instead relying on the House Intelligence Committee to shroud their work in darkness and keep vital facts hidden from the public, said Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel.

Does the Judiciary Committee ever meet behind closed doors when they are investigating something or someone?
Yup, they do, shrouding their work in darkness.

President Donald Trump's eldest son will meet with the Senate intelligence committee Wednesday behind closed doors, according to two people familiar with the meeting.

The people requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the confidential interview. The meeting with Donald Trump Jr. comes after the committee's Republican chairman, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, subpoenaed him as part of the panel's Russia investigation.
...
Senators want to discuss answers Trump Jr. gave the panel's staff in a 2017 interview, as well as answers he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a separate interview behind closed doors that year....

Report: Trump Jr. to speak with Senate panel Wednesday

 

[Kentonio]

It is not a made up scenario. Posters throughout this forum claim that Trump goes after those who oppose him and if this guy has real info why wouldn't the Dems want him to testify before The Don 'gets' to him.....unless, of course, he does not have any real info and they know it. Wonder which one is the more likely 'scenario'?

There is literally a law saying that whistleblowers have the right to anonymity. Trump is publicly calling for that law to be broken. Are you absolutely sure you want whistleblower protections to be decimated purely to help Donald intimidate someone?

 

[Belk]

Your opinion is duly noted.....

As is your lack of evidence.