WaPo Opinion: Republicans' "witness list" shows they got nothing -- and Donald did it.

[RocksInMyHead]

This is all a cover up to shield themselves from illegalities they have committed.

How so? Trump has the DOJ, right? If he believes that people have broken the law, he can bring the full power of the Justice Department to bear on them. There is nothing stopping him from doing that - even now. In fact, if you believe that his removal is an imminent threat, then you could argue that there's no better time for him to do so - after all, he has nothing to lose.

They are abusing the powers of congress, unconstitutionally I might add, to remove a sitting president from office so they remain in power, and not be prosecuted. No other reason.

They are following the impeachment process as laid out in the Constitution. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. Furthermore, no one genuinely expects Trump to be removed from office at this point. He simply enjoys too much support in the Senate for that to happen. If it is mandatory that he be removed from office in order for these nebulous "THEY" to keep themselves safe, they're doing a pretty lousy job of it.

Oh realy? So what is the documents importance?

At this point? Nothing. It said that the whistleblower heard that certain things happened. Multiple people on both sides of the aisle have investigated from multiple different angles and have discovered that those things that he said happened really did happen. They are now determining if those things constitute abuses of power or other criminal acts.

 

[Bobber]

The republicans just want to try to turn the enquiry into a circus, waste time to prevent the facts from coming out, & complain its all just a witch hunt. They aren't interested in discovering the truth, because I suspect they know that Trump really did what he's accused of.

Sorry but that's absolute nonsense. Just how are they going to stop the Dems from bringing out what they choose when they control the House??? Do your research. If anything it's the Dems which are limiting who gets to speak and who not to!

 

[LostMarbels]

See how this works? Conversation goes dead.

What importance to this investigation does the whistle blowers document play?

 

[stevil]

So just like the Steele dossier kicked off Russiagate, this document kicked off an impeachment inquiry. Nice. You see what they did right there?

The Steele dossier did not kick off the investigation into Russia interference or collusion with Trump's campaign.

The whistleblower report prompted Trump to release the military aid and once the military aid was released it prompted the Ukrainian president to cancel his appointment with CNN which was where he intended to televise an announcement into an investigation of the Bidens. But now he has his aid, all of a sudden he isn't interested in publically investigating the Bidens. Go figure.
The whistleblower report also prompted Trump to release his Ukraine phone conversation.

The impending released phone conversation and the whistleblower report prompted the House to open impeachment investigations. So what?

Trump claiming (without evidence) that Obama wiretapped him, prompted an investigation into the "wiretapping". So what?

Right wing conspiracy theories prompted Giuliani to investigate Ukraine interfering in the 2016 USA election. So what?

My hunger pains prompted me to investigate the fridge. So what?

 

[LostMarbels]

“Reports of a reliable whistleblower complaint regarding the President’s communications with a foreign leader raise grave, urgent concerns for our national security. We must be sure that the President and his Administration are conducting our national security and foreign policy in the best interest of the American people, not the President’s personal interest."
Quote: Nancy Pelosi

This "evidence" the dems have is yet again hinged upon some random document written by an anonymous source.

 

[stevil]

“Reports of a reliable whistleblower complaint regarding the President’s communications with a foreign leader raise grave, urgent concerns for our national security. We must be sure that the President and his Administration are conducting our national security and foreign policy in the best interest of the American people, not the President’s personal interest."
Quote: Nancy Pelosi

This "evidence" the dems have is yet again hinged upon some random document written by an anonymous source.

We've moved beyond the whistle blower report.
Testimonies have been gathered from witnesses, the case against Trump will be made from the testimonies not from the whistle blower report.

It's like if someone calls the fire brigade reporting that they heard there is a fire at a specific address, The firebrigade send a truck to the address and later they come back to the firestation.
The office clerk wants to know if there was actually a fire. Do they:
A) ring back the initial caller, ask them to come in for a public interview?
B) ask the firemen who went to the site and supposedly put out the fire?

 

[LostMarbels]

We've moved beyond the whistle blower report.
Testimonies have been gathered from witnesses, the case against Trump will be made from the testimonies not from the whistle blower report.

What was the catalyst of these investigations?

 

[stevil]

What was the catalyst of these investigations?

Perhaps you didn't see my previous post.

The whistleblower report prompted Trump to release the military aid and once the military aid was released it prompted the Ukrainian president to cancel his appointment with CNN which was where he intended to televise an announcement into an investigation of the Bidens. But now he has his aid, all of a sudden he isn't interested in publically investigating the Bidens. Go figure.
The whistleblower report also prompted Trump to release his Ukraine phone conversation.

The impending released phone conversation and the whistleblower report prompted the House to open impeachment investigations. So what?

Trump claiming (without evidence) that Obama wiretapped him, prompted an investigation into the "wiretapping". So what?

Right wing conspiracy theories prompted Giuliani to investigate Ukraine interfering in the 2016 USA election. So what?

My hunger pains prompted me to investigate the fridge. So what?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What was the catalyst of these investigations?

Why does it matter?

As an analogy: A burglar robs a house and steals a hard drive. When he plugs that hard drive in, he finds a stash of child inappropriate contentography. If he then delivers that hard drive to the police and tells them who he stole it from, they're not going to NOT arrest the owner of the hard drive (after they determine that it truly is his) just because the person who delivered the evidence was untrustworthy. Sure, the burglar will be punished too, but it doesn't change what he found.

If you want to allege that the whistleblower did something illegal or had some hidden agenda, that's fine. Launch an investigation if you want to. But that's a separate issue from Trump's impeachment since the things that the whistleblower talked about in his report have been shown to be true by multiple lines of verification.

 

[ilovechloe]

Sorry but that's absolute nonsense. Just how are they going to stop the Dems from bringing out what they choose when they control the House??? Do your research. If anything it's the Dems which are limiting who gets to speak and who not to!

What can Hunter Biden add to the enquiry? Was he there when the phone call was made? Does he have any knowledge at all about the phone call that Trump made?

Because that is what the enquiry is about. The enquiry has nothing to do with what Hunter Biden may or may not have done wrong. It is about Trump corruptly abusing his office, to try to coerce a foreign power to find dirt against a political opponent.

If the Republicans have any information on Hunter Biden that might prove he was guilty of any crime, they can give it to the FBI, who can open an investigation against him. He can not possibly add anything useful to THIS enquiry.

The fact is that the Republicans & Trump will do ANYTHING they can to avoid being accountable for their actions.

The only reason they want the Whistleblower to testify is so they can find out who it is, & villify & try to destroy their life, for having the gall to stand up for the American constitution instead of a corrupt & reckless president.

 

[LostMarbels]

"The impending released phone conversation and the whistleblower report prompted the House to open impeachment investigations. So what?"

So if this report 'prompted' the investigation, as in: "caused or brought about", (the definition) it is the causation or grounds for which the investigation is founded. That makes this report the foundation everything is built up upon.

Why is it beyond contestation then? It is the very founding of the investigations and yet we are not to look into or question witnesses about it.

 

[LostMarbels]

Why does it matter?

WaPo Opinion: Republicans' "witness list" shows they got nothing -- and Donald did it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

"The impending released phone conversation and the whistleblower report prompted the House to open impeachment investigations. So what?"

So if this report 'prompted' the investigation, as in: "caused or brought about", (the definition) it is the causation or grounds for which the investigation is founded. That makes this report the foundation everything is built up upon.

Yes, just like an anonymous tip might PROMPT an investigation into insider trading, conspiracy to commit murder, or any other crime. When someone tells the authorities that a crime is being committed, the authorities begin an investigation. If they determine that a crime is in fact being committed as reported, there's no need to talk to the tipster. Now, if they don't find anything, THEN they might want to talk to the guy.

Why is it beyond contestation then? It is the very founding of the investigations and yet we are not to look into or question witnesses about it.

What is there to look into or ask about it? It says the whistleblower heard some stuff happened. After talking to people who were present when the supposed stuff happened and reading transcripts of the conversation when that supposed stuff happened, the investigators determined that stuff did in fact happen.

WaPo Opinion: Republicans' "witness list" shows they got nothing -- and Donald did it.

Was this supposed to be a link to a post?

 

[LostMarbels]

But that's a separate issue from Trump's impeachment since the things that the whistleblower talked about in his report have been shown to be true by multiple lines of verification.

"since the things that the whistleblower talked about in his report have been shown to be true by multiple lines of verification."

That is very important. Collaborated testimony can also be false witness, or even perjury, when discussing a forged or fake document. If these people have a vested interest of course they are going to collaborate it. Of course they are going to say it is true.

 

[stevil]

The only reason they want the Whistleblower to testify is so they can find out who it is, & villify & try to destroy their life, for having the gall to stand up for the American constitution instead of a corrupt & reckless president.

My theory on this is that they want to have Shiff deny their witness request so that they can complain about not having due process and so they can argue that the hearings are a sham.

 

[LostMarbels]

Yes, just like an anonymous tip might PROMPT an investigation into insider trading, conspiracy to commit murder, or any other crime. When someone tells the authorities that a crime is being committed, the authorities begin an investigation. If they determine that a crime is in fact being committed as reported, there's no need to talk to the tipster. Now, if they don't find anything, THEN they might want to talk to the guy.

You act as if there is no crime such as creating a false police report, and no one investigates that.

What is there to look into or ask about it?

WaPo Opinion: Republicans' "witness list" shows they got nothing -- and Donald did it.

It says the whistleblower heard some stuff happened.

First off, that is called 'hearsay'. Second, this witness has never been deposed or collaborated their own testimony. All we have is a document anyone could have written.

After talking to people who were present when the supposed stuff happened and reading transcripts of the conversation when that supposed stuff happened, the investigators determined that stuff did in fact happen.

WaPo Opinion: Republicans' "witness list" shows they got nothing -- and Donald did it.

Was this supposed to be a link to a post?

These conversations tend to go in circles. I tend to tire of rewriting the same thing over and over and over, so there's a link to it.

 

[stevil]

Why is it beyond contestation then? It is the very founding of the investigations and yet we are not to look into or question witnesses about it.

It's just not important to the case.

BTW have you heard about the whistleblower policy? https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/policies/pages/cms_007814.aspx

Do you understand why the whistleblower policy is important?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

"since the things that the whistleblower talked about in his report have been shown to be true by multiple lines of verification."

That is very important. Collaborated testimony can also be false witness, or even perjury, when discussing a forged or fake document. If these people have a vested interest of course they are going to collaborate it. Of course they are going to say it is true.

Except that one of those lines of verification is the officially released summary of the phone call, which Trump himself calls "perfect".

Let me ask you this: what are three questions that you'd like the whistleblower to answer, and how would they change the evidence uncovered so far?

 

[LostMarbels]

It's just not important to the case.

Then what was it's use?

 

[LostMarbels]

xcept that one of those lines of verification is the officially released summary of the phone call, which Trump himself calls "perfect".

So you're telling me you can substantiate a crime worthy of impeachment from the transcript?