Why is Schiff Witholding Documents?

[BobRyan]

Much is said that some Republicans don't want evidence to come to the front.

But what about the Democratic politicians? Here in the clip below, go to 31:30

Ratcliffe Says He Knows The Reason Schiff Won’t Release ICIG Michael Atkinson’s Transcript

So why are House leaders purposely leaving out ALL the information of their records? Does it not have a right to be seen? Not maybe them trying to cover things up?

Indeed why do we keep seeing references to the "whistle blower testimony" by house managers - (and that's true even on these threads )- when in fact it is Schiff that is threatened by that testimony and it is Schiff that is keeping them hidden.

It's not Schiff's job to bend over backwards

I'm sure that made sense when you typed it as a response to this post? somehow

Or is it not a response to this post?

 

[JohnAshton]

Sorry, Trump friends, the whistleblower and his identity is legally and officially off limits to all of us.

 

[Veritas]

The entire Impeachment circus is an attempt to hide democratic corruption. That and to overturn an election.

 

[Aldebaran]

I guess one way to find out would be for the Republicans to vote to see evidence. I wonder why they won’t do that.

I'm beginning to think they should. Then we could see that evidence and get to hear from the witnesses we'd like to hear from, which is far more in number than the number of witnesses Schiff & Company would like to hear from. In addition, it would keep the Senators who want to be president busy.

 

[Aldebaran]

Sorry, Trump friends, the whistleblower and his identity is legally and officially off limits to all of us.

Then testimony from his own mouth will be forever withheld? It would be a shame to not hear of the whistleblower's supposed non-collusion with Schiff.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sorry, Trump friends, the whistleblower and his identity is legally and officially off limits to all of us.

Which runs counter to the thugocracy, to be sure...

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Everyone has the right to confront their accuser according to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, unless you are The President of the United States…

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm beginning to think they should. Then we could see that evidence and get to hear from the witnesses we'd like to hear from, which is far more in number than the number of witnesses Schiff & Company would like to hear from. In addition, it would keep the Senators who want to be president busy.

It's not quantity, Alde, it's quality. The GOP wants to sweep this under the rug... failing that, they want a cavalcade of distractions.

Who can they call to exonerate Donald?

 

[Aldebaran]

It's not quantity, Alde, it's quality. The GOP wants to sweep this under the rug... failing that, they want a cavalcade of distractions.

Who can they call to exonerate Donald?

The real question is who should be called to see if the case against him is based on reality or not. So far, we've only heard from the witnesses the democrat side has wanted because they believed those witnesses would be helpful to them. That's why they want to call Bolton, but not the whistleblower, or Schiff, or either of the Bidens.
Perhaps it's because they fear Trump will be exonerated if those people are called to testify.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The entire Impeachment circus is an attempt to hide democratic corruption. That and to overturn an election.

How silly. By that logic every impeachment is an “overturning” of an election. It’s a trial into an elected official’s actions so obviously there was an election at some point before the impeachment. That’s not a logical objection to the process.

The impeachment trial for the president is not the place to address corruption on the part of the Democrats. Open an investigation into them if you think something’s amiss but don’t try to distract from the fact that this trial solely concerns the actions of the current president, not the former Vice President or his son.

Stop ignoring the issue at hand and trying to distract the rest of us from it as well. It’s not working.

 

[Aldebaran]

Open an investigation into them if you think something’s amiss but don’t try to distract from the fact that this trial solely concerns the actions of the current president, not the former Vice President or his son.

An investigation into them was already attempted. The mere suggestion of it is what led to the current mess. It would seem that the Bidens aren't to be messed with, as Biden himself seems to imply when he speaks to voters face to face.

 

[Kentonio]

The real question is who should be called to see if the case against him is based on reality or not. So far, we've only heard from the witnesses the democrat side has wanted because they believed those witnesses would be helpful to them. That's why they want to call Bolton, but not the whistleblower, or Schiff, or either of the Bidens.
Perhaps it's because they fear Trump will be exonerated if those people are called to testify.

The whistleblower had his complaint verified by the inspector general. His complaint is now also irrelevant because actual administration members have testified under oath that the initial complaint was true. There is no accusation to answer that has not been openly testified to in congress by far more notable people.

You want to set a precedent that would destroy decades of no-partisan hard work to establish whistleblower protections for absolutely nothing. Anyone calling for his or her identity to be revealed should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The real question is who should be called to see if the case against him is based on reality or not.

And so far, the GOP -- allegedly out to defend Donald -- wants no witnesses called.

That would seem to indicate quite a bit about how much they think the case is based in reality...

So far, we've only heard from the witnesses the democrat side has wanted because they believed those witnesses would be helpful to them.

Yeah, that's pretty much how it works... you call the witnesses you think are going to prove your case.

To that end, the Democrats have lots of people they want to testify as witnesses... the Republicans have... ?

That's why they want to call Bolton, but not the whistleblower, or Schiff, or either of the Bidens.

Right... and do the Republicans want to call these people because they believe that their testimony will exonerate their leader, or obfuscate the truth?

Do the Republicans want to call these witnesses at all, for that matter? They have the votes; do they have the spine?

Perhaps it's because they fear Trump will be exonerated if those people are called to testify.

Then the GOP, which holds the majority should it come to a vote, should consider calling witnesses instead of trying to hide from them...

McConnell Says GOP Doesn’t Have Votes to Block Impeachment Witnesses

 

[Aldebaran]

The whistleblower had his complaint verified by the inspector general. His complaint is now also irrelevant because actual administration members have testified under oath that the initial complaint was true. There is no accusation to answer that has not been openly testified to in congress by far more notable people.

You want to set a precedent that would destroy decades of no-partisan hard work to establish whistleblower protections for absolutely nothing. Anyone calling for his or her identity to be revealed should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

There's enough evidence that the whistleblower was in collusion with Schiff even though Schiff denied it.

Rep. Adam Schiff, chair of the House intelligence committee, wrongly implied that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower before receiving the complaint. Schiff claimed, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to a committee aide before filing a complaint.
Factcheck: Adam Schiff wrong on whistleblower contact

And now Schiff is actually the Lead Impeachment Manager. Interesting.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How silly. By that logic every impeachment is an “overturning” of an election. It’s a trial into an elected official’s actions so obviously there was an election at some point before the impeachment. That’s not a logical objection to the process.

Indeed -- by that logic, the GOP really screwed up when they tried to overturn the 1996 election by impeaching Clinton. They crashed and burned so badly, I don't think they ever really recovered.

The impeachment trial for the president is not the place to address corruption on the part of the Democrats. Open an investigation into them if you think something’s amiss but don’t try to distract from the fact that this trial solely concerns the actions of the current president, not the former Vice President or his son.

Stop ignoring the issue at hand and trying to distract that rest of us from it as well. It’s not working.

In all fairness to the GOP, it is the duty of the defense to obfuscate the truth... especially when the client is guilty as sin.

 

[Aldebaran]

And so far, the GOP -- allegedly out to defend Donald -- wants no witnesses called.

That would seem to indicate quite a bit about how much they think the case is based in reality...

That's because the trial has been nothing more than a rerun of what was done in the House already, which itself had gotten old really quick. No need to keep extending it.

Yeah, that's pretty much how it works... you call the witnesses you think are going to prove your case.

To that end, the Democrats have lots of people they want to testify as witnesses... the Republicans have... ?

The ones I've already mentioned.

Right... and do the Republicans want to call these people because they believe that their testimony will exonerate their leader, or obfuscate the truth?

The trial was to find the truth. Sounds like you've already got your mind made up about it. But almost half the Senate does too, so you're in good company.

Do the Republicans want to call these witnesses at all, for that matter? They have the votes; do they have the spine?

In the end, it won't really matter anyway, so it's just a waste of time. How many more weeks of this would you want to go though of this (for nothing) if you were a Senator?

Then the GOP, which holds the majority should it come to a vote, should consider calling witnesses instead of trying to hide from them...

McConnell Says GOP Doesn’t Have Votes to Block Impeachment Witnesses

I'm ok with it either way. I have an "off" button on my TV that solves the problem.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

An investigation into them was already attempted.

Was it, or was that only the mention of an investigation that was attempted? It seems the president doesn’t share quite the same concerns about the Bidens that he’s trying to get his base to express.

Has anything new been brought to the DoJ or the Attorney General with regards to the Bidens to open a new and legitimate investigation? It’s been like a year and the President has offered zero evidence of any corruption other than his unfounded allegations.

The mere suggestion of it is what led to the current mess.

Actually it was the president’s corrupt motives and actions in Ukraine that led to the current mess.

It would seem that the Bidens aren't to be messed with, as Biden himself seems to imply when he speaks to voters face to face.

Biden seems to see right through the charade the president’s defenders are trying to pull here by distracting from the president’s corrupt actions and shifting the focus onto the Bidens. The president failed to smear his opponent in Ukraine so he’s now trying to finish the job here in the Senate.

 

[Kentonio]

There's enough evidence that the whistleblower was in collusion with Schiff even though Schiff denied it.

Rep. Adam Schiff, chair of the House intelligence committee, wrongly implied that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower before receiving the complaint. Schiff claimed, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to a committee aide before filing a complaint.
Factcheck: Adam Schiff wrong on whistleblower contact

And now Schiff is actually the Lead Impeachment Manager. Interesting.

Not interesting, just silly. Schiff told everyone that the whistleblower contacted his staff and was instructed to place an official complaint through the correct channels, which he did. He did not meet or speak to Schiff and Schiff doesn’t know his identity. When Schiff said ‘we haven’t spoken directly with the whistleblower’ he was referring to himself and his committee, which was absolutely true.

It really wouldn’t matter one iota though if the whistleblower was Adam Schiff’s best buddy and they’d gone on holidays together. The whistleblowers allegations were not just taken at face value, they were investigated by the inspector general who found they warranted passing on to congress. Something Trumps administration illegally did not carry out.

 

[Aldebaran]

How silly. By that logic every impeachment is an “overturning” of an election.

Not when the decision to impeach was made even before Trump was inaugurated. That alone is an indication of being an attempt to overturn an election. Here are just a few articles that were published between the 2016 and the inauguration:

Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump

The Trump Impeachment Fantasy Isn’t Realistic

Remove President Donald Trump (Impeachment) - Action Network

Grounds For Impeachment - Impeach Donald Trump Now

Talk of Impeaching Trump May Be Premature, But Its Time Will Come

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's because the trial has been nothing more than a rerun of what was done in the House already, which itself had gotten old really quick. No need to keep extending it.

That's the party line -- "witch hunt."

We already know the verdict is a foregone conclusion, they see no sense wasting time going through the motions...

The ones I've already mentioned.

If the GOP thinks calling those witnesses can prove their case (and/or expose the Democrat corruption they keep howling about), they should vote to allow witnesses. With their simple majority, even a vote along party lines will bring those witnesses forward...

...so what is McConnell afraid of?

The trial was to find the truth. Sounds like you've already got your mind made up about it. But almost half the Senate does too, so you're in good company.

As I am not a juror, I am allowed to have an opinion.

And you're wrong -- almost the entire Senate has its mind made up about it... and with party lines being what they are, as I said, Donald's acquittal is in the bag.

In the end, it won't really matter anyway, so it's just a waste of time. How many more weeks of this would you want to go though of this (for nothing) if you were a Senator?

Because it's not for nothing. You're mistakenly assuming that convicting or acquitting Donald will be the only consequence of these proceedings. You've got to allow yourself to see the bigger picture.

I'll give you a hint: Impeachment is as much a political process as it is a legal one... possibly more so.

I'm ok with it either way. I have an "off" button on my TV that solves the problem.

And that is one solution to an unpleasant situation -- ignore it until it goes away. Others, however will be watching.