Impeachment Hearings

[hollodero]

(11-19-2019, 07:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO it sets a bad optic and one either side can use with ease. Of course the identity doesn't need to be made public, but it should be shared  If you guys don't think the identity of the accuser should be known to a neutral source that's your decision; I just feel it should. 

You guys don't feel the whistleblower should be subject to questions by the defendant's side?

To the latter question, actually, I don't think that's necessary. The transcript of the call is released, other witnesses confirmed his claims (so he has nothing unique to contribute any longer), and his anonymity is protected under law. He relied on that. It would feel very wrong to now change the rules that were in place and force him out to be questioned by the defendand's side. And possibly revealed by said side to be opened up to presidential retaliations and possible character assassination. Because that is a very real and warranted fear. EDIT that to me carries way more weight than any alleged "bad optics" I do not really see.

The current accusation does not stand on his complaint any longer, nor is he the "accuser" in said sense. He initiated the process by pointing to an, say, irregularity. But at this stage, he plays no current role at all. Why should he be revealed? Why should his identity even be shared with anyone? What purpose in respect to fact-finding would it serve?

[Dill]

(11-19-2019, 07:28 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If they wanted to find a neutral person to reveal the identity to, I guess that'd be mostly fine...but as Trump has shown, the second you disagree with him on anything, you're a partisan never Trumper, so if the neutral person said the whistleblower checks out as an honest operator, Trump would just call the neutral person a never Trumper, so what would be the point? 

To Trump, the fact that the whistleblower was concerned about his corruption makes him partisan.

And I'm not even 100% certain you can find a more neutral person than Taylor or Vindman, both of whom have corroborated and expanded upon the whistleblower's complaint already. If they aren't neutral enough for Trump, then I have my doubts that anyone is.

A neutral person would not read the summary transcript and review all the "second hand" testimony and conclude that "this whole impeachment witch hunt is an attempt to bring down a duly elected president."

The Trump camp knows this.  "Neutral" is partisan now.

[*bfine32*]

I just think the whistleblower should be questioned by cross. I think it would be important if he/she is selective in his/her sharing of information. For instance does this individual have something to gain in shutting down an investigation into Biden and his son.

I get folks say "that's not what this is about" and that's why the Dems have decided not to ask Hunter to share his insight into the matter, but I thought we wanted transparency.

[Dill]

(11-19-2019, 08:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: He initiated the process by pointing to an, say, irregularity. But at this stage, he plays no current role at all. Why should he be revealed? Why should his identity even be shared with anyone? What purpose in respect to fact-finding would it serve?

Why . . . to find out IF HE'S A NEVER TRUMPER of course.

If your goal is to find out whether the impeachment originates in a plot to overthrow Trump, then it is certainly important to know whether the person who kick started it was part of the resistance.

Democrats know this and want to keep his identity secret.

Further fact finding would determine how many of those currently testifying are in fact Democrats or establishment Republican "deep staters" who have long been connected with one another but are only now making their move before the election.

Americans are beginning to see the underlying pattern . . . .  

[hollodero]

(11-19-2019, 09:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just think the whistleblower should be questioned by cross.

But again, that is against the law. Whistleblowers are protected. It was this Congress that (I guess) put the current protections in place, and for good reasons that especially in this case apply.
How could it be justified that all these protections this individual relied on when he came forward are now called null and void?

If there were a relevant accusation on the table that only the whistleblower bears witness to, I might at least understand your position on that. But there is no such thing. You would take away the guarantees this individual was operating under just to expose him for no reason. Which should be a scary thought.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-19-2019, 12:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Can I say "If you testify against me, you will get hurt" and call it an expression of free speech?

I apologize, because I know this comes across as mealymouthed, but it honestly depends.

Quote:Eh... I agree halfway with you regarding the overreach of some European approaches, but the US also knows some superseeding principles to free speech. Like testifying under oath. Or like threats or calling for the murder of someone... right? Or this "fire in a theater" example...
...and in that sense, I'd argue there could be superseeding principles regarding TV news hosts and their calling folks not on their political side SOAB or idiot. That would not necessarily be against the first amendment to apply some additional rules of conduct. Is what I'd argue.

The first amendment does not cover direct criminal threats, direct calls for violence (i.e. hey, let's go kill that guy!), or speech likely to cause immediate physical harm (your shouting fire in a theater).  Aside form that, yeah, it's all covered.  You can lie, say overtly racist things, state absolutely vile opinions, etc.  In most of Europe (the vast majority of it) "hate speech" is criminalized.  Of course, "hate speech" is subject to interpretation, like the previous example I provided of a UK mother being arrested for "mislabeling" a trans woman.  Beyond what the first amendment does not already prohibit I utterly reject any further restrictions.  No one should be subject to government censure for stating an opinion, ever.

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 10:02 PM)hollodero Wrote: But again, that is against the law. Whistleblowers are protected. It was this Congress that (I guess) put the current protections in place, and for good reasons that especially in this case apply.
How could it be justified that all these protections this individual relied on when he came forward are now called null and void?

If there were a relevant accusation on the table that only the whistleblower bears witness to, I might at least understand your position on that. But there is no such thing. You would take away the guarantees this individual was operating under just to expose him for no reason. Which should be a scary thought.

As I read it the law: Whistleblower's identity will remain confidential and the whistleblower is free of reprisal. I'm not sure the whistleblower's identity must be kept a secret to the courts.

Perhaps it's the language barrier or being a member of this forum too long; but nowhere have I suggested the whistleblower's identity should be made public (aka exposed). So perhaps you can now be less scared. 

i will say this when we had Mueller the mantra was: We must go where the "evidence leads" and not narrow the scope of the investigation. When it comes to what Biden did and how his son got paid millions of dollars for working in Ukrainian energy, while knowing nothing about Ukraine or energy, tne narrative is: we must keep the scope of the investigation narrow.

[Benton]

(11-19-2019, 10:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I read it the law: Whistleblower's identity will remain confidential and the whistleblower is free of reprisal. I'm not sure the whistleblower's identity must be kept a secret to the courts.

Perhaps it's the language barrier or being a member of this forum too long; but nowhere have I suggested the whistleblower's identity should be made public (aka exposed). So perhaps you can now be less scared. 

i will say this when we had Mueller the mantra was: We must go where the "evidence leads" and not narrow the scope of the investigation. When it comes to what Biden did and how his son got paid millions of dollars for working in Ukrainian energy, while knowing nothing about Ukraine or energy, tne narrative is: we must keep the scope of the investigation narrow.

I thought the investigation was on Trump's actions?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-19-2019, 01:05 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL yes we are going to "quibble" about your reduction of Europe to "a homogenous entity." There's a great deal difference between controls on speech in Great Britain, Denmark and Sweden , on the one hand, and Hungary on the other.

Cool story bro,  Why don't I spend half an hour listing the majority of European countries that fit my statement and carefully omitting those that do not.  Unlike you I don't care to spend hours crafting an overly wordy post that no one will read.  

Quote:And we are going to quibble over your assumption that it is MY job to "research" your broad, reductive, and unsupported claims. Without that support there is really no "substance" to address. 

Except I provided you an example.  Also, this is not an unknown subject.

Quote:Your one linked example of bad Europe looks to me like a police action about to be found unconstitutional. Except for the public insult laws, I don't have a major problem with Germany's handling of speech. That goes for most of Europe.

That doesn't shock me at all.  You absolutely strike me as someone who would love to criminalize speech they deem offensive.

Quote:There is an "all of them"--e.g. right to religious freedom, right of assembly, right to petition the government, and right to a free press as well.

Of which freedom of speech is the most important.  But yes, those are all of extreme importance as well.

Quote:LOL Either I reject all oversimplifications which pass into falsehood or I do not.  No country allows unrestricted speech, including the U.S. 

Only when it causes direct harm.  Your quibbling exposes how weak you know your argument to be.  

Quote:"Europe" is not a country.

NO!!!!!!!!! 

Quote:Different nations on that continent pass different laws controlling speech.  E.g. On the World Press Freedom Index of Reporters without borders, EIGHT of the top ten countries for press freedom hail from Europe.  SEVEN European countries are found in #s 11-20. The U.S. is 48th by their press measure. https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table.

Freedom of press and freedom of speech are not the same thing, at all.  Thank you for adding a complete irrlevancy.  Yet more evidence you know you have a garbage argument.

Quote:So "Europe" by most respected measures does "agree" with free speech. NK, by most respected measures, does not. (Jeezus--that, at least, should not be "complicated.")

I'll repeat since you're trying to obfuscate, FREEDOM OF PRESS IS NOT THE SAME AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Quote:Opinion polling, like that of the Pew Research Center, typically shows public support for "free expression" highest in the U.S., edging out European countries like Poland and Spain. But poll opinions are not laws. The U.S. is perhaps more lenient on hate speech than any other country. Is that the test? NOT press freedom?

No, the test, and it's very simple, is what the government can arrest you for saying.  In that vein, the only one that matters for this argument, the US is light years ahead of "Europe".

Quote:I have noticed that Trump supporters now often defend his actions by claiming he had a "right" to do one thing or another--recall an ambassador or dump our Kurdish allies.

Irrelevant to the point I am making.

Quote:Do you see a free speech laws now playing a similar role in defense of Trump's and his supporters' public bad behavior? The potential for deflection and diversion would be greater than affirmation of his "rights" I suspect.  

I'll repeat, since you seem to have a tenuous grasp on the concept of free speech.  If the government can censure, arrest or harm you for your words, words that don't advocate direct harm to a person, then there is no free speech.  You clearly don't like free speech, which surprises no one familiar with your posting history.  But feel free to deflect from this with more overly verbose, and irrelevant to the point, points.

[hollodero]

(11-19-2019, 10:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps it's the language barrier or being a member of this forum too long; but nowhere have I suggested the whistleblower's identity should be made public (aka exposed). So perhaps you can now be less scared. 

You didn't. I did not say you did.
Republicans did. And that scares me, not you.

(11-19-2019, 10:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: i will say this when we had Mueller the mantra was: We must go where the "evidence leads" and not narrow the scope of the investigation. When it comes to what Biden did and how his son got paid millions of dollars for working in Ukrainian energy, while knowing nothing about Ukraine or energy, tne narrative is: we must keep the scope of the investigation narrow.

Yeah well, the evidence just does not lead to Joe Biden protecting Hunter Biden. Jim Jordan shouting it does not count as evidence.

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 10:52 PM)Benton Wrote: I thought the investigation was on Trump's actions?

So we cannot go where the evidence leads us?

Seems a few more folks than Trump were charged by the Mueller investigation. 

We don't want to be transparent in this situation?

[GMDino]

(11-19-2019, 10:52 PM)Benton Wrote: I thought the investigation was on Trump's actions?

The GOP already determined Trump never does anything wrong.  They have to use their time somehow.

[hollodero]

(11-19-2019, 10:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I apologize, because I know this comes across as mealymouthed, but it honestly depends.

Yeah, it probably does.
In general, that is my point. I am well aware of differences between US and Europe, and time and again I agree with those that say we go too far. But my point rather was: Free speech is not an absolute, not in Europe and not in the US. Some "exceptions", if you will, are very well feasible.

To add a bit to the topic at hand: The president smearing a witness might be witness intimidation, it might be defamation, or it might be ok. But "free speech" or "first amendment" can not be the magic words that make all questions of possible "not-ok" defamation or witness intimidation impossible.
Or else anyone can just say "It's my opinion that something will happen to your family if you testify" lawful, because hey it was just an opinion.

Other example, if one could actually sue (or fine or whatever) Lou Dobbs for calling someone a SOAB on TV, I don't think that would shatter the constitution. Would it?

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 11:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: The GOP already determined Trump never does anything wrong.  They have to use their time somehow.

Trump has done plenty wrong. Ambassador Volker (a GOP appointee)  said it was wrong to introduce Biden into the conversation with the Ukrainian President. But he also gave testimony that nothing Trump did was impeachable. 

But if we want to have a congressional investigation every time POTUS does something deemed as "wrong" then be prepared to reap what you sow. Especially during the Biden Presidency.  

[GMDino]

(11-19-2019, 11:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we cannot go where the evidence leads us?

Seems a few more folks than Trump were charged by the Mueller investigation. 

We don't want to be transparent in this situation?

This is inane.

Or insane. 

Your choice.

This a hearing to determine if the POTUS (Trump) asked for a quid pro quo by asking for a "favor" from the President of the Ukraine while personally ordering the withholding of funds approved in a bipartisan manner by congress.

Not on whether his love of conspiracy theories or personal vendettas is an ok reason to do it.

Spoilers: It's not.

If DJT *actually* had a police of withholding funding due to corruption then maybe he'd have an out.  But he didn't.  He send the funds in 2018 without question.

What was different about 2019?

Joe Biden was running for President.

Testimony just today, including from two witnesses the GOP requested, said that Trump thinks the Ukraine was "out to get him" in the 2016 election and he believes (because people tell him) that Ukraine is full of nasty, corrupt people.  But he didn't ask the President of the Ukraine about corruption...he asked about a conspiracy that the Ukraine worked with the Clinton campaign and about Hunter Biden.

So...BS.

[GMDino]

(11-19-2019, 11:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump has done plenty wrong. Ambassador Volker (a GOP appointee)  said it was wrong to introduce Biden into the conversation with the Ukrainian President. But he also gave testimony that nothing Trump did was impeachable. 

But if we want to have a congressional investigation every time POTUS does something deemed as "wrong" then be prepared to reap what you sow. Especially during the Biden Presidency.  

He doesn't make that decision...congress does.

I'd think someone who defends Trump and his actions along with their "boy" Graham) would get the irony of the second sentence in the quote.  But I bet not.

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 11:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: He doesn't make that decision...congress does.

I'd think someone who defends Trump and his actions along with their "boy" Graham) would get the irony of the second sentence in the quote.  But I bet not.

OK I withdraw my assertion. It's not up to Volker to assert Trump did something wrong. 

FWIW, Volker didn't actually say "Trump didn't do anything impeachable" he simply said Trump did nothing the Dems suggest he did that are impeachable.

You're right. I don't get it.

[hollodero]

(11-19-2019, 11:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK I withdraw my assertion. It's not up to Volker to assert Trump did something wrong. 

FWIW, Volker didn't actually say "Trump didn't do anything impeachable" he simply said Trump did nothing the Dems suggest he did that are impeachable.

You're right. I don't get it.

Yeah obviously you don't get that it's not up to the witnesses to give judgment on impeachment. And the witnesses know that, are well aware it's not their role, and republicans know they know that. So they ask the question. And the witnesses say "it's not up to me to determine", as they obviously have to. And that questioning is solely done for the disingenuous talking point that "none of the witnesses called it impeachable, case closed".

And you DO get that. You're just again an advocate for conservative matters.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-19-2019, 11:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, it probably does.
In general, that is my point. I am well aware of differences between US and Europe, and time and again I agree with those that say we go too far. But my point rather was: Free speech is not an absolute, not in Europe and not in the US. Some "exceptions", if you will, are very well feasible.

It's about as much of an absolute in the US as it is possible to get.  Aside from direct calls for violence or statements that would cause immediate harm, there are no limits.  This has been upheld by our judiciary time and again.  I don't think there's a week that goes by that I don't read a Guardian article comment section that bemoans the US concept of "free speech" and how it goes too far.  I am consistent in this regard, more freedom is always preferable to less.

Quote:To add a bit to the topic at hand: The president smearing a witness might be witness intimidation, it might be defamation, or it might be ok. But "free speech" or "first amendment" can not be the magic words that make all questions of possible "not-ok" defamation or witness intimidation impossible.
Or else anyone can just say "It's my opinion that something will happen to your family if you testify" lawful, because hey it was just an opinion.

Yes, there will always be those willing to abuse the freedom afforded to all.  Such Mafia type tactics are not illegal.  The, "this is a nice business, it would be a shame of something happened to it", tactic is not inherently illegal.  The thing is, restricting the freedom of everyone because of the factional minority who abuse it is completely at odds with the vision of the United States created by the Framers.

Quote:Other example, if one could actually sue (or fine or whatever) Lou Dobbs for calling someone a SOAB on TV, I don't think that would shatter the constitution. Would it?

Lou Dobbs can call anyone he wants a son of a *****.  That's his opinion and it does not call for violence against said SoB.  Hurt feelings are not the same as advocating violence.  So yes, it would absolutely be in direct opposition to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Maybe we're made of sterner stuff in the US, or were, but who gives a shit if some guy thinks you're a son of a *****?  The minute you allow the government to police language and opinion is the minute you cease to become a truly free society.  Sadly, much of Europe has stepped far across that line.

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 11:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah obviously you don't get that it's not up to the witnesses to give judgment on impeachment. And the witnesses know that, are well aware it's not their role, and republicans know they know that. So they ask the question. And the witnesses say "it's not up to me to determine", as they obviously have to. And that questioning is solely done for the disingenuous talking point that "none of the witnesses called it impeachable, case closed".

And you DO get that. You're just again an advocate for conservative matters.

I DO get it and if you'll just take a second to look at the post above your assertion that I don't get it; you will see I stated Volker said Trump didn't do anything the Dems have considered impeachable. Of course it's not Volker's job to say he should be impeached. If it were we could save millions of dollars and focus on real things