(09-26-2019, 01:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So I assume the sources the whistle blower used will have to come forward and testify? Are they allowed to do that behind closed doors if they want to remain anonymous to the general public?

(09-26-2019, 01:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So I assume the sources the whistle blower used will have to come forward and testify?  Are they allowed to do that behind closed doors if they want to remain anonymous to the general public?

(09-26-2019, 12:37 PM)Dill Wrote: May I also consider it "amazing"? 

Trump had an ambassador pressing anti-corruption measures in Ukraine and fired her.

Someone has already explained to you that the "corruption" was specifically to be found in Hunter Biden's business dealings and his father's push to get rid of Shokin on anti corruption grounds. "Reciprocity" for aid given by Congress to resist a US adversary, but now withheld until there is assurance Ukraine will "play ball." That is not fighting corruption--that IS corruption.

It has also been explained that there is a difference in acting to further official US policy (fighting corruption would be consistent with that) and running an unofficial side show in which private citizens help the president manipulate official policy for private ends, not to mention the Attorney General, whose job description does not include meetings with foreign leaders to insure they "understand what is expected" and are "making progress."

Instead of responding to cues from the president's defense team, you could break personal precedent and read the whistleblower's actual complaint to gain direct understanding of the policy issues, rather than continuing these rear-guard, ad hoc defenses of illegal behavior.
https://www.scribd.com/document/427562713/Declassified-Whisteblower-Complaint#from_embed

(09-26-2019, 03:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A Zelensky advisor has also said that the Zelensky administration was under the impression that a prerequisite for talking with Trump was appeasing him on a Biden investigation. 

And of course, as soon as Zelensky mentions the aid program, Trump immediately asks for a "favor". 

With the report dropping and claims that all records were immediately moved to a different server that was less accessible, the picture becomes pretty clear. 

This is why Trump and his stooges are now implying the issue is whoever "leaked" it to the whistleblower, using language like "spy" and "treason". 

(09-26-2019, 02:54 PM)Dill Wrote: The circumstances of their testimony--whether, where and how (public/closed hearing)--will not be decided by the whistleblowers.

They will be called, and the actual circumstances will be determined by the struggle between the WH and Congress, in the framework of existing law regulating such sensitive matters.

(09-26-2019, 04:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's a shame they don't even know what constitutes treason in the US.

(09-26-2019, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It'll be most likely similar today. House-public Senate-private and "framework of existing law regulating such sensitive matters" will be the least of their motivations.

(09-26-2019, 06:04 PM)Dill Wrote: All hearings and testimony will have to respect legal precedent, the separation of powers, and the interests of national security.

The intel agencies do not want these hearings to provide clues as to how they sort and store information, which could be gleaned from the slightest of hints by competent intel agents in other countries.  For the intel community and future presidents, it is already a hair-pulling matter that the phone transcript was released. Now the whistleblower document itself fleshes out a vetting/storage process previously behind closed doors.

Then there are constitutional questions over presidential prerogatives. The Exec cannot function without control over its "message" and other deliberative processes. Yet we have a president recklessly disregarding his duty and a Congress tasked with oversight, which may be avoiding its duty if it allows the scofflaw to continue hijacking US foreign policy in the service of conspiracy theories.

Most members of Congress will recognize and respect the potential consequences of subpoenas and witnesses; any damage resulting, despite cautionary measures, should be laid at the feet of the president, who has forced them to do their duty, however reluctant they have been to do it.

(09-26-2019, 03:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A Zelensky advisor has also said that the Zelensky administration was under the impression that a prerequisite for talking with Trump was appeasing him on a Biden investigation. 

And of course, as soon as Zelensky mentions the aid program, Trump immediately asks for a "favor". 

With the report dropping and claims that all records were immediately moved to a different server that was less accessible, the picture becomes pretty clear. 

This is why Trump and his stooges are now implying the issue is whoever "leaked" it to the whistleblower, using language like "spy" and "treason". 

(09-26-2019, 06:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks for the class; I'm sure they won't break the law.  I just mentioned  the "framework of existing law regulating such sensitive matters" will be the least of their motivations as to weather or not the hearings a re open and closed. Do you agree or disagree with the assessment? 

(09-26-2019, 06:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Here's the thing. We don't have law already in place to completely cover these circumstances. That's why we keep reading the word "unprecedented" in hearing testimony.

"They" is not one monolithic entity here. I think people running the Congressional hearings are motivated for the most part by respect for rule of law, so respecting the law will not be "the least of their motivations" but a primary one.

However, some are motivated by a desperate desire to save the president, no matter what. They will use the law where they can to except the president from rule of law and accountability, but will not be motivated by respect for it. Their success depends on how well they can convince the undecided that "both sides" are just engaged in partisan sparing and no fundamental principles/norms/laws are at stake.  (How can Dems accuse Trump of colluding and abused power when Dems already colluded and abused power?)

(09-26-2019, 08:28 PM)Millhouse Wrote: So apparently the whistleblower is a CIA analyist/officer assigned to the White House, per msm.

Bit funny the government's own terro.., err its own agency that has a shadier past than Sherwood Forest in England actually has someone that wants to do the right thing for the good of America.

(09-26-2019, 09:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From what I've read, I applaud the Whistleblower. I hate that congress decided/demanded to make his/her report public. 

IMO, much worse than Trump's call to Ukraine is his veiled threat to the whistleblower. 

(09-26-2019, 10:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did Congress demand the report be made public? My understanding was that they were requesting they be given the complaint, as required by law. The White House decided to release the complaint publicly.

(09-26-2019, 10:37 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Our forefathers were pretty wise. When they were setting up our government, they looked at the other countries in the world to see what types of problems they had. A huge problem that always seemed to undermine countries was foreign interference in the government. They knew what a corrupting influence this was and knew this could even be more pronounced in a democratic form of government. Hence, they took efforts to write about it to warn future generations and to establish checks and balances against it. This is one of the reasons why communications between all people within our government and people in foreign nations are monitored.

(09-26-2019, 09:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From what I've read, I applaud the Whistleblower. I hate that congress decided/demanded to make his/her report public. 

IMO, much worse than Trump's call to Ukraine is his veiled threat to the whistleblower. 

(09-26-2019, 11:32 PM)Millhouse Wrote: "The Los Angeles Times released audio Thursday of Trump musing over the source of the content of his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on which the whistleblower, in part, based his complaint.

“Basically, that person never saw the report, never saw the call. He never saw the call — heard something and decided that he or she or whoever the hell it is — they’re almost a spy,” Trump said in a recording of a private event on Thursday in New York. “I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistleblower, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart, right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”






I think President Pence has an ok ring to it, though bit way too conservative in certain areas for my liking. But at least he would act Presidential for the next year.