Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[Sam]

ISTM we need to question the Constitutionality of protections for even "real" whistleblowers. Trump was right: He has -- or at least *should* have -- the right to confront his accuser(s).

In a criminal proceeding, he does -- though, as mentioned earlier, the right is not absolute.

But Trump is not yet a defendant in a criminal proceeding and the whistleblower is not an "accuser" in any sense that would have legal weight. If a bank employee provides the FBI a ledger showing that the manager has been stealing from the till, the ledger is evidence and the manager doesn't necessarily have any right to face the employee who provided the ledger in court.

If Trump wants to bring a libel case against the whistleblower, let him. The truth of an allegation is a powerful defense and Trump couldn't very well complain about Zaid and Bakaj getting access to all sorts of documents and depositions in discovery.

--Sam

[Sam]

The Senate sets its own trial rules - or had you forgotten?

The protection from reprisal doesn't overrule the Sixth Amendment.

The House can't control the Senate - any courtesy (like extending whistle blower protection despite violation of the statute) extended by the House IS NOT BINDING on the Senate.

The removal of a duly elected President requires transparency. No, if the House brings articles, there WILL BE an open trial and the accused WILL get the chance to face his accusers. And the American people will bear witness - no stupid camera tricks; for that you have to establish a danger to the witnesses life - which seriously undermines the credibility of CIA assigned to the White House.

The Dems can't have it only their way - there had better be some sunlight soon or people are going to start smelling the Dems' rat.

Since this pertains to the discussion and since you don't wish me to post in the new thread you made (don't think you can ban people from threads in the OP, by memory), I'll put it here.

You say that impeachment trials are criminal trials but this has not been the standard throughout the history of impeachment, as the Congressional Research Service's report on the subject explains. While some have argued that impeachment is a criminal trial, others have pointed to case law that establishes criminal convictions as depriving a person of "life, liberty, and property". The standard of proof for impeachment, likewise, has changed throughout history and between senators, with some applying the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt and others applying a lower standard like preponderance of evidence.

There is, in other words, no set standard and no set category for impeachment. By historical standards, then, impeachment trials cannot be criminal trials, whatever else one might call them.

Source: CRS Report for Congress. Standard of Proof in Senate Impeachment Proceedings. Thomas B. Ripy. Legislative Attorney. American Law Division

In sum, the Senate has traditionally left the choice of the applicable standard of proof to each individual Senator. While rejecting a motion to make the criminal standard the standard in the Claiborne impeachment, the discussion made clear that it was simply a decision to allow each member to make that choice and not a repudiation of the standard itself. Individuals might apply that or any other standard of their choice. A walk through history and an examination of the discussions of legal commentators may aid individuals in weighing their choices, but provides no definitive answers. Indeed, such an exercise is perhaps most useful in highlighting basic questions that members will want to ask themselves when searching for the appropriate standard.

© Copyright Original Source

--Sam

[Teallaura]

ISTM we need to question the Constitutionality of protections for even "real" whistleblowers. Trump was right: He has -- or at least *should* have -- the right to confront his accuser(s).

The Constitution treats impeachment as a criminal trial in two separate sections. No where does it exclude impeachment from Due Process or the Sixth Amendment.

Politically, failing to produce witnesses or to grant due process would be suicide.

[Teallaura]

...
--Sam

Did you say something?

[Roy]

I knew which one you were inferring, but I find it better to pin you guys down when you are specific in writing.
...
US Ethics laws.

But you don't want to be pinned down yourself, do you.

Which US ethics law or statute is Biden suspected of breaking?

Unanswered.

Multiple Donald Trump defenders have demanded that people quote the exact statute that Trump has allegedly broken.

But they won't do the same for Joe Biden's alleged offences.

[Charles]

Unanswered.

Multiple Donald Trump defenders have demanded that people quote the exact statute that Trump has allegedly broken.

But they won't do the same for Joe Biden's alleged offences.

Interesting.

[JimL]

Unanswered.

Multiple Donald Trump defenders have demanded that people quote the exact statute that Trump has allegedly broken.

But they won't do the same for Joe Biden's alleged offences.

Not to mention the fact that the breaking of a law is not necessary in order that a president commit an impeachable action. Abuse of power is impeachable, though not necessarily a criminal act. Besides that, there was a quid pro quo with respect to Ukraine, and it's in writing and it's signed by Zelenski.

[Bill the Cat]

Unanswered. .

Sorry. I was spending time with my daughters and my in-laws this weekend, and my TWeb time was very limited. And to be quite frank, I don't care any more. It's not like my comments will change any of your minds...

[Charles]

Sorry. I was spending time with my daughters and my in-laws this weekend, and my TWeb time was very limited. And to be quite frank, I don't care any more. It's not like my comments will change any of your minds...

They will not if you cannot support them or provide yourself what you ask others to provide.

And here is what you left out of Roy's post:

Multiple Donald Trump defenders have demanded that people quote the exact statute that Trump has allegedly broken.

But they won't do the same for Joe Biden's alleged offences.

[Teallaura]

They will not if you cannot support them or provide yourself what you ask others to provide.

Won't even when he does, Mr Snarky-Case-in-Point.

[Bill the Cat]

They will not if you cannot support them or provide yourself what you ask others to provide.

And here is what you left out of JimL's post:

I. Don't. Care.

[Charles]

Won't even when he does, Mr Snarky-Case-in-Point.

Since he has not supported it we don't know in this case. I think it is quite fair to point out that BTC asked others of something he is unwilling or perhaps simply incapable of doing himself... If you feel like you are called to support that, feel free.

[JimL]

Sorry. I was spending time with my daughters and my in-laws this weekend, and my TWeb time was very limited. And to be quite frank, I don't care any more. It's not like my comments will change any of your minds...

[Bill the Cat]

I care even less what you have to say, hack.

[Teallaura]

Since he has not supported it we don't know in this case. I think it is quite fair to point out that BTC asked others of something he is unwilling or perhaps simply incapable of doing himself... If you feel like you are called to support that, feel free.

In another thread.

I haven't made the argument, but Biden admitted to doing what Trump denies doing.

It's still not my argument - and we both know you wouldn't cede the point even if someone did prove it.