Lets Talk About the Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella ***POLL***

I've said it a hundred times -- if Trump did, in FACT, commit crimes, then YES, by all means, impeach him and remove him from office. I can't think of any one of us on the Right who want someone in office who has committed crimes!

But that "trial" had better be fair, unrestricted, and open for all the world to see -- and ALL accusers, and ALL of those who brought to court to testify must (MUST) be placed under oath and subjected to unrestricted examination and cross-examination -- IN PUBLIC!

Anything else is a disgusting "kangaroo court" worthy of the Nazis and the old Soviet Union.... It's good enough for Democrats, obviously, and that's really SAD....

 

Translation -

You are so emotionally invested in Trump, that anyone who says anything that puts Trump in a bad light is a traitor - never mind that
they swore an oath to the Constitution, not to Trump.

So who do we believe - Trump? A guy who lied to every one of his wives, his own family - or the decorated war vet?

 

Hunter Biden has nothing to do with what Trump did and the name on the list would be removed as a witness. Notice I said witness...There are only perps and witnesses at trials not anonymous people that had not a damn thing to do with what the perp did..See how that works? Trying to tie in Hunter is a red herring to try and change the topic of the impeachment, Trump either tried to strong arm the Ukraine president over a political candidate or he did not. Hunter, he is no where in the story.

 

The actual trial happens in the Senate, with the Chief Justice presiding. The Senate is controlled by Republicans and the Chief Justice is a Republican appointment. "Fair" is relative, isn't it?

 

There is but one process to prove guilt by law. Why be so short sighted because you be biased?

 

You can start with Abe Lincoln(Lincoln's Law) and work your way to the Hillary email investigations and Benghazi. Be my guest I already know the history of whistleblowers in the US.

 

Even in a grand jury trial the defendant's lawyer is there and can have a say. Including being able to talk to the witnesses. Not in a cross examination, but still able to talk to them.

Let's put it this way, they are able to put forth evidence to determine if the witness is a credible witness. Can't do that in this case can they?

 

Actually Hunter Biden is very much a part of this as Trump would never have been able to ask Ukraine what he did if it hadn't been for what happened. As such it is only fair, and right, to determine if Trump had a legitimate belief, at the time of the call, that there was possible corruption going on. That points towards possible motive and the carrying out of his Job as President. And if he was legitimately carrying out his duties as President, which involves initiating investigations, then there was no abuse of power.

The only reason to NOT include Hunter Biden is to not allow this possible evidence for the defense.

Lets put it this way...if a cop kills someone in the line of duty was it because they abused their power? Or because they were performing their duties legitimately? In that situation the reason that something happened matters. Just as it matters in this.

 

Actually the defendants lawyers do have every right to be able to put forth evidence of whether the accuser/witness is credible. That's the whole point of a Grand Jury testimony. To determine credibility of the evidence and witness.

 

I've presented evidence to three Grand Juries. Two of them were in cases where the soon to be defendant had no idea he was about to be charged. There is no requirement for a Grand Jury to hear from the defendant or his lawyers. Grand Juries decide on probable cause to continue with a case, they do not convict.

 

I don't think that we know, for sure, that he is the so-called whistleblower. All that I've seen is one report that makes a good case.

If he is, it proves that this is another plot against the President (Not hat I needed proof, I smelled it a mile away.).

 

Trump is quite transparent, including in his abuse of power, in his ability to believe things which aren't true, his thin skin, his penchant to lash out at his enemies or perceived enemies, his willingness to use the powers of his office to pursue personal agendas against anyone who wants to lash out against, and in practically everything else there is to know about him. A case for impeachment can, therefore, be easily made against him. But the fact that Trump is so transparent doesn't change the fact that the much of what other politicians in the US do, even if less transparent, more nuanced in various tools of legal fiction, is no less corrupt in many ways. And in some ways, albeit not in abuse of power, even more corrupt.

As for this particular case, the partisanship and attempts to spin notwithstanding, its clear that Trump wanted to dig dirt on Biden. It is also quite possible (even likely) that he was convinced there was dirt to dig up. That would be true regardless of whether Hunter Biden was in fact involved in corruption or not. In either case, Trump would be quite capable of believing he was involved in corruption and that is besides the point of any facts on the issue. For Trump, in fact, the critical issue would be that a young man without much to his resume except his name and father, was making substantial sums of money sitting on boards of corporations which he would not be sitting on if he wasn't Joe Biden's son.

From a technical standpoint, the people who the Republicans want to call as 'witnesses' are irrelevant to the issues at hand, in particular at this stage of the proceedings. Hunter Biden is meant to distract attention away from Trump and that is obvious. And the whole vendetta being unleashed by Trump and associates against the 'Whistle Blower" is itself added reason why his anonymity should be protected. At this stage, at least, he doesn't have anything to add to the case.

But while I would hate for the "Whistle Blower" to be exposed and for Trump and his gang to get away with their usual strong arm tactics, notwithstanding what I said about the technical irrelevance of Hunter Biden, I am actually of two minds when it comes to the usefulness of having him testify. Usefulness, not for the impeachment proceedings against Trump, but to expose a small (but still telling) facet of the corruption (even if not the kind that is legally sanctionable) that pervades the practice of politics in America and where America's writ and influence extends.

Ultimately, Ukraine's government is corrupt because it is a government that is waging a war on behalf of roughly one half of Ukraine against the other half, with the other half being close to Russia while the first half was working close to western (European and traditional American) intelligence and foreign policy figures. In that dynamic, of course Ukraine's government is corrupt. And, of course, regardless of what any investigation showed or shows, people like Hunter Biden were employed and working in their capacities in Ukraine to facilitate the connections and corruptions that exist in Ukraine. This is a part of the kind of corruption that is practiced by American and western governments and exposing it would be valuable. And that is ultimately the kind of corruption Trump, who had already heard an earful from pro Russian sources who have his ears, was already aware of and was looking to expose, while also hitting at his political rivals.

 

One of the attorneys representing the whistleblower at the heart of the partisan Democratic impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, Mark Zaid, tweeted in 2017 just days after the president took office that a “coup has started,” and that “impeachment will follow ultimately.”



Throughout the first few years of Trump’s presidency, Zaid has reaffirmed his commitment to remove the president from office through impeachment. In July 2017, Zaid wrote, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters,” and later remarked that one day history will be reciting the tales of Trump’s impeachment.

Zaid’s bias against the president has been well-documented. In a podcast last year, Zaid spoke about how he often goes out of his way just to use the term “resistance,” and bragged about having sued every president since 1993.

Andrew Bakaj, another one of the whistleblower’s attorneys, has also shown open animosity towards President Trump. In the summer of 2017, Bakaj argued for the removal of the president through the use of the 25th Amendment. Bakaj once worked for New York Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Zaid’s law partner, Bradley P. Moss, is counterattacking conservatives who have vilified the unidentified whistleblower. He called the Trump supporters “human excrement posing as human beings.”

Andrew P. Bakaj, himself a vindicated whistleblower from his CIA days. Mr. Bakaj once did counseling work on Capitol Hill for Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Charles E. Schumer, the party’s Senate leader, his posted biography says.

Mr. Bakaj also is a veteran of the inspector general corps, working in the CIA’s IG office as an investigator into whistleblower complaints. He helped write the procedures for protecting complainants and then found himself under investigation for reporting evidence tampering in 2014. Yahoo News reported that the CIA suspended Mr. Bakaj and stripped him of his security clearance.

And Im supposed to think this investigation is non partisan and non biased? This is a game, from the whistle blower lawyers to the whistle blower himself to the left wing politicians and to the mainstream media. They are all colluding on this so called "impeachment hoax" to push a narrative that is based on deception and lies. All of the people we have mentioned above and their associates are traitors and should be dealt with as such. In fact, I would go as far as say the democratic party is fueled by collusion at every level. The reality is these people hate America and they hate Trump because he is making America great again. Anyone that says otherwise is a pawn of the liberal elite, the globalists and the mainstream media. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, left wing motives are extremely evil in nature and extremely destructive in application. (Just look what happened to Detroit once democrats took over). For the liberal left it's all about power and greed mixed with lies and deception, followed closely by hatred and contempt for their conservative counterparts. They want absolutely nothing to do with making America great again.

 

Yes he is 100% a traitor

 

Did you ever stop to think that if you didn't state my comment was ridiculous I probably wouldn't have made a comment about your lack of intelligence. It's sort-a like you get back what you send out. Don't be surprised when your anger is met with anger.

 

LOL He's no saint like Hillary Clinton! Trump must be a compulsive liar because the liberals say so! The reality is that the left wing operates from a perspective where truth is not the ultimate factor, yet they dont hesitate to hold their counterparts feet to the fire when the time calls for it. This is called hypocrisy and it's exactly what Trump going through right now with the impeachment hoax. Bottom line: Dems know they dont have a candidate who can challenge Donald Trump in 2020 so they've manufactured the entire whistle-blower theme.

Did you know... The intelligence community (deep state) had recently changed the rules requiring whistle-blowers to base their claims on first-hand information. Originally, a whistle-blower had to have direct knowledge of wrongdoing. Second and third hand knowledge is now applicable in a whistle-blower complaint. This is yet another slimy tactic the liberal left is using in an effort to legitimize the Impeachment inquiry. This is just more smoke and mirrors from the party of drugs, crime and racism and we, as the American people, WILL NOT STAND FOR IT.

For your information, Trump was true to his word that if things got bad enough for our nation he would step up to the plate. This comment was made decades ago. I think you need to watch this video in its entirety because your view of Trump is heavily diluted.

LOL @ thin skin comment

The liberal media has been trying to break him for 3 years without success. And believe me, they have hurled a lot of excrement at Trump in that time. Sorry but just the opposite is true. He didn't earn the name teflon don for nothing! He is bulletproof to the attacks of the left, and it's high time you realized that.

 

My reply-post to you was deleted because somebody didn't like the fact that I simply abbreviated your forum name, even though there was nothing 'bad' about it as far as I could tell. I was just being 'conversational', but I'll be much more formal in the future....

Nevertheless, @FoxHastings , I will be certain to address you ONLY by your full forum name, going forward.... .

In my initial reply-post, I made the point that in the United States (and most civilized countries for the last thousand years or more), it is considered MANDATORY that a person be able to confront his accuser. Anything less stinks of tyrannical, overbearing, unjust countries like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Now, have a nice day, @FoxHastings . Oh, by the way, you may feel welcome to call ME anything you like.... .

 

Yeah, if the indictment is under a seal and the investigators are trying to keep it secret so that they can get as many people as possible then that can happen. But that isn't what we have here is it? What we have here is a VERY public legal proceeding. Most states do allow, even require, for the defendant to have some type of presence to help determine credibility of any evidence.

 

Thank you, Kal'Stang -- you have hit 'the nail on the head'!

This isn't about some 'average Joe' getting mixed up on a minor, local criminal beef, or a civil suit, or something like that. No. This 'impeachment' situation is GIGANTIC, with world-wide ramifications, which are fully-examined and covered thoroughly by every major news organization on Earth.

It is simply not civilized to allow anyone involved in this situation to be able to 'throw rocks' and then waltz away without even having to show his face or face direct examination and cross-examination! What the hell kind of country would we have to be to allow anything so Nazi-esque as that?!

Justice must be equal justice FOR ALL, including the President of the United States, or else it is nothing but a disgusting, disgraceful FARCE....

 

Nope.
The defendant may not even know his case is in front of a grand jury.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

 

We buy you books and buy you books.

Confrontation Clause. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." ... The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings.

 

I think that a more appropriate analogy would be if a person was suspected of robbing a store. The police search the person's house without a warrant. Did the police conduct an improper search? It doesn't matter if the person actually committed the crime or not. The "trial" of the officer would be to determine if their search was improper or not and their punishment would be based solely on that. it wouldn't matter if the original suspect actually guilty or not..

 

What would you ask Hunter Biden?

 

Sorry , look up what a Grand Jury is and does....and how it does it...

A person does not need to know his accusers name because that has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence...the only reason Tump and the Repubs want to know the name is to attempt to intimidate the person because Trump is guilty as hell and doesn't want the whistleblower to speak..

 

Up burps Godwin's Law and down goes any sensible argument...



You: """Justice must be equal justice FOR ALL, including the President of the United States, or else it is nothing but a disgusting, disgraceful FARCE"""


Add """the LAW and Justice must be equal justice FOR ALL, including the President of the United States""" to that sentence and we agree.....and remember you said that when he's found guilty …….and don't try to blame the Nazis for his crimes...