Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[JayF]

Explain this to me. Sorry not able to watch/listen today so just getting chunks here and there.

LT COL Vindman was specifically asked if he had talked to or knew the WB. He answered no!

 

[gangstonc]

LT COL Vindman was specifically asked if he had talked to or knew the WB. He answered no!

How would he know who the WB was?

 

[JayF]

How would he know who the WB was?

I hate that I didn't ask the question first, how would he not know who the WB is?

 

[WesL]

LT COL Vindman was specifically asked if he had talked to or knew the WB. He answered no!

How would he know who the WB was?

Sooooo if he doesn't know the identity of the Whistleblower.... how would he know he talked to that person and thus how would that be perjury? Don't think that holds water gentlemen.

 

[JayF]

Sooooo if he doesn't know the identity of the Whistleblower.... how would he know he talked to that person and thus how would that be perjury? Don't think that holds water gentlemen.

I understand your thought, because we do not know the identity of the WB, it is hard to tell from 1000 feet view if he knows the WB or not.

It is my personal opinion that he does know who the WB is and it is also my personal opinion that Adam Schiff knows the WB and the relationship to LT COL Vindman. Will the facts that support my opinion ever come into the public light? I doubt it.

 

[Matt]

Sooooo if he doesn't know the identity of the Whistleblower.... how would he know he talked to that person and thus how would that be perjury? Don't think that holds water gentlemen.

The identity of the WB has to come out. If the dems want to remove the president, he will have to face questions from the Republicans and the presidents lawyer. And it is Ciaramella.

 

[Matt]

Good read. Atkison is a top notch reporter and I think she gives a good insight into this impeachment process. I agree with many of her assertions. I know all will not.

Silent bombshell in last week’s impeachment testimony: State Dept. witnesses are the ones who conducted “shadow diplomacy” | Sharyl Attkisson

sharylattkisson.com

 

[WesL]

Good read.

Silent bombshell in last week’s impeachment testimony: State Dept. witnesses are the ones who conducted “shadow diplomacy” | Sharyl Attkisson

sharylattkisson.com

This link needs more context please. This will be my final request. Next step will involve removing the ability for you to post attachments and links.

 

[WesL]

I understand your thought, because we do not know the identity of the WB, it is hard to tell from 1000 feet view if he knows the WB or not.

It is my personal opinion that he does know who the WB is and it is also my personal opinion that Adam Schiff knows the WB and the relationship to LT COL Vindman. Will the facts that support my opinion ever come into the public light? I doubt it.

I like the breakdown of facts vs opinion and if it does ever come out that he knew the identity (not just knowing the person) and made that statement I feel he would be subject to the prosecution. Thanks for helping me understand.

 

[gangstonc]

Volker is changing his closed door testimony markedly. I thought he would help trump, but so far this has not been the case at all. I can't believe this is who the republicans wanted the country to hear.

 

[JayF]

I like the breakdown of facts vs opinion and if it does ever come out that he knew the identity (not just knowing the person) and made that statement I feel he would be subject to the prosecution. Thanks for helping me understand.

This explains why I believe the statement I made above that LT COL Vindman knows the WB and Adam Schiff is aware of that fact.

 

[gangstonc]

This explains why I believe the statement I made above that LT COL Vindman knows the WB and Adam Schiff is aware of that fact.

Relevant video removed for space

I agree that it does look suspicious. However, I contend that it is also entirely possible that he spoke to an intelligence person that is not the WB. He may just not know. It isn't smart to start naming our intelligence officers that were on detail in the white house. That allows you to start narrowing down the name and figuring out who it was.

 

[WesL]

The identity of the WB has to come out. If the dems want to remove the president, he will have to face questions from the Republicans and the presidents lawyer. And it is Ciaramella.

Actually, no it doesn't and for the reasons I mentioned above. The complaint was verified by the IG and through the sworn testimony of career professionals and political appointee. We are past that part for sure and if the House impeaches the President, I believe a Supreme Court case would almost be a certainty to protect the whistleblower from being called as a witness because the complaint was verified out.

It is important to point out that the confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment might be at question here. In the impeachment case of Senator William Blount in 1798 there was a long, multi-day, debate if an impeachment constitutes a criminal proceeding. This is important because the 6th Amendment has specific language about the use of jury trials for criminal language and the confrontation clause. It was successfully argued and voted on by the Senate, some of which were founding fathers, that because impeachment is a special scenario, and the fact it is not subject to judicial review (appeal) it is not subject to the constraints set for criminal proceedings. It would pretty much take the Supreme Court to get involved to overturn that and would more than likely be considered a full-on constitutional crisis.

Also worth pointing out that in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 the following statement is made, “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” which limits the impeachment to just removing the President (and more than likely preventing him from having a pension). It would take a separate criminal action to prosecute him for any illegal acts. These two steps help ensure the impeached has a fair criminal proceeding if necessary and affords them the ability of appeal if needed.

 

[gangstonc]

So far it seems like Sondland and Giuliani were working through the “irregular channel” to get these investigations done with the aid as the carrot. What the Dems have not done is to tie trump to the exact decision. They have him holding up the aid. They have him saying he wants the investigations. It’s entirely possible at this point he was just doing what Giuliani told him to do.
The Dems have a lot of work to do.

 

[gangstonc]

If Morrison saw nothing wrong with the call, as he said, why did he consult the lawyers?

 

[Matt]

Actually, no it doesn't and for the reasons I mentioned above. The complaint was verified by the IG and through the sworn testimony of career professionals and political appointee. We are past that part for sure and if the House impeaches the President, I believe a Supreme Court case would almost be a certainty to protect the whistleblower from being called as a witness because the complaint was verified out.

It is important to point out that the confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment might be at question here. In the impeachment case of Senator William Blount in 1798 there was a long, multi-day, debate if an impeachment constitutes a criminal proceeding. This is important because the 6th Amendment has specific language about the use of jury trials for criminal language and the confrontation clause. It was successfully argued and voted on by the Senate, some of which were founding fathers, that because impeachment is a special scenario, and the fact it is not subject to judicial review (appeal) it is not subject to the constraints set for criminal proceedings. It would pretty much take the Supreme Court to get involved to overturn that and would more than likely be considered a full-on constitutional crisis.

Also worth pointing out that in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 the following statement is made, “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” which limits the impeachment to just removing the President (and more than likely preventing him from having a pension). It would take a separate criminal action to prosecute him for any illegal acts. These two steps help ensure the impeached has a fair criminal proceeding if necessary and affords them the ability of appeal if needed.

Let me gets this straight. You're OK removing a president based on an anonymous source, who's complaint is actually quite a bit different that the transcript of the call ? You're OK with the president not being allowed to face his accuser, have his lawyers ask pertinent questions of the WB, have his background checked, his motivations checked, his associations looked into, his political associations looked into ? I find that amazing!

 

[Matt]

Today was a disaster for the dems. And not a good one for Vindman either. His testimony almost mirrored the WB complaint.

 

[gangstonc]

Today was a disaster for the dems. And not a good one for Vindman either. His testimony almost mirrored the WB complaint.

If his sworn testimony mirrors the WB complaint, as the other testimony has, doesn’t that mean the WB was telling the truth, just like everybody else?

what was so bad for the Dems?

 

[Kory]

Just like I suspected. You like Trump = what a disaster for Dems the impeachment inquiry has been! You dislike Trump = this is a disaster for Trump. It’s literally the Mueller Report all over again with regards to public perception.

 

[Matt]

If his sworn testimony mirrors the WB complaint, as the other testimony has, doesn’t that mean the WB was telling the truth, just like everybody else?

what was so bad for the Dems?

No evidence of a crime. No quid pro quo. They totally vindicated the president.