President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Northwestcoug]

Can't disagree there. There's no right to anonymity with whistle-blowers.

Sure. I would just expect a real libertarian to support strong protection of whistleblowers, so they can bring to light corruption in all levels of government. Paul wants to out this one who was...concerned with abuse by the most powerful man in government. And then hide behind the constitution. I wonder if he also rails against anonymous tip lines to police...

If a libertarian can't support fighting against government abuse, what the hell is he good for?

[PaloAltoCougar]

The 6th Amendment?

I'd argue that if the whistleblower provides evidence in a criminal prosecution of Trump, then yes. But given that the case thus far consists of testimony by a few officials and the summary of Trump's perfect conversation with Zelensky, the whistleblower isn't part of the evidential record--I don't seen a constitutional right to confront someone who's not part of the record.

[creekster]

I'd argue that if the whistleblower provides evidence in a criminal prosecution of Trump, then yes. But given that the case thus far consists of testimony by a few officials and the summary of Trump's perfect conversation with Zelensky, the whistleblower isn't part of the evidential record--I don't seen a constitutional right to confront someone who's not part of the record.

But that's the rub, isn't it? If this was a criminal matter, and the whistleblower was the accuser, then the right to confront would be very clear. But, as you point out, this isn't really a criminal matter but it IS a political matter. Trump's conduct was perhaps criminal, but most likely he is really going to be impeached, if at all, for the political problems with his conduct. Because this is a political matter, the whistleblower's motivation, and possible connection to the inquiry, might very well be relevant as a political matter.

In the Kavanaugh hearings, for example, everyone wanted to know who investigated who and how every allegation came to light. All of this was fair game at the hearing. As a practical matter, if the whistleblower was in fact working in concert with Schiff or other democrats specifically to get at Trump, then it DOES taint the claim for impeachment. Ultimately, the trial in the Senate will be based on evidence of wrongdoing but, in the meantime, this political issue will need to be dealt with politically. I also think that, as a practical matter, it might be better to out the whistleblower. If he/she is not blatantly partisan, it should help the impeachment effort.

[PaloAltoCougar]

But that's the rub, isn't it? If this was a criminal matter, and the whistleblower was the accuser, then the right to confront would be very clear. But, as you point out, this isn't really a criminal matter but it IS a political matter. Trump's conduct was perhaps criminal, but most likely he is really going to be impeached, if at all, for the political problems with his conduct. Because this is a political matter, the whistleblower's motivation, and possible connection to the inquiry, might very well be relevant as a political matter.

In the Kavanaugh hearings, for example, everyone wanted to know who investigated who and how every allegation came to light. All of this was fair game at the hearing. As a practical matter, if the whistleblower was in fact working in concert with Schiff or other democrats specifically to get at Trump, then it DOES taint the claim for impeachment. Ultimately, the trial in the Senate will be based on evidence of wrongdoing but, in the meantime, this political issue will need to be dealt with politically. I also think that, as a practical matter, it might be better to out the whistleblower. If he/she is not blatantly partisan, it should help the impeachment effort.

I guess I'm just biased here, but I don't see why the motivation of the whistleblower makes any difference in determining whether what Trump (and Giuliani, Trump's current Roy Cohn Lite) did was wrong. I also think that if the whistleblower is outed, it will have a regrettable chilling effect on potential whistleblowers in the future.

[creekster]

I guess I'm just biased here, but I don't see why the motivation of the whistleblower makes any difference in determining whether what Trump (and Giuliani, Trump's current Roy Cohn Lite) did was wrong. I also think that if the whistleblower is outed, it will have a regrettable chilling effect on potential whistleblowers in the future.

Both points might be true. But you are still thinking this is jurisprudential when it is actually political. The idea of impeachment is not one of merely proving elements of an offense. It is a political decision. You can be impeached for perjury, for example, and yet stay in the office because most people think it just isn't that big of a deal. But that decision is political, it is not based on proof. Trump is going to carry the stain of his 'perfect' conversation into the election, as he should. But impeachment is not a trifle and is instead a political issue of the highest importance in our system. As a result, in my mind, and under these circumstances, the whistleblower ought to be revealed, or at least made to appear and answer for the memo before the committees.

[Bo Diddley]

I guess I'm just biased here, but I don't see why the motivation of the whistleblower makes any difference in determining whether what Trump (and Giuliani, Trump's current Roy Cohn Lite) did was wrong. I also think that if the whistleblower is outed, it will have a regrettable chilling effect on potential whistleblowers in the future.

It really shouldn't. If you're weighing testimony of something that can't be substantiated, as in the Kavenaugh confirmation, then the character of the witness comes into play. But a whistle blower is simply pointing something out that can be substantiated through investigation.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Leaving the subject of impeachment for a moment, enjoy learning about Trump's spiritual advisor in the White House.

So great to have such a spiritual giant as our president.

[Walter Sobchak]

Both points might be true. But you are still thinking this is jurisprudential when it is actually political. The idea of impeachment is not one of merely proving elements of an offense. It is a political decision. You can be impeached for perjury, for example, and yet stay in the office because most people think it just isn't that big of a deal. But that decision is political, it is not based on proof. Trump is going to carry the stain of his 'perfect' conversation into the election, as he should. But impeachment is not a trifle and is instead a political issue of the highest importance in our system. As a result, in my mind, and under these circumstances, the whistleblower ought to be revealed, or at least made to appear and answer for the memo before the committees.

President Clinton's impeachment was a sham, as is this. Where is the crime? There is none. Did Zelensky hold the press conference President Trump demanded? No. Did Zelensky announce Ukraine was investigating the Bidens? No. Did Zelensky get the Oval Office meeting? Yes. Did Zelensky get the U.S. weapons? Yes. The designation of Adam Schiff to head this "investigation" is pretty much all the evidence you need to know that this is a political proceeding, not a criminal one.

[Commando]

President Clinton's impeachment was a sham, as is this. Where is the crime? There is none. Did Zelensky hold the press conference President Trump demanded? No. Did Zelensky announce Ukraine was investigating the Bidens? No. Did Zelensky get the Oval Office meeting? Yes. Did Zelensky get the U.S. weapons? Yes. The designation of Adam Schiff to head this "investigation" is pretty much all the evidence you need to know that this is a political proceeding, not a criminal one.

by definition an impeachment inquiry is a political proceeding, not a criminal one.

Great job! :thumbsup:

[creekster]

by definition an impeachment inquiry is a political proceeding, not a criminal one.

Great job! :thumbsup:

Which is why it is so odd that so many people analyze it like it is a criminal matter.

[BlueK]

Which is why it is so odd that so many people analyze it like it is a criminal matter.

I think it's hard to make the case that most of the framers wouldn't have looked at someone like Donald Trump as the textbook example of a president that should be removed from office through the Constitutional process they provided for it..

[creekster]

I think it's hard to make the case that most of the framers wouldn't have looked at someone like Donald Trump as the textbook example of a president that should be removed from office through the Constitutional process they provided for it.

OK. I am not saying that they wouldn't, necessarily. That is another discussion.

[BlueK]

OK. I am not saying that they wouldn't, necessarily. That is another discussion.

If the Republicans who want to support Trump at all costs can get the public to believe the impeachment process should employ the same same standards and practices as a criminal trial then they have a better shot at keeping him in office.

[creekster]

If the Republicans who want to support Trump at all costs can get the public to believe the impeachment process should employ the same same standards and practices as a criminal trial then they have a better shot at keeping him in office.

My comment arose from the discussion with PAC about whether or not the identity and allegiance of the original whistleblower was pertinent.

[Commando]

If the Republicans who want to support Trump at all costs can get the public to believe the impeachment process should employ the same same standards and practices as a criminal trial then they have a better shot at keeping him in office.

Exactly. It's tactics-- raise the burden of proof to that of a murder trial, rather than say-- 'hey he's pretty obviously unfit for office- all in favor? AYE!'