Will Trump be impeached?

[GT Pony]

Actually a good article and backs up my "this is shit" statement. He may have done or may in the future do something worth impeachment but this ain't it.

Time will tell, that's why the hearings are taking place. I don't think anything is solidly proven one way or the other at this point. Too much party shenanigans going on, and the smoke and mirrors obviously needs to be cleared to see reality.

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

"Barr and Giuliani, meanwhile, could be considered accomplices in Trump’s effort to obtain opposition research from Ukraine’s president." So, I run for public office and I am immune from investigation and prosecution? Sounds like a cool deal to me.

Yep, Rudy could be charged with more involvement in all of this than anyone. If he really is immune from charges, then maybe he was sent in for that very purpose. Send the dog into the mine field, if he gets blown up nobody will care.

 

[Qcman17]

Most of the problem was I was working faster than my laptop. Hardware issues, so sue me.

No worries Doc I could have been a little more gracious there.

 

[GT Pony]

Need to get Giuliani Barr and Bolton in the hot seat. The onion has barely been peeled back so far.

 

[Caballus]

All fair opinion above this, but this part is not true. You are confusing this with President Trump's decree that no politically appointed ambassadors (appointed by Pres. Obama) would be extended, which essentially meant all political appointees were recalled on his first day in office. Although that had never been done before it was, again, his prerogative as president.

Context: there are two types of ambassadors, those who rise through the ranks as foreign service officers (AMB Yovanovitch, for example) and those who are appointed by Presidents (AMB Sondland or AMB Hutchison, for example). It's common when presidents change to allow some political appointees to remain in place and recall/replace others.

Simple point, however, is the statement is false.

 

[Caballus]

What does the whistle blower have to do with this at this point?

A worker saw/heard something they thought was inappropriate. The worker reported it through the correct channels. The designated authorities (appointed by the President) determined that there was enough to the report to investigate further. The form of that investigation was decided by Congress. The whistleblower is 3 stages removed from the issue. If the report had been deemed insignificant by authorities, all action would have stopped.

 

[Caballus]

That is the normal procedure. New President comes into office. He signs a document to officially inform all politically appointed ambassadors that their service is no longer required. Then he signs extensions on a case by case basis...always. This allows them to finish projects that are important to the United States or simply to let their kids finish the school year.

The only historical exception was President Trump who signed a document informing political appointees that none of them would be extended.

 

[GT Pony]

At this point I don't think the whistle blower testifying in person would matter, except cause him danger. He's still protected by law, regardless of what Trump or the Reps think.

Have him testify under oath to written questions from both sides and give the results to the world - same results. But if the whistle blower wants to agree to testify in public then he should.

And Trump's claim that the whistle blower committed treason is just another grasping at straws distraction attempt, like he typically does. Treason is not committed when a potential crime is the reason for blowing the whistle.

 

[Caballus]

No, that's not what you said, and your statement was wrong.

A whistleblower cannot derail an election with rumor or hearsay. All a whistleblower can do is report up the chain for an issue to be considered by appropriate authorities, in this case the ICIG. The IG then determines whether to move forward with the report or not. From that point, the whistleblower is removed from the equation--irrelevant in this instance.

 

[GT Pony]

Schiff is making promises he can't keep. Trump nor anyone else can force a whistle blower to testify. If he wanted to, then maybe he could/would.

https://www.whistleblowers.org/news/supreme-court-issues-decision-on-key-whistleblower-rights-case/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

The whistle blower sparked off an investigation. Once he reported the possible crime(s) then what he says after that doesn't really matter.

Yeah, per the Supreme Court whistle blowers are heavily protected so that people are more likely to report crime without ramifications.

Did you ever watch that show "Whisleblower"? Quite interesting.

Whistleblower https://g.co/kgs/BVEjGA

 

[Caballus]

If some statements are false, the facts will come out in the investigation. In this case, the facts are in phone calls and other interactions, not in any experience the whistleblower had. WB: "I heard and read something that concerns me. I believe it is a violation. This is why I think that. I recommend it be looked into." IG: "I agree that it is worth looking into...or I don't" Once looked into, the facts bear out or they don't.

That is the system the American people put in place to protect citizens regardless of politics.


Not arguing for argument's sake. Context matters. Your point was that the public should be as outraged about Pres. Obama's recall as they (presumably) are about Ambassador Yovanovitch's recall. Your point is invalid, and with context your statement is false.

First, Pres Bush appointed ambassadors (with political appointments only) were given notice of recall, but they were not all immediately removed from post. That context matters, because regardless to media and political spin, it's normal. When parties change, appointees change. It is no different than replacing all cabinet members and department heads--it's normal. So no need for "outrage."

Second, Pres Trump recalled and notified that there would be no extensions. That is not routine and comes with obvious risk to the nation, but still within the prerogative of the President, regardless to media and political spin.

Third, regardless to what either did when he entered office, it would not have affected Amb Yovanovitch, because she is not a political appointee. She is a professional Foreign Service Officer unaffected by blanket recalls when administrations change.

So, if there is room for outrage, it should be directed at the growth in numbers of political appointees over the years--across both major parties. That's especially true in the Defense and State Departments, but also true in other areas of government. This is opposite of the idea of a deep state and, from an objective perspective, should be of greater concern to the American public.

 

[Caballus]

Since news stories seem to be such reliable sources here...

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-ambassadors-obama-appointees-233262

 

[GT Pony]

Can you provide some links to support this?

Most people don't know the laws about whistleblowers, and if they did they'd know they are not required to testify in public.

Testifying under oath behind closed doors while being protected should be enough. If they lie under oath and cause a false investigation to kick off then they'll have to face the consequences. People must think some guy makes a phone call and a full blown investigation into the matter instantly starts without fully vetting the validity of the whistleblower's claims, so Joe Public naturally thinks the whistleblower needs to testify in public.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/whisteblowing-explainer-trnd/index.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

Sponsored