Yesterday’s question and answer period was a largely choreographed exercise with legal teams spontaneously responding to questions with preset video clips and visual displays. However, there was one major but largely overlooked moment that raises some serious issues over the authority of the presiding officer vis-a-vis the Senate. In the midst of the questions, Robert spiked a question from Sen. Rand Paul (R, Ky). It concerned the whistleblower and the underlying legal premise for barring the question could prove controversial today. UPDATE: Roberts again refused to read the question of Sen. Paul. After the Chief Justice refused to ask his question, Rand walked out of the Senate.
Sen. Paul appears to have delivered a question to Roberts that would have named the alleged whistleblower. Roberts had indicated that he was going to disallow questions on the whistleblowers but he was reportedly deterred from that course by the threat of being overruled by the Senate. He allowed general questions about the whistleblower by preventing Paul from asking his question. Paul reportedly pledged to revisit the issue today and was overheard by reporter Niels Lesniewski in saying “I don’t want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition . . . “If I have to fight for recognition, I will.”
This creates a fascinating conflict. Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress — only protection from retaliation. Conversely, the presiding officer rarely stands in the path of senators seeking clarification or information from the legal teams. Paul could name the whistleblower on the floor without violation federal law. Moreover, the Justice Department offered a compelling analysis that the whistleblower complaint was not in fact covered by the intelligence law (the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to Congress). The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel found that the complaint did not meet the legal definition of “urgent” because it treated the call between Trump and a head of state was if the president were an employee of the intelligence community. The OLC found that the call “does not relate to ‘the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity’ under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence . . . As a result, the statute does not require the Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees.” The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Council strongly disagree with that reading.
Regardless of the merits of this dispute, Roberts felt that his position allows him to curtail such questions and answers as a matter of general decorum and conduct. It is certainly true that all judges are given some leeway in maintaining basic rules concerning the conduct and comments of participants in such “courts.”
This could lead to a confrontation over the right of senators to seek answers to lawful questions and the authority of the presiding office to maintain basic rules of fairness and decorum. It is not clear what the basis of the Chief Justice’s ruling would be in barring references to the name of the whistleblower if his status as a whistleblower is contested and federal law does not protect his name. Yet, there are many things that are not prohibited by law but still proscribed by courts. This issue however goes to the fact-finding interests of a senator who must cast a vote on impeachment. Unless Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can defuse the situation, this afternoon could force Roberts into a formal decision with considerable importance for this and future trials.
Update: Paul said that his question did not mention the name of the whistleblower and instead focused on “whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.” If that is the full question, I fail to see the justification for Roberts refusing to read it. There have been various questions on both sides raising political influences and conspiracies. Once the presiding officer begins to bar questions as disrespectful or objectionable, it is incumbent on the officer to explain the criteria or basis for such regulation.
executive privilege is too important to get rid of so Trump is absolutely correct.
______________________________________
Documents and records that the executive are required to generate and maintain by law have never been protected from Congressional scrutiny by executive privilege.
They have been protected but the branch that determines what happens is the Supreme Court. That means one has to actually make a legal rather than a political case and so far the Democrats haven’t produced any legal evidence that would meet the standards required.
They have been protected but the branch that determines what happens is the Supreme Court.
________________________________________________
Not according to the Trump administration. Trumps DOJ lawyers have in several courts, that are reviewing Congressional subpoenas, argued that the Courts have no authority to enforce Congressional subpoenas..
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480730-doj-tells-court-that-congress-cant-sue-to-enforce-subpoenas
So even if SCOTUS rules that Congress has the authority to subpoena the documents, who will enforce the order? The DOJ seems to be saying it won’t.
That is an argument that ends up in the Supreme Court that makes the decision. Trump will follow that decision. Lower courts have called him wrong only to be reversed by the Supreme Courts. Some of those lower courts involved court shopping so one can’t depend on them.
Democrats are the ones that flagrently do not follow the law. Look at Clinton saying that Trump won’t admit defeat should he lose the electin. He won but to this day Clinton can’t admit he won the Presidency. Clinton never followed the orders of Congress and destroyed her emails. Today she is calling other politicians Russian puppets. Tulsi sent Clinton a present in the form of a suit and Clinton refused to accept the summons. Today the Democratic Party has seen a change in who can participate in the debates and suddenly Bloomberg is in. They want Sanders gone so the Democratic Party once again will act in a lawless fashion. Schiff despite the Mueller investigation, where the President released everything Mueller wanted along with permitting WH staff to be interviewed, that found the President innocent Schiff is lying in the halls of the Senate saying outrageous things that aren’t true. The Democratic Party is lawless. The impeachment claims by prominent Democrats that were present under the Clinton Administration have made 180 degree changes in what they think the law says on impeachment. They are lawless.
That is an argument that ends up in the Supreme Court that makes the decision.
____________________________________________
What you are suggesting is that every time the Congress (and we the people) would like to see if the executive is faithfully executing the law, as required by the Constitution, the Congress has to engage in a lengthy court battle that goes to the SC.
That seems like a pretty good argument that the executive is obstructing the intent of the Constitution and impeachment is a remedy the Constitution provides for that.
Anon, your comment demonstrates you know nothing about the Constitution and our system of checks and balances.
Get it through your thick head. A dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch is resolved by the judiciary branch. Each branch has powers to use against the other but not the powers you suggest.
Get it through your thick head. A dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch is resolved by the judiciary branch.
___________________________________
I suggest that you get that through AG Barr’s thick head.
The Trump DOJ has not argued executive privilege. The DOJ has argued in court that the trump administration has blanket immunity from responding to Congressional subpoenas. And they also argue that the courts have no say in the matter. And the DOJ has agreed that impeachment is one of the few remedies available to Congress to try to enforce subpoenas, but the courts have no authority to enforce the subpoenas, according to the DOJ.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/03/impeachment-justice-department-democrats-trump-court-093088
I guess your mind is so attuned to lying that it no longer has the ability to think.
The DOJ’s arguments whatever they were likely are correct, but that is up to the Supreme Court to decide.
In any event the House never followed through on calling Bolton. That would have ended up in the Supreme Court as well, but Congress knows this is a phony impeachment and they know that Schiff is a serial liar and probably somewhat deranged. I don’t think the people of the nation are too happy with the Democratic Party that doesn’t do its job and tries to reverse election results with impeachments and special prosecutors. It takes time for this to filter down to many Americans that are busy with more revelant things in their lives.
The DOJ’s arguments whatever they were likely are correct,
_______________________________
That statement is rock solid evidence that you can’t think for yourself you are like a puppy on a leash. You go wherever the leash tells you to go
________________________________
Congress knows this is a phony impeachment
___________________________________
Congress may well know that impeachment article 1 is phony. But the fact is that if it was phony the president should have immediately presented the evidence that established that it was a baseless accusation.
Article 2 is the far more serious charge. Congress (and we the people) have a right to know if the laws that they pass are being executed faithfully as required by the Constitution. If the president is going to play games and refuse to show Congress if the law is being faithfully executed then he deserves to be impeached and removed.
Cleaning up the swamp does not mean making it more opaque and less visible to public scrutiny. We had way too much information withheld from the public view before Trump and now we are supposed to accept that even more will be hidden. That is what this is all about the Democrats and Trump are colluding to make the swamp even more dark, murky and swampy than it ever was.
I repeat: “The DOJ’s arguments whatever they were likely are correct”
I take note that you couldn’t say anything against that statement. That is why you chose a stupid answer that doesn’t denote any intelligence.
The law in this nation is that the prosecutor has to prove guilt and so far no proof exists. A not guilty vote is for Wednesday. This was a political move that destroys the balance of power. That is something you do not discuss. You can’t. Trump has been transparent and the Democrats have taken shot after shot and lost. The President released everything asked during the Mueller investigation, far more than any other President did.
The President proved his case with the transcript and even the one investigation by the Democrats produced only one fact witness and that witness said no quid pro quo. Now it is your turn to produce evidence not hearsay.
Just to clarify: Quid pro quo is the usual method of making a deal.
Democrats are the ones that flagrently do not follow the law
___________________________________________
Who is currently in charge of enforcing these laws you claim are not being followed? And if what you say is true, why are they allowing laws to be flagrantly violated?
Your problem is that you have no clue when it comes to the concept of Due Process. You think a smear like the many you spew everyday is not corrupt. You think smearing people’s reputation in public is how Due Process works.
” You think smearing people’s reputation in public is how Due Process works.”
Clinton has a remedy. The courts. However, she doesn’t recognize that remedy when it comes to her smearing others. She uses the secret service to dismiss process servers at the taxpayer expense.
Clinton has a remedy.
___________________________________
Your what-about Clinton demonstrate your corrupt concept of Due Process as required by the Constitution
Clinton is a private citizen.
Due Process is an obligation of the govt and those who administer the laws. Using the power of law enforcement to smear opponents is clear corruption of Due Process.
Due process involves both public and private citizens. Clinton has been a “criminal” as a citizen in both places and believes she is above the law. She lies, cheats and steals in order to avoid having to act under the law. She might even kill.
Due process involves both public and private citizens.
__________________________________
Yes, people have the right to receive due process from the govt and the govt has the obligation to deliver Due Process.
“Yes, people have the right to receive due process from the govt and the govt has the obligation to deliver Due Process.”
Anon, that is something the Democrats of today don’t seem to believe in.
that is something the Democrats of today don’t seem to believe in.
_______________________________
And neither does Trump. We the people are being acclimated to permanent state of corruption. And the safeguards against corruption are being slowly dismantled.
Anon, show us where Trump prevented due process.
You moan and groan saying nothing.
show us where Trump prevented due process.
_______________________________
I did and you demonstrated that you have zero undersdtanding of what Due Process is.
The president has suggested that the WB should be found and tried for treason and executed.
That is a huge attempt by Trump to subvert the law and help the swamp hide its wrong doing by intimidating whistle blowers from coming forward and reporting govt malfeasance.
Now what law is Trump violating?
The Due Process clause in the Constitution is the first one that comes to mind.
jinn – couldn’t we consider Snowden a whistleblower? I know lots of people who want his head. And Julian Assange? Hillary wants him dead.
“The president has suggested”
Anon, a suggestion and sarcasm have little to do with due process. That does not and did not subvert the law.
You still have not answered the question.
How did Trump interfere with the WB’s due process? It is clear that Schiff and the Democrats have interferred with Trump’s due process.
This is typical of Anon. He always claims he answered the question and can’t back up what he says. Ignorance and lying are two of his worst features.
couldn’t we consider Snowden a whistleblower? I know lots of people who want his head. And Julian Assange?
_______________________________
If your point is that trump’s attack on WBs is not the first time the swamp has tried to keep the public in the dark about its wrong doing – you are of course correct.
jinn – as I have posited before, Eric C. does not qualify as a “whistleblower” and thus should not be afforded the protections of the law. If Schiff gave us that last transcript, we would all know that.
The whole think is a sham created by anti-Trumpers because they don’t want to give up their power. That represents the deep state in action.
If your point is that trump’s attack on WBs is not the first time the swamp has tried to keep the public in the dark about its wrong doing – you are of course correct.
No, that wasn’t the question. He asked: couldn’t we consider Snowden a whistleblower? If you weren’t such a jinn your comment would have condemned Obama and his administrations attack on that WB.
Now that we know what Senator Paul asked, it’s obvious that Justice Roberts was wrong. Although he named the person that is believed to be the whistleblower, he did not name him as the whistleblower. His question regarded the allegations that the alleged whistleblower and a Schiff staff member were overheard stating that they were going to undermine the president and impeach him. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/01/22/whistleblower_was_overheard_in_17_discussing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html
alleged whistleblower and a Schiff staff member were overheard stating that they were going to undermine the president and impeach him
____________________________________________
So what? I overheard people talking about impeaching Obama. Should they be dragged into this also?
In case you haven’t heard people are entitled to express their opinions in this country.
The problem is the one’s that did the talking were also the one’s that did the lying and should be proscuted and jailed.
Hopefully Durham will put at least a few behind bars. All of the comitted crimes are far more heinous than the crime Flynn was originally convicted for even though Flynn was innocent.
The problem is the one’s that did the talking were also the one’s that did the lying and should be proscuted and jailed.
_____________________________________________
If lying was a crime you would be in jail.
Anon, We all know you are the liar on the blog. You can’t run away from your reputation.
We all know you are the liar on the blog. You can’t run away from your reputation.
_________________________________________
Clearly you are the one lying because if you were telling the truth about throwing people in jail for lying then one of us would be in jail.
So their is a legal issue with asking a question about a government employee who’s name appears in public records involving meetings on Ukraine? Specifically corruption in Ukraine which is relevant in this impeachment?
Wow this country has really departed from the constitution and rule of law.
This isn’t some wishy washy legal matter to be decided later. It’s clearly Roberts interfering in an impeachment trial. He’s just hiding behind pseudo legal arguments surrounding whistleblower laws and his role as presiding officer.
The rationale is that libs rationalized it into their irrational heads because they hate Trump to the irrational point of; “RESISTANCE, REVOLUTION, DEPLORABLE-SMEARING, ORANGE-BABY-BALLOON, TRIGGERED, SHOT-UP-THE-GOP-HOUSE-AFTER-INAGURATION,” and are at this point capable of rationalizing anything to rationalize their irrational hatred.
“It amazes me how any rational person can believe that Trump did not attempt to extort from Zelensky the latter’s promise to publicly announce that Ukraine would investigate the Bidens.”
If you were rational you wouldn’t have come up with the question.
__________________________________________
He is correct that any reasonable person who reads the transcript and learns of the timing of the delay in aid would arrive at that conclusion
But this should be something easy to verify with facts and the absence of concrete facts should make a reasonable person very suspicious that something fishy is going on.
“But this should be something easy to verify with facts and the absence of concrete facts should make a reasonable person very suspicious that something fishy is going on.”
Anon, if you were a “reasonable person” you wouldn’t have this problem.
Read the source material. Learn the difference between spin and a fact witness.
Read the source material. Learn the difference between spin and a fact witness.
____________________________________________
What source material?
We have the transcript of the phone call and that is it
The paperwork and documents involved are all being withheld by the White House.
As I have said many times i don’t believe the material facts (if they are ever released by the WH) would show that they was any attempt to get an investigation by Ukraine or that aid was delayed for that purpose, but it is understandable that people have reached that conclusion. Even you, Allan, have repeatedly revealed you think that was what happened. You have repeatedly defended it.
But if you think about it, it does not make sense. Without the whistle blower stepping in it would have been a disaster.
There is source material in multiple nations that does not involve the discussions between the President and his advisors which should not be released. Much of that source material details the corruption investigations of Ukraine both before Shokin, after Shokin; before the Zelensky talk and after that Zelensky talk. It demonstrates the likely corrupt nature of the Ukranian government, Burisma and even touches on Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.
I’ve brought it up multiple times but you like to pretend you never saw it or heard it. I even told you where you could see a good deal of it and where you could find an accurate summary of it. You play this ignoarant game with Karen and everyone else.We all know who you are and what you are.
Documents of executive privilege should not be releaed by the White House. Adam Schiff is corrupt and has lied.
We should be reading the 18th witness from the House, but that might prove Schiff’s corruption and lies so it is being held deep and in secret.
You cannot speak for me whether in agreement or not.
This impeachment that you have supported should never have even come to the House and it should end immediately. You like the chaos and the injury to the American people. That demonstrates your sadistic side.
There is source material in multiple nations that does not involve the discussions between the President and his advisors which should not be released.
___________________________________________
Of course they should be released. The Congress has passed laws requiring the executive to generate and retain such documentary evidence and Congress has every right to determine if the Executive is faithfully executing the laws as required by the Constitution.
_________________________________________
Much of that source material details the corruption investigations of Ukraine both before Shokin….
_________________________________________
You keep trying to justify wrong doing by trump by saying what about what about wrong doing somewhere else.
If the evidence is released it will show Trump did not do anything wrong and you are looking stupid trying to make excuses for something he did not do.
Anon, executive privilege is too important to get rid of so Trump is absolutely correct. I know it is a difficult concept to understand. You want to take Constitutional successes and substitute failure. You wish a vote of confidence to determine if the President remains in office. You are advocating the destruction of our checks and balances that worked for over 200 years.
I don’t expect you to understand the processes involved. All your prior postings indicate a very superficial understanding of our Constitutional Republic and most of that is wrong.
executive privilege is too important to get rid of so Trump is absolutely correct.
_____________________________________
First you tell me to read the source material and then you tell me that the President has the right to hide the source material from the voters.
It is not just Congress that has a right to know if the laws are being faithfully executed as required by the Constitution, the people also have the right to know if the laws are being faithfully executed.
“First you tell me to read the source material and then you tell me that the President has the right to hide the source material from the voters.”
Anon, are you dumb? I already told you that source material was on the net and has been referred to on this blog more than once. It is not covered under executive privilege.
I already told you that source material was on the net
________________________________
No you have told me that the president has the right to withhold the source material.
Anon, you get confused very easily. Advisor questions and answers rightfully are executive privilege, but I have brought up documents not covered by Trump executive privilege many times. Perhaps at those times you were Flying High.
jinn – depends on where it falls under executive privilege. It could even fall under work product. Where does Schift get off not telling us about the whistleblower? The name is not protected, just their job. That is the law.
Where does Schift get off not telling us about the whistleblower? The name is not protected
______________________________
If the Intelligence Community Inspector General followed the law Schiff does not know who the WB is. The law says the ICIG can only release the name if the WB gives permission.
jinn – the testimony of the ICIG was the only testimony not released from the SCIF bunker where Schiff was holding his Star Chamber hearings. Why do you think that is?
the testimony of the ICIG was the only testimony not released from the SCIF bunker
______________________________
I don’t know if that is true but I did see the ICIG give public testimony and I recall that he did say that he had not given anybody the name of the whistleblower
The WB was peddling gossip proven by the release of the transcript. Why was he doing so and how did he come by his information are facts necessary to understanding what happened. Were his intentions legitimate? Was he plotting with others? Since the WB’s testimony was proven wrong those two questions become very significant because it could mean others in the intelligence agency might be acting inappropriately. This is something that has to be considered because the whistleblower’s Disclosure of Urgent Concern form was revised to include second-hand complaints days before the complaint was declassified permitting the public to know about it. Therefore there is enough reason to release his name and interview him or interview all those that had the ability to be involved in such a sham. I believe the Senate will start doing so in a short while.
Unfortunately many in the Senate or those they rely on might be considered the deep state and they are anxious that the power of the deep state not be reduced.
The question didn’t say whistleblower or allege that this person is, but the CJ Roberts just confirmed it for those who weren’t already in the know! I found Roberts injecting himself into this against Rand very telling! This whole episode is gross from the start. If anyone truly believes that this is impeachable, or even improper is being dishonest or is ignorant! If the UK had an investigation into Burisma during the time Hunter was hired..at the very time the VP and father of Hunter is point man for Obama foreign policy on Ukraine, there is no way one could claim this doesn’t smell to high heaven and worthy of the current President mentioning it, because it was fresh in the news 4 days before the phone call….and the President as Chief Law Enforcement officer has a duty to request more information on this…in fact i think it should be demanded!!! The company after Biden had the prosecutor canned even sought a meeting with the State Department to, and I’m paraphrasing, apologies over the firing of the prosecutor and work out a remedy envoking Hunters name! We all know why they hired Hunter! And so does his father! And the current president has been harrassed, smeared and wore the crimes of all those after him for far too long! If anyone who has opined on this is truly about the consitition and following the rule of law, they would be spending much more of their energy finally going to bat for this man and his family! They’ve been wrong about him from the very beginning and people like you Mr. Turley aren’t using your platform in that way near enough! Even when you know what they’ve done to him is completely wrong and illegal!
Chief Justice Roberts was supposed to be a Conservative, but has go with the liberals. Sad!
Anonymous, how vague. You cant even say how Robert’s has ‘compromised’ himself’..??
Roberts is a never Trumper
Never Trumpers have followed one of two paths. Some have corrected the record and admit they are no longer are never Trumpers. Others can’t handle the fact that Trump has done so well so they have gone a bit crazy with TDS and one can note that when they appear in the MSM or on TV. Roberts is a Supreme Court Jiudge who seems to be a bit of an interventionist and a true D.C. individual but stays mostly out of the limelight..
?
SOROS. bought him years ago; very compromised, sadly.
bs
Chief Justice Roberts has never rendered a conservative ruling. Only a meaningless dissent here and there.
If anyone truly believes that this is impeachable, or even improper is being dishonest or is ignorant!
___________________________________________________
Well of course article 1 of the impeachment is goofy as it gets.
But Article 2 should be taken as a serious violation of the constitution.
the Trump administration has taken the position in federal courts in more than one case that ultimately impeachment is the only tool Congress has to determine if the executive is executing the laws that congress has passed. In several court cases the Trump administration has asserted that the courts have no authority to enforce Congressional subpoenas against the executive.
In other words even if the courts do rule that the executive has to comply in giving evidence the Trump administration and the DOJ has taken the position that they don’t have to comply.
And who will make them comply?
Anon, you are lying again.
Jay Sekulow Refuses To Answer Question About Guiliani’s Pay
On Thursday, a group of Democratic senators — Jack Reed (R.I.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.) and Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) — decided to pose the question of Giuliani’s income to the House impeachment managers and Trump’s legal team.
“It has been reported,” the question read, “that President Trump does not pay Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney, for his services. Can you explain who has paid for Rudy Giuliani’s legal fees, international travel and other expenses in his capacity as president?”
Lead House impeachment manager Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) went first, taking the opportunity to criticize the president and Giuliani. He, of course, didn’t know the answer to the question.
“I don’t know who’s directly paying the freight for it, but I can tell you the whole country is paying the freight for it,” Schiff said. “Because there are leaders around the world who are watching this, and they’re saying: ‘The American presidency is open for business. This president wants our help. And if we help him, he will be grateful.’ Is that the kind of message we want to send the rest of the world?”
Then it was Trump attorney Jay Sekulow’s turn. He started talking before he even got to the microphone, he was so indignant. Or so he’d have us believe.
“Came out of the manager’s mouth: open for business,” Sekulow said, as soon as the mic started picking him up. “I’ll tell you who was open for business. You want to know who was open for business? When the vice president of the United States was charged by the then-president of the United States with developing policies to avoid and assist in removing corruption from Ukraine — and his son was on the board of a company that was under investigation for Ukraine. And you’re concerned about what Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was doing when he was over trying to determine what was going on in Ukraine?”
Edited from: “Trump Lawyer Jay Sekulow Really Doesnt Want To Talk About Who’s Paying Rudy Guiliani”
Today’s Washington Post.
………………………………………………………………….
The article goes on to note that Sekulow never answered the question. He apparently felt that the issue of Guiliani’s pay was beneath his dignity. But some of us have wondered, for weeks, ‘who’ was funding Guiliani, Parnas and Fruman as traveled about Europe.
“Jay Sekulow Refuses To Answer Question About Guiliani’s Pay”
It’s nobody’s business.
However, Peter, the lies of the left about what Dershowitz said should be everyone’s business and since you repeated those lies on the blog it becomes the blogs business as well. You were corrected several times but you ran away as usual. Since then many media sites have corrected the record showing Dershowitz’s words in context. He likely will write a column or include this lies in one of his columns explaining once again the context of his remarks.
You now have your chance to demonstrate if you are a man or a mouse. If you are a man you will admit you were wrong or if you still believe you are right you will dispute those that have corrected the record and show why they are wrong.
To date you have proven to be a mouse.
YNOT: Well, at least, it wasn’t a whataboutism.
what about when Hillary ate the heads of babies and said it was for raising funds for Haiti or was it to curtail the Black population in the Caribbean?
What about when Bill flew on Lolita Express and said it was to spread world peace or was it whirled peas?
What about when Jerold Nadler took to the US House Floor to lie about Israel, defend Iran, and most recently be anti-Trump in all things all the while his wife is dying of pancreatic cancer? His wife just had surgery and her next steps are not good. Pancreatic Cancer is one of the worst cancers in medicine and yet…..he is on the Senate Floor as a Jew in name only.
yeah…whataboutisms. those are a doozy.
Orthodox Jews loathe Democrats but especially Schumer and Nadler. Didn’t NYT,
WahPutz, NPR, MSNBC or CNN cover this?
phew!
BarSechel January 26, 2020 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm
It’s a disgrace for this renegade to be shown in this paper like Schumer the self hating Jew so is Nadler responsible for anti Jewish sentiment the aAmerican Public believes in Jewish consipracy led by Adam zschiff Shumer and Nadler to replace the President
These self hating Jews should be shunned by the Jewish community
It’s a disgrace for this renegade to be shown in this paper like Schumer the self hating Jew so is Nadler responsible for anti Jewish sentiment the aAmerican Public believes in Jewish consipracy led by Adam zschiff Shumer and Nadler to replace the President
These self hating Jews should be shunned by the Jewish community
shlepper January 26, 2020 8:22 pm at 8:22 pm
Jewish Congressman, my foot! He obeys the squad, with all their antisemitism, wants to bring down the best President we ever had.
Now he wants to become a victim?!! He knew in Dec about his wife’s ailment (may she have a refua shleima), but he didn’t have to take off any time in order to attack the president, then and now in the Senate.
Now that the President’s defense already shattered his entire case (in 2 hours), and he with the entire crew of RESHOIM are about to be exposed for what they are, haters of America, he is sorry and he needs to take off.
Don’t be fooled by the pics in the article, all the frum yidden know what’s going on.
Nomoremeshugas January 26, 2020 8:55 pm at 8:55 pm
Sad that the lady is ill; may she have a speedy recovery.
This Congressman is a vindictive turncoat to his religion and a Trump enemy since the time Trump out-maneuvered him on a West Side development deal that hurt Nadler’s money backers and that was years before Trump even ran for public office. Nadler has his sights on Trump since then.
Hotairbag Friedlander posing with him notwithstanding; no Jew had any right voting for the Obama Iran deal especially if one of the top intelligence services on earth determined its fallacy. Natanyahu came here to speak to congress to present the deal’s clear and real danger. In the end Iran received pallets of cash to be used for its global terror and they’ll still not rest until they have an atom bomb.
Why a Rebbe would want to be photographed with this weasel is beyond common sense. Likely another Friedlander Folly, no doubt.
emetmaeretztitzmoch January 26, 2020 9:38 pm at 9:38 pm
I feel sorry for his wife. But shame on anyone that voted for him.
Vshaim Reshaim Yirkav.
yudel January 26, 2020 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm
Ezra Friedlander has to divide his time between Hillarry Clinton and Jerry Nadler.
After 120, he’ll be able to spend unlimited time with them.
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/featured/1826176/wife-of-jerry-nadler-diagnosed-with-pancreatic-cancer-sorry-he-has-to-take-off-from-impeachment.html
Regarding a Ray Green YNOT the Idiot says: ” Is this one of Alan’s sock puppets?”
I don’t use sock puppets.
Shouldn’t you be able to face your accuser?
Trump’s Defense Tripped By Logical Question
Four Republican senators, led by Susan Collins (Maine), asked both sides whether there were any “legitimate” reasons a president could ask a foreign government to “investigate a U.S. citizen, including a political rival, who is not under investigation by the U.S. government?”
House impeachment manager Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said he couldn’t think of one.
White House Deputy Counsel Patrick Philbin sidestepped the question, first by asserting that the question assumes the president was asking for an investigation “into” the Bidens, rather than what occurred with the firing of the prosecutor “and the situation with Burisma.”
“That’s not calling for an investigation necessarily into Vice President [Joe] Biden or his son,” Philbin said.
Philbin did not mention that Trump explicitly told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in their July phone call, “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”
Philbin then addressed part of the question broadly, saying that if a U.S. citizen violated a law in a foreign country and there was a national interest in “understanding what went on, then it would be perfectly legitimate to suggest this is something worth looking into.”
Edited from: “GOP Senators Ask Whether A President Could Request A Foreign Country To Investigate An American”
Today’s Washington Post
oh yes they can ask foreign authorities to investigate any of us. and they do.
for a lot of different reasons of varying legitimacy
Trump has done nothing that a thousand authorities beneath him have the power to do, and do as they please
this is yet another trifle, another bogus, exagerated wrong, that is being selectively drawn attention to for the political gain not of the United States as a whole but the narrow interests of the current Democrat leadership
it’s actually the entire impeachment farce itself that’s corrupt.
Why would the motive of the whistleblower (WB) be relevant? The WB’s motive, even if it is self-serving, anti-Trump, or pro-Biden is irrelevant to the only matters that are pertinent to the impeachment process: (1) Did Trump extort Zelensky, and, if he did so, (2) did Trump thereby commit a high crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution.
The answer to question 1, above, clearly is “yes.”
Why would the motive of the whistleblower (WB) be relevant?
I see you and Gainesville got the same set of talking points.
Maybe “Gaineseville” is smart – and right. FYI – I do not have any idea who G-ville is, or what that person thinks, or what are their “talking points.” I represent only myself.
Maybe “Gaineseville” is smart – and right.
No, he just brazen, as are you.
Thanks for the compliment! Should I, instead, be pusillanimous in your august presence?
Well, pusillanimousness would be preferable to smugnorance.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – I can only handle one new word a day. Please stop. 😉
The whistleblower was promised as a witness by Schiff. When the transcript was unexpectedly declassified, the whistleblower was revealed to be fraudulent and therefore withdrawn by the house as a witness. You can draw the obvious inference from that withdrawal.
Zelensky wasn’t extorted. In fact, that hasn’t even been charged in the articles of impeachment because Zelensky denied it.
In my view, “extortion” is the correct word. Not that a shorthand description is necessary. Well, actually, it was only attempted extortion. The whistle was blown before Trump could come down further on Zelensky. (If you forgot, Trump gave up on withholding the military millions for the Ukraine a few days after the whistle was heard.)
Rational people will believe what their bias encourages them to believe. Rational people will then seek objective evidence to prove or disprove that belief. Irrational people will not even bother. They will seek anything and everything to confirm their bias.
Given you’re still trying to figure out your view and the correct wording of your allegation, along with the fact the House managers have nothing of what you allege in their impeachment articles, I’m rationally going to conclude you are in the latter bucket.
Well, at least, it wasn’t a whataboutism. Now if we could only get you to think before you post.
Now if we could only get you to think before you post.
Considering your Dear Diary posts, you’ll have to be more specific regarding the grade level you currently read at. 5th, 4th? Let me know how dumbed down I need to make it for you to comprehend.
Well clearly the House would have been able to compile a more compelling case had they called you as an objective fact witness. Because they didn’t have the evidence you apparently have or they would have charged the crime and included that in the articles of impeachment.
It amazes me how any rational person can believe that Trump did not attempt to extort from Zelensky the latter’s promise to publicly announce that Ukraine would investigate the Bidens. And the hammer that Trump held over Zelensky’s head was Trump’s threat to withhold $390 million dollars in military aid – which Trump actually did – until the whistle was blown. Anyone who disbelieves these facts is not thinking rationally.
It amazes me how any rational person can believe that Trump did not attempt to extort from Zelensky the latter’s promise to publicly announce that Ukraine would investigate the Bidens
It amazes me you have the audacity to strike these poses, but the intramural culture of the Democratic Party has half-a-dozen different pathologies, and we see on these boards that the rot goes all the way down.
“It amazes me how any rational person can believe that Trump did not attempt to extort from Zelensky the latter’s promise to publicly announce that Ukraine would investigate the Bidens.”
If you were rational you wouldn’t have come up with the question.
RDKAY says:
It amazes me how any rational person can believe that Trump did not attempt to extort from Zelensky the latter’s promise to publicly announce that Ukraine would investigate the Bidens. And the hammer that Trump held over Zelensky’s head was Trump’s threat to withhold $390 million dollars in military aid – which Trump actually did – until the whistle was blown. Anyone who disbelieves these facts is not thinking rationally.
_____________________________________________
The facts (that are known) do appear to support you theory.
But are you not a little suspicious that this is all a con?
An awful lot of your theory relies on the words of President Trump. Do you always believe what he says?
Just curious. Do you think that Joe Biden extorted the Ukrainians?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky Fromm! I thought that your name rang a bell. Could you be that crazed follower of Charles Manson, named Lynette Squeeky Fromm? Got decades in prison for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford? If you are not, why in the world would you want to adopt that name?
Nah just the local bigot with too much time on they hands. Not sure I used pronoun correctly NTTAWWT.
“Regardless of the merits of this dispute, Roberts felt that his position allows him to curtail such questions and answers as a matter of general decorum and conduct.”
Roberts said nothing of the kind. He offered no public explanation for his behavior, a shocking avoidance for someone whose vocation is explaining the country’s most important judicial decisions. His actions and silence about them speak volumes.
Prof. Turley could not have been watching the same session the rest of us did yesterday. There was nothing whatever spontaneous about how the vast majority of the questions were answered. Had the house managers not chosen to transparently advertise that fact with the use of preset visuals, fewer viewers would have been the wiser. A serious proceeding has been reduced to sad pageantry.
Roberts said nothing of the kind. He offered no public explanation for his behavior
_____________________________________________
He said he would not read the question in that form
That probably means he does not accept the question as factual.
The question assumes facts not in evidence.
“The question assumes facts not in evidence.”
The entire impeachment assumes facts not in evidence.
The entire impeachment assumes facts not in evidence.
You got to applaud Joe Biden for explaining in one sentence the foundation of the modern Democrat party:
We choose truth over facts.
Imagine the freedom that comes from being completely unreliant on facts and evidence. Of course in a normal world that would be considered delusional and likely result in meds and different living arrangements.
Now imagine convincing enough people that you are being rational and reasonable. Then imagine this becoming a movement and ultimately consuming an entire political party. Imagine what that would look like if that party took control of government.
The 2016 election had us that close to institutionalizing this insanity throughout government. The election of President Trump has exposed the truth not facts crowd for the malevolent force that they are. This impeachment, in fact the last 4 years, has been a coming out party for that force. All the investigations are laying bare the carnage this force has been inflicting on the American people and abroad.
This impeachment farce will not be the end of it. That force still exists within our government and they still have a grip on the minds of millions of people.
What if our 21st House Divided battle wasn’t a “political” issue, but rather a fight essentially between right-brain and left-brain thinking? Truth over facts. The rational minds of the American people? Any question then on what industry controls the development of the American mind? Education.
Senator Paul’s question did NOT say that Ciaramella is the whistle blower. If Schiff does not know who the whistle blower is, how in Hell does Roberts know? the corruption goes all the way to the top.
Senator Paul’s question did NOT say that Ciaramella is the whistle blower.
____________________________________________
What reason is there for him to be dragged into this?
Especially If he is not the whistle blower
George Ws dad also made a bad supreme court pic.
The identity of the “whistleblower” is relevant if he had ties to the Bidens, the DNC. After all, this was an effort to protect the Bidens from investigation.
“According to an “Ingraham Angle” investigation, State Department emails from May 1, 2019 show that New York Times reporter Ken Vogel inquired about a 2016 Obama White House meeting with Ukrainian prosecutors.
Vogel wrote that he planned to report that a State Department official attended the meeting on Jan. 19, 2016 “with Ukrainian prosecutors and embassy officials,” where U.S. support for prosecutions of Burisma Holdings in the United Kingdom and Ukraine was discussed. Vogel asked about “concerns that Hunter Biden’s position with the company could complicate such efforts.”
Ingraham said White House visitor logs for Jan. 19, 2016 showed that “numerous” Ukrainian officials were at the White House on the day Vogel claimed there was a meeting about the Bidens and Burisma. “[The story] was never published.”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/laura-ingraham-biden-family-burisma-ukraine-whistleblower
Fox News’ Laura Ingraham shared new details Thursday night regarding a Ukrainian political officer who allegedly worked with a Democratic National Committee operative to hurt the Trump campaign.
She identified the Ukrainian political officer as Andriy Telizhenko, a Ukrainian Embassy official who attended a 2016 White House meeting with former President Barack Obama…
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ingraham-angle-investigation-reveals-ukrainian-official-worked-with-dnc-to-undermine-trump
Roberts is a NEVER TRUMPER – he is of the DC ELITE – but it would be great to see Ron Paul clash and Paul wins.
The identity of the “whistleblower” is relevant if he had ties to the Bidens, the DNC.
_____________________________________________
What if he has ties to Donald Trump ?
_____________________________________________
After all, this was an effort to protect the Bidens from investigation.
Ha Ha HA If the whistle blower was trying to hush up corruption by Biden, he’s got to be one of the stupidest people to walk the earth. Without the whistle blower the story of Burisma and Hunter and the fired prosecutor would have never reached most voters.
If you want to know who the whistle blower has helped just pay attention next November.
Whistleleaker Ciaramella was openly discussing ideas for impeaching the president two weeks into his term! Discussion was with Sean Misko, who left the NSC to work for Schiff. So there’s your connection!
Speaking of Sean Misko, and someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he sitting at the house managers’ table in the senate trial? Across from Schiff?
Whistleleaker Ciaramella was openly discussing ideas for impeaching the president two weeks into his term! Discussion was with Sean Misko, who left the NSC to work for Schiff. So there’s your connection!
___________________________________________
That is evidence for why you want him dragged in front of the senate and whipped…..
It is not evidence that he is the whistle blower.
people in DC know each other….wow…proof of the deep state for sure. why did it take 3 years? in my opinion Trump was doing questionable actions long before that. But I’m a libertarian and I don’t like Ds or Rs. Obama violated the constitution at least 8-10 times… but no action from the do nothing Rs. I’d like to see a strong third party for the rest of us.
“without whistle blower the story of Burisma and Hunter and the fired prosecutor would have never reached most voters.” Sorry but this is not only unsupportable but it brings out the very reason why the democrats case fails, i.e. : Schiff claims that Trump’s motivation in seeking investigation into Burisma/Bidens was to get Ukraine to smear Joe Biden’s reputation via “false” allegations of misconduct – but this flies in face of fact that such allegations were ALL READY A MATTER OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE thanks to ABC, Washington Post, & Joe Biden himself on Voice of America video. Given this and especially since Schiff claims Trump only sought the “announcement” of an investigation vs. an actual investigation, Dems claim of Trump’s “corrupt motive” completely fails as these facts alone prove Biden “smeared” his reputation all by himself thus Trump had nothing to gain PERSONALLY from his request to Pres. Zelensky. These facts also support contention that, while “Whistle-Blower’s” motivation and actions ARE RELEVANT to the credibility of Schiff and House Managers and thus to their case against Trump, WB’s testimony & related documentation is UNNECESSARY for Senate to make a fair conclusion on the 2 Articles of Impeachment.
addendum: “UNNECESSARY…” because, while the Articles of Impeachment along with the opening statements and Q&A from both parties together are insufficient to support the Democrats case, they ARE sufficient to DISPROVE the Dems case thus support acquittal without need for further witnesses.
“without whistle blower the story of Burisma and Hunter and the fired prosecutor would have never reached most voters.” Sorry but this is not only unsupportable
__________________________________________
Of course it is supportable. The the story of Burisma and Hunter and the fired prosecutor had been around for years before the whistle blower and the House committee propelled into the public spot light.
Without the whistle blower it would have remained something that the average voter never heard of.
____________________________________________
face of fact that such allegations were ALL READY A MATTER OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE thanks to ABC, Washington Post, & Joe Biden himself on Voice of America…..
_________________________________________
Yes thanks for the help with establishing my point.
For years that story had not penetrated to more than a handful of voters.
It would have remained something that the average voter never heard of without the whistle blower.
No one, except for “Jinn”, knows what would have happened with the Burisma/ Bidens story without the whistleblower.
But there are a few things to consider:
The circumstances and propriety of Hunter Biden’s appointement to the board of Burisma was report by numerous publications as early as 2014.
Those questions had already been publically raised, and we’re certainly known to potential political opponents of Joe Biden.
That is true with or without the presence of a whistleblower. Also, Trump’s conversation with Zelensky about the Burisma/Bidens issue was revealed by the whistleblower, not caused by the whistleblower.
As Biden became a frontrunner for his party’s nomination, it’s ridiculous to assert that the story would have remained unknown to most voters.At one point or another, the issue first covered by the media in 2014 would become a campaign issue.
The whistleblower probably brought widespread attention to the Burisma/ Bidens issue sooner than it would otherwise be, but the issue itself was not likely to remain dormant or hidden during the entire course of the 2020 campaign.
No one, except for “Jinn”, knows what would have happened with the Burisma/ Bidens story without the whistleblower.
________________________________________
I know what happened with the story for 5 years before the whistle blower came along and put it in the spot light.
I know, I know. Jinn knows all things, past, present and future.
Why stop there, with the theory that the whistleblower was a plant to help Trump win in November?
Turning this into an impeachment inquiry then an impeachment and trial was the work of people like Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, etc.
That put a bright and long spotlight on the whistleblower’s report, and Trump’s approval rating have remained steady or increased a bit.
Therefore, by drumming up the whistleblower’s report month after month, Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, etc. must also be in alliance with the whistleblower to enhance Trump’s chances in November.
Why go only part way with an asinine theory when “Jinn” could tell us everything he “knows”.
No one, except for “Jinn”, knows what would have happened with the Burisma/ Bidens story without the whistleblower.
__________________________________________
Well they are going to get Trump reelected when it is all said and done.
Getting him elected twice is not an easy thing to accomplish. It took the help of the Dems and the MSM. In other words, the entire swamp had to pitch in.
Well, then Jinn can try to track down the whistleblower that he thinks is in Trump’s camp.
Maybe he’ll show up at the inauguration as an invited guest if Trump wins another term.
Then the whole plot on the part of the whistle blower, Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi that Jinn ginned up to help Trump win will be revealed.
So far, Jinn is one of the very, very few in the know about this plot.
Well, then Jinn can try to track down the whistleblower that he thinks is in Trump’s camp.
_______________________________________
I think the whistler blower and the chain of events he started has helped Trump enormously. Whether the whistle blower is intentionally helping trump or just a useful idiot is hard to say.
________________________________________
Then the whole plot on the part of the whistle blower, Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi that Jinn ginned up to help Trump win will be revealed.
_______________________________________
You can give Trump most of the credit for coming up with this kayfabe wrestling match. The swamp will go along with trump as long as they are getting what they want – and they definitely are.
The whole Ukraine-gate is phony. There never was any serious attempt to get an investigation by Ukraine and there never was any aid withheld for that purpose.
All there ever was was the phony appearance of those things created by Trump to trigger another nothing burger investigation that benefits Trump and destroys Biden.
The Democratic leadership is either very stupid or there is some sort of deal cut where Trump gets his re-election and the Democrats get control of the House AND the Senate. Stay tuned we’ll find out in November.
Anon loves to make things up. Stupidity makes him forget Trump is an outsider with no deep connections to the swamp where Hillary Clinton roams. He won because Hillary stank as a candidate. He won because he could effectively combat the MSM. He won because he persisted even when the intelligence agencies tried to get him.
Thank goodness Trump won. He will win again in 2020 because of Democratic stupidity. If anyone wants to know what that stupidity is read Anon or his aliases and you will see it in black and white.
Stupidity makes him forget Trump is an outsider
_________________________________________
He is the outsider that the swamp brought in because their insiders were losing credibility.
Trump won because he was helped by Hillary, the MSM and the inteligence community. Without their intentional bumbling to make Trump look good he had no chance. And it worked so well in 2016 they will do it again in 2020
“He is the outsider that the swamp brought in”
This guy is whacko. He thinks Brennan, Clapper and Comey created a plot that would get Trump elected in 2020.
There is no doubt that Comey helped Trump get elected by repeatedly reminding voters that Clinton was the subject of FBI criminal investigation.
If it had been the other way around and Comey had repeatedly announced that Trump was the subject of a criminal investigation and said not a word about investigating Clinton then the story that Comey and the FBI were helping Clinton would have some factual basis.
Anon, I will admit that Comey is not the smartest crayon in the box, but he worked hard setting up Trump and leaking against Trump. That little bit he did before the election that hurt Clinton was the tiniest fraction of what he did to hurt Trump. …And the favors he did for Clinton may have saved her from going to jail.
You have gone past the line of normality and for awhile you have been past that line and seem to live in a space where reason is comprimised. Some might view that as a sickness.