It's a matter of opinion, I know, but I think Schiff is not letting the whistle blower testify because he fears he won't be able to shut off all of the incriminating questions. Smart move on Schifff's part.
I'm not as optimistic. The same undue process rules apply and I don't think Schiff has any reservation enforcing them in a public forum. He, like all Democrats, think the media is know-all and they will love it. If he is wrong, well, all the better for the country.
THE ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT WHICH HAD TO DO WITH OPENING UP OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDEN'S, YOU MEAN? You guys are ***** at story manipulation, get better.
For a couple of reasons: It's being alleged that he had contact with, if not Schiff directly, Schiff's staff. This needs to be investigated by someone other than Adam Schiff. If there's nothing to for Democrats to be concerned with, this shouldn't be a problem and, in fact, should be welcomed by the Democrats. This whole circus was caused by him. I don't think it's too much to ask that Republicans be afforded the opportunity to question him, and to do so in a public forum. This whole proceeding is taking place because of an allegation; that Trump did something wrong and lied about it. Well, now there's an allegation that Schiff has done something wrong and lied about it. I would think, given how they claim to be interested in fairness and the rule of law, that Democrats would appreciate the need for the allegations against Schiff to be investigated. They won't, though, because Schiff and his minions are hypocrites and liars...
1) It needs to be investigated because it's being alleged? Does every single allegation created by the Republicans need to be investigated? 2) The investigation has witnesses with first hand connection to the call, why in the world would the whistleblower's identity be instrumental any longer for anything other than a Republican slander campaign? And it's moved past that point where we actually have witnesses that corroborate this. Not every allegation out there holds relevance or deserves scrutiny.
Right. So it is an effort to distract from an investigation into Trump's behavior and instead an effort to focus the investigation onto someone else.
Thanks for your concern, but I'll be fine. The whistleblower was deemed credible and urgent by Trump's ICIG. That's why he is a whistleblower and why nearly every aspect of his complaint has been verified by primary sources. There is plenty of proof that Trump broke the law. He is, after all, Individual One who directed Michael Cohen to commit a felony and he is described as arguably committing at least ten acts of Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller report. But even if those examples and evidence did not exist, you still have a problem on your hands. Impeachment does not require a broken law because, as Matthew Whitaker said, "Abuse of Power is not a crime." Unfortunately for Trump, abuse of power is an impeachable offense.
The Whistle has to testify or the entire thing is a farce and the Senate will have grounds to dismiss it.
You spend the vast majority of this post directly confirming that your primary interest is to try and make the impeachment inquiry about someone not named Donald Trump. The lone aspect that you devote towards the actual focus of the inquiry is that the whistleblower is the cause of the circle and thus, it's not too much to ask that they be afforded the opportunity to question him. It rings of just a boilerplate label. You have his complaint where he alleges wrongdoing and concerns given to him by other members of the administration. You now have the testimony of those members directly. There is simply no reason to break the anonymity of the whistleblower if he does not wish to testify outside of trying to make the impeachment inquiry about potential wrongdoing from someone else.
First of all, the transcript does not ask the President of the Ukraine to investigate the Bidden/Obama Quid pro quo or the fact Biddens son was put on the Board of a Company under investigation OR not get funding approved by Congress. It doesn't matter if other Countries wanted the investigating Attorney from the Ukraine fired. Still quid pro quo. He only asked the Ukraine President to cooperate with U.S. Attorney General and others investigating 2015-16 corruption and attempts by the Democrats and the Administration to make-up dirt on Trump. And basically blackmail the Ukraine by withholding funding if the Ukraines Attorney Not fired. Worse than what they accusing Trump of. The Whistle Blower appears to be biased and to have no first-hand information and coached by the Democrats and a Lawyer that were trying to find a way to Impeach or get rid of Trump from the time he won the Primary and then after he took office. This is why I call their impeachment inquiry a sham. Not to mention Adam Schiff has been highly biased against Trump from the time Trump took office. His hearings on the Russian conspiracy was also costly, unfair and a waste of time. I will never believe any findings by the Democrats. Trump did not abuse his power and I don't care what the Ambassadors who are Democrats or those serving on or formally serving in the Military have to say. They are also anti-Trump people. They are no more creditable then the President himself. It is obvious to me that the President didn't think he was doing anything wrong. He was trying to further investigate the Democrats obstruction in the 2016 election and Obama/Biden Quid pro quo.
You will have to ask him. I consider Mueller II to be just as entertaining as Mueller I. I wouldn't want to distract from any of it.
Why not? After all, it was a simple allegation which was the catalyst for these impeachment proceedings. Why is it okay for Democrats to do it but not the Republicans? True. But this allegation is profound. The allegation is that Schiff, or those in his office, had contact with the whistle blower, Eric Ciaramella, before he made his complaint, and then lied about it. If you can't see the gravity of that then you're beyond reason. The allegation does deserve to be investigated...
Not at all. In fact, my post is regarding what should be done to maintain some degree of fairness for Donald Trump. You just don't like the idea of fairness. Why don 't you want the Republicans to question the whistle blower? If I allege that you committed a crime, and you were charged with that crime, wouldn't you want your attorney the opportunity to question me, or am I off the hook just because people appear after the fact and confirm my allegations? His name is Eric Ciaramella. Nine seconds on Google would've told you that...
No my friend, the catalyst was Russkies collusion, Obstruction of justice Stormy and on an on and on, each one bombed out. This one will bomb out, too.
Here's the bottom line for me: Republicans should not have to have their witnesses approved by Schiff. That's freaking insane. Doing that allows Schiff to control the testimony throughout the proceedings, and that's wrong. The best thing that could happen is that Schiff suffers an aneurysm and dies on the House floor on live television. He's a traitor to the Constitution and to every good, decent American...
It is the same authority granted in every previous investigation before the House. If Schiff did not have that authority (which can be appealed to a simple majority), then Republicans would be able to call any Tom, Dick, or Harry that they wanted. What would stop Republicans from calling Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Peter Strzok?
Because their testimony is not relevant to the impeachment inquiry. You must have limits in order to keep the process orderly and allowing irrelevant testimony from irrelevant witnesses would very, very quickly get out of hand.
