Graham Has a Few Stipulations for House Dems, Otherwise Impeachment is 'Dead on Arrival' in the Senate
Senator Graham is right. The more unfair and rigged the house process is the more certain the Senate will be to dismiss upon being read. Dead on Arrival. Eric Ciaramella must be questioned and cross examined along with Hunter Biden and the GOP and administration lawyers should be able to subpoena their choice of witnesses and have due process before there is any impeachment vote in the House. If the House forces the President and Republicans to wait for a senate trial to get their due process, there simply won’t be a senate trial.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Sunday told Fox News's Maria Bartiromo he believed the Ukrainian whistleblower is part of the deep state.
"I consider any impeachment in the House that doesn't allow us to know who the whistleblower is to be invalid, because without the whistleblower complaint, we wouldn't be talking about any of this," Graham explained. "I also see the need for Hunter Biden to be called to adequately defend the president. And if you don't do those two things, it's a complete joke."
Graham cited reporter John Soloman's reporting , which revealed Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company Hunter Biden worked for, pressed the Obama administration to drop the corruption allegations.
"I think that the big deal is that Hunter Biden served on a board that was being investigated by the Ukrianian government," he said.
Graham referenced the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that showed Hunter Biden's business partner and another Burisma board member meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry.
"All of a sudden the case goes away," Graham explained. "I think it's important that we found out what really did happen, regarding firing the foreign prosecutor, what was the conflict of interest Hunter Biden had."
The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman made it clear he doesn't believe an impeachment case can be brought about fairly without knowing the whistleblower's identity and "having the ability to cross examine him about any biases they may have."
"So, if they don't call the whistleblower, this thing is dead on arrival in the Senate," Graham said.
Bartiromo reiterated rumors that have circled Washington, including that the whistleblower had connections to former Vice President Joe Biden and even suggested this person could have had connections to the start of the Russia probe.
"Well, if the whistleblower comes from the Brennan world, that would be pretty stunning, I think. If the whistleblower had a connection to a presidential candidate, that would be pretty stunning," he said. "...when we find out who the whistleblower is I'm confident we'll find out it is someone from the deep state. You're gonna find out they had interactions with [House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam] Schiff. It's going to stink to high Heaven."
Recommended from Townhall
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
Graham referenced the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that showed Hunter Biden's business partner and another Burisma board member meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry.
"All of a sudden the case goes away," Graham explained. "I think it's important that we found out what really did happen, regarding firing the foreign prosecutor, what was the conflict of interest Hunter Biden had."
The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman made it clear he doesn't believe an impeachment case can be brought about fairly without knowing the whistleblower's identity and "having the ability to cross examine him about any biases they may have."
"So, if they don't call the whistleblower, this thing is dead on arrival in the Senate," Graham said.
Bartiromo reiterated rumors that have circled Washington, including that the whistleblower had connections to former Vice President Joe Biden and even suggested this person could have had connections to the start of the Russia probe.
"Well, if the whistleblower comes from the Brennan world, that would be pretty stunning, I think. If the whistleblower had a connection to a presidential candidate, that would be pretty stunning," he said. "...when we find out who the whistleblower is I'm confident we'll find out it is someone from the deep state. You're gonna find out they had interactions with [House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam] Schiff.
Impeachment will be dead on arrival in the Senate if it even passes in the House.
I can't agree with Lindsey on this one. Republicans keep treating this like it's some kind of 4th or 6th Amendment issue, when it's not.
The reason I reference the 4th is because that's the amendment that gives us the exclusionary rule, whereby if the government acquires evidence improperly, such evidence is excluded from a criminal trial.
The 6th is obviously relevant because of the right to confront witnesses.
Both apply in criminal cases where the accused stands to be deprived or life or liberty. Impeachment, while a very serious matter, is a political and administrative process.
Still, I can respect the desire to abide by our most severe legal standards regarding protection of the accused, standards and burdens of proof, and general fairness. The stakes are high and so our standards should be high.
However, this is not, in my opinion, a matter where we are being asked to deal with the fruit of a poisonous tree (as 4th amendment issues are often characterized). Furthermore, there are multiple witnesses to the presidents behavior. I don't think the House is intending to consider only the whistleblower's testimony in isolation, nor are they asking the Senate to remove the president based on that alone.
What I am saying is that I think we can proceed with or without the whistleblower. We hear a lot of rhetoric related to this person. If people think discrediting the whistleblower will make this all go away, they are kidding themselves.
I think the focus on this individual is way overblown because of two things. First, as a result of the way our news media operates these days, and second, there is a tendency in legal matters to focus on every single detail of the process, no matter its relative importance.
Finally, the Senate will conduct its own trial and the House doesn't have anything to say about how they will do it. The Senate can call whoever it likes and examine them in whatever way they see fit.
But the really important thing is that no one in the Senate should be saying impeachment is dead on arrival. When you say you will acquit before you even consider the evidence, you destroy the credibility of any trial. This is the same kind of problem the House has right now because some of their members have been promising to impeach the president for three years. It's foolish to copy their mistake.
Impeachment is a political process and understanding the motivations and actions of those who drove it is a valid political question.
Republicans are driving the show, if they think Eric Ciaramella is a relevant witness, he is.
What he’s saying is that if the house doesn’t treat the minority party and the President with the same due consideration that Nixon and Clinton got then the Senate won’t even bother to consider the matter. The house should not be having an impeachment vote at all without those considerations. But the house is the house and can do things it’s own way. The senate can as well. The senate through Graham is telling the House to treat Trump as Nixon and Clinton were treated as a precondition for the senate to consider it beyond being read.
I understand that, and I understand his point of view, but he's wrong. Constitutionally, the House can do as it pleases. The House is not even obliged to have hearings at all. They can just vote on articles and have done with it. Then it would be up to the Senate to investigate and have a trial.
The real value of hearings in the House is that it shows the Senate and the rest of America that impeachment isn't a purely partisan abuse of Constitutional authority to undo an election. We all know, of course, that that's exactly what it is, but the hearings at least lend an appearance of integrity to the proceedings.
Tactically, what Graham is saying publicly looks bad for his chamber and the integrity of what they will do. I think he should just sit back and let the House do what they will.
How is it different? The House had closed door meetings and hearings for Clinton.
You are only giving them cover...
There are multiple sources that say the same thing.
Odd that some on the right think that Clinton should have been impeached because he lied about a blowjob, yet trump lies about trying to coerce a foreign government and the right says business as usual.
So all the people that have testified, people that were respected, are now all making it up?
What he lied about was getting a blowjob. That is what he lied about...
Even Mulvaney said at the podium it was 'quid pro quo' and that so what? It was no big deal.
So now the former Ambassador that Giuliani, a non official, wanted rid of, is nothing but a liar...Giuliani had to gets lawyers and several of his partners were arrested.
Also funny that Ivanka was using a private email and no one on the right cared...
20 years later, and they still can't speak honestly about it. Perjury is a felony.
That is false. Not ONE of the witnesses whose transcripts have been released have stated that.
Even Sondland was only parroting what Trump said. It was NOT his own posit. Of course there's also Sondland's supplemental statement that ADMITS that he informed the Ukrainians that the they were indeed being extorted.
Gaslighted again I see.
No one is suggesting acquittal. Sen. Byrd in 1998 brought up a motion to dismiss the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton. Senator Graham is talking about doing that this time upon the reading of the charges. It would take 4 Republicans siding with the democrats this year for a motion to dismiss not carry under senate rules.
Then neither you or Graham can claim Byrd as a precedent because that isn't what Bryd did.
Graham is the one that said trump could not have done anything wrong because his administration is incompetent.
Can't make up the crazy the right has become.
All they are doing is making excuses. They picked the one thing the dems won't budge on and say they won't do shit unless they out of the WB.
The only...ONLY reason they want to know who the WB is, is so they can attack their character and trump can make up a childish nickname. Nothing more.
That is all they have been doing in the released transcripts. Attacking the character of the witness'. Disgusting pieces of crap.
Eric Ciaramella is the leaker.
If anything happens to him, you have blood on your hands.
Who gives a fuck? If Trump didnt have anything to leak he wouldnt be in trouble right now.
The whistleblower is not the issue at all.
No one 'leaked' anything. The whistleblower followed the law to the letter. The DNI FINALLY released the complaint and that was released by the Intel Committee. Not one leak.
OAN Gives Alleged Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella The Opportunity To Deny Media Claims
UPDATED 12:10 PM PT — Sunday, November 3, 2019
One America News reporter Neil W. McCabe followed up on information from multiple sources that the alleged whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, was hiding out at his parents’ home in Connecticut.
After McCabe knocked on the front door and rang the doorbell, a man who gave the same name as Ciaramella’s father drove up and spoke to McCabe in the driveway. He acknowledged that he knew Eric and asked McCabe for his business card.
McCabe also called two numbers associated with the family at that address and left a message with each. At the end of this news package, McCabe tells the so-called whistleblower he is welcome to respond to OAN.
Ciaramella is a CIA analyst, who was assigned to the National Security Council staff’s Ukraine desk at the White House. In addition to being a vocal advocate for more aid to Ukraine, the analyst was reported to have also advised then-Vice President Joe Biden, when Biden held sway over America-Ukraine relations.
What's your fucking point Xx? It doesn't MATTER if he is the whistleblower or NOT. If something happens to him, you and everyone who named him have blood on your hands.
If you want a detailed explanation of it all check out my other seed today and become informed!
What's your fucking point Xx? It doesn't MATTER if he is the whistleblower or NOT. If something happens to him, you and everyone who named him have blood on your hands.
If there is ever a trial in the senate he and everyone else in the linked article are going to testify and be cross examined there. Might as well have them testify before the House committee. If they don’t the senate won’t even consider the house charges. They will vote to dismiss within minutes of them being read into the senate record.
Yea, because Heartland named him for the very, very first time ever. No one on any other source named him.
Besides, this site has max 10 people on it at any given time. I don't think your claim has any relevance.
Oh how I tire of your incessant clueless comments.
The Senate has a set process for Impeachment Trials.
PRIOR to the trial, the Senate may or may NOT conduct it's own investigation, subpoena documents and take depositions through a 12 member committee.
That investigation may or may NOT be done in open hearings. A transcript of those proceedings and report of that evidence is then submitted to the Senate as a whole.
In short, ALL of that shit is done BEFORE the actual Senate trial actually starts.
If the Senate calls the whistleblower, they better prepare for a long litigation.
You mean the Committee whose proceedings Trump pretends are Unconstitutional?
Again, that is a clueless comment. The Senate MUST receive that House Managers and MUST hear the evidence presented by them. That presentation could take WEEKS.
So turn away from the gaslight and recognize that this isn't going to be the House Managers reading the Articles of Impeachment and then Lindsey Graham calling for dismissal. That's NOT how this shit works.
You may also want to recognize the FACT that 3 Senators have refused to sign on to Lindsey's moronic Resolution. That means that the GOP DOES NOT have a majority of Senators willing to blow off a full and transparent trial on the merits.
Based on Xx's incessant insistence of his superior moral standing, THAT is utterly irrelevant.
Again, irrelevant.
BTFW, as I type this, there are 23 members online and I don't know how many visitors so your comment is also false.
Senator Byrd brought a motion to dismiss in 1998. It didn’t win. Graham’s motion will because we don’t need to put the country through all that. Even without the three his motion would win 51-50 assuming the three actually voted with the democrats instead of present.
Your comment is irrelevant. Well, most of them are.The guy's name has been mentioned by other print and also on news networks long before Xx did. The only thing people want is for him to grow balls and testify in public and find out his motives for doing what he did.
The "blood on your hands" bullshit is part of what brings out the worst in people.
BTFW, As far as people on here, you mentioned "online". Being online does not mean on the site, it simply means they are online. I would surmise, and I'm usually correct, that about 10 percent of them are actually on the site.
That's blatantly false.
Constantly throwing shit to see what sticks.
You mean that he followed the law to the letter by going to Schiff and his staff first before going to the one he was supposed to go?
To liberals, If it is meant to hurt Trump, then yes, it is perfectly within the law.
Why exactly?
How many times do you have to be told that Byrd did NOT bring the motion to dismiss until AFTER the House Managers had FINISHED submitting their case? THAT is an historical FACT. The Clinton Senate trial began on Jan. 7th and Byrd made his motion on Jan. 25th.
YOU do the math.
Your uninformed proclamations are becoming more and more ridiculous.
Judging from all of the statements from the whistleblowers attorneys, they have no intention of willingly allowing their clients to be outed.
If Mulvaney, Bolton and Kupperman can file suit to avoid testifying to Congress, the whistleblower sure as hell can. The FACT that Trump has already made threats against the whistleblower merely bolsters his case to remain anonymous.
There are multiple Administration employees that have refused to honor legally issued Congressional subpoenas. The Congress can't justify singling out the whistleblower for penalties that they've failed to met on the others.
There is also a pretty fucking good argument that the whistleblower's testimony is moot. There is an abundance of first hand witness testimony in support of Articles of Impeachment. His complaint can and should be viewed as an anonymous call on a tip line that instigates an investigation that uncovers empirical evidence.
Yet here you are try and failing to refute it.
Again, how many people say it is irrelevant.
Why do his motives matter? The vast majority of the information he shared in the complaint has been corroborated by witness testimony.
Seriously, do you give a fuck WHY someone calls an anonymous tip line that leads to factual information or do you care that the information was true and forwarded an investigation into wrongdoing?
Citing the name of someone who either has a STATUTORY right to anonymity, or who is utterly uninvolved brings out the worst in other people.
Nope, the online chat shows who is logged in to the site right now.
Oh and BTFW, I see that you changed it from 10 PEOPLE to 10 PERCENT. Bad Form.
When did I ever say that the house didn’t present it’s case first back then?
You've said multiple times that Lindsey will do it JUST LIKE Byrd did. I told you that Byrd didn't set the precedent that you think he did but you just keep on blathering.
You posted multiple comments along that vein, 2.3, 3.1.14 and then in 5.1 you stated:
You have insisted more than once, and not just here, that minutes after the CHARGES were read, Lindsey would call a vote to dismiss, JUST LIKE Byrd, and it would be all over. You've claimed that good ole Lindsey will save the country from having to go through any of it.
It's ALL bullshit because, as usual, you have NO fucking clue what you are talking about and it looks like you have every intention of remaining as clueless as possible. You have no desire to learn any facts or read anything that wasn't created in your echo chamber.
So swill the pabulum Lindsey is serving if you must but it isn't going to stand here without challenge.
Anyone can file a suit. The question is what would be the grounds for refusing to testify? Just because one person has legitimate grounds to avoid appearing, that does not mean someone else has those same grounds or their own grounds that are equally valid.
That's not a bad thought, but we would need a good reason to justify that kind of status and considering the unique nature of impeachment, it's hard to say what law applies. It may simply be whatever the House or Senate says.
As to specific grounds we might entertain? We hear a lot these days about whistleblower protections, but those protections are about protecting an employee from employer retaliation. That doesn't necessitate maintaining an informant's anonymity in a hearing or excusing him from testifying. On the contrary, establishing his identity would probably make it easier for him to ensure that his employment rights are protected.
In criminal cases, anonymous tipsters are more commonly referred to as "confidential informants." (CI's) Usually, the privilege of confidentiality is something that actually belongs to the government, which is the one bringing the charge. When it's an absolute privilege, there is usually a statute that says so. It's usually specific to certain types of cases like child abuse.
Otherwise, courts tend to use a balancing test to decide if revealing the identity of the informant does or does not outweigh the interests of justice. For example, if there is something about refusing to reveal the identity or compel testimony that would result in an unfair trial, then the privilege will be denied.
Staying with criminal cases, the SCOTUS has pretty consistently held that the simple act of submitting a tip, absent some basis of knowledge and reliability of the informant, is not enough to constitute probable cause. When cops get a tip like that, they try to independently observe the wrongdoing themselves.
If cops were to act only on the basis of a weak tip, everything they found as a result of that tip would be thrown out, no matter how guilty the defendant might appear to be.
I'm assuming Republicans will argue that if the CI here won't testify, the whole case should be thrown out. If they were trying a drug dealer, that would probably work.
Obviously, impeachment isn't a criminal case, though, so maybe none of this applies, or maybe only the parts that benefit the party in control will apply.
Well after over a month of Trump and the GOP pounding it home, I would think it would be obvious. The whistleblower doesn't have first hand knowledge and therefore, legally, cannot be a 'fact witness'.
It's analogous.
Why?
It's not hard at all: 50 U .S .C . 3033.
Or investigate and interview witnesses that observed the wrongdoing themselves.
Since virtually everything sited in the whistleblower's complaint has been corroberated, it's not analogous to a 'weak tip'.
Only if the CI was a fact witness and the ONLY witness. In this case, there are over a dozen credible witnesses.
Well tomorrow a crap load of lawyers will be in the room, some protecting witnesses, some Committee counsel and some Congressman that THINK they know the law. I'm pretty fucking sure that there will be plenty of arguments on the irrelevant minutia, especially since they put Jordan on the panel.
Really? Have your read the statements released by the whistleblower's lawyers? What leads you to believe that they will suddenly acquiesce and deliver up their client?
Guess the shit I threw in my reply to your other comment stuck pretty fucking good.
You're obviously clueless about the purpose of the ICIG. They are ultimately answerable to Congress and their purpose is to document, investigate and report wrongdoing to the Intel Committee.
Now I don't know whether you know this or not but there is the thingy in the First Amendment of the Constitution, just past the 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof' thingy you love so well, about the right 'to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'.
That has always meant that you can go meet or write or call members of Congress. There is nothing nefarious in a IC employee seeking the assistance of Intel Committee staff on how to report wrongdoing.
It may also behoove you to recognize the FACT that the NSC counsel was told by MULTIPLE people that were deposed about possible wrongdoing and he blew it off. Oh and that the IG and DNI made criminal referrals to the DOJ about that same wrongdoing, and they blew it off too.
yepp.
you should try comedy... LOL
too funny
The Trump lies roll downhill and slime all who believe them.
The Schiff head lies roll down hill and slime all who believe them.
I saw that. This is how pathetic the defense of dipshit has become. "He couldn't have done anything wrong because he is just flat out too stupid."
Thus we should make sure he is in a position of serious power. What in the fuck is wrong with this country?
I guess Lindsay forgot about the times he and Rand Paul were vocal supporters of protecting the anonymity of WB's. Odd how they will throw those tightly held values out the window as soon as it suits them.
Exactly where does the vain glorious Senator Graham get off?
Somebody is ahead of himself lately to cringe worthy degree...
Are obstinance, snippyness or false grace attractive qualities?
I think Lindsey knows that if Trump goes down so does he too!
Senator Byrd did a motion to dismiss regarding the charges against Bill Clinton in 1998. Graham is likely to do so this year. If there is a trial in the Senate, it will go from a week before Iowa to a week after California/Super Tuesday according to Sen. Mc Connell.
Lol fuck off Lindsay. This would never have a chance in the Senate if Trump raped and murdered an aide on camera. You are so latched onto his cock with your mouth that even a gay dude would call it excessive,
Shove your demands up your ass.
No what the Democrats should do is go through with the process and let republicans in the senate destroy any semblance that the rule of law means anything to them. Let them go ahead and say that everything Trump did is perfectly acceptable and make them choke on their own shit as soon as a democrat does it.
It’s the house that’s not giving the GOP to call it’s choice of witnesses. It’s the House not letting GOP members have subpoena power. It’s the House not letting Trump’s lawyers participate in the proceedings. The rule of law has already been tossed out the window.
Yes Xx, the House is making the rules since the Impeachment Inquiry is being conducted by the House. The HORROR!
So the house is going to vote to impeach the President without letting the president confront his accuser or call witnesses on his behalf, or subpoena people or documents and then limit who the minority can call or what they can say and the public is going to accept that as fair? I don’t think so.
What part of the House making it's own rules don't you understand?
BTFW, we are only in the INQUIRY stage.
I suggest that you take the time to READ HRes 660 for the rules for the INQUIRY and the subsequent process.
I doubt you will.
It was indeed a big nothing burger today other than that Biden really did do what they accuse Trump of.
So they can sit on McConnell's desk and rot, like all of the others?
Minds have already started to change.
Lying is a sin.
Then by all means, don’t do it.
When Nancy considers bills favored by Mc Connell that passed in the senate, we can consider her house passed bills.
I'm not the one posting false comments here Xx, you are.
What bills would that be Xx?
The only minds changing are those that belatedly realize that there’s no there there regarding the impeachment sham show trial.
Now it just sounds like you have a problem with it because of Trump. Especially if you are advocating for a Democrat to do the same.