Impeachment trial turns to whistleblower ahead of possible weekend finish

[webfact]

Impeachment trial turns to whistleblower ahead of possible weekend finish

By Susan Cornwell and Richard Cowan

 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) takes questions from the press at the U.S Capitol during a break in U.S. President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial in Washington, U.S., January 29, 2020. REUTERS/Amanda Voisard

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans on Thursday tried to shift the focus of President Donald Trump's impeachment trial to the unnamed government official whose whistleblower complaint about Trump's dealings with Ukraine spurred the drive to remove him from office.

 

As the trial headed toward a possible weekend conclusion and Trump's likely acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate, Democrats accused the president's allies of trying to intimidate other government employees from reporting wrongdoing when they see it.

 

"You are threatening not just this whistleblower, but the entire system," said Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, who is acting as the lead prosecutor in the trial.

 

The trial was approaching a climactic vote that could determine whether senators will hear from witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton.

 

John Barrasso, the Senate's third-ranking Republican, told reporters that Republicans were likely to beat back the Democratic effort for witnesses.

 

A final vote to acquit Trump or remove him from office is likely in coming days, according to Senate aides who spoke on condition of anonymity.

 

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives impeached Trump in December, formally accusing him of abusing his power for pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. The House also charged Trump with obstruction of Congress.

 

Trump's acquittal would allow him to claim vindication just as the Democratic Party holds its first nominating contest for the Nov. 3 election in Iowa on Monday. Trump will hold a rally in the state on Thursday night.

 

TRYING TO UNMASK WHISTLEBLOWER

Trump and some other Republicans have pressed for months to unmask the intelligence official who filed the report and have tried to paint that person as a partisan figure working with Democrats to destroy Trump's presidency.

 

The government has provided security to the whistleblower in response to security threats, according to the person's lawyers.

 

On Thursday, the issue boiled to the surface again when U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, refused to read a question from Republican Senator Rand Paul that included the name of a person that right-wing media have accused of being the whistleblower. Paul is one of several Republicans, including Trump, who have posted social-media links to some of those news articles.

 

"The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted," Roberts said. He had rejected a similar question the day before.

 

Paul said his question, which asked whether that person worked with a member of Schiff's staff to impeach Trump, was not meant to unmask the whistleblower.

 

"My question's not about the whistleblower. My question's about two people who are friends," he told reporters.

 

Democrats disagreed.

 

"This question was really framed and intended to expose the identity of the whistleblower and subject that whistleblower to retaliation," Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal told reporters.

 

Bradley P. Moss, a lawyer whose firm represents the whistleblower, called the Republican effort "a stain on the legacy of this constitutional republic."

 

CLOSING ARGUMENTS, AND CLIMACTIC VOTE

On Friday, each side is expected to present closing arguments before the Senate moves to the question of whether to call witnesses, which could inflict political damage on the president as he seeks re-election.

 

Possible testimony from Bolton is of particular interest after a report - which he has not denied - that he planned to say in an upcoming book that Trump told him he wanted to freeze $391 million in U.S. military aid for Ukraine until it investigated the Bidens.

 

Democrats need to persuade at least four Republican senators to vote with them to assure a majority vote in the 100-seat chamber, an effort Schumer has called an uphill fight.

 

If the vote on whether to allow witnesses is 50-50, Roberts could step in to break the tie. But there is so little precedent for impeachment trials - this is only the third of a president in U.S. history - that Senate aides said there was no way to know exactly what would occur.

 

If Roberts declines to break a tie, the vote deadlock would mean a defeat for Democrats.

 

Schiff proposed that both sides conduct closed-door witness depositions for a week while the Senate returns to normal business.

 

But there was no sign his plea was being considered by Republicans.

 

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle and Susan Cornwell; Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle, David Morgan, Mark Hosenball and Lisa Lambert; Writing by Andy Sullivan and James Oliphant; Editing by Paul Simao and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-31

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[sucit]

This is all a charade. Why would congress approve an extra 79 billion for war if the dems think he is an unstable, Russian asset? 

 

It is like watching a magician. They want you to be looking over here while they do some <deleted> of the American people over there. Pelosi, Schumer, they are all part of the act. 

[Tug]

Oh well I guess if you have no defense you have to try everything except prove he is innocent because we all know the answer to that one he’s dirty but don’t worry trump supporters the fix is in (till November)then imo the republicans will pay the price for this(fix)

[mercman24]

this wouild have been thrown out at a proper trial, you cannot ask for witnesses after you have presented your case, this is a total farce, TRUMP has done more for the American people in 3 years than the democrats had in 8 years of doing <deleted>. this lot is just as bad as the LABOUR party in the UK, its a vendetta, anyone can see this, this will hurt them big time at the ballot box, serves them right, talk about clouded judgement.

Edited February 1, 2020 by metisdead
Profane acronym removed.

[BobBKK]

Yea where is that unbiased, not connected to any Dem, non-political whistle blower that Schiff never met, never talked about and doesn't even know his name?

[Langsuan Man]

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

Yea where is that unbiased, not connected to any Dem, non-political whistle blower that Schiff never met, never talked about and doesn't even know his name?

Sort of like blaming your mother for leaving the cookie jar out

[Sujo]

18 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Yea where is that unbiased, not connected to any Dem, non-political whistle blower that Schiff never met, never talked about and doesn't even know his name?

I thought you didnt want any witnesses.

[Sujo]

23 minutes ago, mercman24 said:

this wouild have been thrown out at a proper trial, you cannot ask for witnesses after you have presented your case, this is a total farce, TRUMP has done more for the American people in 3 years than the democrats had in 8 years of doing sfa. this lot is just as bad as the LABOUR party in the UK, its a vendetta, anyone can see this, this will hurt them big time at the ballot box, serves them right, talk about clouded judgement.

Umm in a proper trial the witnesses would have been called first but repubs refused to allow it. So yes, repubs have made it a farce.

 

Name a trial with no witnesses or documents. This isnt a trial, its just a debate.

[JCauto]

5 hours ago, mercman24 said:

this wouild have been thrown out at a proper trial, you cannot ask for witnesses after you have presented your case, this is a total farce, TRUMP has done more for the American people in 3 years than the democrats had in 8 years of doing sfa. this lot is just as bad as the LABOUR party in the UK, its a vendetta, anyone can see this, this will hurt them big time at the ballot box, serves them right, talk about clouded judgement.

You...you mean that the previous 20 impeachment trials should have been thrown out? Including Clinton's? Because they all had witnesses after impeachment in the House. 

 

It must be difficult to ignore all the cognitive dissonance of Right-wing positions over the last three years. Before - Obama is turning the US into an imperial presidency! Now - Trump should be allowed to do anything he wants if he sees himself being re-elected as being in the best interests of the USA. Before - the spend spend spend Democrats are running up the deficit! Now - largest deficit spending in US history. Before - we're against big government and welfare! Now - increase government power by allowing the White House to ignore all rules and regulations and turn farmers into welfare queens. 

Let's face it - you don't care about "rule of law", and you never have. You investigated Hilary for years and spent millions doing it and nobody was convicted, yet call this impeachment investigation a vendetta when several of the co-conspirators have already been convicted of crimes and dozens are on record including under oath to what happened, yet the Republicans refuse to allow any testimony from those directly party to the events or to allow anyone to hear the so-called "perfect" phone call. This is a cover-up which is notable only for its brazenness and lack of any attempt at coherence. 

But remember - when the next Democrat President starts using these imperial powers, this is what you wanted!

[wombat]

Pelosi should be charged with sedition

[Jingthing]

27 minutes ago, wombat said:

Pelosi should be charged with sedition

For carrying through with a constitutional process? I don't think so. 

[TKDfella]

7 hours ago, mercman24 said:

this wouild have been thrown out at a proper trial, you cannot ask for witnesses after you have presented your case, this is a total farce, TRUMP has done more for the American people in 3 years than the democrats had in 8 years of doing sfa. this lot is just as bad as the LABOUR party in the UK, its a vendetta, anyone can see this, this will hurt them big time at the ballot box, serves them right, talk about clouded judgement.

Yes I agree about the 'witnesses' part (can't comment of the rest because I'm a Brit) I have been watching each day and one of the legal points that struct me after a Senator question about House's Supoenas. The Reps replied that they were they weren't valid/authorised correctly and the Dems replied that this came under the House's power to use procedures that the House saw fit to use. This wasn't challenged. Surely a Supoena is a legal document governed by legal rules to attain its validity? Surely the House's procedures mean that they can decide to use supoenas or not? Surely legal rules are not included in procedural choices? Am I correct or not?

[Mick501]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

For carrying through with a constitutional process? I don't think so. 

I could be wrong here, but from the wording of the criteria for impeachment (treason etc, high crimes/misdemeanours),  it seems have been the intention of the authors that a criminal conviction has occurred.   Mere suspicion is not enough.  Obviously, politicians  on the opposite side try to take a broader view, but it has never succeeded.

[Thingamabob]

What an appalling waste of time and money this has been. More than that, it has handed a win in the next election to Trump. 

[Jonnapat]

This cannot be called a trial in any respect of the word. 

Farce would be a much better description. 

[AussieBob18]

Bill Clinton - GOP House Impeachment:

1. Perjury - Grand Jury

2. Obstruction of justice

Clinton and DEMs fully involved

5 DEMs voted Yes

 

Donald Trump - DEM House Impeachment:

0. Heresay accusations - no proof

Trump and GOP excluded (+ secret hearings)

No GOP voted Yes

 

The Clinton Impeachment started after the Starr Report found substantial and credible information supporting grounds for impeachment - related to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report#Summary

 

The Dems wanted the Mueller Report to find reasons for Impeachment against Trump, but after failing to show any evidence related to the Russia Hoax, they took another method forward - unsubstaintated heresay about a phone call, and Trump being nasty to Obama appointees and former staff. If anyone does not realise that the Clintons are pulling the Dem strings, they are very foolish. Bill has wanted to get back at the GOP, and Hillary hates what Trump did to her.

 

The Dems have done a massive slam dunk home goal trying to keep their shrinking base happy, but in the end they will be destroyed at the 2020, exactly election because of this partisan farce.  Once Trump is relected and the GOP gains back the House, there will be 'real' investigations done on the 'swamp' members involved in all of this farce.  Trump's second term will be huuuuuge.

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by AussieBob18

[chokrai]

13 hours ago, Sujo said:

Umm in a proper trial the witnesses would have been called first but repubs refused to allow it. So yes, repubs have made it a farce.

 

Name a trial with no witnesses or documents. This isnt a trial, its just a debate.

Not how it works.

 

[surangw]

how could the id of the whistleblower be kept secret  wouldn't it be the one person  in hiding now  that was present during the call.   ( simple deduction Mr. Watson)

[Sujo]

9 hours ago, Mick501 said:

I could be wrong here, but from the wording of the criteria for impeachment (treason etc, high crimes/misdemeanours),  it seems have been the intention of the authors that a criminal conviction has occurred.   Mere suspicion is not enough.  Obviously, politicians  on the opposite side try to take a broader view, but it has never succeeded.

There was no criminal code when the constitution was written. High crimes relates to the office, not the crime.

 

Predident cannot be charged with a crime so cannot be convicted. Impeachment is the only remedy. But its too long to explain it all on here.

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

Bill Clinton - GOP House Impeachment:

1. Perjury - Grand Jury

2. Obstruction of justice

Clinton and DEMs fully involved

5 DEMs voted Yes

 

Donald Trump - DEM House Impeachment:

0. Heresay accusations - no proof

Trump and GOP excluded (+ secret hearings)

No GOP voted Yes

 

The Clinton Impeachment started after the Starr Report found substantial and credible information supporting grounds for impeachment - related to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report#Summary

 

The Dems wanted the Mueller Report to find reasons for Impeachment against Trump, but after failing to show any evidence related to the Russia Hoax, they took another method forward - unsubstaintated heresay about a phone call, and Trump being nasty to Obama appointees and former staff. If anyone does not realise that the Clintons are pulling the Dem strings, they are very foolish. Bill has wanted to get back at the GOP, and Hillary hates what Trump did to her.

 

The Dems have done a massive slam dunk home goal trying to keep their shrinking base happy, but in the end they will be destroyed at the 2020, exactly election because of this partisan farce.  Once Trump is relected and the GOP gains back the House, there will be 'real' investigations done on the 'swamp' members involved in all of this farce.  Trump's second term will be huuuuuge.

 

Oh dear. 0 secret hearings. Repubs were in all hearings.

 

All witnesses in this impeachment were in the trump admin, not dems.

 

Clinton was not impeached for a bj with monica.

 

Would be nice if you got 1 point correct.

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, surangw said:

how could the id of the whistleblower be kept secret  wouldn't it be the one person  in hiding now  that was present during the call.   ( simple deduction Mr. Watson)

Vindman was on the call.

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, chokrai said:

Not how it works.

 

I know. Please see the post i replied to.

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I saw an article recently that said Schumer and Schiff were pals of the late Mr. Epstein and regular attendees at his private island mansion.

 

I ask our American posters, is this true? Or fake?

True. And trump flew them all there on trump airlines and they had free trump vodka and trump steaks then the young girls got free training at trump uni.

 

Are any of those still companies?

[BobBKK]

23 hours ago, Sujo said:

I thought you didnt want any witnesses.

when did i say that?  BTW Dems had 17 Reps ZERO - that was fair too right?

[BobBKK]

6 hours ago, Sujo said:

Vindman was on the call.

It's true that the Ukrainian Vindman was on the call.. oh wait he's an American now!  and totally unbiased about his country of birth!  that's ok then...

[mlmcleod]

The Republicans have put al Americans on notice that Trump is their King!

 

They are going to have such a huge election defeat in November!  It will be far larger than the 3,000,000 votes that Clinton outpolled Trump in 2016.

 

Extremism is not rewarded by the American voters!

 

Oh, did I mention that Trump stated that he is now in favor of cutting Social Security benefits?

 

 

[BobBKK]

1 minute ago, mlmcleod said:

The Republicans have put al Americans on notice that Trump is their King!

 

They are going to have such a huge election defeat in November!  It will be far larger than the 3,000,000 votes that Clinton outpolled Trump in 2016.

 

Extremism is not rewarded by the American voters!

 

Oh, did I mention that Trump stated that he is now in favor of cutting Social Security benefits?

 

 

in your dreams...

[BobBKK]

13 hours ago, Sujo said:

Oh dear. 0 secret hearings. Repubs were in all hearings.

 

All witnesses in this impeachment were in the trump admin, not dems.

 

Clinton was not impeached for a bj with monica.

 

Would be nice if you got 1 point correct.

I thought he was impeached for lying about it not the actual BJ.

[Sweet Swede]

Trump is a perv, liar and everything else not suitable for a human being. However this is happening in the USA, so no hope for justice.

[Brigand]

All a shallow, vanity driven, drama-rama waste of time and taxpayer dollar as the conclusion is not in doubt. Maybe all the children in the House and Senate can get back to doing what they are supposed to be doing, like passing stuff that improves life for the average American instead of this hand-baggy "hate you" nonsense we have seen so much of. At least start formulating new policies to present that aren't far left or right fantasy land so either side has a chance of winning an election on merit. If you don't like Trump, then beat him at the ballot box through superior policy and convincing the US public of that too ... got to do it through hard work and public orator skills/reasoning and sound ideas instead of just assuming your party is holier than thou and just dismissing all others as "deplorables". That would be much better.