Thus far, all the ‘testimony’ taken by the House Intel Committee has been taken behind closed doors. Thus far, Schiff’s Democrats have leaked Chairman-approved portions of the testimony. Thus far, Chairman Schiff has refused to publish the full transcript of any of the testifiers’ testimony.

By contrast, President Trump released the transcript of his call with Ukraine President Zelenskyy. By contrast, President Trump released all 9 pages of the informant’s complaint. By contrast, President Trump released the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion.

To summarize, President Trump has specialized in transparency while Democrats have specialized in leaking and secrecy. That’s before talking about the Democrats’ attempts to hide the identity of the whistleblower. Speaker Pelosi has frequently talked about protecting the Constitution from President Trump, which is a joke. The Constitution requires that a defendant be allowed to confront his accuser. This isn’t a suggestion. This isn’t proper etiquette. It’s required.

Schiff’s Democrats don’t want that to happen, perhaps because the Democrats’ faux whistleblower is compromised:

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson told lawmakers last week that the whistleblower whose complaint about President Trump and Ukraine has set off an impeachment inquiry previously had “some type of professional relationship” with one of the 2020 Democratic candidates, the Washington Examiner first reported and Axios’ Jonathan Swan has confirmed.

This isn’t a little detail. By itself, it demolishes the Democrats’ faux whistleblower. Let’s put it this way. If Trey Gowdy or John Ratcliffe cross-examined this political operative in public, that operative’s reputation would be nonexistent within 10 minutes. This faux impeachment inquiry would be on life support at best.

Perhaps that explains why Schiff’s Democrats have been so secretive. If the Democrats’ witnesses have been that pathetic, I wouldn’t want their witnesses’ testimony made public either. Then again, if that’s what I had to work with, I’d end the inquiry before I got embarrassed in public.

It’s time for Democrats to admit that they don’t have any evidence that President Trump has done anything worthy of impeachment. Their whistleblower/political operative isn’t credible. The transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call is a major nothingburger. The Mueller report was a much-anticipated dud.

To the Democrats: the first call to impeach Trump came the day after he was elected. There was another call for his impeachment in December, 2016. There have been calls for President Trump’s impeachment virtually every month since then. Give it up. President Trump has been under investigation his entire presidency. Thus far, the best investigators in the US haven’t found anything.

Perhaps, you should take that as a hint that there’s nothing there.

4 Responses to “President Trump’s transparency vs. Pelosi’s, Schiff’s secrecy”

  • eric z says:

    Transparency is telling federal payroll people to hold Congress in contempt? How so?

    As to having evidence or not, if one is aggressively tampering with witnesses how exactly can evidence be obtained? Questioning witnesses to establish evidence does have a history arising out of centuries of English common law as the way to gain answers.

    Trump’s raising national awareness of Biden financial questions, that miasma, is helpful to the nation, but if you do that you have to expect getting your own set of questions – especially about motive. What’s to hide? Smoke/fire, all that. Sauce for goose, sauce for gander?

    Can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

  • Gary Gross says:

    The Constitution guarantees due process. It also guarantees that the defendant has the right to cross-examine their accuser. I’ll demand that every time. Period.

    As for the Democrats’ evidence, they don’t have any. They’ve been searching for evidence literally since before his inauguration. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that impeachable evidence doesn’t exist.

  • eric z says:

    This House hearing set is, if you want to analogize to judicial proceedings,the equivalent of a grand jury hearing. Only one lawyer present, in secret, and to have a vote on whether probable cause exists to charge wrongful conduct. The Senate then serves as the trial venue. Where cross examination exists as a right. Try to ask some prosecutor holding a grand jury that you want to cross examine and have credibility of evidence weighed. You’d not get far. If that makes you believe that grand juries are unfair, join the club. But the term “cross examination” is nowhere in the text of the Constitution, including all amendments. I agree that prosecutors routinely abuse grand jury proceedings, witness the misuse of the process re the cop who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson. That clown [who lost his next election] had them weighing evidence (behind closed doors with Brown’s lawyer barred from things), not whether evidence existed to show probable cause to a citizens panel. McConnell is already in the bag for Trump with the nose count, so if you want to contend that impeachment should not have been started, that was the Pelosi position until Trump’s actions were so egregious that her caucus forced the issue. Obama should have asked the Saudis for dirt on the Bush family, and that would have been fine to you? Withholding military aid unless/until? Be fair.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Actually, it isn’t like it except in the sense that it’s the first step in the process. Otherwise, it’s completely unlike a grand jury investigation. It’s unlike it in the sense that, in the past, the hearings (for both Nixon & Clinton) were public. In the Nixon hearings, Republicans & Democrats shared staff. There wasn’t a minority staff & a majority staff.

    Further, Peter Rodino picked a Republican to be the counsel. It’s worth noting that Nixon’s lawyer was there every step of the way. You should read this article to get a better understanding of the Nixon impeachment process. BTW, the man who wrote this article for AEI is the son of the impeachment counsel. Needless to say, he had a firsthand view of the process.

    You’re right that the term cross-examination isn’t in the Constitution. What is, though, is the term due process. You’re smart enough to know that due process isn’t possible without the defendant’s lawyer cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses.

    If you want to talk about people being in the bag, I’ve got far more proof that Adam Schiff is in the bag for Pelosi than McConnell is in the bag for Trump. There’s no proof that President Trump committed “treason, bribery, high crimes & misdemeanors.” At most, he committed a campaign finance violation, something that’s usually punishable with a fine. That certainly doesn’t rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.

    By the time Zelenskiy found out that the military aid was being withheld, military aid was getting released. We know that thanks to the timeline that Jennifer Griffin & Lucas Tomlinson of Fox News put together. That crutch just broke.

Leave a Reply