Trump: I Want To Meet The Whistleblower — And Have Schiff Arrested For “Fraud & Treason” Too

Maybe he already has met the whistleblower! Well, probably not, considering the second- and third-hand nature of the information in the whistleblower complaint, but Donald Trump argues that he should get the chance before the House goes down Impeachment Road. Trump made the constitutional argument on Twitter last night, and continued in a similar vein this morning.

In another constitutional argument, he also wants Adam Schiff interrogated and arrested for “Treason.” And that is called overplaying your hand, to put it mildly:

His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great Chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things, then said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 29, 2019

….In addition, I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the “Whistleblower.” Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 29, 2019

Trump escalated to asking for Schiff’s arrest this morning:

Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2019

This is as stupid as Schiff’s parody last week. It’s incredible that we have to explain this to adults, but what Trump describes here bears absolutely no resemblance to treason — not even in a moral sense, let alone the legal sense over which Trump rants. Article III Section 3 of the Constitution establishes the only legal definition of treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

In other words, it requires a declaration of war (which we haven’t had since World War II) and explicit aid to the enemy named by it. Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing! Nor is what Schiff did treason in a moral sense; he’s attacking Trump, not the United States of America. We do not have lese majeste laws in the US; one is allowed to criticize the president, even unfairly, even dishonestly, without it being a case of treason. Schiff may be lying, he may be smearing Trump, and he may be abusing his position as House Intel chair, but those are all things that fall a very, very long way short from treason. Or even fraud, although at least that one’s arguably in the ballpark in the moral sense, if not legal.

If Barack Obama had accused Republicans pushing the birther conspiracy theory of treason and called for their arrest, his critics would have screamed for Obama’s impeachment. If Trump wants to make a case that Schiff’s dishonest about him abusing his office, then just stick to that. It would be a lot easier to defend Trump against allegations of abusing the powers of his office if Trump wasn’t going all Red Queen in demanding Schiff’s arrest for a non-existent crime. Just sayin’.

Anyway, the whistleblower does plan to meet with someone, but it’s not Trump:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff said Sunday that his panel has reached an agreement to secure testimony from the anonymous whistleblower whose detailed complaint launched an impeachment investigation into President Trump.
The announcement from Schiff came on the same day that Tom Bossert, a former Trump homeland security adviser, delivered a rebuke of the president, saying in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” that he was “deeply disturbed” by the implications of Trump’s recently reported actions.

It’s not quite clear just how solid this agreement is. His attorney Mark Zaid was more ambiguous about a specific date for this meeting, and even whether it had been fully nailed down:

One of the whistleblower’s attorneys, Mark Zaid, said in a statement that bipartisan negotiations in both chambers are ongoing “and we understand and agree that protecting the whistleblower’s identity is paramount.” He added that no date or time for the testimony has been set.

Eventually the meeting will take place, but almost surely in closed session. Unfortunately for Trump, it’s not a judicial process that would put his liberty or property at risk, so the House does not have to allow him to personally face his accuser. Fortunately for Trump, a number of Republicans on the committee will act as his proxies in that regard, testing the veracity of the hearsay in the complaint. That might be enough … if Trump doesn’t lose his mind and call for the arrests of opposition lawmakers for the crime of being politicians. Maybe someone should take his phone away for the next few weeks.

Thee is a little problem with bringing charges against a member of the US Congress, House OR Senate, if they make some kind of statement from the floor of the House or the well of the Senate - No matter how treasonous, no matter the degree of calumny, anything spoken from there, or entered into the record CANNOT be tried in a court of law. However, each House of Congress can reprimand its own members if these statements fall outside reasonable standards of propriety.

Congressional immunity refers to a special immunity that is granted to members of Congress. The following are the exemptions granted to the members of Congress under congressional immunity :

1. A Congress member is exempted from arrest while attending a session of the body to which the member belongs, excluding an arrest for treason, breach of the peace, or a felony, or;

2.A Congress member is exempted from arrest or interrogation for any speech or debate entered into during a legislative session.

The special instance for the exemption under the second circumstance only holds if the statements in question are spoken FIRST from the floor in legislative session. If made outside the legislative session, the rules apply the same for Congress as they do for anybody.

I realize I am a Trump supporter but regardless of names and party, I viewed Schiff’s reading of a purported transcript, a transcript which had not been released and which was thought would never be released, I viewed Schiff’s reading of what he called a copy of the transcript with utter shock.

I sat there watching over and over again this video clip of Schiff reading as if Trump was doing a mafia style shakedown (as described by Schiff).

When the transcript was surprisingly released, Schiff was challenged by what he had done and said it was a ‘parody’.

So now the President is calling for his arrest. Even if this was a Democrat President calling for arrest of a Republican, I would see nothing wrong with an expression regarding such an arrest. This was not some strange reading on a street corner, this was reading a lie into the Congressional Record from the floor of the House of Representatives.

Schiff’s reading of a false transcript into the Congressional Record is an act of treason. It was an attempt to portray the President as a dictator who overstepped the bounds of law. It was an act designed to foment another coup.

Ed Morrissey describes the President’s call for arresting Schiff on Treason as ‘overplaying his hand’ but it is not overplaying. It rightly puts the focus on Schiff while encouraging Americans to question Schiff’s loyalties.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.