Material Witnesses Must be Heard – or House Impeachment is a Fraud

AMAC ^ | November 12, 2019 | Robert B. Charles

[gattaca]

Openness is not just glancing through a keyhole – but entering the castle. In legal terms, a credible, legitimate impeachment inquiry must entertain material witnesses, just as a credible criminal proceeding or grand jury must do. To shutout key witnesses upends due process, makes a mockery of the Sixth Amendment, and disserves the American people. Yet that is what is happening.

To be specific, the impeachment process is now officially off the rails. The longer this charade continues, the bigger a debacle it becomes. No impeachment in US history ever started in the House Intelligence Committee, or under a cloak of secrecy. This one did. There remains no excuse for that deception. Impeachment is the exclusive province of the Judiciary Committee – an open committee.

Compelled to open impeachment, House leaders now selectively pick witnesses. This too is wrong. In the name of justice, material witness to a criminal inquiry – and impeachment is the constitutional surrogate for a criminal inquiry – must be entertained.

Put differently, you cannot put a thumb – let alone your whole bodyweight – on Lady Liberty’s scale, to tip a constitutional impeachment process toward guilt. If material witnesses exist who undermine that finding, they must be heard.

Specifically, in this impeachment, more than a dozen material witnesses exist – who may never be heard. Who are they? To summarize, they fall into four categories.

The first category is material witnesses who formally accused the president. That groups starts with two “whistleblowers,” one who proffered falsehoods and hearsay, the other his source.

Both must appear. Why? Five reasons. Testimony from these two represents the “best evidence” of what they allege – their testimony is better, as a matter of law, than their written complaint. Second, their testimony must be cross-examined, as a matter of truth finding.

Third, their credibility is in question. Are they part of a political gambit to unseat a president, or unbiased? Is the first whistleblower’s attorney, who reportedly advocated a “coup,” part of some larger plan? If so, does attorney-client privilege hold? Did the first whistleblower craft the complaint alone, or with help from the Intelligence Committee – a committee that now sits in judgment?

Fourth, the whistleblowers must testify to satisfy the Sixth Amendment, which permits the accused – here, a president – to confront his accusers. The whistleblowers are his accusers, and any impeachment requires the accusers to face the one they accuse.

Finally, these whistleblowers must testify because they may be in direct violation of federal law, revealing classified material. The president’s declassification of the call transcript is immaterial to their potential guilt.

All this leads to a second set of material witnesses, those who may have collaborated. The group includes Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, as well as one or more Committee, Congressional, White House or State Department staff. Schiff’s testimony should be mandatory, others as implicated.

A third set of material witnesses are those who may vindicate the president’s request that Ukraine cooperate on a public corruption probe. That includes Hunter Biden, potentially his father and partner.

Why? In short, if Republicans establish probable cause to believe Hunter Biden committed a crime under US law, for example selling influence of his Vice President father or perceived influence, or that his father knew this was happening and it would benefit his son, then under the US-Ukrainian anti-public corruption treaty of 2000, seeking relevant information would be legal.

Put differently, if the son of any public figure, with or without that figure’s knowledge, commits US crimes in Ukraine – or in China – US authorities have the right to know that facts. That is what the US-Ukraine treaty is all about. Whether one is running for president should not be relevant. No one gets a “get out of jail free” card or immunity, for prior crimes.

Finally, a fourth category of material witnesses who must be heard. These are witnesses pointing to criminal origins of the Russia-collusion probe. If a leader at the FBI, CIA, DNI, National Security Council, or Obama White House abused the statutory FISA process, conducted illegal surveillance on the Trump campaign, released presidential call transcripts, or was involved in illegal leaks, this kicks the legs out from under an obstruction article of impeachment.

Put differently, these witnesses may vindicate the president. The object of an honest impeachment inquiry is truth, not an orchestrated or preordained guilty finding. Impeachment is a serious, bipartisan, constitutional process, not an adolescent “gotcha” game.

All this returns us to a basic problem. The impeachment investigation seems to be off the rails – in a phrase, illegitimate. The only way to restore legitimacy is open hearings with these four sets of material witnesses. There is no other way to finding the truth.

If House Democrats refuse to hear from them, we know all we need to know. In that case, the impeachment inquiry is pure politics. The castle is out of bounds, keyhole all we get. In that case, impeachment is just a fraud; it never was about the truth.

[PGalt]

“Everything about socialism is sham and affectation.” - 23.11 Ch23; Economic Harmonies; Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

[PGalt]

Ch23 Evil

[rktman]

Material witness? Not sure there actually is one with all the charges and accusations and counter charges and call outs for using third and fourth hand information. Were I an AG or judge it would be tossed with prejudice.

[Wonder Warthog]

C’mon folks, call “impeachment” what it REALLY is....a “kangaroo court”.

[day10]

The Pubbies don’t have the stones to stand up and challenge and, if they did, they would be painted fraudulently in the media. They are being steamrolled by the Rats and media.

[bwest]

It’s a fraud either way.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

What do Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff & Jerrold Nadler have in common with Adolf Hitler & Joseph Stalin and their justice trail system? “Only one side gets heard”!!! What a farce....the American people should be ashamed that they let this Pelosi/Schiff, Kangaroo Court continue. Democrats, Pelosi, Schiff & Nadler should be jailed...period!!!

Every person that is accused of committing a crime has the right to face his accuser...period. The Whistle Blower must be put on the testimony stand...now!!!

Good morning, “NAZI, Communist, Fascist, Democrats, Criminals, Pelosi, Schiff & Nadler!!!

[Dogbert41]

Yep.

[Grampa Dave]

Sen. Rand Paul: "You've heard of the Constitution, right? The Constitution has the Sixth Amendment."

Paul went on to explain that the Sixth Amendment included the right of the accused to confront any accusers, suggesting that allowing the whistleblower to remain anonymous would then be a de facto denial of Trump’s Sixth Amendment rights.

Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham also argued that the whistleblower was not guaranteed anonymity, telling reporters, “The whistleblower statute was never meant to give you anonymity. It was meant to allow you to come forward without being fired.”

Read the entire article at The Daily Caller: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10d52uEgxg165jHE0KBwLsRJg9jn5Icdj4d078u2S1eA/edit

Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[I want the USA back]

Expect democrats to respect any part of due process? I don’t. They expect to find him guilty, with the media hiding the ugly process from the public.

The media will refuse to tell the folks anything the dems do that is unfair. The folks will turn on the 6 PM news and hear only that side of the story.

Expect fairness? Remember what they did to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch?

The best revenge is to reelect TRUMP. I will go to the polls to vote if I have to crawl to the place on my hands and knees, dodging traffic, dragging my bloody stumps the whole 4 miles to triumphantly cast my vote against the destruction of this country.

[monkeyshine]

probable cause to believe Hunter Biden committed a crime under US law, for example selling influence of his Vice President father or perceived influence, or that his father knew this was happening and it would benefit his son, then under the US-Ukrainian anti-public corruption treaty of 2000, seeking relevant information would be legal.

I am not sure probable cause is the standard here. It should be, but the FBI made the argument that investigating Trump could be done as a counter-intelligence matter on 'reasonable suspicion'. Second, the appearance of corruption does exist - Hunter was being paid by Burisma, Burisma was investigated by Ukrainian prosecutor, Burisma lobbied the US Government to intervene and mentions Hunter and his business partner are on their board, Biden then flies to Ukraine and blackmails Ukraine into firing the prosecutor investigating his son's benefactor. It is a 'quid pro quo' using US foreign aid that directly benefits his family. That may be probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion. And the clincher is that the POTUS did not ask for information personally he asked that Ukraine cooperate with the Department of Justice which is the proper place for such investigations of corruption to occur.

[FormerFRLurker]

It’s the House Republicans’ job to defend Trump at this point. If they are not defending Trump that tells me that either they believe he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors or that they somehow think this will win them points in the next election (nope).

[FormerFRLurker]

Technically the 6th Amendment only grants you the right to face your accuser during your trial and we are not yet at the trial stage of impeachment. That would be if and when impeachment charges are brought against President Trump in front of the full Senate. If at that point the Dems still refuse to release the whistleblower’s identity then we have a Constitutional crisis. Until then they have more leeway.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks.

You are right, this is not a legal trial.

It is a political sham!

[JimRed]

When/if the witnesses ARE heard, this impeachment effort will STILL be a fraud.

[V V Camp Enari 67-68]

This is no anywhere close to being impeachment. Calling this impeachment is absurd on its face and a complete and utter travesty of the checks and balances set forth by our constitution. In other words a bunch of bull crap.

[V V Camp Enari 67-68]

This is no anywhere close to being impeachment. Calling this impeachment is absurd on its face and a complete and utter travesty of the checks and balances set forth by our constitution. In other words a bunch of bull crap.

[Wonder Warthog]

"This is no anywhere close to being impeachment. Calling this impeachment is absurd on its face and a complete and utter travesty of the checks and balances set forth by our constitution. In other words a bunch of bull crap."

I agree...which is why the word "impeachment" is in quotes and I suggest we should instead call it what it is...a kangaroo court.