If you frequent American political Twitter, you cannot ignore that right wing accounts have gone crazy in the later hours of Wednesday, repeating a name over and over, claiming that this person is the whistleblower who has brought the Trump presidency to its knees. Indeed, the tweeters have made no secret that they are trying to get the name to trend, thus garnering even greater online publicity. Many of the tweets are angry, and clearly care not that by publishing this name, they are placing this person's life is in jeopardy.
I will not give these tweeters the satisfaction and use the name in my writing. But consider for moment just how sick this is. There is a group of people so deranged that they care more for the fact that their president's corruption has been exposed and corroborated, than for the life of another human being.
Take a step back. President Trump released a memorandum on the telephone call he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Although the memorandum is not a complete transcript, it contains enough detail to show that Trump strong-armed Ukraine, reminding Zelensky that the United States provides more assistance to Ukraine than Western European countries, but that the relationship was not entirely reciprocal. Then once Zelensky mentioned Ukraine's desire to purchase more anti-tank missiles, Trump is recorded as stating, "I would like you to do us a favor though." The rest of the memorandum details how Trump requested that Zelensky open an investigation to undermine the findings of the Mueller report, and to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. That is, the memorandum of the phone call that Trump claims was perfect clearly established that Trump placed pressure on Zelensky to dig up dirt that would help Trump's personal political agenda.
From the line of witnesses who have been interviewed by the three House committees currently conducting the information gathering phase of the impeachment inquiry, we have learned that Trump circumvented normal State Department procedures by sending his private attorney Rudolph Giuliani across the world to pressure Ukrainian officials into opening these investigations. We have learned that Trump dangled the prospects of a meeting between Trump and the newly elected Ukrainian President, but conditioned it on the commencement of those investigations. We learned that Trump did indeed withhold congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, on the condition that Ukraine make a public announcement that it had begun investigating the Bidens. We have learned that Trump's aids wanted to see a draft of any statement by Zelensky before it went public concerning those investigations.
In short, the evidence and testimony presented to the House committees have not only corroborated the allegations made by the whistleblower in his or her complaint, but have gone a few steps beyond what the whistleblower alleged.
The identity of the whistleblower is therefore irrelevant now. The whistleblower provided the information that started the impeachment inquiry. That information has been confirmed, and continues to be confirmed, by other sources. There is no further need to interview the whistleblower.
Yet Trump has continued to harp that he deserves to know the name of the whistleblower. He has accused the whistleblower of treason and espionage. He has threatened the life of the whistelblower, saying that they ought to do with this person what they "used to do" with spies. That is, execute him or her. Trump knows full well that his inflammatory words could inspire the more extreme of his supporters, who could easily attempt to take matters into their own hands.
What's worse is that the name of the whistleblower has alleged been leaked to the Republicans who are part of the impeachment inquiry for some time now. Republicans are reported to have used this name several times in their questions of the witnesses, trying to build a case that the whistleblower had a bias against the President.
Indeed, not only have the most recent tweets revealed the alleged whistleblower's name, they have revealed his or her job and his or her specific employer, they have published photographs alleged to be the whistleblower, they have set out the whistleblower's work history and political leanings, all in an effort to make up an argument that the whistleblower was a partisan and that his or her information could not be trusted.
But again, what could possibly be the purpose of this now? The information in the complaint is consistent with the memorandum of the telephone call, and has been corroborated by other witnesses. The whistleblower's own biases is completely irrelevant, given the corroborating evidence. The only purpose releasing the identity, including work history, political leanings, and photographs is to work up the emotions of the President's base. Because they already oppose the impeachment inquiry, what else are they expected to do with this pent-up emotion if not act on it.
And that is the ultimate goal of the Republican Party. It is not to protect our republic from corruption. It is not to be patriotic. It goes beyond being loyal to the President. It is to send a message to this whistleblower, as well as any other potential whistleblower. That message is that despite laws intended to protect you for exposing allegedly corrupt practices, you will be in danger if you come forward. And isn't that more in line with what an autocrat would do than a leader of a democratic republic. The GOP has indeed fallen far from its roots.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Header Photo
Showing posts with label corroborate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corroborate. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Legally, Hearsay Can Support a Criminal Investgation
Ever since the jaw dropping details of the whistleblower complaint was released publicly, President Trump and his friends have been trying desperately to attack the whistleblower’s credibility. Through that complaint, the whistleblower detailed a shakedown perpetrated by Trump through his private lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, of the Ukrainian Government, going back to a time before Volodymyr Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine. Trump and Giuliani have been trying to get Ukraine to provide dirt to undermine the conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, as reached by the US intelligence community, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s investigation. Trump and Giuliani also wanted Ukraine to provide information to damage the reputation of Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden. One argument Trump has used is that the whistleblower only had “second class” information.
Of course, Trump meant that the whistleblower had second-hand knowledge, meaning the whistleblower did not listen to the telephone call with Zelensky himself. Rather, the whistleblower collected information concerning Giuliani’s pressure on Ukrainian officials from other people. Essentially, Trump’s friends, such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, claim that Trump cannot be impeached based on “hearsay.” Hearsay, as every lawyer knows, is when a witness tries to testify regarding something the witness heard another person say. Although the law of hearsay is complex, with some exceptions hearsay is inadmissible in a trial and cannot support a criminal conviction.
Setting aside the fact that impeachment is a political process, and not a legal criminal proceeding, what Trump, and his friends such as Graham, forget is that Trump has not been impeached yet. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has only announced that the House has opened an impeachment inquiry. This means that the House will formally begin acquiring evidence and holding hearings for the purpose of determining whether to impeach Trump. That is, the House will commence an investigation into Trump’s actions.
This is where the hearsay defense falls apart. Even if impeachment were a true criminal proceeding, the use of hearsay would not invalidate the commencement of an investigation. For example, pursuant to US law, hearsay can be used to issue a search warrant. A warrant can be issued upon a showing of probable cause. Hearsay can establish probable cause if it has indicia of reliability. Indicia of reliability can include information about the person’s background, and details that can be corroborated. Here
Concerning the whistleblower's background, the New York Times claims that he is a CIA Analyst who was attached to the White House. This would mean that the whistleblower was trained in collecting facts, and providing an analysis of what those facts mean. He would have training in foreign affairs. He would also have access to people who work with the President on a daily basis, who would have direct first-hand knowledge of the events and processes described,
Additionally, the details concerning the telephone call and the pressure placed on Ukraine have been, and are continuing to be, corroborated. First, Trump acknowledged that he placed pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky concerning Biden. Trump himself said to reporters, “Even the Ukrainian government put out a statement that that was a perfect call, there was no pressure put on them whatsoever. But there was pressure put on with respect to Joe Biden. What Joe Biden did for his son, that’s something they should be looking at.” Thus, even before the White House released the memorandum of the telephone call, Trump admitted the substance of the call, and that his aim was to compel Zelensky to provide information on Biden.
Then, the release of the memorandum of the telephone conversation itself confirmed details the whistleblower disclosed in his complaint. This included Trump referring to his view that while the United States has been good to Ukraine, the relationship has not always been reciprocal. Indeed, as recorded in the memorandum, Trump specifically asked Zelensky for a favor, which appeared to be connected to Zelensky's expressed desire to buy more Javelin missiles. This "favor" actually turned out to be two. trump wanted Ukraine to investigate whether the server of the Democratic National Committe taht had been hacked was in Ukraine. He also wanted information on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. The whistleblower mentioned both of these in his complaint.
Moreover, Giuliani himself has been corroborating the allegation that he has been acting as the go between for Trump to Ukrainian officials, and that this has been going on for some time. Giuliani has been making appearances on television confirming that he traveled around the world to meet with Ukrainian officials and to talk about Joe Biden.
With this much corroboration, the whistleblower’s allegations would almost certainly be ruled to be supported by indicia of reliability and thus support a finding of probable cause.
Hearsay can be used to identify potential witnesses. In this instance, the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings. It is perfectly acceptable to use the information provided by the whistleblower to identify people working in the White House from whom the Committee will want to hear. In fact, Judiciary Committee Chair Adam Schiff announced that the committee is working with the whistleblower's lawyers to have the whistleblower testify before the committee. When testifying before the committee, the whistleblower can identify with whom he spoke concerning his allegations, and how he knows about the process the White House used to try to cover up the phone call. This will help the committee identify witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the allegations, and what other evidence the committee will need to subpoena. Over the next few months, we can expect there to be ongoing testimony by White House staff, Rudy Giuliani, and members of the intelligence community concerning the pressure Trump placed on Ukraine.
It is important to keep in mind that impeachment itself is not the end process. That is, a president is not removed from office simply because the House votes in favor of impeachment. If comparisons to criminal law are to be maintained, impeachment is more like an indictment. It represents the House concluding that there are reasons why a majority of House members believe the president has abused his office and deserves to be removed. Whether the president is actually removed is determined by the Senate, which holds a trial over which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. It will be up to the Senate to determine its own rules on how the trial proceeds, just as the House decides the rules concerning impeachment.
At this time, the United States is just at the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. To say that the whistleblower’s allegations, as outlined in his complaint, cannot support the opening of an investigation is just plain wrong. These allegations, which already have corroborating evidence, can and should serve the basis of identifying avenues the Judiciary Committee should pursue in collecting further evidence to permit the House to decide whether ultimately to impeach President Trump.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Of course, Trump meant that the whistleblower had second-hand knowledge, meaning the whistleblower did not listen to the telephone call with Zelensky himself. Rather, the whistleblower collected information concerning Giuliani’s pressure on Ukrainian officials from other people. Essentially, Trump’s friends, such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, claim that Trump cannot be impeached based on “hearsay.” Hearsay, as every lawyer knows, is when a witness tries to testify regarding something the witness heard another person say. Although the law of hearsay is complex, with some exceptions hearsay is inadmissible in a trial and cannot support a criminal conviction.
Setting aside the fact that impeachment is a political process, and not a legal criminal proceeding, what Trump, and his friends such as Graham, forget is that Trump has not been impeached yet. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has only announced that the House has opened an impeachment inquiry. This means that the House will formally begin acquiring evidence and holding hearings for the purpose of determining whether to impeach Trump. That is, the House will commence an investigation into Trump’s actions.
This is where the hearsay defense falls apart. Even if impeachment were a true criminal proceeding, the use of hearsay would not invalidate the commencement of an investigation. For example, pursuant to US law, hearsay can be used to issue a search warrant. A warrant can be issued upon a showing of probable cause. Hearsay can establish probable cause if it has indicia of reliability. Indicia of reliability can include information about the person’s background, and details that can be corroborated. Here
Concerning the whistleblower's background, the New York Times claims that he is a CIA Analyst who was attached to the White House. This would mean that the whistleblower was trained in collecting facts, and providing an analysis of what those facts mean. He would have training in foreign affairs. He would also have access to people who work with the President on a daily basis, who would have direct first-hand knowledge of the events and processes described,
Additionally, the details concerning the telephone call and the pressure placed on Ukraine have been, and are continuing to be, corroborated. First, Trump acknowledged that he placed pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky concerning Biden. Trump himself said to reporters, “Even the Ukrainian government put out a statement that that was a perfect call, there was no pressure put on them whatsoever. But there was pressure put on with respect to Joe Biden. What Joe Biden did for his son, that’s something they should be looking at.” Thus, even before the White House released the memorandum of the telephone call, Trump admitted the substance of the call, and that his aim was to compel Zelensky to provide information on Biden.
Then, the release of the memorandum of the telephone conversation itself confirmed details the whistleblower disclosed in his complaint. This included Trump referring to his view that while the United States has been good to Ukraine, the relationship has not always been reciprocal. Indeed, as recorded in the memorandum, Trump specifically asked Zelensky for a favor, which appeared to be connected to Zelensky's expressed desire to buy more Javelin missiles. This "favor" actually turned out to be two. trump wanted Ukraine to investigate whether the server of the Democratic National Committe taht had been hacked was in Ukraine. He also wanted information on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. The whistleblower mentioned both of these in his complaint.
Moreover, Giuliani himself has been corroborating the allegation that he has been acting as the go between for Trump to Ukrainian officials, and that this has been going on for some time. Giuliani has been making appearances on television confirming that he traveled around the world to meet with Ukrainian officials and to talk about Joe Biden.
With this much corroboration, the whistleblower’s allegations would almost certainly be ruled to be supported by indicia of reliability and thus support a finding of probable cause.
Hearsay can be used to identify potential witnesses. In this instance, the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings. It is perfectly acceptable to use the information provided by the whistleblower to identify people working in the White House from whom the Committee will want to hear. In fact, Judiciary Committee Chair Adam Schiff announced that the committee is working with the whistleblower's lawyers to have the whistleblower testify before the committee. When testifying before the committee, the whistleblower can identify with whom he spoke concerning his allegations, and how he knows about the process the White House used to try to cover up the phone call. This will help the committee identify witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the allegations, and what other evidence the committee will need to subpoena. Over the next few months, we can expect there to be ongoing testimony by White House staff, Rudy Giuliani, and members of the intelligence community concerning the pressure Trump placed on Ukraine.
It is important to keep in mind that impeachment itself is not the end process. That is, a president is not removed from office simply because the House votes in favor of impeachment. If comparisons to criminal law are to be maintained, impeachment is more like an indictment. It represents the House concluding that there are reasons why a majority of House members believe the president has abused his office and deserves to be removed. Whether the president is actually removed is determined by the Senate, which holds a trial over which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. It will be up to the Senate to determine its own rules on how the trial proceeds, just as the House decides the rules concerning impeachment.
At this time, the United States is just at the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. To say that the whistleblower’s allegations, as outlined in his complaint, cannot support the opening of an investigation is just plain wrong. These allegations, which already have corroborating evidence, can and should serve the basis of identifying avenues the Judiciary Committee should pursue in collecting further evidence to permit the House to decide whether ultimately to impeach President Trump.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)