In the coming days, we’re likely to find out more about the whistleblower. An exclusive interview with the Washington Post, a la Christine Blasey Ford, seems likely with or without a reveal of identity.
It’s too soon to say conclusively this was a CIA analyst or other intelligence community member, but if that turns out to be the case, then the implications are frightening. It will show that the worst conspiracy theories about the “deep state” were not conspiracy theories at all.
If CIA or other intelligence operatives are using their access to sensitive information in order to interfere in our political process, then that is a lot more frightening than a President raising the widely-reported corruption of his political opponent with the president of the country where the alleged corruption took place.
This is a lucid manner to describe things. This is a deep state actor who appears to be very upset that he/she is no longer "in the loop" in terms of gathering information on the President's diplomatic and other privileged conversations. He/she was likely someone who was a previous "leaker" to the media, and now is upset that what the President is doing is being hidden from his/her view (as it should be).
The first portion of this post describes how legal and detailed the complaint was and how it doesn't read like a real whistle blower complaint. Once you read the complaint, it's clear that it is short on real first hand information, and long on someone making a political argument against the President's actions. The President's actions (according to past precedent and pretty much all reasonable legal interpretations) was in no manner illegal. Whether it was politically motivated, or otherwise unethical could be a question to ponder, but there is no statute against the President (or other members of the Administration or intelligence community) seeking help from foreign leaders in investigations.
The idea that it is a "closing argument" is based on the idea that the complaint is written pretty much entirely in third person form (as an attorney might describe events). You would expect that the client would speak in first hand experience, but alas, the whistle blower in this case does not have ANY first hand experience. Therefor he/she is writing this as if they are prosecuting or arguing a case against the President based on second or third hand information.
* Just a note: at least one of the named sources was not even subject to listening in on the conversation as the complaint suggested. So as it stands, the complaint also has serious inaccuracies (which is probably why the statutes covering whistle blower complaints requires that the information be first hand).
Lastly, the idea that some member of the CIA has the power to just "hear some things" and come forward without any proof what-so-ever of the allegations, and have them turned over to Congress, so that Congress can make political hay out of it should be an alarming idea for anyone even remotely interested in the rule of law. So far all the complaint has gotten correct was the portion that described perfectly legal events. Pretty much all innuendo of law breaking has either been debunked or is lacking any evidence what-so-ever.
147 comments:
Hey, Ch, answer this with a simple, clear cut answer.
You and Trump seem to want to say that his conversation with an Ukrainian official was no serious matter, had nothing harmful or criminal about it, nothing to be upset about.
Why then did the White House start making every attempt to lock it away and hide it from the public almost immediately after it took place, and before anyone outside their circle had even raised objections to it?
Why did some of Trump's own people immediately determine that he had done something so egregious that they had better do everything they could to try to hide it from the public?
Give us a simple answer to that, please.
And of course there should be nothing to fear from a verbatim transcript, right?
______________
Feinstein Demands Verbatim Transcript of Call
September 27, 2019 at 11:01 am EDT
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said after closed-door briefings with the acting director of national intelligence and the intelligence community inspector general that she wants a “word-for-word” transcript of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, The Hill reports.
She noted the whistleblower complaint “suggests that an ‘official word-for-word transcript of the call was produced.”
Well James...
It's a matter of the constitution and the law. If you are uninterested in the constitution or the law then I guess that doesn't matter. But the entire pretense of your argument is off base.
Presidential conversations with foreign diplomats are privileged. They are not for the listening or viewing of low level CIA agents, and they are never, ever determined to be "public". This has been true of every President in our lifetimes.
While it's true that there are people who listen in on these conversations for a variety of reasons, the recordings and transcripts are the sole property of the White House (by both constitutional and the law).
The reason why these conversations have been moved to a secured server with limited action was to control illegal leaking of privileged Presidential conversations. It has worked. The leaks regarding things the President says have come to an abrupt halt in recent months.
Again... if you fail to accept that the President (any President) is in his rights too keep diplomatic conversations privileged and that leaking is illegal... then there going to be no reasoning with you.
Lastly, once the "public" request was made for these conversations the President quickly agreed to make them public if the Ukrainians agreed.
Which he did.
So you see James... he only kept them from the people who had no legal authority to see them. He didn't just keep "this" conversation private but is keeping all of his privileged conversations away from those who have no right to them.
So if you have a problem with this...
Then your problem is with the Constitution, the Law, and the idea of Presidential privilege in general.
not Trump.
Well now, Ch, this particular communication was treated very differently from other communications of the same sort. Why was that?
As a matter of fact, some of Trump's own people expressed surprise that this particular communication was handled in that way.
Surprise and consternation, I should have said.
In other words, the "whistle blower" was not the only person who was upset. Numerous Trump people were.
Well now, Ch, this particular communication was treated very differently from other communications of the same sort. Why was that?
No James... all Presidential phone records with diplomats are being kept in a secure location. Have been for some time. There is nothing unusual or different about this one.
I don't think the evidence supports what you just said. Apparently this one was moved to a different, supposedly more secure and less accessible location.
You better check into this and find out the truth before you comment further.
Verbatim Transcript of Call Moved to Separate Network
Just Security: “According to a person familiar with the content of the complaint who spoke to Just Security, when the call was over, senior White House officials pulled the verbatim transcript out of the system that it is traditionally stored on and moved it into a separate system reserved for extremely sensitive/highly compartmented programs.
“This person said that the call between the two leaders had nothing to do with highly classified programs. But, by moving it into this separate system, the White House could control who could see the transcript: only a very small group of people.”
The Three Socialist Stooges of CHT are we are in a Recession .
Income Up again.
"Personal income Aug. 0.4%"
Dems are pissed at NY Times for essentially outing the whistleblower who wasn't actually there. So he's a CIA officer who was assigned to the Whitehouse. Well that should be a short list. What's the bet that asshole John Brennan is behind this?
Trying to deflect, Kansas Dem?
Trying to deflect, myballs?
Lost Years Bitch.
Marie Louise Yovanovitch United States Ambassador to Ukraine.
Whistleblower Says White House Took Unusual Steps to Limit Access to Ukraine Call Record
by Kate Brannen
September 26, 2019
In addition to what was said during a phone conversation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the whistleblower was also concerned about how the record of the phone call was handled by the White House.
According to a person familiar with the content of the complaint who spoke to Just Security, when the call was over, senior White House officials pulled the verbatim transcript out of the system that it is traditionally stored on and moved it into a separate system reserved for extremely sensitive/highly compartmented programs.
This person said that the call between the two leaders had nothing to do with highly classified programs. But, by moving it into this separate system, the White House could control who could see the transcript: only a very small group of people.
Reporting by the Washington Post on Wednesday night included similar details:
"The complaint also alleges a pattern of obfuscation at the White House, in which officials moved the records of some of Trump’s communications with foreign officials onto a separate computer network from where they are normally stored, this person said. The whistleblower alleges that is what officials did with Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky, an action that alarmed the intelligence community inspector general and prompted him to request that the White House retain records of the Zelensky call, the person who read the complaint said."
Former National Security Council and Justice Department officials said this could suggest the White House was trying to hide what Trump said to Zelensky, as it would be extremely unusual to store it in the system reserved for code word programs, unless there was a genuine concern that the conversation included this kind of sensitive, classified material.
Luke Hartig
@LukeHartig
Wow, this is significant, in that such information would already be stored on the Top Secret system, which is where NSC typically does its business. To move it to a separate system does indeed point to trying to hide something. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1177049007580991489 …
Kate Brannen
✔
@K8brannen
Replying to @K8brannen
The call had nothing to do with highly classified programs, but by moving it into this separate system, the White House could control who could see the transcript: only a very small group of people.
4:57 AM - Sep 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Luke Hartig's other Tweets
By statute, the director of national intelligence (DNI) was required to send the whistleblower’s complaint to Congress once the Intelligence Community inspector general (ICIG) determined it was a credible, “urgent concern,” which meant that it was “related to an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information.”
After the ICIG shared the complaint with the DNI, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel got involved and took the view that the substance of the phone call itself did not relate to intelligence activity within the DNI’s authority. However, these new details suggest the whistleblower’s complaint raised issues that could be considered within the DNI’s purview: classification and intelligence record keeping.
Apparently this one was moved to a different, supposedly more secure and less accessible location.
Nope... from several reliable sources the President has move ALL PRIVILEGED conversations off line. This was openly done as a means to combat ILLEGAL leaking of these conversations.
I am 100% sure that there was nothing unusual or different about this conversation. I think that is just a manner to make something he is doing as a rule sound like it was just done for this.
From your own source, James:
The complaint also alleges a pattern of obfuscation at the White House, in which officials moved the records of some of Trump’s communications with foreign officials onto a separate computer network from where they are normally stored, this person said. The whistleblower alleges that is what officials did with Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky, an action that alarmed the intelligence community inspector general and prompted him to request that the White House retain records of the Zelensky call, the person who read the complaint said."
Again... when the President talks to a foreign official then that becomes privileged diplomatic information. This is exactly what I just stated.
This particular call is being treated the way his other calls with foreign leaders is being treated.
And guess what... the CIA is NOT privy to this information. So while it might be unusual and the CIA might not like it... it's perfectly legal.
More to the point... it's necessary considering the person who filed this complaint did not apparently have ANY authority of himself to view this information. So had he been viewing it, it would have been without regards to the fact he/she did not have any reason to view it.
And rather than file a complaint... he would have likely just leaked it.
CHT That is unfair to point out information in Jane's post that makes her look stupid.
The Crime remains the Same.
Trump beat Hillary.
Rassmusin
Trump 47
Biden 43
This is crushing Biden.
as it tunes out, this ukraine narrative has been under construction for for a month:
Wait a MINUTE: Tweet Adam ‘Schiffty’ Schiff sent out a MONTH ago looks very, very familiar (hint, whistleblower)
Adam Schiff
✔
@RepAdamSchiff
Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent.
It doesn’t take a stable genius to see the magnitude of this conflict.
Or how destructive it is to our national security.
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1166839608811970560 …
Natasha Bertrand
✔
@NatashaBertrand
BREAKING: Trump has asked his national security team to review funding for Ukraine, to ensure the money is being used “in the best interests” of the US. The funding has been put on hold.
News comes days after Trump advocated for reinstating Russia to G7. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-ukraine-military-aid-russia-1689531 …
36.9K
8:17 PM - Aug 28, 2019
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/09/27/wait-a-minute-tweet-adam-schiffty-schiff-sent-out-a-month-ago-looks-very-very-familiar-hint-whistleblower/
KansasDemocrat said...
CHT That is unfair to point out information in Jane's post that makes her look stupid.
Actually I think CHT answered all of the "pastor's" questions and has educated him so that he can now understand the answer to his "question"
If he was fair he would thank CHT for informing him and accept his newfound knowledge and even educate his friends.
But we know better.
James was just misreading the issue....
The complaint from the CIA is that the President is moving "conversations" with foreign leaders off line and to a more secured server. James mistook that action with the idea that this particular conversation was treated differently.
It's a semantic argument.
Yes... this conversation was treated differently than the bulk of Presidential conversations.
But... no this conversations was NOT treated differently than other conversations that he has with foreign diplomats or foreign leaders.
Conversations with foreign leaders are being treated different than other Presidential conversations. This particular one was not singled out for anything special "within" that new framework.
Moreover, this was done very specifically to combat ILLEGAL leaking... which not only affects our National Security but can also affect the national security of the countries of the leaders he is speaking to.
So it's almost as if he has an obligation to foreign leaders to keep these conversations from the people who have been ILLEGALLY leaking them to the media.
rrb said...
as it tunes out, this ukraine narrative has been under construction for a month:
The major "scandals" involving Russia, Kavanaugh and now the Ukraine obviously have been manufactured, except the one the left called manufactured, the border crisis..
So a bit of clarification here:
The decision as to which conversations with foreign leaders are moved to a different more secured server is actually made by the National Security Counsel and their lawyers.
According to what I am reading, the NSC (not the White House) will review conversations with foreign leaders and then determine if there is anything of a classified nature (or sensitive to the other country) within the conversation.
If there is anything that would be a problem if it was leaked out, then that conversation is moved to the more secured servers. In the case of this particular call, there were discussions regarding military aid and sales of weapons that was the reason it was moved.
So I stand corrected that "all" conversations with Foreign diplomats are being moved. Apparently on conversations with Foreign diplomats that the National Security Counsel deems necessarily sensitive are moved.
But the two facts still remain:
1) The movement of this call was not unique or even unusual
2) The reason for this change was due to the fact that sensitive or even classified information from international calls was being leaked.
Why then did the White House start making every attempt to lock it away and hide it from the public almost immediately after it took place, and before anyone outside their circle had even raised objections to it?
Because in involved details of military aid you didn't want the Russians to necessarily know. So thanks a lot.They now know all the details.
They have the power to impeach because they hold a majority in the House, and the prospect of a juicy show trial, which Daniel Greenfield discusses here, is probably another driving motive:
"Unless the Democrats take the Senate, impeachment would be a meaningless show trial. But Marxist regimes love show trials of political opponents. The Marxist element in the House desperately wants a show trial of President Trump because such a proceeding is an explicit rejection of our political system."
This is in line with other trends going on around the world, most particularly in Western Europe, where officials wish to ignore the will of the people if that will conflicts with theirs. This is a new aristocracy which feels it has enough power to accomplish this. Propaganda from the MSM enables them, as well.
Greenfield continues:
"Impeachment is not just meant to be a trial of President Trump, but of the voters who chose him. Its outcome, whatever the composition of the Senate, is meant to be an argument for remaking the system of elections, whether by abolishing the Electoral College or tampering with the judiciary, that would take the power further out of the hands of the voters and concentrate them with the right sorts of people."
A Trump presidency is unconscionable to them and was from the start.
Democrats and others in this new aristocracy had grown very used to having a GOP whose members played the game like gentlemen (and that includes the Republican women). Every now and then there had been an eruption from the more combative right such as Bill Clinton’s impeachment or Gingrich’s short-lived Contract With America. But for the most part the left and the Democrats had to deal with people who were only tepidly on the right and often more than willing to play ball with the left, people such as McCain (the candidate in 2008) and Romney (2012). Even George W. Bush was no street fighter and no conservative, although they hated him for other reasons.
The left grew used to having opponents of a certain type, and Trump most definitely is not of that type. That’s why the NeverTrumpers hate him, too, perhaps even more than the left does, because the NeverTrumpers were (and are) of that type as well.
They all feel deeply betrayed, not so much by Trump as by the American people who chose him and repudiated them. And the people must not be allowed to get away with it.
Impeachment is just one part of the war against Trump that has been waged relentlessly since the day he was elected and even before. This latest issue regarding Trump’s conversation with Zelensky is notable for many things, but one of them is the evidence it gives of the relentless surveillance of Trump by moles in government willing to report every single thing he does that might be capitalized on by the anti-Trump forces. Trump can trust no one, and no foreign head of state who talks to him can trust that their communication will not be broadcast to the world.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/the-trump-impeachment-conundrum-democrats-dont-want-to-talk-about/
I've been on the phone, so I was unable to reply earlier.
Ch and others, you of course will try to excuse anything Trump does, no matter how egregious.
____________
According to a person familiar with the content of the complaint who spoke to Just Security, WHEN THE CALL WAS OVER, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS PULLED THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OUT OF THE SYSTEM THAT IT IS TRADITIONALLY STORED ON AND MOVED IT INTO A SEPARATE SYSTEM RESERVED FOR EXTREMELY SENSITIVE/HIGHLY COMPARTMENTED PROGRAMS.
This person said that the call between the two leaders HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIGHLY CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS. BUT, BY MOVING IT INTO THIS SEPARATE SYSTEM, THE WHITE HOUSE COULD CONTROL WHO COULD SEE THE TRANSCRIPT: ONLY A VERY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE.
___________
Trump and you want to say it was a perfectly innocent, normal conversation between two heads of state. Why then this this extraordinary action?
The investigators will want to ask those White House officials who made the decision to do that the same question.
Pence and one other person (I forget who it was) STRONGLY warned Trump not to release the Transcript. Why? He did anyway.
It's my memory that was only later (and probably under pressure) that Pence changed his mind and began to support Trump's decision to release.
James...
How they TRADITIONALLY stored things is irrelevant. TRADITIONALLY you didn't see conversations between the US President and the Mexican President and the US President and the Australian President leaked to the press.
So ENTIRELY because of those leaks, the National Security Counsel had determined that Diplomatic Calls with Foreign leaders are to be stored on a private server (at the discretion of the NSC).
What your link DOES NOT claim is that moving thesek conversations to the more secured areas is either illegal or unethical or even against any protocol. It's just not what has been "TRADITIONALLY" done.
This is a lot like a teenager who keeps stealing his parents car keys complaining that those car keys are now being locked in a safe and he can't steal them anymore. If the leaks of sensitive conversations had not been previously leaked, then there would be no need for this.
Again James...
This goes back to what I stated originally.
Your issue is that you simply don't respect the constitution, laws, or the simple concept that every President ever elected has had privilege to keep their diplomatic conversations private.
You want all those constitutional issues to just "go away" because you don't trust "this" President with them. But that is not how this works.
Pence and one other person (I forget who it was) STRONGLY warned Trump not to release the Transcript. Why? He did anyway.
The reason is that it sets a bad precedent.
Presidents shouldn't have to release privileged phone calls with foreign leaders and foreign leaders should feel that what they say to the US President is not going to end up on the front page of the NYT or WaPo.
TRADITIONALLY all of these phone calls were kept private.
because that is what makes the most sense.
Trump released it because had he not... then the lies that he provided quid pro quo or otherwise broke some law would have continued.
Hell, even with the release, proving that the Whistle blower was blowing smoke (not a whistle)... there are still dishonest people trying to claim it was something it was not.
Let me ask you this James
Given, according to the laws that guide whistle blowers (3033) the claim can only be found valid and urgent if it includes first hand information.
Given, according to the laws that guide whistle blowers (3033) the claim can only be found valid and urgent if it has to do with an action committed by a CIA operative or someone within the CIA.
Given that the whistle blower had "no" first hand information.
Given that the President is not a member of the CIA
Given that this means the President's actions are not covered
Given that the Director of National Intelligence disputed the IG
Given that the DNI then went to the OLC for clarification
Given that the OLC agreed with the DNI
Why do you believe that the IG in this case did not follow the actual statutes (3033) in declaring the complaint valid and urgent?
Do you believe:
1) That he simply didn't understand the law?
2) That he understood the law, but chose not to follow it?
3) Or do you believe that there was corrupt intent?
keeping in mind that the IG has strong ties to Obama officials such as Andrew McCabe...
The whistle blower was entirely upfront about what he did not know first hand, and entirely upfront about the numerous people who did have first hand knowledge and had expressed their concerns to others and to him.
Those people will need to be interviewed.
C.H. TruthSeptember 27, 2019 at 12:42 PM
Let me ask you this James
Given, according to the laws that guide whistle blowers (3033) the claim can only be found valid and urgent if it includes first hand information.
Given, according to the laws that guide whistle blowers (3033) the claim can only be found valid and urgent if it has to do with an action committed by a CIA operative or someone within the CIA.
Given that the whistle blower had "no" first hand information.
Given that the President is not a member of the CIA
Given that this means the President's actions are not covered
Given that the Director of National Intelligence disputed the IG
Given that the DNI then went to the OLC for clarification
Given that the OLC agreed with the DNI
Why do you believe that the IG in this case did not follow the actual statutes (3033) in declaring the complaint valid and urgent?
You forgot to address the foundation of the question
Now how is that going to happen since the whistleblower didn't name them? (And that was by design).
CHT
"you believe:
1) That he simply didn't understand the law?
2) That he understood the law, but chose not to follow it?
3) Or do you believe that there was corrupt intent? "
James
Nothing yet.
The whistle blower is a "HE".
When did that come out?
Joe Biden has gone into Federal Witnesses Protection since the story broke of him and his son shaking down the Ukraine Government.
Good People Don’t Defend A Bad Man.
you defended The Lost Years Pres.
he is a POS and his wife is a cheap Chicago whore
and just like that defeated Jane ran off.
@paulsperry_
STOP calling "the whistleblower" a whistleblower. He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information
Empty Skirt
"Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard on Friday threw her weight behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Trump impeachment inquiry, reversing her opposition.."
Well James...
That's not an answer.
The law doesn't allow for someone to be granted status as a whistle blower just because they are upfront and provide a concern.
The law requires them to have first hand information of something happening in their own company. This particular complaint did not offer either?
So again... Why do you believe that the IG simply didn't follow the law?
Are you arguing that he doesn't have to?
The Trump leaker has many holes in his/her story.
Socialist Democrats to lazy to vet the story first.
"House Democrats will hold a “discussion” Friday on “adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and the Trump Administration’s policies and proposals.” crazy train
Good People Don’t Defend A Bad Man.
Well since you're defending the Biden crime family I guess that doesn't make you a good person.
Roger is much more Triggered and Hate spewing on his suicidal Facebook page.
The goat fucking idiot blowing it out his ass again with
Roger is much more Triggered and Hate spewing
While all you do is keep posting lies about the economy and what others do not say.....Soooooo much stupid packaged in a single old white asshole from kansas!!!! BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!!!!!
oh that is ok he was black
"Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy noted at National Review on Thursday that then-President Barack Obama’s administration asked Ukraine to investigate Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, in 2016."
And again I note the the goat fucker is posting BULLSHIT again with....
"Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy noted at National Review
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Too fucking funny....remember....the biden's have taken millions and millions of dollars from china and the Ukraine!!!!! Another pile of steaming horsehit that has no basis in fact!!!!!!
The news for the snowflake Socialist Democrats is not good.
😁Consumer sentiment index Sept 93.2⬆️
The part the goat fucker forgot again!!!!
US consumer sentiment August 2019 preliminary - cnbc.com
www.cnbc.com/2019/08/16/us-consumer-sentiment...
U.S. consumer sentiment falls to 92.1 in August, the lowest indicator readout since the start of 2019, according to data released Friday.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives committee issued a subpoena on Friday for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, seeking to compel him to hand over documents concerning contact with the Ukrainian government.
The House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight Committees also scheduled depositions for five State Department officials over the next two weeks, including former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Ambassador Kurt Volker, the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine, and Ambassador Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.
The⬆️ US Economy with tame inflation and ever rising incomes is known as the Goldilocks economy.
Roger FB stated how he believes Hillary becomes President .
that and he is suicidal , odds are 9 to 1 the Alky offs himself before Hillary is Pres.
cd
The White House staff has supported the whistleblower report.
AP
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Friday confirmed a key detail in the intelligence whistleblower's complaint alleging that President Donald Trump abused the power of his office.
A senior administration official acknowledged that the rough transcript of Trump's July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was moved to a highly classified system maintained by the National Security Council at the direction of attorneys. The motivation and timing of the move remained unclear.
The whistleblower complaint, which is at the center of House Democrats' impeachment inquiry, said the move to "lock down" details of the call suggested that "White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call." Trump has argued everything was "appropriate."
White House attorneys were made aware of concerns about Trump's comments on the call before the intelligence community whistleblower sent his allegations to the inspector general.
The official was granted anonymity Friday to discuss sensitive matters.
Confirmation of the detail came as Trump stepped up his campaign against the anonymous whistleblower and the unnamed "White House officials" cited in the complaint, drawing a warning from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against retaliation.
The complaint alleges that Trump abused the power of his office to "solicit interference from a foreign country" in next year's U.S. election. In the July 25 phone call, days after ordering a freeze to some military assistance for Ukraine, Trump prodded the new Ukrainian president to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden and volunteered the assistance of both his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and Attorney General William Barr.
Late Thursday, Trump denounced people who might have talked to the whistleblower as "close to a spy" and suggested they engaged in treason, an act punishable by death. Then on Friday, he targeted the complainant, a CIA officer, tweeting, "Sounding more and more like the so-called Whistleblower isn't a Whistleblower at all."
He also alleged without evidence that information in the complaint has been "proved to be so inaccurate," though none of the allegations have been demonstrated to be incorrect.
Pelosi told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, "I'm concerned about some of the president's comments about the whistleblower."
She said the House panels conducting the impeachment probe will make sure there's no retaliation against people who provided information in the case. On Thursday, House Democratic chairmen called Trump's comments "witness intimidation" and suggested efforts by him to interfere with the potential witness could be unlawful.
Trump's Friday comment questioning the whistleblower's status could foreshadow an effort to argue that legal protection laws don't apply to the person, opening a new front in the president's battles with Congress. The intelligence community's inspector general found the whistleblower's complaint "credible" despite finding indications of the person's support for a different political candidate.
"U.S. consumer sentiment Aug. 92.1"
😁Consumer sentiment index Sept 93.2⬆️
The only way Hillary Clinton could become President is to get Appointed to a seat in the house of Representatives and be selected as the speaker of the house and, impeach both the President and the Vice President.
Lolololol kput'z shut the fuck up you ignored asshole.
Roger, please , spam , cut n paste.
you're winning.
admitting you believe Hillary can be President makes me 🤣 @ you Roger.
what happened w/mail order that she got a order of protection from you?
odds are 9 to 1 the Alky offs himself before Hillary is Pres.
never happen.
suicide takes courage and the alky is a sniveling fucking coward.
fake book talk is cheap.
Well James...
That's not an answer.
The law doesn't allow for someone to be granted status as a whistle blower just because they are upfront and provide a concern.
The law requires them to have first hand information of something happening in their own company. This particular complaint did not offer either?
So again... Why do you believe that the IG simply didn't follow the law?
Are you arguing that he doesn't have to?
_____________
ANSWER:
Read the following, Ch. Read all of it.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/09/politics/whistleblower-complaint-annotated/
Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”
The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/
huh.
so in august 2019 the whistleblower statute went from requiring direct knowledge to...
...hearing it from some guy who heard it from some guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from an illegal beaner hooker giving blowjobs behind a mexican restaurant dumpster....
...who heard it from some alky at an AA meeting in Hacienda Heights, CA.
nice.
The numerous people who told the whistleblower about their deep concern and worry about something they had firsthand knowledge of, to wit, the President's breaking of the law in his conversation with an official of a foreign government--those numerous expressions of concern happened in the whitleblowr's own company, Ch. He never said or claimed otherwise. So now those people must be questioned, must they not?
Revenge of the Intelligence Nerds
September 27, 2019 at 3:44 pm EDT
The Atlantic: “The intelligence official who brought Trump’s misconduct in the Ukraine scandal to light—a CIA member who was detailed to the White House, according to a report in The New York Times—didn’t do it via press leaks, or by passing it to a sympathetic lawmaker. The whistle-blower went instead through the relatively straightforward and unexciting bureaucratic process of filing a complaint with the office of the intelligence community’s inspector general.
“Filing the complaint ensured that classified information would be protected, national-security concerns would be evaluated, and ultimately, the information would reach the proper authorities. This candid and somewhat mundane process, while flawed, was surprisingly effective at holding Trump to account.
“The key was its simplicity: By channeling the details of Trump’s misconduct into a formal complaint and then feeding it into the intelligence community’s system, the whistle-blower has thrown a wrench into Trump’s heretofore insurmountable deflect-by-chaos machine.”
The numerous people who told the whistleblower about their deep concern and worry about something they had firsthand knowledge of
except for one thing pederast -
we have no way to confirm this.
and since the statute was mysteriously changed a month ago, it's a moot point anyway.
pure unadulterated and unconfirmed pure grade A bullshit is now the standard.
it's almost like CNN and the NY Times teamed up to re-write the fucking thing.
try to keep up. and not just with prepubescent children, you sick fuck.
Even Giuliani admitted that if the President approved what he said, "I don't care what he thinks!" On Fox News aka Pravda!🤩🤩🤩🤩
Now, now, Rat, such terrible language and ridiculous charges toward both the whistleblower and toward me.
"we have no way to confirm this."
It's called an investigation, Ratty.
Giuliani Would Consult Trump If Asked to Testify
Rudy Giuliani told CNN that he would not testify for the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry without consulting his client, President Trump.
He said his work for the President should be protected by attorney-client privilege.
Said Giuliani: “Ultimately, if I were to say yes and he were to say no, I can’t testify.”
__________
Maybe they will give you adjoining cells, Mr. G.
Trump has been obsessed with President Obama and his policies.
In his own transcript solicited help to get dirt on Vice President Biden. It's quite possible is that his own transcripts could get him impeached and possibly convicted by the Senate.
Giuliani to Be Paid by Kremlin-Backed Conference
“Rudy Giuliani, whose actions as President Trump’s personal lawyer have helped set in motion an impeachment inquiry, is set to appear as a paid speaker at a Kremlin-backed conference in Armenia on Tuesday — an event expected to include the participation of Russian President Vladimir Putin and other top Russian officials,” the Washington Post reports.
_____________
Bad timing, Mr. G. VERY bad.
How GOP Senators Respond to Whistleblower Report
Reporter Laura Litvan says she gets three responses from Republican senators when she asks them about the whisteblower report:
1. “I haven’t seen the whistleblower report so I can’t comment.”
2. “I’m a potential juror if there’s a Senate trial so I shouldn’t comment.”
3. Radio silence, pursed lips, rapid escape.
LOL
Jimmy the beaners hater and racist rodent bastard, has a problem with his compulsive anger disorder.
I long ago admitted that I am an alcoholic. I have been sober for 2,650 days.
I have seen angry outbursts from people who were in therapy treatment and restraining orders, acting like Jimmy.
Congrats on the nearly 3,000 days.
Rat doesn't make it through an hour, I bet.
James...
I read the actual whistle blower complaint and I don't have to have it explained to me by CNN...
The "numerous people who told the whistle blower" is what makes it NOT a first hand account. The fact that people "within" his company expressed concern is irrelevant to the law.
Again... let me ask it this way... and please give a couple of straight answers:
1) Do you actually understand the law?
2) Do you actually understand what first hand information means?
3) Do you actually understand that the actions must be associated with someone within the organization - not that they were witnessed within the organization.
4) Do you understand that if the person does not have first hand knowledge of something that happened "within" the organization that he could be accusing someone of mass murder and it still would not qualify as whistle blowing. Do you understand that gravity of the accusations are completely irrelevant to the complaint?
lastly...
Do you think you are smarter (or that CNN is smarter) about the law than the Office of Legal Counsel?
These are five simple questions James...
Can you answer them or just continue to dodge and repeat yourself.
TheWrap
Search
Search...
Search
Watch Rudy Guiliani Say He Didn’t Ask Ukraine to Investigate Joe Biden Then Immediately Contradict Himself (Video)
Heated conversation happened on Chris Cuomo's CNN show
Ross A. Lincoln | September 19, 2019 @ 10:29 PM
During an extremely heated conversation with Chris Cuomo Thursday night on CNN, Rudy Giuliani appeared to directly contradict himself when he denied he ever asked the government of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, only to say “of course I did” moments later.
Guiliani, who serves as Donald Trump’s attorney, was on to discuss the report that an intelligence community official filed a formal whistleblower complaint after becoming “alarmed” by a “promise” Trump made to an unnamed foreign leader, a complaint that the Washington Post said Thursday was at least in part connected to Ukraine.
Some minutes into the discussion, Cuomo asked Giuliani about talks he might have had with an official in Ukraine about an investigation into Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, that the Ukranian government ultimately ended.
Also Read:
Colbert Finds the Silver Lining in Report Trump Made a Troubling 'Promise' to a Foreign Leader (Video)
“Did you ask the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden?” Cuomo asked.
“No, actually I didn’t,” Giuliani replied. “I asked the Ukraine to investigate the allegations that there was interference in the election of 2016 by the Ukrainians for the benefit of Hillary Clinton, for which there is already a court finding.”
“You never asked anything about Hunter Biden? You never asked anything about Joe Biden and his role with the prosecutor?” Cuomo then asked.
Giuliani responded: “The only thing I asked about Joe Biden is to get to the bottom of how it was that Lutsenko, who was appointed, dismissed the case.”
“So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?” Cuomo asked.
“Of course I did,” said Giuliani.
He should be fired because he's not coherent.
Almost as bad as Jimmy Hitler aka @MoscowJimmy the racist rodent bastard !🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
Can you understand, Ch, that neither you nor Trump can wiggle out of this one?
1) Do you actually understand the law?Solicitation for assistance from a foreign nation is illegal.
His own transcript is what is going to get him impeached.
Well James...
I was nice enough to answer your questions in a civil manner. Across the board. Apparently you're just not up to the same task.
The fact that you take the word of a CNN pundit over the findings of the Office of Legal Counsel tells us "all" we have to know about how actually informed you are on this issue.
Which is to say you read what you want to read and listen to who you want to listen to, even when the actual legal authority tells you that they are 100% back asswards wrong.
You simply cannot get past wanting everyone to accept what some goofball at CNN has to say.
BREAKING NEWS...The whistle-blower has been NAMED!
It is Kevin Cronin of REO Speedwagon.
Sources say he..."heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another."
Well, Ch
this analysis by two CNN "goofballs" runs circles around what you say:
The whistleblower complaint, annotated
A line-by-line analysis of the report that triggered the Ukraine scandal.
By Zachary B. Wolf and Curt Merrill, CNN
Published September 26, 2019
A complaint against President Donald Trump concerning his interactions with the Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky was released with few redactions. It offers a detailed look at concerns from a government official that Trump has abused his office by soliciting “interference” from a foreign country in the 2020 presidential campaign — specifically, that he asked for help digging up damaging material on a leading Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden — and that White House officials tried to cover it up. Read the latest on the complaint. Below is a line-by-line examination of the allegations.
_________
The Honorable Richard Burr
Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
The Honorable Adam Schiff
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States House of Representatives
Dear Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff:
I am reporting an “urgent concern” in accordance with the procedures outlined in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(A). This letter is UNCLASSIFIED when separated from the attachment.
ANALYSIS: The whistleblower cites the portion of US law that deals with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community and makes clear that any “urgent concern” an intelligence community employee wants to report to Congress must first go through the inspector general.
WHISTLEBLOWER: In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.
ANALYSIS: “I have received information” is different than witnessing information. The whistleblower appears to be reporting second-hand information. That might not matter since it is thoroughly documented, and as the White House transcript of Trump’s Ukraine phone call shows, what the whistleblower alleged, at least on that front, was true.
This raises questions that the whistleblower doesn’t address in the complaint, but which Congress could investigate: Were these other officials concerned? And if the interference described below is only one kind of solicitation — “among other things” — what else did Trump try to do?
WHISTLEBLOWER: Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.
ANALYSIS: The whistleblower report was filed August 12. Trump’s call with Zelensky occurred July 25. But here the whistleblower seems to be saying US officials have been discussing the effort by Trump, Giuliani and, potentially, Barr since as early as April, the same month Zelensky assumed office. Giuliani is Trump’s personal lawyer. But Barr is the top law enforcement officer in the United States. His involvement would be extremely consequential.
WHISTLEBLOWER: I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.
ANALYSIS: There has already been an effort by the White House to use this admission — that the whistleblower did not directly witness everything in the complaint — to undermine the complaint as, in Trump’s own words, “another political hack job.” That view is not shared by the DNI or the inspector general, who took the complaint seriously. The whistleblower has asked to remain anonymous.
WHISTLEBLOWER: I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order” that “does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters,” consistent with the definition of an”urgent concern” in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(G). I am therefore fulfilling my duty to report this information, through proper legal channels, to the relevant authorities.
ANALYSIS: One of the definitions of “urgent concern” in US law is: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.”
This complaint, along with the related transcript of Trump’s Ukraine call released by the White House, has already led to calls for Trump’s impeachment. Remember, the Constitution says a President should be impeached not for breaking US law, but rather for committing treason, bribery or “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It’s Congress’s job to determine what those are, in what are known as articles of impeachment.
WHISTLEBLOWER: I am also concerned that these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government’s efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.
ANALYSIS: This is a good time to recall that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation was about allegations that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia in 2016 and that Trump then tried to shut down investigations into those claims. The final act of that investigation, Mueller’s testimony before Congress, occurred the day before Trump’s phone call with Zelensky. A President using his office to influence a foreign power to get involved in a US election would be different — and arguably much worse — than an unelected candidate asking for help.
WHISTLEBLOWER: To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of this statement is unclassified when separated from the classified enclosure. I have endeavored to apply the classification standards outlined in Executive Order (EO) 13526 and to separate out information that I know or have reason to believe is classified for national security purposes.
ANALYSIS: This whistleblower is clearly an intelligence pro and wrote this report from the outset with an eye to public, unclassified consumption. The Mueller report went through a long redaction process by the Department of Justice and during that period, Barr released a short summary that selectively quoted the report, the result of which was that the initial public focus was on elements less damning to Trump — which has not happened in this case.
AND THAT'S NOT ALL.
The Three Socialist Stooges of CHT believe they are Winning.
So cute.
"These are five simple questions James...
Can you answer them or just continue to dodge and repeat yourself. "
Jane put on his skirt and dodged. She has Akly Stupidity.
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) became the sole House Republican to back an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
In a conference call with reporters, Amodei made it clear he wouldn’t necessarily vote to impeach Trump, but expressed concern over the president’s dealings with Ukraine and that the House should “put it through the process and see what happens.”
ADVERTISING
“I’m a big fan of oversight, so let’s let the committees get to work and see where it goes,” he said, according to audio of the call released by The Nevada Independent.
James...
This has nothing to do with "my opinion" versus "CNN".
This has to do with the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel vs the opinion of a cable news channel that gets beat in the ratings by the food network.
The office of legal counsel IS the preeminent legal authority. If the OLC says something is true, then it's true. It's like the USSC of legal world.
It's where Robert Mueller went for advisement on special counsel questions. It's where Barr and Rosenstein went to make determinations. It's where any tough call is settled.
Pretty much every Federal prosecutor or investigator is 100% tied to what the OLC provides as guidance.
By DEFINITION if the OLC says something is legally true, then there is literally no authority ANYWHERE that is going to contradict them.
Certainly not a media person from CNN.
They stated (for the reasons I gave) that the complaint was not considered a valid Whistle Blower complaint.
That makes that a FACT - it is no longer open to any interpretation by you, me, or anyone else.
So when I asked you those questions - I am asking you a question based on fact. Like 2+2=4.
By disagreeing with the factual statements, you are literally arguing that 2+2 does not equal 4 - but rather equals something else.
Scott, wake up!
WASHINGTON — Kurt D. Volker, the State Department’s special envoy for Ukraine, who got caught in the middle of the pressure campaign by President Trump and his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to find damaging information about Democrats, resigned his post on Friday.
Mr. Volker, a former ambassador who served in the part-time, unpaid position to help Ukraine resolve its armed confrontation with Russia-sponsored separatists, told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday that he was stepping down.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/us/politics/volker-ukraine-resigns.html
His own transcript has provided the high crime and misdemeanors.
The President has has used taxes to solicit help. Whether or not, that the Bride's were investigated is irrelevant.
Trump told Russian officials in 2017 he wasn’t concerned about Moscow’s interference in U.S. election. The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. https://t.co/c5ekcoVhGJ
He took the words of Putin in regards to the Russians hack into the election.
Now, the Clinton is using taxpayer money to get dirt on Biden.
Get your head out of your ass.
2016 Election. Trump/Putin Defeat Hillary
2020 Election. Must Impeach and Convict Trump of doing what Hillaty/Obama/Biden did.
who ?
"Bride's were investigated"
Poccahatous talk with fork tounge.
"Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said she hopes the impeachment inquiry is wrapped up before the first votes in 2020 primaries are cast in February."
bs flag
Here is the funny thing about that Biden was investigated argument.
Pretty much ALL of the statements being made from Ukraine about Biden's supposed innocence comes from the Prosecutor who was hired to "replace" the Prosecutor who Biden had fired.
Now interestingly the Prosecutor did not investigate personally anything. The Investigator is on record as saying that his investigation was pulled from him in midstream and that the Prosecutor did not turn it over to anyone else and effectively just shut it down. In fact the investigator claims that the shutting down of the investigation was illegal.
This is the Modus Operandi of the MSM on these sorts of issues. They take the word of someone like this as the "absolute truth" in order to claim that the idea that Biden committed a crime has been "debunked".
We had nearly three years and five separate investigations into Trump and Russia and not a one of them came up with any evidence of conspiracy or collusion and yet these same media types will not let it go.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
Kansas...
Actually the behind the scenes agreement is that Pelosi will not really hold any inquiry or much for any sort of hearing. Her goal is to push this through a vote by Thanksgiving (in order to appease the crazies).
If they get the votes to impeach, then McConnell will hold a short trial vote and the whole thing will be over sometime in December. The President will be indicted by the House and acquitted in the Senate and Impeachment will literally mean nothing moving forward. I suspect any President elected after this might face impeachment if the House is leaning the other direction just for political fodder.
70 year old pickled brain Alky spectacularly fails again.
"Fake News: GOP Rep. Mark Amodei Does Not Support Impeachment, Despite Media and Leftist Claims"
Congress usually has some specific intent when they pass a law. In the case of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), the background history suggests Congress' intent was to increase the probability that the Congress would find out about things done by members of the intelligence community that Congress doesn't want them to do.
The whistleblower was clever to use the ICWPA, even although he or she probably realized that it represented a "creative" way to interpret the language of the act in a way that extended the Congress' original intent by having it apply to people and activities the Congress probably did not have in mind at all when formulating the Act: In particular, the Congress was probably not thinking of the president as being a member of the intelligence community when it formulated the Act, nor was the Congress contemplating abusive, counter-Constitutional behavior by a president as something that would be covered by the Act.
The lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel did what they did because they are strict "originalists" regarding Congressional intent. They probably thought they were defending the rule of law.
Fortunately, events have made their opinions irrelevant.
Thanks CHT.
honest people don't need to be "clever" nor "creative".
since Speaker in Name Only Polosi announced impeachment 2.3 CIA version.
Pres. Trump has raised more cash then all the dwarfs combined.
What Trump Told Russian Officials In 2017
“President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the U.S. election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people,” the Washington Post reports.
“The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the day before had relieved ‘great pressure’, on him.
“A memorandum summarizing the meeting was limited to all but a few officials with the highest security clearances in an attempt to keep the president’s comments from being disclosed publicly.”
_________________________
Giuliani’s Former Colleagues Think He Broke Law
NBC News: “Giuliani’s role in the scandal that has triggered an impeachment inquiry is still coming into focus. But several legal experts who used to work with the former U.S. attorney-turned New York City mayor-turned chief President Trump defender told NBC News they believe his conduct likely broke the law.”
_______________
‘That’s What Being a Republican Has Come To’
The Los Angeles Times reports there’s “no sign that the GOP-controlled Senate, where 67 votes are required to remove the president from office, is about to turn on Trump.”
Said one senior Senate GOP aide: “At this point, Trump could be caught walking out of a Federal Reserve bank with two giant sacks of money in his hands and no Republican would vote to impeach him for grand larceny.”
The aide added: “Our voters want two things from their congressmen: pissing on the media and blindly defending the president. That’s what being a Republican has come to.”
__________________
White House Hid Calls with Putin and Saudi Crown Prince
“White House efforts to limit access to President Trump’s conversations with foreign leaders extended to phone calls with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Russian leader Vladimir Putin,” CNN reports.
“Those calls — both with leaders who maintain controversial relationships with Trump — were among the presidential conversations that aides took remarkable steps to keep from becoming public.”
_____________
Ukraine Envoy Resigns
Kurt Volker, U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, has resigned one day after the release of a whistleblower report alleging a coverup by the White House of a call between President Trump and Ukraine’s President, CNN reports.
WOW the POS "pastor" has been desperately spamming all day.
What a fucking asshole he is
ROFLMFAO !!!
According to the complaint, Volker sought to "contain the damage" from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani's outreach to Ukraine's government about the Biden family.
But a July 19 text message from Volker to Giuliani that was provided to Fox News on Thursday showed that Volker had in fact encouraged Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine.
----------------------
The deep state "whistleblower" plot is quickly unraveling.
Oh Cowardly, dear, I have not been "desperately" doing anything. I have been joyously "spamming," such as the following:
How one secretive Justice Department office can sway the whole government
The Office of Legal Counsel has too much power and not enough transparency.
By Kel McClanahan
Kel McClanahan is the executive director of National Security Counselors and an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School, where he teaches law of secrecy.
September 26
On the fifth floor of the Justice Department’s headquarters, there’s an office with 20 or 25 lawyers and support staff. This tiny section with an innocuous name is probably the most powerful legal office in the entire executive branch, with the possible exception of the White House Counsel’s Office, and it exercises that power in almost total secrecy. It is called the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and it is the reason that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III decided not to recommend the indictment of President Trump, why the acting director of national intelligence initially refused to release a credible whistleblower complaint to Congress, and why the Central Intelligence Agency justified the torture of enemy combatants shortly after 9/11, among myriad other dubious legal decisions that are often never adjudicated in a court of law.
To see the damage that this unaccountable office can inflict on the rule of law, you need only consider its recently released opinion justifying the withholding from Congress of the whistleblower complaint about Trump’s communications with Ukraine. The complaint was filed through the proper channels as explicitly prescribed by the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. The plain language of that statute directs the director of national intelligence in no uncertain terms to forward to the House and Senate intelligence committees all complaints that the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) had determined to include credible allegations of misconduct rising to the level of an “urgent concern” — a term defined in the statute, generally, as something pertaining to an “intelligence activity.” Despite this clear statutory mandate, an OLC attorney advised acting intelligence director Joseph Maguire that he could substitute his own judgment for that of his inspector general and conclude that the complaint did not pertain to an “urgent concern” because the statute “does not expressly define ‘intelligence activity,’ but the meaning of the phrase seems clear from context.” Every other argument in the opinion is predicated on this conclusion. In other words, an OLC lawyer’s impression of how the most critical term in the opinion seemed to be defined formed the basis for the constitutional crisis that has engulfed both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and culminated in the commencement of an impeachment inquiry.
Such is the power of an opinion from this office.
___________
continued
The OLC was originally designed to give authoritative legal opinions to the executive branch on matters which were unlikely to ever appear in court, sort of like an in-house judge who only issued advisory opinions. But in the last 10 or 15 years, OLC has been captured by Justice Department litigators, and a review of their more recent opinions reveals a disturbing pattern: The office now hardly ever tells an agency — let alone the president — that an action is prohibited, even though the “Best Practices” memo instructs it to do just that if appropriate. Instead, lawyers there provide a legal rationale — often strained — for whatever action it is that the agency wants to take. They are no longer providing impartial authoritative opinions; they are acting as “the executive branch’s lawyers.” As such, they even stoop to including wholly irrelevant allegations in their opinions, which previously would be seen only in a courtroom, such as the references in the whistleblower opinion to the whistleblower’s motivations and the fact that he or she did not personally witness the president’s phone call — neither of which have any pertinence to a legal question of whether a complaint alleges an urgent concern or whether an agency head has the authority to overrule his inspector general on that question.
But the executive branch already has lawyers whose sole job is to defend the things it wants to do; they litigate for the Justice Department and work in every agency’s Office of General Counsel. What it does not have is objective legal expertise. And that’s bad for the agencies, it’s bad for the law and it’s bad for the country.
There are many ways to fix this problem, but they all fall to Congress to act. Congress could legislate that OLC opinions are binding, which would mean that no privilege would apply to their release (although they could be withheld for other reasons, such as classification or law enforcement considerations). Congress could legislate that OLC opinions are not binding, which would free up agencies to ignore them and maybe ensure that bad opinions are weeded out. Congress could mandate that OLC opinions must be released to lawmakers so they can evaluate whether they agree with OLC’s interpretation of the law. Congress could add a caveat to FOIA that a court must presume that an agency that acted in accordance with an OLC opinion fully accepted the reasoning of the opinion, thereby triggering an exception to any claim of privilege. Congress could even remove OLC from the Justice Department entirely and establish it as an independent agency with a mandate to issue objective, authoritative advisory opinions on questions of law, like a “legal inspector general.”
Any of these options would clarify and remedy the problematic relationship among OLC, the executive branch and the rest of the world. Legislation would make OLC choose a lane; either it is an authoritative source for independent legal analysis, or it is yet another office full of zealous advocates. But the one thing Congress cannot do is ignore it. Ignoring the growing divide between OLC’s original purpose and its practical reality is what has led us to the point where a handful of career civil service lawyers can affect the course of entire administrations and then refuse to tell anyone what they did.
But the best statement yet is this one:
The lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel did what they did because they are strict "originalists" regarding Congressional intent. They probably thought they were defending the rule of law.
Fortunately, events have made their opinions irrelevant.
FORTUNATELY, EVENTS HAVE MADE THEIR OPINIONS IRRELEVANT.
Events that made it irrelevant James...
Was that the President agree to release the transcripts and allow the whistle blower complaint to come out. Had he wanted to stick to his guns, there would be no complaint and there would be no transcripts.
The only difference is that people would have been more suspicious if they hid things. Turns out... there was nothing really to hide. So the President released everything.
Now Democrats are stuck trying to make an argument that no rational person actually believes... he played them. Again!
With all the desperation on the left you know the IG report is really going to draw blood.
Shocking how crooked the deep state is,
Best evidence is being supported by the fucking POS "pastor"
Who thinks the left deserves to change rules to serve there purpose.
Unbelievable what they did to the whistleblower rules in the dark.
That is actually criminal and hopefully is acted on. And includes punishment for all these bad actors.
What a dope.
"Yesterday, people brought assault weapons to our rally at Kent State—where 4 students were shot dead in 1970.
I told them nobody should show up with an AK-47 or an AR-15 to seek to intimidate us in our own democracy.
We need to buy back every single one of them."
ok, mine goes for $1,700. where can I turn it in?
@seanmdav
The intel community secretly eliminated a requirement that “urgent concern” whistleblower complaints—like the one from the anti-Trump leaker—include only direct, first-hand allegations. And now they’re refusing to say who changed it and why.
Unfuckingbelievable
@Jim_Jordan
Rep. Jim Jordan Retweeted Adam Schiff
The facts:
-Zelensky said he wasn’t pushed
-@POTUS did not discuss aid on the call
-Calls were stored on that server to protect from rampant leaks
Why does @RepAdamSchiff keep making up his own facts? He knows the transcript is public, right?
You actually believe that the President has played a game?
He solicited help from a foreign nation, using taxpayer money.
You think this is just a game?
Get help
@davereaboi
THE RULES FOR BECOMING A "WHISTLEBLOWER" WERE CHANGED TO PERMIT SECOND-HAND GOSSIP IN AUGUST 2019. COINCIDENTALLY, THE "WHISTLEBLOWER," OFFERING HIS SECOND-HAND GOSSIP, FILED HIS COMPLAINT IN AUGUST 2019. http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=383506
The Biden Story come out.
And a CIA opperative just happens to launch a complaint.
The Office of Legal counsel are nothing other than the ultimate experts on the law. The only thing that they are strict on is that they have an entire team of established legal experts that will comb through every precedent and every law to get to the factual basis of every question.
I reread their argument and it is entirely based on the fact that the President is not part of the CIA and that the whistle blower was attempting to report on something that was outside of the jurisdiction.
It ignored the first/second hand argument. Apparently for one reason.
New facts have come out that the intelligence community attempted to rewrite the requirements for whistle blowing to "eliminate" the requirement that the information was first hand. They offered this new rewrite a handful of days before the complaint (obviously changing the rules as they go for this specific issue).
Whether or not they had authority to do so remains an open question. But it certainly shows that the IG (and his accomplices) were willing to bend the rules in this case to fit what they had. I think it sets a dangerous precedent in the long run, but when it comes to Trump people are willing to burn down the whole house to make their point.
But ultimately it shows that the IG was dishonest and willing to change rules in midstream to make this fit. Sad day for America when we can no longer trust our Intelligence to put America first rather than their hatred first.
@thebradfordfile
Things are going to get worse before they get better. If you think the treasonous bastards who sold out America for Barack Obama are going to back off once the indictments start--think again.
Pray for Donald J. Trump.
No president has ever faced such evil--at home.
"Biden solicited help from a foreign nation, using taxpayer money. " Alky
with the full knowledge of the Lost Years Pres.
😉Biden solicited help from a foreign nation, using taxpayer money. " Alky
@ScottPresler
Jussie Smollett was a hoax.
Russia investigation was a hoax.
Covington Catholic video was a hoax.
Ukraine whistleblower was a hoax.
Don’t you get it? The democrat party is nothing more than One Big Lie.
#WhistleblowerComplaint
@thebradfordfile
Barack Obama didn’t just hire every treasonous bastard who conspired to betray the American people and ruin the lives of their political adversaries.
He led the coup.
-------------------------------
Sept. 2, 2016, Lisa Page:
“POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing."
All roads lead to Obama.
****************************************
BIGGEST POLITICAL SCANDAL OF ALL-TIME
HISTORY WILL NOT BE KIND TO THE OBAMA CRIME SYNDICATE
According to the 23 Dwarfs we might as well enjoy the few Presidential Election We have left.
2020 for sure
2024 maybe
2028 Nope, world Ends
More fake news from the Washington Post aka Socialism for the lazy ass beaners.
Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.
The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the previous day had relieved “great pressure” on him.
A memorandum summarizing the meeting was limited to all but a few officials with the highest security clearances in an attempt to keep the president’s comments from being disclosed publicly, according to the former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
AD
Keep Reading
The White House’s classification of records about Trump’s communications with foreign officials is now a central part of the impeachment inquiry launched this week by House Democrats. An intelligence community whistleblower has alleged that the White House placed a record of Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president, in which he offered U.S. assistance investigating his political opponents, into a code-word classified system reserved for the most sensitive intelligence information.
The White House did not provide a comment Friday.
YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON!
But ultimately it shows that the IG was dishonest and willing to change rules in midstream to make this fit. Sad day for America when we can no longer trust our Intelligence to put America first rather than their hatred first.
He's seeking assistance in the next election!
@thebradfordfile
The whistleblower must be heard! He is an American hero and should be awarded the presidential medal of freedom for having the courage to expose corruption at the highest levels of government.
His name is @RudyGiuliani.
McConnell Urged Trump to Release Ukraine Call
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told the White House earlier this week that President Trump “needed to release the transcript of his call to bolster the claim that the conversation was not improper because the speculation about what happened was becoming politically untenable,” the Washington Post reports.
@Shem_Infinite
There's definitely a mood shift going on that I've noticed these last few days. People are pissed off. All of the conservative podcasts and radio shows I listen to, news sites I read, and everyone in my twitter mentions are fired up and disgusted by this Ukraine hoax.
and this FAKE "whistleblower"
It’s worth noting if Donald J. Trump deleted 33,000 emails and had the server forensically wiped—his own party would have turned on him.
Hillary did it and was nominated for president.
https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/implicated-ukraine-special-envoy-resigns-from-state-dept-70125125602
Special Envoy to Ukraine Resigns
I don't blame him. Time to get off that crazy ship.
@JohnBrennan
Whistleblower deserves our praise & gratitude.
Donald Trump getting very sloppy & careless in corrupt practices & cover up attempts.
Democrats & Republicans (those who have a conscience) need to work together to prevent desperate moves by Trump that could wreak further havoc.
@MarkAugustine60
Mark Augustine Retweeted John O. Brennan
You're a treasonous bastard who belongs in prison. I know. I worked for you.
looks like he has FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE
the POS "pastor" said "Special Envoy to Ukraine Resigns"
That was after Giuliani called him out for setting up his Ukraine trip.
With documented proof.
Probably one less deep state actor who the left were counting on.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/u-s-special-envoy-ukraine-resigns-amid-impeachment-inquiry-n1059871
@thebradfordfile
Rogue CIA operatives are conspiring with former Obama officials, corrupt media partners, and the chairman of the intelligence committee to remove the President of the United States before his administration exposes the greatest political scandal in American history.
THIS IS WAR.
-------------------------
Take a look at Ben Rhodes twitter feed and tell me he didn't have the script for this entire "whistleblower" charade.
THEY ARE TRAITORS.
And they know AG Barr and US Attorney Durham are over the target.
@realDonaldTrump
I AM DRAINING THE SWAMP!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1177669563477118976
*********************************
TRUMP ALWAYS HITS BACK HARDER
In Bid For Biden Dirt, Giuliani Dove Deep Into Ukrainian Political Muck
By Josh Kovensky
Like a grotesque buddy comedy, the story of Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump’s pressure campaign to extract beneficial political information from Ukraine is equal parts absurd and horrifying.
And the story only gets weirder following a look at the details of the whistleblower complaint released by the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, which contains a narrative — and sophisticated analysis — of the Ukrainian political snakepit in which the pair enmeshed themselves.
Read the rest and see,
OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB THEY WOVE.
Maguire initially withheld the complaint from the committee because the Office of Legal Counsel found that the complaint did not qualify as an "urgent concern" that had to be sent to the committee.
He said he thought the whistleblower "did the right thing" and "followed the law every step of the way."
@VoteBeebe
The ongoing Democrat info opp/psyop is starting to unravel. @seanmdav & @benshapiro have touched on it with some of their tweets today, but that's the tip of the iceberg. The collusion that has been underway by the likes of Schiff and the deep state IC is shocking. Thread: 1/
-------------------------------
So someone in ICIG/DNI revised the procedures to make it easier to process a complaint based on hearsay (the statute still doesn't permit it - but we'll come back to that). This was done in August. Of 2019. Right as the whistleblower's report was being vetted. Convenient, eh? 6/
--------------------------------
INCREDIBLY, IT GETS WORSE: on 23 September, FOUR DAYS ago, and BEFORE the complaint was released, the Congressional Research Service made an extensive update to their publication on "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections" Link here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf … 7/
--------------------------------
The previous version of this publication was released on 13 Dec 18. Strange to make an extensive update when their has been ZERO legislative action to update the statute since then. The prior version is here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45431.pdf … 8/
-------------------------------
What else changed? They added multiple pages on the “means for addressing disagreements that may arise between the ICIG and the DNI,” that were authorized in the FY2010 IAA, but for “some reason” weren’t relevant to include in the CRS analysis before the middle of this month 11/
---------(AMAZING THET SAW THIS COMING !!!)-----------
And how did the "nonpartisan" CRS explain the statute to Congress & staff who wouldn't dive deeper to see if it was misleading them on the underlying statute? Glad you asked: 12/
----------------------------
Folks - this is an attempted coup. The Executive branch is by no means perfect, but if the rule of law is to mean anything moving forward, we cannot allow the Legislative branch to usurp this authority and toss Constitutional checks & balances aside because "orange man bad" 19/19
See entire thread
https://twitter.com/VoteBeebe/status/1177669258932871174
*********** UNFUCKINBELIEVABLE ***************
THIS SHOULD TROUBLE EVERY AMERICAN
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-changed-foreign-leader-call-storage-methods/story?id=65917080&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed
One nice little laugh in there.
I see the POS "pastor" continues to do the devils work
I'm sure he is proud of you
@Techno_Fog
DOJ National Security Section Deputy Chief Deborah Curtis is leaving the DOJ effective 9/28/19.
She had been assigned to the Flynn case.
Reason for her departure currently unknown...
Oh no, F-ing D. I'm on the side of the angels and the good Lord of heaven and earth who loves the poor and the needy and immigrants and people of all the minorities and wants all to have a more equitable economy and a fairer taxation system and good medical care for all.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whistleblower-case-4-top-takeaways-from-the-whistleblower-complaint-and-the-testimony-of-dni-joseph-maguire/
You actually believe that the only person on the planet earth is Donald J. Trump.
The patriotic people who risk their lives in the CIA, are the enemy of the country, in your bizarre world.
Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries.
The brave people in the FBI are the enemy of the country, in your bizarre world.
He told the Russians that he would love to get him reelected.
Post a Comment