Patterico's Pontifications

11/6/2019

Doing Trump’s Bidding: Sen. Rand Paul Demands Media To Name The Whistleblower

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:54 pm



[guest post by Dana]

From Reason:

President Donald Trump “has great courage” and “faces down the fake media every day,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) on Monday. At a Trump 2020 rally in Lexington, Kentucky, Paul called upon media to out the whistleblower who first raised objections about Trump’s July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Paul also asked colleagues in Congress to make both the whistleblower and Joe Biden’s son Hunter testify.

“We also now know the name of the whistleblower,” said Paul. “I say tonight to the media, ‘Do your job and print his name!’ And I say this to my fellow colleagues in Congress, to every Republican in Washington, ‘Step up and subpoena Hunter Biden and subpoena the whistleblower!'”

It’s weird hearing “Libertarian” Rand Paul demand that the media make a whistleblower’s identity public. But as we’ve repeatedly seen, when a politician throws their lot in with Trump, there are certain expectations that come with staying in his good graces, including making compromises one would not have previously considered. Basically: Rand Paul today is not the same Rand Paul of 2014, when he worked hard to support and defend whistleblowers:

Paul himself was once a more robust defender of whistleblowers and advocated expanding protections for them. Back in 2014, Paul told a Campaign for Liberty conference audience that he was considering ways to “expand the whistleblower statute to government contractors,” not just employees. “We’ve got so many millions of government contractors that when they see something wrong, they should be able to report it without repercussions,” he said.

Yet today’s Rand Paul voted against a resolution designed to protect the whistleblower by keeping their identity a secret:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blocked a resolution Wednesday reaffirming the Senate’s support for whistleblower protections and accused Democrats of “fake outrage.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) had asked for unanimous consent to pass the resolution, which “acknowledges the contributions of whistleblowers” and throws the chamber’s support behind protecting whistleblowers from retaliation.

“The threats we have seen over the last few days are so egregious they demand bipartisan outrage from one end of this chamber to the other, whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, independent, liberal, moderate or conservative,” Schumer said[…]…

Paul objected to passing the resolution after Democrats refused to drop their resolution and instead pass whistleblower legislation that he introduced earlier that day.

“I support whistleblowers, and I do think they have a role to play in keeping government accountable … but what we have seen over the last few years is that we have a system that we should continue to refine,” Paul said.

He argued that his legislation would “make clear” that President Trump should be able to face his accuser. The measure also would expand current whistleblower protections for contractors.

“The bill I will introduce today will expand the whistleblower act [and] would be made retroactive so Edward Snowden can come home to live in his own country. All he did was expose that his government was not obeying the Constitution,” Paul said.

At the end of the day, Paul doesn’t have a problem with naming the whistleblower himself, if the media fails to do so:

Asked on Tuesday why he hasn’t disclosed the name of the individual, Paul told reporters that he “probably will.”

“I’m more than willing to, and I probably will at some point,” he said. “There is no law preventing anybody from saying the name.”

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

222 Responses to “Doing Trump’s Bidding: Sen. Rand Paul Demands Media To Name The Whistleblower”

  1. They can’t really believe that the whistleblower wouldn’t be susceptible to retaliation or be put at risk if exposed…

    Dana (cb74ca)

  2. I am a little confused. Who is it that does not know who the whistleblower is?
    — The public? There is no good reason for us to know, and many good reasons why we should not.
    — The Congress? Both Republicans and Democrats? Yes, they all should definitely know.
    — Trump, both as President and in his private capacity, and his cabinet and staff as well as his personal lawyers? Yes, they should know.

    nk (dbc370)

  3. Ok, I should read more closely.

    At the end of the day, Paul doesn’t have a problem with naming the whistleblower himself, if the media fails to do so:

    Asked on Tuesday why he hasn’t disclosed the name of the individual, Paul told reporters that he “probably will.”

    “I’m more than willing to, and I probably will at some point,” he said. “There is no law preventing anybody from saying the name.”

    I reiterate: There is no good reason for the public to know and many good reasons, you can see a fraction of them at Trump’s rallies, for the public not to know.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. “I don’t want to face any consequences for my ‘beliefs’, so I’d rather the media release the name.” says Senator Rand Paul, in a cowardly attempt to get someone else to do the dirtywork.

    Also, is he having so much trouble with campaign donations that he needs help from Russia? Defending Edward Snowden? Really?

    Nic (896fdf)

  5. Surprised Rand doesn’t know that “face your accuser” happens during the trial part of the process, which we are not in yet, and won’t be unless the impeachment moves to the Senate.

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  6. Never liked the luaP loons, père et fils.

    nk (dbc370)

  7. 5. Since an impeachment trial isn’t a criminal proceeding, I don’t think due process is a given there.

    Gryph (08c844)

  8. @5. “Court of Public Opinion.”
    ______

    OT but line of the night, Sen. John Kennedy (R., LA) at Trump Lousiana rally:

    “Unless you’re happy with crappy, vote for Eddie Rispone!!”

    So, America… are you happy with crappy?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  9. The whistleblower wouldn’t be subjected to any retaliation by the governent as far as job security and pay was concerned.

    But, like Linda Tripp, he could be exiled to an obscure office where he could do no political harm to the president. That’s what President Clinton did. (She had contradicted a bit of the White House story about Vincent Foster’s last day, and he wanted her out of the way, but under his control.)

    He thought this such a good idea, and the place just perfect, that he did it again, and exiled Monica Lewinsky to the exact same office in the Pentagon!

    Linda Tripp did not have whistleblower protection. She was fired, first thing, by the Bush administration.

    Sammy Finkelman (a784d8)

  10. There are no statutory restrictions on identifying the Whistle Blower. It’s all legal.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  11. Surprised Rand doesn’t know that “face your accuser” happens during the trial part of the process, which we are not in yet, and won’t be unless the impeachment moves to the Senate

    What do you expect from an ophthalmologist?

    Rip Murdock (86020d)

  12. Thw whistleblower isn’t the accuser. Nothing that hasn’t been backed up is being used. Other things that were developed are used and whatever is known to be wrong has been dropped.

    But it would be interesting to know why he got wrong what he got wrong. It might be very informative.

    Sammy Finkelman (a784d8)

  13. It seems highly rational to expect anonymity when you decide to kickstart the impeachment of a president.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  14. Republicans again shift their defense of Trump over impeachment inquiry barrage

    …. “What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine: It was incoherent, it depends on who you talk to, they seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo, so no I find the whole process to be a sham and I’m not going to legitimize it,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, told reporters Wednesday. ….

    So Graham is saying that Trump, Giuliani, et. al. are too stupid. Coming from ally, that’s reassuring. My emphasis.

    Rip Murdock (86020d)

  15. Sammy, since dnaR luaP knows, everybody involved in the process, Trump and Congress, knows. Trump and his butt-girls just want to throw the whistleblower to the mob.

    I was going to write butt-gerbils but butt-girls in this instance seems just as appropriate somehow.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. Well, they seem to be too stupid (or embarassed) to mount a good defense, if they’re going to focus on this whistleblower matter.

    Even if they think tat’s how they’ll discover how adam aschiff kickstarted this whole investigation

    Sammy Finkelman (a784d8)

  17. We have a right to know if the whistleblower wore blackface, tweeted the n word eight years ago, or planted his front bottom on a chick back in high school.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  18. There seems to be some fear of being the person who names the whistleblower.

    Because of “God forbid?”

    Or at least that it could be another grounds for impeachment.

    Or maybe they think that they can get some advantage out of the fact that the whistleblower’s name is kept secret.

    One person who has been subpoenaed went to a federal judge and asked that he should tell him whose orders he should obey. Both the House of Representatives and the white House went to the court and said the judge should not decide this. (and the witness has to gamble. Or not, since a witness violating executive privilege is not actionable in court and contractual non-disclosure agreements cannot override a subpoena)

    The HPSCI says that any witness who doesn’t show up and testify will be held in contempt. And adverse inferences will be drawn from any form of non-co-operation.

    And the rules adopted by the House say that the president loses (or can lose) the right to call witnesses if he invokes executive privilege on anything.

    So that’s where we stands now.

    Sammy Finkelman (a784d8)

  19. The thing is, the whistleblower’s name is known, but who spoke to the whistleblower, and who advised him to make his complaint in the form of awhistleblwer complain, is not. And they can’t ask ethics or honesty questions of Adam Schiff.

    It could be that, for them to question the whistleblower, the committee has to agree his name should be public. It’s no use if they are the first to put his name on the public record.

    Now with the Clinton impeachment, it was no secret that the “whistleblower” was Linda Tripp, whom Monica Lewinsky had befriended in the isolated office to which they’d both been exiled.

    With the Nixon impeachment, the “whistle blower” was maybe James McCord, forced into it b Judge John Sirica.

    Sammy Finkelman (a784d8)

  20. Trump Book Author Admits He Screwed Up by Wrongly Claiming Obama Held ‘Political Correctness’ Meetings

    After a FoxNews.com article drew howls and derision online for claiming the Obama White House received complaints from top CIA officials for holding weekly “political correctness” meetings, the author of the book admitted that he didn’t understand that the initials “PC” actually stood for “principals committee.”….

    Oops.

    Rip Murdock (86020d)

  21. ”They can’t really believe that the whistleblower wouldn’t be susceptible to retaliation or be put at risk if exposed…”
    Dana (cb74ca) — 11/6/2019 @ 5:58 pm

    The media is protecting this guy like he was some innocent fifteen year old falsely accused racism — who’s name isn’t Nicholas Sandmann.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  22. A journey into Breitbart land suggests to me that they want to claim the whistleblower is is tied into the group that originated the Steele dossier…that he worked with some of them, etc.

    Kishnevi (86d06e)

  23. All President Trump wants is for the WB to testify. Obama prosecuted WB’s when he was President.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  24. Everyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to these shenanigans already knows his name after the NY Times helpfully named h as CIA and where he worked in the executive office. These one foot in, one foot out games are just absurd.

    NJRob (b461f2)

  25. PS. The whistleblower who revealed ABC skuttling their expose on Epstein has been hounded by the media and since he now works for CBS, ABC is trying to get him terminated.

    Some whistleblower’s are more equal than others.

    NJRob (da54e6)

  26. Some whistleblower’s are more equal than others.

    Indeed, some have statutory protection, and others don’t.

    Your point?

    Dave (681cdb)

  27. You can just imagine the WB rarin’ to respond…

    ‘Yeah, Rand: blow me.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  28. With friends like these …

    “Have you lost your minds that you want to remove our Donald Ivanovych?” asked Vladimir Soloviev, the host of the television show Evening with Vladimir Soloviev. https://www.thedailybeast.com/thanks-to-trump-booster-rand-paul-russian-media-are-naming-the-alleged-ukraine-whistleblower

    I don’t think Elizabeth Warren will save him. Personally, if we’re going to be governed by a Commie, I’ll take the former law professor over the former KGB colonel.

    nk (dbc370)

  29. So Pierre Delecto of the How Dare You mob.

    mg (8cbc69)

  30. ”Indeed, some have statutory protection, and others don’t.”
    Dave (681cdb) — 11/6/2019 @ 9:51 pm

    In the eyes of the media and #NeverTrump, some statutory protections (whistleblower) are better than others (leaked tax returns).

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  31. We all know who the whistleblower is its – Eric ciaramella. His name should be plastered all over the internet and shouted from the rooftops by every R in Washington DC. There is ZERO reason for the Republicans to play the Democrats game and pretend Ciamella is some sainted HERO, who’s BRAVELY told The TRUTH about TRUMP.

    Ciarmella is just another pawn in Schiff’s game to impeach Trump. He’s a political hack and his name should be reveled. That all the Media act together on this, just shows we don’t have a diverse, responsible press, we have a press like the old USSR. They have a party line and they all stick to it. Even Fox News.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  32. Whenever someone in DC plays the “We need to keep his name secret, or we’ll put him at risk” and he’s NOT an overseas Spy – its just Baloney. Everyone with a brain knows its baloney, but every pretends otherwise. The Remainers in the UK tried the same lie. Oh, Boris Johnson couldn’t use “divisive rhetoric” because it resulted in MP’s getting “Death Threats”. People who say that sort of thing, should be mocked mercilessly. But the MSM, always PRETENDS like its a serious statement.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  33. The WB statue protects them for retaliation by their AGENCY. The whole point, which everyone knows but doesn’t want to spell out, is to allow people to ‘blow the whistle” on waste, fraud, and abuse in their agencies that they have first hand knowledge of. AND Keep their identity secret if they wish, so they can avoid retaliation for THEIR IMMEDIATE boss.

    It doesn’t apply to anyone else. Their is no law that prevents the media, me, you, or anyone else from “Outing the WB”. The only ones who can’t do it, are the IG.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  34. The whole purpose of the Whistleblower Act is so that individuals can feel free to report on malfeasance anonymously to appropriate authorities, without fear of retribution.

    The whistleblower’s identity is irrelevant, since his or her complaint has been corroborated by multiple witnesses, all of whom testified in public.

    Why did the whistleblower file a complaint? Because he or she thought there was something very wrong with the Trump-Giuliani scheme to extort Ukraine. So did several others.

    What did the whistleblower do wrong? Nothing. By all accounts he or she consulted an attorney and followed the proper channels and reported to the appropriate authorities. They then conducted and investigation and corroborated the complaint.

    By what contorted twist of logic, reason or law, does Trump have to face his accuser? His accuser??? Trump admitted it! In print and on television. So did Giuliani, by the way. Multiple witnesses have testified to it.

    The only reason to expose the whistleblower is to subject him or her to harassment, intimidation and shame, probable ostracization and possible violence. Everything the Whistleblower Act is supposed to prevent. It is, in fact, a crime to out a whistleblower, who is protected by federal law.

    Rand Paul is a total hypocrite, even worse than Lindsey Graham. And every Republican that defends or excuses malfeasance, including to their shame Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn.

    Trump is the anti-Midas at the center of all this. Everything he touches turns to mold. Everyone who associates with him turns to corruption. Because he is a complete fraud, everything and everyone in his orbit necessarily becomes part of his disease, which is actually a personality disorder, malignant narcissism.

    The GOP will regret ever nominating him in the first place, because he’s taking the entire party down in flames. Faust made a better deal with the Devil.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  35. Will one of our numerous lawyerly commentators please review the whistleblower protection act and dispassionately assess whether Mr. Ciaremella actually falls under its protection. I seem to have read in legal blogs that he doesn’t meet the standards for numerous reasons.

    I’m looking at you in particular Mr. Finkelman – you seem to be the most logical, if sometimes loquacious, poster on this blog.

    Bendover2 (aa5a9b)

  36. @35. Good summary. The only thing I want to add is that the alternative to whistle blower protections is for people that think there’s a problem to leak to the press. I can’t see any way that’s better.

    Time123 (353edd)

  37. @36. “I seem to have read in legal blogs that he doesn’t meet the standards for numerous reasons.”

    link? quote?

    JRH (52aed3)

  38. #36, Got a link? that sounds like an interesting argument if there’s some basis to it. I don’t think it’s likely correct since if the WB hadn’t been proper I doubt the Trump appointed IG would have accepted the complaint. But I could be wrong.

    Time123 (353edd)

  39. Bendover2 (aa5a9b) — 11/7/2019 @ 3:20 am

    One would think that if the standards had not been met, then that topic would have already been discussed in a post by our esteemed host.

    felipe (023cc9)

  40. I understand why Trump and his supporters want to focus on the whistle blower.

    Trump comes off better when it’s a discussion about who is the bigger a hole. The flaws in his opponents make his short comings seem less egregious.

    Since the data produced so far supports the accusation that Trump was extorting Ukraine to announce an investigation that wasn’t based on probable cause, and by so doing interfere in our elections, all their left with is the Rand Paul approach of “The whistle blower is bad let’s talk about that” or the Lindsey Graham approach of “Trump’s administration is too incompetent to do something like this.” If neither of those works they’re left with “Yes he did it, but we don’t think it’s a big deal“.

    It’s a shame really. If he even remotely cared about corruption he could have made great use of Hunter Biden’s ethical lapses. But that would have required including those lapses in some larger effort to reduce corruption and self dealing. Hell, even if they weren’t really interested in any actual anti-corruption activity they weren’t even competent enough to try and put a fig leaf over what they were doing. Sad how weak this administration is. This is one of the few areas where I thought they had a chance to do something good.

    Time123 (353edd)

  41. Call them stage magicians, call them prestidigitators, call them mentalists, call them illusionists, this is their secret: Make your audience think only what you want them to think, and see only what you want them to see. Abracadabra, presto-change-o, read the transcript, name the whistleblower, all you happy people!

    nk (dbc370)

  42. 39. You haven’t been paying attention. Eric Ciaramella took Schiffs script to his (the CIA’s) General Counsel (fun fact, Ciarmella, was back at the CIA, because he had been kicked out of the White House, for leaking classified communications, like the lie that Putin told President Trump to Fire Comey.) Eric Ciaramella, was on loan to the White House, by order of Brennen, since 2016, before President Trump was sworn in. Lots of plants from the intel community were planted in the White House. So Ciaramella handed off Schiffs script to the CIA Counsel. ( time to note here, the phone call touched no part of the Intel community. Involved nothing questionable by CIA personnel, nor touched on any CIA operations, or spending) The CIA counsel, realizing, he had no jurisdiction, called up the DoJ, and White House. Ciarmella complained that action from the CIA was taking forever(because there were no laws violated, no action to take), so Ciarmella called up Schiff, to get more marching orders. (Here we note, that only Whistle Blower Complaints FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, rated “credible, and urgent” are required by law to forwarded to the respective intelligence committees in the House and Senate)Schiff told him to file a WB complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General.
    The ICIG, followed orders from Schiff, and marked the complaint “credible (second hand hearsay) and urgent. The law mandates the IG hand it off to the head of the dept. He looked at it. Wondered how the ICIG had jurisdiction, since Intell had nothing to do with the complaint. He asked his house counsel what he should do? The White House, and the DoJ were contacted. The DoJ said there are no laws violated, the complaint is warrantless. This is when the Chairman of the Intelligence Oversight Committee leaked the existance of a WB complaint and the content of that complaint, on twitter.

    It is important to understand some very simple points.

    Schiff (intell committee) needed a vector to get classified information (Presidential communication with Foreign Head of State) into public domain.

    ONLY WB COMPLAINTS MARKED, A. URGENT AND CREDIBLE, B.ORIGINATING OUT OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO FORWARDED TO CONGRESS.

    This is how the oversight committee on Intelligence is the committee in charge of the Impeachment Inquiry, even though the Intelligence Community has nothing to do with the facts before them.

    Now you are a little more current. But there is a lot more subterfuge happening behind the scenes

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  43. 43
    Even if all of that was true (and there is a lot there for which there is no evidence other than Schiff is a jerk type complaints), it still remains that Trump attempted to use the power of his office for a purely personal benefit, and Trump refuses to allow Congress to exercise its normal oversight functions…and that both things ought to be grounds for impeachment and conviction…and they have been admitted, even boasted about, by Trump.

    I suppose you are like Sen Graham, who would, if confronted by a video of Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, refuse to view it because the security camera was positioned at the wrong angle.

    Kishnevi (4490a8)

  44. Poor Mr. President. The same Donald Trump who is openly trying to get foreign governments to investigate his opponent, without any American legal protections, is playing the victim. HE is the victim of a truthful whistleblower. He isn’t being given due process.

    The con never stops.

    noel (f22371)

  45. Scrolling through here this kinda jumped out at me…
    Linda Tripp did not have whistleblower protection. She was fired, first thing, by the Bush administration.

    But per Wiki (with footnote reference to a CNN piece)

    On January 19, 2001, the last full day of the Clinton Administration, Linda Tripp was fired from her job in the Pentagon.[14] Tripp claimed that the firing was vindictive, but the Clinton administration said that all political appointees such as Tripp are normally asked to submit their resignation upon a new administration taking over.[15] Those who refuse may be fired.

    Now of course W could have re-hired her but in the bazillion things that go on during a transfer of powers, I doubt it would get high priority. And according to the CNN story she had no comment, so perhaps she didn’t see it worth fighting over or felt she might be asking to be in the spotlight again if she put up a fuss.

    Kinda surprised by this as Sammy usually does a great job paying exceptional attention to these kinds of details.

    PTw (894877)

  46. Poor Mr. President. The same Donald Trump who is openly trying to get foreign governments to investigate his opponent, without any American legal protections, is playing the victim. HE is the victim of a truthful whistleblower. He isn’t being given due process.

    The con never stops.

    noel (f22371) — 11/7/2019 @ 6:06 am

    I think you’re mistaken. That was Hillary and the DNC with their nonsensical Russian dossier.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  47. No comments on Waid admitting to desiring a coup and saying that they’ll get rid of the President no matter what just one week after Trump took over the Presidency?

    NJRob (4d595c)

  48. Eric Ciaramella took Schiffs script to his (the CIA’s) General Counsel (fun fact, Ciarmella, was back at the CIA, because he had been kicked out of the White House, for leaking classified communications, like the lie that Putin told President Trump to Fire Comey.)

    This is new to me. Do you have link or something that EC was kicking out of the white house or made the statement above?

    Eric Ciaramella, was on loan to the White House, by order of Brennen, since 2016, before President Trump was sworn in. Lots of plants from the intel community were planted in the White House. So Ciaramella handed off Schiffs script to the CIA Counsel.

    How did Schiff know that Trump was using military aid to extort Ukraine? Because there’s a lot of evidence that he was. This doesn’t appear to be a fabricated accusation.

    Ciarmella complained that action from the CIA was taking forever

    Evidence?

    Schiff told him to file a WB complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General.

    This has been widely reported. The counter argument was that if you have a complaint, this is the proper channel. No idea who is right on this one.

    The ICIG, followed orders from Schiff,

    The ICIG was appointed by Trump. The DNI was appointed by Trump and testified that he broadly agreed with the ICIG.

    and marked the complaint “credible (second hand hearsay) and urgent.

    ‘Hearsay’ doesn’t invalidate a WB complaint. Never has. They stated this publicly.

    A lot of what you assert isn’t backed up by facts.

    Even if it were, the accusations in the WB report are being substantiated by sworn testimony and corroborated by contemporaneous notes and messages.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  49. ”The only thing I want to add is that the alternative to whistle blower protections is for people that think there’s a problem to leak to the press. I can’t see any way that’s better.”
    Time123 (353edd) — 11/7/2019 @ 4:13 am

    Or the alternative is an election, which is even worse.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  50. There is this dirty secret out there — most whistleblowers are not good people, and they have an axe to grind. The whistleblower statute, by requiring that whistleblower complaints go through the Office of the Inspector General, washes the inherent bias out.

    So, basically, all this complaining about the whistleblower is garbage, and the facts in the case have moved well beyond the whistleblower’s second hand information. Really, the only reason for all this pounding of the table for the identity of the whistleblower is to intimidate the next person who dares to challenge Mr. Trump’s perfect calls. This isn’t subtle guys, and if you care about the people being protected from runamok government, you would be appalled by Trump’s actions, and the actions of all the others who really do know better.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  51. @50, Not your smartest comment.

    If a government official breaks the law, abuses their power, or behaves inappropriately how does the public know about it to hold them accountable in the next election without some mechanism for the information to be released?

    You don’t have an answer because you don’t seem to care. You just seem to care that your team is looking bad and anything that’s part of them looking bad must be attacked.

    Looking forward to your next comment asking what about some other thing that’s vaguely related. Maybe something to do with JFK’s extramarital affairs?

    Time123 (66d88c)

  52. 35. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 11/7/2019 @ 2:11 am

    The whole purpose of the Whistleblower Act is so that individuals can feel free to report on malfeasance

    Taking place in his agency.

    But his complaint really was against the president of the United States.

    Also the malfeasance is supposed to be of the type that is either a violation of law or a violation of an executive order, and it was an extreme stretch to find anything where anyone in “the intelligence community” violated anything.

    The only hook he had to what would be a whistleblower complaint was the putting of the call record into a super secure storage system, and the only way he could make that into a violation of an executive order was to say that it complicated or interfered with the mission they had of evaluating foreign interference in U.S elections.

    The accusation that the whistleblower made was that Trump “used the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election.”

    No wonder that the White House did not treat this as a whistleblower complaint, and did not, as Carman Adam Schiff no doubt expected, forward it to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, so he could use this as a hook to start his own investigation.

    They did treat this as a criminal referral, and sent it to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which reported back: No crime alleged here.

    In the call the Ukrainian president was asked to look into this somewhat incoherent accusation that President Trump told Zelensky about that he said was being made against Joe Biden, who was a declared candidate for president of the United States in the 2020 election. It was that Biden stopped a prosecution, and even “went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution.” Trump brought up “Biden’s son” in this connection (Trump apparently didn’t remember his name) and in the lost words he may have mentioned Burisma. Trump wanted Zelensky to talk to Giulani, and also maybe attorney general arr, about these maters.

    If that’s soliciting interference in a U,S. election, then also Mueller asking Ukraine for help was, and Schiff did that when he asked Ukraine if it had a recording of the call.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  53. ”This isn’t subtle guys, and if you care about the people being protected from runamok government, you would be appalled by Trump’s actions, and the actions of all the others who really do know better.”
    Appalled (1a17de) — 11/7/2019 @ 7:43 am

    Fortunately, there are anonymous CIA agent (non)whistleblowers, FISA warrants, campaign surveillance and unmaskings to protect us from “runamok government” — just like the founders drew it up.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  54. You went back to FISA warrants? It’s like you’re not even trying to come up with interesting if pointless ‘whatabouts’ anymore. Come on man, you’re better than this.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  55. The whistleblower’s identity is irrelevant, since his or her complaint has been corroborated by multiple witnesses,

    Not exactly, and some of it has been proven false.

    Especially the claim that President Trump wanted Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to retain Yuri Lutsenko as prosecutor general of Ukraine.

    The Whistleblower complaint tries to make Lutsenko the sole source of Giuliani’s information, with the hint even that maybe Giuliani was instigating Lutsenko to say things, although the whistleblower nowhere makes this accusation.

    The complaint seems to blame Lutsenko and it avoids the possibility that Giuliani was the target of of a Russian disinformation campaign.

    The reason could be:

    Because being a fool is not an impeachable offense, and besides Trump might realize he was wrong and they don’t want that. They don’t want Trump apologizing, and saying he made a mistake.

    Why did the whistleblower file a complaint? Because he or she thought there was something very wrong with the Trump-Giuliani scheme to extort Ukraine. So did several others.

    No because he was advised to do so by lawyers he had been advised to contact.

    A Trump-Giuliani-Barr scheme to pressure a foreign country to investigate a political opponent is not a proper subject for a whistleblower complaint but is something else entirely!

    The question is: Who had a hand in crafting the whistleblower complaint?

    Was anything wrong put into it on purpose?

    Was there some kind of legal strategy behind it?

    What did the whistleblower do wrong? Nothing. By all accounts he or she consulted an attorney and followed the proper channels and reported to the appropriate authorities.

    Except it was not a real whistleblower complaint.

    It was an accusation that Trump, and others at political levels, were violating the law (as well as posing risks to U,S. national security and acting counter to U.S. government efforts against foreign interference in U.S. elections.)

    This could lead to a special prosecutor, who would conduct an investigation in secret that could drag on past the November 2020 election, while Congress deferred to that investigation.

    While Chairman Adam Schiff wanted to get the investigation into the hands of his committee.

    He did not want there to be a criminal investigation of President Trump or others.

    Besides these independent reasons for wanting to know the history of this Ukraine investigation, what the whistleblower can testify to could go as to the credibility of other witnesses, as some of what he said was wrong.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  56. The whistle-blower is being protected because Eric Ciaramella is a leftwing partisan hack. So, that’s why everyone is so “Protective” of the poor baby. Let him come out and be questioned in the open. Why is he hiding?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  57. ”You went back to FISA warrants?”
    Time123 (66d88c) — 11/7/2019 @ 8:07 am

    LOL. It’s been three full years of whaddabouts, starting with collusion on up to a non whistleblower with daily stops in between. Others can play too, right?

    I’m going to hazard a wild guess that even when the IG releases his report on FISA abuse, five months late BTW, it will still be a “whaddabout”. Surprise me.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  58. The CIA IG needs to be fired. This the clown that changed the WB form at the last moment to allow Ciarmella’s 2nd hand gossip to be labeled as Whistle-blowing. He also deemed it “Credible” and rushed to Congress to talk about how it “Must be heard”. He’s a pal of Schiff and should be replaced.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  59. Let him come out and be questioned in the open. Why is he hiding?

    He heard what happened to Jeffrey Epstein.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. The whistle-blower has made charges based on 2nd hand gossip and we need to know WHO he talked to, since the was given Classified information, that he had no right to. If you’re going to blow the whistle on the POTUS, you need to step up, man up, and go public. You don’t get to play the coward, and make charges, and then run away and hide.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  61. This the clown that changed the WB form at the last moment to allow Ciarmella’s 2nd hand gossip to be labeled as Whistle-blowing.
    rcocean (1a839e) — 11/7/2019 @ 8:24 am

    This is not factually correct.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  62. He heard what happened to Jeffrey Epstein.

    Yes, where is that investigation going? Cameras that mysteriously stopped working, Guards falsifying logs and not doing their rounds, Someone at risk for Suicide being placed alone in a single cell against standard procedures. Very suspicious.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  63. https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2019/11/report-cbs-fires-employee-leaked-amy-robach-video-abc/

    And CBS fires the real whistleblower for daring to show how corrupt the MSM truly are.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  64. @59

    I’m going to hazard a wild guess that even when the IG releases his report on FISA abuse, five months late BTW, it will still be a “whaddabout”. Surprise me.

    Well you’re wrong again. I’ve said in multiple threads, to you as a matter of fact, that I’m looking forward to the report. I’ve been critical of the Trump administration for doing nothing to address abuses in this space so far.

    Why is the report so late btw? If we’re really going to react to what it says with meaningful action it would be good to get it out before the election heats up. Otherwise it’ll be even more of a political football.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  65. RCocean, here’s a link to a forbes article on the rules for a WB.

    Here’s a quote from the Acting DNI that Trump appointed.

    Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire told Congress last week that the Ukraine whistleblower had followed the law.

    “I want to stress that I believe that the whistleblower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout,” Maguire said at a House Intelligence hearing Thursday. “I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and followed the law.”

    Time123 (353edd)

  66. Sammy,

    Let’s keep things simple, rather than endeavor to pile conspiracies on top of one another.

    The whistleblower has connections to Biden through his prior jobs. He was likely triggered when he heard that Trump/Giuliani was trying to get an investigation going against Hunter Biden in the Ukraine. And he felt he had a good case that Trump was trying to extort a politically convenient investigation out of the Ukraine. The American President was trying to use his power to inflict the law of another country against an American Citizen. That’s enough for a 33 year old layman to think maybe there are violations of law going on here, and contact a well-known lawyer.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  67. The day after John Bolton’s resignation was accepted, Trump restored the aid to Ukraine.

    The two September 11, 2019 New York Times front page stories about John Bolton’s being ousted ((where there is adisputee over whether he was fired or he quit) nowhere mention Ukraine.

    But they talk about North Korea, Iran and Afghanistan (this was just after Trump had cancelled the Camp David Summit meeting with the Taliban and the Afghan government because the Taliban “leaders” said they weren’t going to negotiate in Camp David and that they had stepped up attacks as a means of pressuring the United States, and there hadn’t yet been an agreement.)

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  68. “We also now know the name of the whistleblower,” said Paul. “I say tonight to the media, ‘Do your job and print his name!’

    Go ahead, Sen. Paul, release the name if it’s so OK. Oh, you “probably will” later? I see.

    noel (f22371)

  69. He is a billionaire with potentially dozens of lawyers, a friendly Justice Department and a fawning Republican Senate.

    Victim, my arse.

    noel (f22371)

  70. 68. Appalled (1a17de) — 11/7/2019 @ 8:41 am

    The whistleblower has connections to Biden through his prior jobs. He was likely triggered when he heard that Trump/Giuliani was trying to get an investigation going against Hunter Biden in the Ukraine.

    That makes sense. Of course a person who supported Joe Biden for president (he may even have made a small campaign contribution) would be the most likely to react and try to do something about it. And there isn’t anything wrong with that. Who else?

    But what triggered him was not just the possibility of an investigation into Hunter Biden, but into Joe Biden. And indeed Trump asks Zeensky to look into what he says was Joe Biden’s claim of stopping of a prosecution.

    The whistleblower didn’t really know what was said – he didn’t have the Joe-Biden-stopped-a-prosecution allegation.

    He didn’t know if there was an ongoing Ukrainian investigation into the activities of Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and Trump wanted it continued; or if Trump wanted Zelensky to start one.

    He was wrong about what percentage of the call was about Biden and the idea that “allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine” and listed the Biden allegation first, while for Trump that was secondary.

    He thought there could be an investigation currently going on into Burisma, and he got it wrong about which prosecutor Trump thought was good.

    He was right about the aid to Ukraine being withheld, which he put into a classified appendix (this part was declassified when the complaint was made public) and about Ambassador Marie Yovanovich’s tour being curtailed because of Lutsenko making allegations against her, and about Giuliani being active, but wrong about the possibility of Barr being involved, which he said he was not sure about.

    He was right about officials like Volker and Sondland trying to contain the damage coming from Giuliani. And about the quid pro quo during the time frame that lasted between May and early July being about a meeting or phone call between Zelensky and Trump and a willingness to “play ball” (quotes in the complaint) on “the issues that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr.Giuliani.” (no quotes in the complaint but I am quoting from it)

    And he felt he had a good case that Trump was trying to extort a politically convenient investigation out of the Ukraine.

    I think it was more fear of that, and fear it was all being made up.

    The American President was trying to use his power to inflict the law of another country against an American Citizen.

    The whistleblower probably thought it all unfounded or uncalled for.

    That’s enough for a 33 year old layman to think maybe there are violations of law going on here, and contact a well-known lawyer.

    What I think he did was contact a Congressional committee led by Democrats and they referred him to a lawyer.

    Violations of law, or wrongheaded policy, committed outside the purview of the Inspector General of his agency are not the subject of a whistleblower complaint. He doesn’t ask for a criminal investigation, but rather, is trying to get the intelligence committees notified s it van be acted on politically.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  71. 62. rcocean (1a839e) — 11/7/2019 @ 8:28 am

    The whistle-blower has made charges based on 2nd hand gossip and we need to know WHO he talked to, since the was given Classified information, that he had no right to.

    The complaint, no doubt drafted by his lawyer, argues that he had a right to it because it was relayed to him “in the course of official business” and “that it is routine for for U.S. officials with responsibilities for a particular region or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.”

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  72. The reason that accusers have to come forward in court is so that their biases, grudges and history of complaints can be assessed by a jury and their accusations weighed in the light of these things.

    According to some things I read, the whilsteblower was involved in the “Trump dossier” thing before the election. Don’t know if that’s true, but the fog that we have to work through indicates to me that something is off.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  73. The same people who find this whislteblower’s identity so sacrosanct have NO PROBLEM firing the person who leaked the Amy Robach video. Even though he’d changed jobs since.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  74. When the news first broke:

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-reviewing-ukraine-security-funding

    President Trump has been consulting with his national security leadership team to decide the best use of Ukraine security aid to achieve and align with U.S. national security interests, according to a senior administration official. Congress has already approved roughly $250 million in such aid — aid meant largely to confront Russia — for the current fiscal year 2019, which ends September 30. It’s that funding that could be in jeopardy.

    https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/03/us-lawmakers-press-trump-to-release-aid-for-ukraine-to-fight-russia/

    https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/2019/9/engel-mccaul-oppose-cutting-assistance-to-ukraine (press release)

    September 6, 2019

    Washington—Representatives Eliot L. Engel, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Michael McCaul, the Committee’s Ranking Member, today urged the Trump Administration to lift its hold on security assistance funds to support Ukraine. In a letter to the leadership of the Office of Management and Budget, the members underscored that these funds are critical to buttress Ukraine’s defenses against Russian aggression

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  75. http://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/slow-walking-military-aid-to-ukraine/

    A report as to what was known in early September

    https://time.com/5665196/ukraine-aid-russia-trump/

    AUGUST 30, 2019

    On Wednesday in Kiev, his nation’s capital, Danyliuk met with his American counterpart, the U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton, who assured him that the U.S. support for Ukraine, including military support in its five-year war with Russian-backed separatists, would only intensify. “Everything in our meeting was about how we would expand our cooperation and how everything is ready for that,” Danyliuk tells TIME.

    But the following day, President Trump appeared to contradict those plans. As first reported on Thursday by Politico, Trump has asked Bolton and other officials in the administration to stall $250 million in aid to Ukraine, pending an official review of whether this support is in line with U.S. interests.

    The story apparently didn’t make the New York Times until September printed on page A11 of Sept. 10, 2019, paper, whc=ich as the day John Bolton was suddenly out of his job.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/trump-ukraine-house-investigation.html

    The White House delayed a package of military assistance to the new government in Ukraine, and has yet to schedule a White House meeting for its new president. After abruptly pulling the previous American ambassador out of Kiev when conservatives questioned her political loyalty, President Trump has yet to nominate a successor.

    Behind the scenes, Mr. Trump has told aides that he sees Ukraine as corrupt and suggested that he harbored a grudge from what he saw as that nation’s support for Hillary Clinton in 2016…

    …The diplomatic strains come on top of concerns about efforts by Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to press Mr. Zelensky’s government to pursue investigations into two matters that date from the previous government and could be politically beneficial to Mr. Trump….

    ….One relates to involvement in Ukraine by former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his family. The other relates to accusations that Ukrainian government officials improperly aided Mrs. Clinton by seeking to sabotage Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign.

    On Monday, [Sept 9] three House committees announced that they were opening a wide-ranging investigation into whether Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani were misappropriating the American foreign policy apparatus for political ends.

    In letters to the State Department and the White House, the chairmen of the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight Committees asserted that it would be “a staggering abuse of power, a boon to Moscow and a betrayal of the public trust” if Mr. Trump was withholding the military assistance to “improperly pressure the Ukrainian government to assist the president’s bid for re-election.”

    The next day, Wednesday Sept. 11, Trump released the money.

    More from the Sept 10 article (which went online Sept 9)

    Publicly, Mr. Trump’s administration has suggested that the hiccups in Ukrainian relations are more related to bureaucracy and logistics than to politics.

    In private, though, the president has been more adversarial, declaring in May that all Ukrainian politicians are “corrupt,” and that the Ukrainian government “tried to take me down,” according to people familiar with an Oval Office briefing delivered by a United States government delegation that had recently returned from attending Mr. Zelensky’s inauguration in Kiev. The delegation had been impressed by Mr. Zelensky, and had encouraged Mr. Trump to assist the new government.

    The White House did not respond to questions about the meeting.

    Vice President Mike Pence denied last week that the delay in releasing military assistance was in any way related to Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to convince the Ukrainians to investigate matters related to the family of Mr. Biden, who is the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    But, after a meeting with Mr. Zelensky on the sidelines of a commemoration of the outbreak of World War II, Mr. Pence said he and Mr. Trump “have great concerns about issues of corruption.” Without detailing those concerns, Mr. Pence linked them to the military assistance, telling reporters “to invest additional taxpayer in Ukraine, the president wants to be assured that those resources are truly making their way to the kind of investments that will contribute to security and stability in Ukraine.”

    Mr. Zelensky’s office did not immediately respond to questions emailed after business hours in Kiev.

    …Mr. Murphy said he urged Mr. Zelensky not to heed the requests from Mr. Giuliani, warning that to do so could threaten bipartisan support for Ukraine in Washington, which Mr. Murphy called Ukraine’s “most important asset.”

    It would be “disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations,” Mr. Murphy said, if Mr. Zelensky were seen as basing prosecutorial decisions on pressure from Mr. Trump’s political allies.

    Mr. Murphy rejected the suggestion that his advice to Mr. Zelensky constituted meddling in Ukrainian affairs similar to Mr. Giuliani’s efforts, which he had previously called “private foreign policy engagement” and into which he had sought an investigation.

    “If there are investigations that influence American politics one way or another, but the foundations of those investigations are based upon facts rather than political requests, I think that’s legitimate,” Mr. Murphy said.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  76. Kevin, The accuser is whoever is providing testimony that the alleged event happened. What he gets to confront is the evidence that’s used against him. If the initial statement from the WB isn’t part of that than there’s no need for him to confront it.

    I stopped caring about who the WB was when the basic substance of their complaint began to be corroborated by credible evidence. (Note to sammy, thank you for the clarification about just how inaccurate it was) If Trump wants to go after the people testifying about what he did for bias that’s fine.

    The argument that the WB was ‘never trump’ is purely a political one. The white house hasn’t offered a defense of the actions so they’re trying to change the subject and keep his base focused on how unfair the ‘deep state’ is to their boy.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  77. #60

    The CIA IG needs to be fired. This the clown that changed the WB form at the last moment to allow Ciarmella’s 2nd hand gossip to be labeled as Whistle-blowing.

    The technical term for that is “manufactured bullshit,” as you know, having made the same assertion in comments to the post which debunked it. Pat duly corrected you in the thread, so it only stands to reason you’re asserting it again, undeterred by facts.

    If Trump has accomplished nothing else, he’s at least liberated his cult from the pesky burden of empirical reality.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  78. Sammy (#72) —

    You have a worse case conspiracy view of this I just don’t share. Let’s just look:

    But what triggered him was not just the possibility of an investigation into Hunter Biden, but into Joe Biden.

    This whole business relates to things the Ukraine was being coerced to do. An investigation into Joe Biden by the Ukraine does not pass the laugh test. And there is no evidence Trump was trying to get anything more than an announcement by the Ukraine that they were investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden’s contract with them.

    Violations of law, or wrongheaded policy, committed outside the purview of the Inspector General of his agency are not the subject of a whistleblower complaint. He doesn’t ask for a criminal investigation, but rather, is trying to get the intelligence committees notified s it van be acted on politically.

    That’s the McCarthy argument in National Review. But there is a big so what here. The whistleblower followed a process outlined in the whistleblower act, and the appropriate party certified it as being something that should be released to the Intelligence Committee. The WB, a non-lawyer acted in good faith in following the law, and his identity should not become a thing of sport simply because people defending the President feel the law was incorrectly applied.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  79. … his identity should not become a thing of sport simply because people defending the President feel the law was incorrectly applied.

    Why not? The law doesn’t mandate anonymity except for the IG.

    This isn’t a criminal investigation. Hell… the DOJ even reviewed it and said no laws were broken.

    This is political. As such, the WB shouldn’t expect anonymity here…nor should *we* demand it.

    If something is so beyond the pale, even if not criminal, that need to be publicized so that there’s a political reckoning… the WB himself ought to be able to withstand public scrutiny in full sunlight. If the claim is legit and strong, that should withstand partisan scrutiny. If it is weak, as it seem in this case, it is totally legit to question the bias/motives of the WB.

    To encourage a system where anonymity is guaranteed will invite massive hyper-partisan abuse.

    whembly (51f28e)

  80. 79. Appalled (1a17de) — 11/7/2019 @ 12:01 pm

    You have a worse case conspiracy view of this I just don’t share.

    Karl Rove has a column to day about Adam Schiff when he was on the Judiciary Committee. He comes out as mostly a grandstander. There were allegations that he;d gotten the Governor of Alabama prosecuted. By the time Rover tesified in 2009 that allegation was dropped and perhaps Schiff no longer had any interest in the remaining allegations. I’ll link to it later and wuote from some of it.

    I made a error. First of all, there’s some unclarity about when Ukraine found the aid was withheld. My working assumption is that they found out in August but didn’t know there was a presidential hold until August 28. The second thing is that Zelensky was getting very close to announcing the two investigations according to the New York Times today. He ad scheduled an interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN for September 13. Kurt Volker had been negotiating with him and they been disagreeing about what he was going to say about investigations. We don’t quite know what Zelensky was going to say on CNN. According to the New York Times all but one adviser said give the American government what it wants, even if it risks damaging bipartisan support and getting us in trouble with the Democrats. The interview with Fareed Zakaria was cancelled when the aid was released on September 11
    11.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  81. Let’s just look:

    SF: But what triggered him was not just the possibility of an investigation into Hunter Biden, but into Joe Biden.

    This whole business relates to things the Ukraine was being coerced to do.

    It was kind of like a mild coercion. Sondland knew he couldn’t push too hard or the whole thing would blow up in their faces. So he tried the least amount of pressure that woudl work. All this was done without the knowledge of Donald Trump because the goal was to get Donald Trump to change his opinion of Ukraine, and he wouldn’t be impressed unless he thought they did it on their own.

    An investigation into Joe Biden by the Ukraine does not pass the laugh test.

    Yes, but there was Donald Trump on the phone saying:

    The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … {Vindmann says he mentioned the recording here] It sounds horrible to me.

    I think Trump mentioned Barr here on the spur of the moment. Barr was dealing with 2016 but not with Trump’s Crowdstrike allegations.

    The whole thing was on the spur of the moment. Some of the people listening to that phone conversation may have wanted to sink through the floor.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  82. 80. Whembly, you’re absolutely right here. It is political. But impeachment is always political. And quite frankly, I wouldn’t mind one bit if Donald Trump got thrown out of the White House on his ear.

    Gryph (08c844)

  83. 79. That’s the McCarthy argument in National Review. But there is a big so what here. The whistleblower followed a process outlined in the whistleblower act, and the appropriate party certified it as being something that should be released to the Intelligence Committee.

    Under what circumstances does activity that never touches the Intelligence Community? get evaluated by the IC IG? Corrupt circumstances. Schiff and the rest of his gang that couldn’t shoot straight, planted all of this. This complaint did not evolve from an organic growth, of an employee, calling out something wrong. I followed this from the day it hit the news before President Trump released the call log. Schiff and Pelosi started out with foreign interference in US elections, to coverup, by hiding the call in a secure server. To Schiff demanding the WB must testify. This was the script they had written months before. They had planned to take this a long way. By being able to characterize the content of the call, as they had scripted.
    That plan did not survive 24 hours.

    With the call contents available to all, the narrative is blown up. President Trump asked for a favor, to look into corruption, Biden?. No threats were entertained. The President of Ukraine informed the world he was not pressured. Latest polls have ‘remove by impeachment’ losing ground. As it becomes clear all the witnesses have admitted they knew nothing of the White House pressuring Ukraine to act. All of the state dept witnesses have said they had heard, or seen in the media. Not a single witness was directed to pressure the Ukraine nor do they know of any person that claims to have first hand knowledge of the White House ordering State Dept to pressure the Ukraine. Democrats can claim they have an impeachable offense. But Secret Hearings, No interview of the WB, ambigious claims of wrong doing. No criminal activity…will never sway voters. Besides the fact that an election is less than 12 months off. Schiff and Pelosi are telling the voters, “you are too stupid to remove President Trump from office, so we are going to hold a soviet style show trial, take Trump out, and cancel your power to vote.”

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  84. @79. NR has been ‘NeverTrump’ since their ‘yuuuuuuge’ mega-no-Trump-essays-issue back in the primary days. The demise of The Weekly Standard was their canary in the coal mine; NR is irrelevant.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  85. Let him come out and be questioned in the open. Why is he hiding?

    Maybe because the President of the United States mused openly, in front of adoring supporters, about putting him to death?

    Dave (8f119a)

  86. Are the plugs in Bidens head considered quid pro grow?

    mg (8cbc69)

  87. SF: Violations of law, or wrongheaded policy, committed outside the purview of the Inspector General of his agency are not the subject of a whistleblower complaint. He doesn’t ask for a criminal investigation, but rather, is trying to get the intelligence committees notified so it can be acted on politically.

    Apalled @79:

    That’s the McCarthy argument in National Review. But there is a big so what here. The whistleblower followed a process outlined in the whistleblower act, and the appropriate party certified it as being something that should be released to the Intelligence Committee…

    84. iowan2 (9c8856) — 11/7/2019 @ 1:53 pm

    Under what circumstances does activity that never touches the Intelligence Community [the thin thread that maybe links it is the issue of putting the call record into a super secret storage facility, and that was done by the top lawyer for the National Security Council, but there still remains the problem that the complaint has to concern a violation of law or an Executive order and that is even more of a stretch. get evaluated by the IC IG? Corrupt circumstances. Schiff and the rest of his gang that couldn’t shoot straight, planted all of this.

    They, or someone higher up in the government, didn’t necessarily plant the complaint with KC as a way to get it out, although that could be one of the suspicions people in the White House close to Trump have, but Schiff and company did probably direct him how to proceed when he came to them.

    Make it into a whistleblower complaint, they maybe said. That will super-protect your job. And here’s this lawyer who will figure out a way to do it. And he’ll work for free, or your insurance.

    Rush Limbaugh says they never expected Trump to make the call record public, so they could characterize it any way they want.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  88. I should have closed the blockquote after the words “all of this”

    all the witnesses have admitted they knew nothing of the White House pressuring Ukraine to act. All of the state dept witnesses have said they had heard, or seen in the media.

    They had no knowledge of the White House directing that. It all came from Sondland, whom John Bolton thought was working with Mulvaney.

    This is how the questioning went, according to the New York Times:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/inside-the-impeachment-testimony-dry-questions-and-flares-of-drama.html

    Mr. Schiff, a former federal prosecutor, often asks wide-ranging questions that appear meant to lead to sweeping statements by the witnesses. The committee’s lawyers then follow up with a series of detailed questions about the timing of the events in question.
    At times, the transcripts reveal, Mr. Schiff’s lawyers grew exasperated with answers from the witnesses. In one exchange, a Democratic questioner repeatedly pressed Mr. Sondland to admit that he knew that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, was eager to have Ukraine conduct investigations into the Bidens.

    “You were completely oblivious?” the incredulous questioner asked after presenting Mr. Sondland with media appearances and social media postings in which Mr. Giuliani described his intentions about Ukraine. Later, under friendlier Republican questioning, Mr. Sondland explained his ignorance by saying he had too many “cables and other things to read” to pay attention to Mr. Giuliani.

    It’s possible that Giuliani didn’t mention to Sondland the fact that Hunter Biden had a connection to Burisma. From normal news consumption he wouldn’t have known anything, if he missed it in May.

    Not a single witness was directed to pressure the Ukraine nor do they know of any person that claims to have first hand knowledge of the White House ordering State Dept to pressure the Ukraine.

    That’s right. This was all being done by Sondland and Mulvaney.

    So what does Sondland say?

    There’s supposed to be a link here to the original testimony, but it’s not working: (the link to the corrections is)

    https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=785

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  89. Why not? The law doesn’t mandate anonymity except for the IG.

    Because if someone knows the president is corrupt they should report it to the appropriate committee without fear they will be murdered or fired.

    I can’t believe we’re really debating ‘why protect whistleblowers?’ after eight years of theories about Obama, and a few years of theories about the deep state.

    It’s not like the appropriate people didn’t know who he was. This was about shutting down the next whistleblowers as the Trump admin falls apart.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  90. ”This was about shutting down the next whistleblowers as the Trump admin falls apart.”
    Dustin (d42b09) — 11/7/2019 @ 3:15 pm

    #coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers

    We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.

    The (non)whistleblower is about shutting down Trump.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  91. The only whistleblower was fired by CBS for exposing ABC’s dirty laundry. The rest of this is the continual temper tantrum from the left that their dream of eternal power was interrupted by Trump.

    NJRob (05477d)

  92. 74. Kevin M (19357e) — 11/7/2019 @ 9:50 am

    According to some things I read, the whilsteblower was involved in the “Trump dossier” thing before the election.

    https://heavy.com/news/2019/10/eric-ciaramella/

    In November 2015, Ciaramella is named as one of the officials who attended a White House meeting with Ukrainian religious leaders, along with his boss, Charles Kupchan. The Ukrainian religious leaders delivered a letter appealing to President Obama for aid for their country. Ciaramella is listed as the “NSC Director for Ukraine.” That position is now held by Alexander Vindman, a key witness in the impeachment inquiry, who listened to the call between President Trump and President Zelensky.

    Ciaramella also has ties to former Democratic National Committee operative and opposition researcher Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who has been targeted by some conservatives as being behind an effort to accuse the Trump campaign of Russian collusion. Chalupa, then with the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee, was also in attendance at the November 2015 meeting with Ukrainian religious leaders, according to public records.

    While Republicans have accused Chalupa of being a leader of a conspiracy to bring down Trump with false accusations of collusion with Russia, Democrats have said Chalupa was among the first to bring forward credible information about wrongdoing by Paul Manafort and the Trump campaign and say she has been smeared because of that.

    The connection between Eric Ciaramella and Alexandra Chalupa is that he invited her into the Obama White House.
    ,
    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

    The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

    Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.

    He may also have leaked in May 2017 that Trump had told 2 Russian officials that:

    “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off … I’m not under investigation.”

    Suspicion that he was leaker caused him to be transferred out of the White House.

    Something he wrote was also a footnote in the Mueller Report.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-was-cited-in-key-passage-of-mueller-report

    Ciaramella appears in a footnote on the 71st page of Mueller’s 448-page report, with Mueller citing two emails that he sent to John Kelly, then chief of staff, and other administration officials describing the details of a meeting between Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak…

    That was the meeting where it was leaked to the New York Times Times by an “American official” who read a “document summarizing the meeting” that Trump had said:

    The footnote was about when the meeting had been scheduled. (It was planned before the firing of Comey. Which you would expect.)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  93. 84. iowan2 (9c8856) — 11/7/2019 @ 1:53 pm

    Schiff and Pelosi are telling the voters, “you are too stupid to remove President Trump from office, so we are going to hold a soviet style show trial, take Trump out, and cancel your power to vote.”

    But they can’t do that, because that requires a 2.3 majority in the senate – and besides which they’d only get Mike Pence, unless they have some strategy to remove him too before he can name a vice president, or by refusing to confirm a vice president. And then Nancy Pelosi would only serve as president for at most about a year until the winner of the 2020 presidential election could take over.

    No, this is not what they’re thinking.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  94. Schiff has revealed the rules binding questioners during the public phase of the impeachment inquiry.

    They number few, and are simple at their core

    1. Did the President request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the President’s personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the President’s political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 U.S. presidential election?

    2. Did the President — directly or through agents — seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the President’s personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to Ukraine?

    3. Did the President and his Administration seek to obstruct, suppress, or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the President’s actions and conduct?

    This will greatly speed up, an already hopped up, kangaroo court.

    This to will bring into focus for voters, exactly how Democrats are going to remove voters power at the ballot box.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  95. I get that Patterico hates Tump, but whistleblowers don’t get to be secret, just have their job protected. But what I don’t understand is what happens when a whistleblower is bogus? Should his job be terminated? What happens as in this case, when the whistleblower is telling about gossip? What happens when the whistleblower refuses to follow the prescribed procedure for whistleblowing, but goes to the opposition party head of the intelligence committee? At what point does the whistleblower become a criminal in his pursuit of “justice”? AND I don’t believe the whistleblower is being threatened, it’s not as if he was attacking a Clinton…. Did we learn nothing from the Russia Collusion Hoax?

    jason stewart (54ea0f)

  96. Kevin, The accuser is whoever is providing testimony that the alleged event happened. What he gets to confront is the evidence that’s used against him. If the initial statement from the WB isn’t part of that than there’s no need for him to confront it.

    Because anonymous accusations trumpeted by a political press need no transparency. Got it.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  97. @96 There are two levels of authority who look at the accusation and determine it’s credibility. This particular whistleblower was determined credible at both stages. If they weren’t determined credible, I imagine that words would probably be had at that time.

    It appears that Hears-No-Evil and Sees-No-Evil are presently in thread. Speaks-No-Evil seems to have taken the day off.

    Nic (896fdf)

  98. @95,96,&98

    You keep focusing on the guy who said “There’s a problem here” and ignoring all of the people testifying under oath about that problem.

    Time123 (d54166)

  99. Meant 97, not 98

    Time123 (d54166)

  100. Kevin, I wanted to clarify, I do think transparency is good. I also think it needs to be balanced against a few other things.
    1. Did the behavior laid out in the initial complaint happen? (Yes)
    2. Is the evidence being used to answer 1 dependent on things the whistleblower said? (No)
    3. Is the bias of the whistleblower relevant to answering 1? (Not at this time)
    4. Is the process being used to answer 1 consistent with the law & past practice? (Yes)
    5. Did the whistleblower follow the rules and were the appropriate checks in place (Yes)

    To me that leaves little value in transparency other than for its own sake. Which has value, but isn’t the only consideration.
    This whistleblower did what I would want the next one to do. They hired a lawyer, filed the paperwork with the appropriate office and let independent investigators evaluate what should happen next.
    They didn’t leak their report to the media.

    They didn’t try to steal government information and leak that to the media.

    They didn’t commit espionage and try to get recordings.

    They didn’t write a tell all book or do a bunch of interviews about how messed up this.

    They didn’t keep their head down and let something they thought was wrong happen.

    They did what someone who has a complaint is supposed to do.

    I’d rather that people in similar situations in the future not be faced with the choices of doing the above or personal destruction.
    I get that you feel Trump is being picked on and treated unfairly. But I don’t think the truth or falseness of that has any bearing on the answer to question 1.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  101. Sen. Rand Paul (Sycophant-Ky). Sen. Lindsay Graham (Doormat-SC). Sen. Ted Cruz (Groveller-Tx)

    Now, toady candidate for US Senate…. Jeff Sessions. Begging for Trump’s forgiveness in his first ad. Can he win? Well, first he will have to beat Roy Moore to the bottom.

    noel (f22371)

  102. Trump defiles everything he touches, and Sessions was not immune. But here’s two of Sessions’ opponents in the primary:

    “Alabama deserves a senator who will stand with the president and won’t run away and hide from the fight,” said U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne, who’s running for the seat.

    “As AG, he failed the President at his point of greatest need,” tweeted former Auburn football coach Tommy Tuberville, who’s also in the race.
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/11/08/jeff-sessionss-first-campaign-ad-is-about-trumpand-its-as-awkward-as-youd-imagine-n2556152

    They have no excuse. They were born to be butt-gerbils.

    nk (dbc370)

  103. Have you seen this from the Trump 2020/Alabama campaign website?

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
    — Where do I donate to Make America Great Again?
    — Where do I volunteer to Make America Great Again?
    — Where do I go to divorce my dog?

    nk (dbc370)

  104. Auburn football coach? Well, Sessions will be getting lots of votes from Crimson Tide fans I guess.

    Sessions is a decent man of principle and its sad to see him reduced to sucking up to the likes of Trump. Guess he really wants that seat. Um, the Senate seat.

    JRH (52aed3)

  105. 101.

    1. Behavior? What? What an ambigious term. 100 people will identify “Behavior” as they see it. In
    this? The “behavior” was the President of the United States executing his Article II powers
    investigating corruption of a Nation, before the United States funneled money to that nation.
    2. Yes. Without the WB complaint, there is no congressional hearings
    3. Yes. Only bias, created this process
    4. No. Lots of reasons are laid out above. And, you bring LAW into this. Can’t we at least admit, no
    law is in play here. NOT A LEGAL MATTER. This is pure partisan politics. Don’t forget this went
    through the legal counsel at the CIA (nothing illegal). The legal counsel at the White House,
    (nothing illegal). The legal counsel at the DOJ (nothing illegal), the legal counsel at the
    Intelligence Community, (nothing illegal)
    5. NO. He was turned down by 4 different legal opinions. After that, he subverted the process and
    secretly went to the HPSCI committee directly. Violating the process in such a way, it forced the
    Chairman of the Committee to lie about it. Since nothing in the phone call touched any portion
    of intelligence personal, operations, or spending, The Intelligence Community Inspector General
    lacks legal standing to involve himself. Something the WB knew because of the 3 preceding legal
    opinions

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  106. Biggest winner on a Sessions rerun: Kate McKinnon.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  107. @105. Just an asterisk on my own comment. Sessions is a decent man of principle *notwithstanding his Trumpbutt kissing and his Clintonesque inability to remember his and other Trump campaign associates’ contacts with Russians. The lying about Russia has been so pervasive it’s easy to ignore it.

    JRH (52aed3)

  108. get that Patterico hates Tump, but whistleblowers don’t get to be secret, just have their job protected. But what I don’t understand is what happens when a whistleblower is bogus? Should his job be terminated?

    Jason,

    for such a legal expert you really should read the law before you ask really obvious questions.

    Why don’t you google it up and quote where it says “just have their job protected” and not something more along the lines of “no retaliation”?

    Since you are the expert, after all.

    To answer your question, ‘bogus’ whistleblowers do not get any protection obviously, but that’s not the case here. Trump’s corruption has been corroborated yet again, and it’s just his die hard fans who insist that doesn’t matter and it’s all the deep state, etc etc.

    Remember, this corruption is too deep and extensive to justify a few conservative judges. Reelecting this mess would lead to an escalation of the problem. It’s getting worse and will continue to. The GOP will never stand up to Trump so we have to stand up to the GOP. They hold the democrats over our head to scare us into licensing this corruption. Don’t.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  109. Alabama should just stick to American Idol hotline-stuffing.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  110. The protections of the whistleblower act are a matter of following process. Iowan2 may wish the law were different, but here is 50 USC 3033(g)(3)

    The Inspector General [of the Intelligence Community] is authorized to receive and investigate
    … complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety. Once such complaint or information has been received from an employee of the intelligence community.
    … No action constituting a reprisal, or threat of reprisal, for making such complaint or disclosing such information to the Inspector General may be taken by any employee in a position to take such actions, unless the complaint was made or the information was disclosed with the knowledge that it was false or with willful disregard for its truth or falsity.

    To go a little further, the law protects a whistleblower from retaliation for a disclosure to:

    the DNI (or any employees designated by the DNI for such purpose), the ICIG, the head of the employing agency (or an employee designated by the head of that agency for such purpose), the appropriate inspector general of the employing agency, as well as a congressional intelligence committee, or a Member of a congressional intelligence committee.

    A lawful disclosure for this purpose is:

    a disclosure that an IC employee whistleblower reasonably believes is a violation of “Federal law, rule or regulation … or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.”

    The Law does not care that a whistleblower has made Donald Trump’s life harder. There is a process. It was followed. And because it was followed, the whistleblower is protected from retaliation. And given the ease with which a social media mob can be ginned up to bother someone, publicizing the name is likely to be held to be prohibited conduct.

    Note. I am a non-lawyer, and I have never stayed in Holiday Inn Express. Most of my wisdom comes from this Congressional Research Service Report. That’s where all the quotes come from.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf

    Appalled (1a17de)

  111. The Tuberville ad

    besides the requisite safety-glasses-in-a-factory photo op, he couldn’t be bothered to get out of his truck. Gross, imo.

    JRH (52aed3)

  112. ”The protections of the whistleblower act are a matter of following process.“
    Appalled (1a17de) — 11/8/2019 @ 7:01 am

    You can cite whatever law you can find. This has zero bearing on the media’s refusal to splash the name on front pages, which it would do if the politics we’re reversed.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  113. 111.

    complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

    So the IC IG had no jurisdiction. Violation of law? No. Rules or regulations? No. Mismanagement, nope, waste of funds? No. Abuse of authority of intell community personel? No. Danger to public
    health or safety? No.

    activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting
    Presidential communication with a foreign leader, in not under the responsibility of the DNI

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  114. You can cite whatever law you can find. This has zero bearing on the media’s refusal to splash the name on front pages, which it would do if the politics we’re reversed.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 11/8/2019 @ 7:27 am

    Translation: Trump is above the law. Cite any law you want and we don’t care.

    So the IC IG had no jurisdiction. Violation of law? No. Rules or regulations? No. Mismanagement, nope, waste of funds? No. Abuse of authority of intell community personel? No. Danger to public
    health or safety? No.

    LOL OK.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  115. As I stated at 106, Eric Ciaramella was informed by three different legal opinions, his hearsay of a conversation, did not reach the jurisdiction of the intel community. Since no Intel personnel, or operations were involved.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  116. What’s amazing is how every thread has the same 3-4 people parroting the same idea, every day, for years. Tell them it’s OK to do something terrible, and they pound the table with that like they deeply care. How dare you NOT reveal whistleblowers in all the newspapers so we can retaliate against them? Why would anyone ever want to protect a whistleblower from retaliation! Proof of the Deep State!

    Very few of these guys kept their commenter handles from the Obama administration, but of course they didn’t think whistleblowers should be burned at the stake back them.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  117. “Translation: Trump is above the law. Cite any law you want and we don’t care.”
    Dustin (d42b09) — 11/8/2019 @ 7:34 am

    Dustin, I’m having trouble finding a comment from you beating down the NYT for publishing Trump’s illegally leaked tax returns.

    Can you help me with that?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  118. This whistleblower came forward anonymously fearing… fearing the loss of their job, their reputation and maybe their life.

    Smart guy or gal. They know Trump well.

    noel (f22371)

  119. Would he kill the whistleblower on Fifth Ave? No. He wouldn’t. And he would deny responsibility after one of his crazy followers did do it. It’s the way he rolls.

    noel (f22371)

  120. activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence

    iowan2 @114:


    Presidential communication with a foreign leader, in not under the responsibility of the DNI

    As near as I can figure out, the hook was “locking down” all records of the phone call and taking it out of the computer system where word-for-word transcripts of calls to foreign leaders are customarily “stored for co-ordination, finalization and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.”

    Now you still needed a further hook so that it involved:

    a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

    And that he got by invoking Executive Order 13848, signed by Donald Trump on September 12, 2018, (that said the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastrucrure ore the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation by persons located in wole or in part outside the United States was a national security and foreign policy threat

    AND the DNI, on July 19, 2019, establishing an “Intelligence Community Election Threats Initiative”

    And that locking up the transcript interfered with their work.

    That still doesn’t get you there, but I suppose we are supposed to assume that President Trump was possibly asking Ukraine to engage in disinformation, which, because the transcript was locked up, the people working for the DNI would not be able to evaluate.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  121. ”This whistleblower came forward anonymously fearing… fearing the loss of their job, their reputation and maybe their life.”
    noel (f22371) — 11/8/2019 @ 7:50 am

    The Horowitz report might implicate anyone associated with the Steete dossier, like purportedly the (non)whistleblower, so it may indeed be true he came forth to get some job protection.

    Maybe someday we’ll be permitted to know.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  122. Dustin, I’m having trouble finding a comment from you beating down the NYT for publishing Trump’s illegally leaked tax returns.

    Can you help me with that?

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 11/8/2019 @ 7:47 am

    LOL at the desperation! You know Trump’s a crooked POS but you don’t have the stomach to just admit what you are: a fascist who needs to silence criticism of your Dear Leader.

    How weird that Trump said he was quote “happy” to share his tax returns, and promised he would, and yet he then fought tooth and nail against keeping this promise, but your reaction isn’t “the leader of the free world should have integrity.”

    Why wouldn’t a newspaper reveal this information? It’s newsworthy that Trump committed crimes in his taxes. It’s not like Trump saying his whistleblower committed a crime punished by execution and then demanding his doxxing. Only commonality in your comments is a loyalty to an effing politician. You will NEVER see me behave with that loyalty.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  123. 116. iowan2 (9c8856) — 11/8/2019 @ 7:34 am

    As I stated at 106, Eric Ciaramella was informed by three different legal opinions, his hearsay of a conversation, did not reach the jurisdiction of the intel community. Since no Intel personnel, or operations were involved.

    I think the lawyer whom the House Intelligence Committee (probably) referred him to found a hook, although it is not explicit in the whistleblower complaint. The argument must have been made separately by his lawyer, either orally or in writing.

    The lawyer did not ask for money up front, but there’s a Go Fund Me campaign.

    Schiff later claimed, when the complaint was not forwarded to his committee, that, by law, it had to be, whether it was valid or not.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  124. 117.Very few of these guys kept their commenter handles from the Obama administration, but of course they didn’t think whistleblowers should be burned at the stake back them.

    History: Embrace the Wisdom
    As for Obama’s record, here’s what history will show: In his eight years in office, the Obama Justice Department spearheaded eight Espionage Act prosecutions, more than all US administrations combined. Journalists were also caught in the crosshairs: Investigators sought phone records for Associated Press journalists, threatened to jail an investigative reporter for The New York Times, and named a Fox News reporter a co-conspirator in a leak case. In Texas, a journalist investigating private defense contractors became the focus of a federal prosecution and was initially

    “The absolute twisted passion with which the administration under Obama’s leadership has pursued whistleblowers is just appalling,” says Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and co-founder of RootsAction.org. “And as far as I can tell, the administration is unrepentant in that process. There’s just no other administration that comes close.”

    https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-historic-war-on-whistleblowers/

    There is a google return for a a Washington Post article documenting the same abuse of Whistle Blowers by President Obama. But the article must have been deleted…hmmm?

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  125. 115. Get on it. Cite specific examples. Save the playground taunts for the kids you play with on the playground.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  126. So you’re saying wapo has been a consistent critic of going after whistleblowers?

    Time123 (3f25fa)

  127. time123 @101

    This whistleblower did what I would want the next one to do. They hired a lawyer, filed the paperwork with the appropriate office and let independent investigators evaluate what should happen next.

    They didn’t leak their report to the media.

    They didn’t try to steal government information and leak that to the media

    Actually there is a possibility that he did, in 2017, when someone got ahold of a transcript of an in-person meeting in the White House between Donald Trump and the Russian Foreign Minister and U.S. Ambassador and quoted Donald Trump from it as saying:

    “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

    AND

    “I’m not under investigation.”

    But if he did that then, he didn’t do anything like that this time. Well, for one thing, he didn’t have access to the transcript. Perhaps that actually was his original complaint.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  128. I’m not a lawyer or someone who pays that much attention, but is there perhaps a difference between asking the DOJ to investigate and/or prosecute whistleblowers and doing it via twitter? Under the legal system the whistleblowers can get an attorney and receive due process when prosecuted. At least one of the wb’s supposedly attacked by Obama settled and received an undisclosed chunk of change. Not sure the fate of the others but I bet Obama wasn’t whinging about them on twitter.

    https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2010/12/02/deepwater-false-claims-lawsuit-partially-settled.aspx?m=2

    JRH (52aed3)

  129. This is what the whistleblower complaint says about when Ukraine became aware there was a hold on the military aid:

    As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S. aid might be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it

    It definitely became known to them on August 28.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  130. Schiff’s points of inquiry apparently:

    1. Did the President request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the President’s personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the President’s political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 U.S. presidential election?

    Can you truly say that it wold only benefit the President’s personal political interests in the United States?

    Ad aren’t there ancillary questions such as whether the proposed investigation rested on solid ground? Or whether the president believed that to be possibly true or not? And does it matter whether he asked for 1) a witch hunt, or 2) a fishing expedition, or 3) an announcement of an inquiry, without expecting any followup, or 4) an honest investigation?

    It sounds like the question has been rigged.

    2. Did the President — directly or through agents — seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the President’s personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to Ukraine?

    Note that Schiff separates an “Oval Office meeting” and “withholding U.S. military assistance to Ukraine.” Because he knows the second couldn’t have happened till August 28. The first one was done by Sondland, without ever telling Trump, and second one Trump turned down when it was out to him. Because Trump was disposed to withhold the aid PERIOD

    Again, Schiff describes the request as being to “advance the President’s personal political interests” as if nobody else would care, or as if it would help him even if the allegations didn’t turn out to be true, or as if Donald Trump knew for sure it was false.

    3. Did the President and his Administration seek to obstruct, suppress, or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the President’s actions and conduct?

    Schiff thinks this is aslam dunk, as any non-compliance with subpoenas can be considered to be those things. And notice the way he throws in cover-up, which to me means lying, and not just concealing information from the Congress. And it is not the presidnt;s actions that he is concealing

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  131. 121. Good expansion on the discussion Sammy.

    My question would be, if the DNI wanted to investigate, wouldn’t they just ask to see the phone call? Again we are left with a phone call that had between 12 and 20 people listening in on. None of those people were moved to file a complaint. Some have testified they were upset enough to take it to either their superior or, in house counsel. Also, the DNI basis for investigation, would be predicated on a criminal act. What we have here can only be defined as a political difference of opinion. Democrats are loath to name a crime. That would be a defined definition, something that betrays The Democrat plan to remove by political, rather than criminal means.

    The bigger picture for all, impeachment is politics. Raw. Today it is 100% a Democrat Party operation. Understand, that defines this as pure partisan, dogma. With secret hearings giving way to public, I interpret, no bombshell facts exist, or Schiff would have long ago leaked them.

    Public hearing will only weaken the narrative, that survives today, through secrecy. I see Democrats in red districts, starting to peel away from the party line, or lose re-election with their inability to explain away facts.
    And of course, Democrats are going to be saddled with the fact, they are usurping the power citizens exercise by voting. Democrats have to explain how their judgment to remove the President from office, supersedes the rights of voters to decide on their own, at the ballot box.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  132. Now we know the Ukraine Ambassador fired by President Trump,(called back? Right, not fired) was e mailing back and forth with Shiff’s, Intell staff. Interesting since the Ambassador claimed she did not have contact, when questioned under oath.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  133. # 113 – Munroe

    You are right the media has no liability here. But they could be subpoenaed and required to burn their source. They may feel like this matter does not merit the risk. Because, events have moved far beyond the whistleblower’s complaint.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  134. It political, which is why we are seeing so much opinion dressed up like facts
    a nod to hf follows: (opinions dressed up like a thai ladyboy in pattaya)

    steveg (354706)

  135. 132. iowan2 (9c8856) — 11/8/2019 @ 8:49 am

    if the DNI wanted to investigate, wouldn’t they just ask to see the phone call?

    In the storage system it was in, there was very restricted access to it.

    Eric Ciaramella, if that was him, couldn’t get access to it, even though he was a deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia who reported to the acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire. (he may have worked out of Langley, or that may be wrong, ad he worked in some other office)

    Again we are left with a phone call that had between 12 and 20 people listening in on. None of those people were moved to file a complaint.

    Well, there is the question of whom are you going to file a complaint with?

    The logical thing, if you wanted to complain, was to go to a member or a committee of Congress, and because this dealt with secret matters, that would be one of the two Intelligence Committees.

    I think the important thing to people anyway was the withholding of the aid, about which nobody had informed the Ukrainians. Trump dd not put any pressure at all on Zelensky in the call – it was just that was so wrong headed. Zelensky actually didn’t even pick up on all tha Trump was saying.

    Also, the DNI basis for investigation, would be predicated on a criminal act.

    Or a few other things. a violation of an Executive Order, or “mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.”

    What we have here can only be defined as a political difference of opinion.

    Also acting in secret behind closed doors. When Trump withheld aid from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to pressure them on immigration, he did that in public. And there’s not following the Impoundment Control Act (if the money was going to end up not being spent.) Not to mention the funding had overwhelming support in Congress and Trump had not objected to it when the money was appropriated. In thinking that maybe Ukraine shold not get the aid, Trump was all alone.

    Democrats are loath to name a crime.

    Well, of course. That might pt the investigation into the hands of aspecial prosecutor and nothing more would be heard for a year or two.)

    The bigger picture for all, impeachment is politics. Raw. Today it is 100% a Democrat Party operation. Understand, that defines this as pure partisan, dogma. With secret hearings giving way to public, I interpret, no bombshell facts exist, or Schiff would have long ago leaked them.

    It;s more of an election issue. What Schiff is doing is rigging the questions to ask. He also wants no inquiry into whether anything Trump said had any basis in fact. He’s ruling that irrelevant. But it’s not. It’s important if it’s false – it means then that (probably Russian inspired) disinformation got to the president. But they don’t want any kind of apology from Trump.

    The narrative is already weakened. Schiff has changed his accusation to fit the facts.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  136. The threshold question is this — is it OK for the President, in conjunction with his aides, to demand the announcement by a foreign power of an investigation against an American citizen that is designed to advance Mr. Trump’s political interests? That’s not precisely phrased as a legal question, but it is what we are talking about.

    The GOP Senate has talked itself into a position that, yeah, that’s fine. The evidence known, at this point, won’t change all that much. Maybe something will percolate around those Trump hating suburbs that moves Trump’s poll ratings with self-identified Republicans down, and that moves a Senator or two into impeachment. I doubt it.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  137. Schiff has changed his accusation to fit the facts.

    Isn’t this proper? Shouldn’t the accusations be supported by the facts and not the narrative needs?

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  138. The threshold question is this — is it OK for the President, in conjunction with his aides, to demand the announcement by a foreign power of an investigation against an American citizen that is designed to advance Mr. Trump’s political interests? That’s not precisely phrased as a legal question, but it is what we are talking about.

    The fact that “The American Citizen” may be hurt by an investigation and that may in some way may “help” Trump “Political interests” in irrelevant. Using your logic, Trump would’ve be OK to ask for an investigation of Biden – if Biden had not declared for the POTUS in 2020 – or conversely, if Trump had declared he was NOT running in 2020. In fact, if Trump gets re-elected, he can ask Ukraine again in 2021 because he will have no “Political Interest” in going after Biden.

    Biden was not just a random “American citizen”, he was the VP who bragged openly of putting pressure on the Ukrainian Government while his son was tied up in a sketchy business deal. Why shouldn’t the Ukrainian government be asked to investigate? According to Biden, he did nothing wrong, which the investigation would prove. In which case, it would HURT Trump’s “political interests”.

    Isn’t it odd how Republicans are always getting “investigated” anytime there’s an APPEARANCE of corruption or wrong-doing, but Democrats are always presumed innocent and any investigation of them is dirty pool?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  139. What’s REALLY GOING ON is Muller was a bust, and the D’s need another issue to impeach Trump with. That’s why we’re all talking about this. Its why Schiff is having SECRET meetings and leaking selected testimony. Its why the NYT/WaPo are treating this all like the Crime of the Century and a valid investigation. Its why RINO’s and trump haters like Mittens and the RINO sisters are babbling about Senators “letting the process work out” and not “rendering a verdict before it comes to trial in the Senate”.

    YOu have to go back to the House impeachment of Andrew Johnson, to find a bigger bunch of hacks involved in partisan “Get the POTUS at all costs” impeachment.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  140. Using your logic, Trump would’ve be OK to ask for an investigation of Biden – if Biden had not declared for the POTUS in 2020 – or conversely, if Trump had declared he was NOT running in 2020. In fact, if Trump gets re-elected, he can ask Ukraine again in 2021 because he will have no “Political Interest” in going after Biden.

    asking != withholding military aid until the agree to do announce it.

    B

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  141. Its why Schiff is having SECRET meetings and leaking selected testimony.

    did you miss the move to public hearings? This part of your complaint is being addressed.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  142. #137

    The threshold question is this — is it OK for the President, in conjunction with his aides, to demand the announcement by a foreign power of an investigation against an American citizen that is designed to advance Mr. Trump’s political interests? That’s not precisely phrased as a legal question, but it is what we are talking about.

    The GOP Senate has talked itself into a position that, yeah, that’s fine. The evidence known, at this point, won’t change all that much. Maybe something will percolate around those Trump hating suburbs that moves Trump’s poll ratings with self-identified Republicans down, and that moves a Senator or two into impeachment. I doubt it.

    Appalled (1a17de) — 11/8/2019 @ 9:40 am

    Is it “OK”?

    No. Its on the level of every political hack pulling gutter tricks in politics. History is littered with “October Surprises” and other “low political” tricks.

    Is it impeachment worthy? Not even close.

    The end result was that the aid did finally get released without any strings. This impeachment inquiry is all about the sausage-making part of the whole ordeal while ignoring the end result.

    whembly (c30c83)

  143. RC, do you think Trump withheld aid to pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation of Hunter & Joe Biden?

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  144. Trump withheld aid because he was concerned they were corrupt. After he was satisfied they weren’t, he released the aid.

    P.S. I love all the claims that Trump should be impeached for failing to give the money to Ukraine because it’s his job to execute the laws Congress passes, but when Obama spit on the law, see his DOMA actions or policies ignoring the law regarding illegal aliens, well that’s different…

    Some animals are more equal than others.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  145. https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1192537356269735937

    Ho-Hum. Just move on. Nothing to see here.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  146. Trump withheld aid because he was concerned they were corrupt. After he was satisfied they weren’t, he released the aid.

    Do you believe it when you write this? Or does it make you feel silly?

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  147. So if Rand Paul and Donald Trump are retaliating against a corroborated whistleblower, what recourse does he have?

    Trump withheld aid because he was concerned they were corrupt. After he was satisfied they weren’t, he released the aid.

    Poor innocent Trump, lol. Always the victim in every situation he caused.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  148. House GOP looks to protect Trump by raising doubts about motives of his deputies

    House Republicans’ latest plan to shield President Trump from impeachment is to focus on at least three deputies — U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and possibly acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — who they say could have acted on their own to influence Ukraine policy.
    All three occupy a special place in the Ukraine narrative as the people in most direct contact with Trump. As Republicans argue that most of the testimony against Trump is based on faulty secondhand information, they are sowing doubts about whether Sondland, Giuliani and Mulvaney were actually representing the president or freelancing to pursue their own agendas. The GOP is effectively offering up the three to be fall guys ….

    The suggestion that Sondland, Giuliani and possibly Mulvaney made demands of Ukrainians without Trump’s explicit blessing has emerged among several theories that Republicans have offered in Trump’s defense, as witnesses testify that they believed Ukraine was being squeezed.

    In a sign of how the GOP is scrambling, however, many of those theories run counter to each other.
    In the past few days, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has said it doesn’t matter whether Trump made a quid pro quo demand because he didn’t have “criminal intent.” Sens. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) have argued, as Mulvaney did from a White House lectern last month, that such exchanges happen “all the time” in foreign policy and are not a serious offense, let alone impeachable.

    And Trump ally Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) has floated yet another defense, suggesting Trump’s Ukraine policy was too “incoherent” for officials to successfully execute anything as calculated as a quid pro quo arrangement.
    “What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine: It was incoherent, it depends on who you talk to, they seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo,” he said. ….

    Rip Murdock (6fea74)

  149. “Do you believe it when you write this? Or does it make you feel silly?”
    Time123 (d1bf33) — 11/8/2019 @ 11:24 am

    It’s only believable if you swap Trump for Biden and leave the wording the same, right? Say it with a straight face.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  150. @140
    You do know the transcripts of the actual testimonies are being released? Unlike the tack “transcript” of the phone call. Trump needs to release the verbatim transcript or recording (and these calls are recorded).

    Rip Murdock (6fea74)

  151. @150 when are you going to get creative with your ‘whatabouts’? These are just the same old jokes you’ve been making. If you’ve got nothing to really add to the conversation you should at least be entertaining.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  152. “House Republicans’ latest plan to shield President Trump from impeachment is to focus on at least three deputies — U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and possibly acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — who they say could have acted on their own to influence Ukraine policy.”

    Reminder that Sondland paid $1 million to be ambassador and put himself in this position where Trump surrogates are throwing him under the bus.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  153. Trump offers to release transcript of ‘second call’ with Ukrainian president

    President Donald Trump on Friday said he would be willing to turn over the transcript of a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that preceded the July conversation between the two leaders that ignited House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
    “I had a second call with the president which actually, I believe, came before this one, and now they all want that one. And if they want it, I’ll give it to them,” Trump told reporters outside the White House, presumably referring to congressional impeachment investigators. “I haven’t seen it recently, but I’ll give it to them.”

    Yeah, because the last time he released a call it worked out really well.

    Rip Murdock (6fea74)

  154. Yeah, because the last time he released a call it worked out really well.

    Well, what do you expect? I think that Trump really believes that it was a perfect call…because he’s an idiot, and Trump’s Taint™ will always defend him, the more ridiculous the claim the better. What better way to illustrate that than release all the calls demanding foreign countries intervene on his personal behalf. You know, like Turkey, Saudi, UAE, Russia, Australia, Ukraine, the UK, Italy, France…and those are only the ones we already know about. Why would little old Ukraine be the straw that breaks the Taint’s back?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  155. Why are Democrats so insistent to muzzle the will of the voters? In less than a year, the Jury, having a long time to asses the evidence, will render a verdict. Scary. Even controlling the information, the Democrat hack media, spinning opinion into fact. Democrats controlling everything, even Democrats know they have nothing to present to the people that supports their claim of impeachable offenses. Just a political difference that can only be dealt with by the voters.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  156. ”Why are Democrats so insistent to muzzle the will of the voters?”
    iowan2 (9c8856) — 11/8/2019 @ 12:36 pm

    They’re not, at least not overtly, as they know the president is not going to be removed. (I’m sure a Spock mind meld would reveal some interesting thoughts regarding voters.)

    They’re insistent on dragging it out as long as possible so as to maximize the impact on voters’ doubts regarding Trump. It’s partisan gamesmanship and lawfare dressed up as impeachment, or collusion SC part deux, and I’m sure the Founders would be hi-fiving over it — just like they’d hi-five over the centralized administrative power concentrated in DC and Northern VA.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  157. Why are Democrats so insistent to muzzle the will of the voters?

    It’s not just democrats. Everyone who isn’t a devoted Trump fan wants this to happen. Because Trump is a criminal and they don’t think he should be above the law just because he won the EC. You seem to think otherwise about that. Why?

    Dustin (d42b09)

  158. ”It’s not just democrats. Everyone who isn’t a devoted Trump fan wants this to happen.”
    Dustin (d42b09) — 11/8/2019 @ 1:02 pm

    No Spock mind meld needed, apparently!

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  159. @149 I don’t think those three have enough personal loyalty to trump to take the fall. But I could be wrong. And if they were abusing the power of the office for political gain they for Trump than they should be help accountable to that. Sonderland at least can be impeached.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  160. @156 Not a dem but I’ll respond

    My preference is that Trump not be impeached, but lose the election to someone better. (not a guarantee given the dem field)

    But, if he abused the power of his office to try and extort Ukraine into announcing an investigation not based on probably cause but to benefit him personally, and if there is evidence to prove it, he should be impeached.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  161. “Why are Democrats so insistent to muzzle the will of the voters?”

    Do the voters who elected the Democrats to a house majority count? Or just Trump voters?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  162. (not a guarantee given the dem field)

    What’s fascinating is that both sides seem to be getting worse because of the binary choice argument. Trump made no sense except ‘but democrats!’. Warren makes no sense except ‘but trump!!!’

    And as each side gets worse, the binary choice argument actually seemingly gets stronger. I don’t want a president who is a corrupt russian lapdog coward, or a socialist.

    You can thank the devoted nutty partisan for why America is in decline.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  163. Do the voters who elected the Democrats to a house majority count? Or just Trump voters?

    Davethulhu (fab944) — 11/8/2019 @ 1:37 pm

    No argument by Trump’s fans works that way. If you find a reason why they are being hypocritical, they take that as a sign they are being particularly loyal. Anybody can be honest and tell it like it is. It takes a special supporter to go the extra mile. You can expect the obnoxious bad faith question response.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  164. ”Do the voters who elected the Democrats to a house majority count? Or just Trump voters?”
    Davethulhu (fab944) — 11/8/2019 @ 1:37 pm

    Yes, when the president’s party loses the house majority, he gets booted from office — or have you forgotten the Obama years already?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  165. Adam Schiffs committee contacted Ambassador Yovanovitch before the Whistle Blower complaint was given to Schiffs committee. Seems Schiff knew about the complaint before it was written. Weird, huh?

    The timeline of this email is critical. It is known that the whistleblower contacted Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Cal.) before filing his complaint. As Carlson points out, given that the above email was sent before the whistleblower complaint went public, it’s worth asking Schiff whether he had the audacity to contact other Democrat teams on the Hill about the complaint and its contents before it became public knowledge. In other words, what kind of stealthy (and possibly corrupt) machinations were taking place behind the scenes before the whistleblower’s complaint was used as a public pretext for launching an impeachment inquiry?

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  166. Why are Democrats so insistent to muzzle the will of the voters?

    The will of the voters is not how presidents get elected in the United States. If it were, Hillary Clinton would currently be in the White House, since the will of the people had millions more voting for her. But that requires you to know something about how American elections work, instead of Trumpish FEELZ about how elections work.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  167. “Adam Schiffs committee contacted Ambassador Yovanovitch before the Whistle Blower complaint was given to Schiffs committee. Seems Schiff knew about the complaint before it was written. Weird, huh?”

    What does any of this have to do with whether or not Trump was pushing a quid pro quo with Ukraine?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  168. What does any of this have to do with whether or not Trump was pushing a quid pro quo with Ukraine?

    Because before the public knew, why would the House intel committee know. I mean really, a dude in Iowa should definitely know first, for sure. It’s not like the stories of Trump doing this with _______ foreign government were known, nope, no one ever heard of him doing that.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  169. The will of the voters is not how presidents get elected in the United States. If it were, Hillary Clinton would currently be in the White House, since the will of the people had millions more voting for her. But that requires you to know something about how American elections work, instead of Trumpish FEELZ about how elections work.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 11/8/2019 @ 4:31 pm

    Nonsense. Every state is decided by popular vote. The electoral college prevents tyranny by the majority and Trump won the vast majority of states even if he lost the cities that make blue areas.

    NJRob (38f433)

  170. #168

    “Adam Schiffs committee contacted Ambassador Yovanovitch before the Whistle Blower complaint was given to Schiffs committee. Seems Schiff knew about the complaint before it was written. Weird, huh?”

    What does any of this have to do with whether or not Trump was pushing a quid pro quo with Ukraine?

    Davethulhu (fab944) — 11/8/2019 @ 4:32 pm

    Because Democrats are making a mountain out of an anthill here…. if there is coordination here by Democrats with agendas to “dirty up” Trump, that’s worth investigating too.

    whembly (c30c83)

  171. Nonsense. Every state is decided by popular vote. The electoral college prevents tyranny by the majority and Trump won the vast majority of states even if he lost the cities that make blue areas.

    Thereby enabling tyranny of the majority. If the minority can object to being tyrannized by the majority, then the majority can also object to being tyrannized by the minority.

    Kishnevi (d99923)

  172. Democrats are making a mountain out of an anthill here

    Obama’s birth certificate? Huge deal. Ted Cruz’s dad on the grassy knoll? Huge deal. Bill Ayers ghost authoring Obama’s book? OMG. Trump squeezing an ally to interfere in our election, after being caught obstructing an investigation into Russia doing the same? Anthill. Basically a parking ticket.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  173. iowan2 (9c8856) — 11/8/2019 @ 4:20 pm

    Really wierd. Schiff heard about it, said the WB should file a formal complaint instead of leaving it to the DC rumor mill. I mean, who would ever think a Democrat would tell people to do it the right way?

    Kishnevi (d99923)

  174. BTW, unless you want to say it was the will of the voters to have as President a man who is corrupt, statist, and monumentally incompetent, you shouldn’t be saying the Democrats are trying to nullify the will of the voters.

    Kishnevi (d99923)

  175. Adam Schiffs committee contacted Ambassador Yovanovitch before the Whistle Blower complaint was given to Schiffs committee. Seems Schiff knew about the complaint before it was written. Weird, huh?

    Not really.

    People were suspicious about the delay in releasing the Ukraine’s military aid even before the whistleblower submitted his complaint.

    Dave (07ce57)

  176. #173

    Democrats are making a mountain out of an anthill here

    Obama’s birth certificate? Huge deal.

    No. Folks who kept pushing it were roundly condemned (Trump included).

    Ted Cruz’s dad on the grassy knoll? Huge deal.

    Joke.

    Bill Ayers ghost authoring Obama’s book? OMG.

    Don’t exactly remember all the details of this one… but meh.

    Trump squeezing an ally to interfere in our election, after being caught obstructing an investigation into Russia doing the same? Anthill. Basically a parking ticket.

    Dustin (d42b09) — 11/8/2019 @ 5:12 pm

    Your premise is ridiculous.

    Trump asked Ukraine president to investigate the Bidens after commenting on how Joe Biden publicly quid pro quo’ed the Ukrainian during the Obama administration.

    That isn’t interfering our election.

    Trump’s political sin was asking this in that manner, rather using existing offical channels via the DOJ-to-Ukrainian counterparts.

    So, yes, it is an anthill.

    whembly (c30c83)

  177. whembly — you left out that hold withholding of aid part…

    Appalled (1a17de)

  178. whembly, Biden didn’t do anything of the sort. What he did do was carry out Obama policy and then try to make it seem a personal achievement. But any “quid pro quo” is fantasy on Trump’s part. What is not fantasy is that Trump tried to subordinate US foreign policy to his own short-term interest.


    Trump’s political sin was asking this in that manner, rather using existing offical channels via the DOJ-to-Ukrainian counterparts.

    Leave aside the legalities. Are you comfortable with a POTUS who is too dumb to things via normal channels?

    I actually agree on a lot of things with you and Munroe…but you apparent inability to recognize that Trump is as swampy as any other denizen of DC does make me go “arggh”.

    Kishnevi (d99923)

  179. There is nothing wrong with President Donald J. Trump
    Who was a binary choice between him and Hillary Clinton
    Blackmailing the government of Ukraine
    With billion of U.S. taxpayer money in foreign aid
    To get them to do opposition research on Joe Biden
    And anybody who says there is a Democrat, and a Never Trumper, and Fake News, and human scum and the worst enemy of America
    And whatabout the $18 trillion Bush and Obama spent on Iraq and Afghanistan?

    nk (dbc370)

  180. Trump asked Ukraine

    Oh that’s all he did? I thought he applied a billion dollars of pressure on one of Putin’s enemies in a way that sickened a lot of the people in the room and was obviously super freaking corrupt, but he just asked?

    Thanks for clearing that up!

    Dustin (d42b09)

  181. 178

    whembly — you left out that hold withholding of aid part…

    Appalled (1a17de) — 11/8/2019 @ 5:32 pm

    In reading the transcripts and the current testimonies during the Schiff hearings, I’m convinced that the aid wasn’t really withheld in order to entice Zelenski to investigate the Bidens.

    The whistleblower and Col Vinman didn’t call out the quid pro quo…they essentially thought it was inappropriate for Trump to be requesting investigation assistance. (Vinman was worried that Ukraine would lose bipartisan support from Congress).

    Amb Sonland was the one who thought he needed to get Ukraine/Zelenski to agree to investigate the Bidens in order to jar the funding loose. (in reading this, you’d get the sense that general quid pro quo happens all the time in the diplomatic world)

    To me, the simplest reason why the aid was withheld was due to lack of communication strategy between the White House and the diplomatic corps. We have testimonies, and Trump himself stating that he was reluctant in releasing the funds to the notorious corrupt Ukraines. Besides that, I get the sense that no one in the diplo corps knew what was going on, until the last minute when Trump gave the greenlight to release the funds without getting anything from Ukraine.

    I don’t have any issues with investigating the Bidens, especially since he’s a front runner. Joe Biden is running for President too… and the whole Burisma/China spiel with Hunter looks really, REALLY bad. Don’t you agree? Or, am I wrong here? Can we at least agree on this point?

    Just because Joe is likely Trump’s opponent doesn’t mean Joe is immunized from any sort of investigations. In pursuing such investigations, there better be some REAL compelling reasons to do so… not as a naked partisan manner in which the ultimate goal is to dirty him up. I think there’s fire underneath the smoke… But, because this is Trump political opponents, he should NOT have asked assistance in that manner as it gives, at the very least, appearance of corrupt motives.

    That’s his political sin here. I’m not absolving Trump here…

    The proper thing for Trump to do as President, is to reach out to his own DOJ foreign affairs department and request to initiate preliminary investigation with Ukrainian officials and let the chips fall as they may.

    This political sin isn’t impeachment worth imo… yes, it’s a mistake and yes it warrants criticism.

    But the end result is that the aid was eventually released and no commitment was made in regards to any Biden investigations.

    So, yes, I think Democrats and Trump critics are making a mountain out of an anthill here.

    I think this backfires on Democrats spectacularly…

    whembly (c30c83)

  182. Dustin

    Its important to note that Trump always inserts the caveat into ihis agreeing to release tax documents (once he is no longer under audit)

    As I’ve noted before, with his holdings across the USA and International, he is likely under Local, State, Federal and International audits at all times, so NO he is never going to release his returns.
    I read an article where some billionaires actually have an IRS officer on-premises (with their own office) with the billionaires own money people. It makes sense, because there are often multiples of transactions daily that need to be correctly categorized, the taxes justify the presence of the onsite auditor and it make quarterly payments much more accurate.

    And yes, its a weasel move, but its like this “Sure I’d release all my returns if this bug wasn’t up my ass, but these days the bug is always up my ass, so until then…”

    steveg (354706)

  183. “Its important to note that Trump always inserts the caveat into ihis agreeing to release tax documents (once he is no longer under audit)”

    I think Trump is lying. Because he is always lying.

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  184. 178

    whembly, Biden didn’t do anything of the sort. What he did do was carry out Obama policy and then try to make it seem a personal achievement. But any “quid pro quo” is fantasy on Trump’s part. What is not fantasy is that Trump tried to subordinate US foreign policy to his own short-term interest.

    What makes you say that?

    Do you see anything weird regarding Hunter Biden’s Burisma connection and Joe admitting to pressuring Ukraine to the benefit of his son’s company?

    Trump’s political sin was asking this in that manner, rather using existing offical channels via the DOJ-to-Ukrainian counterparts.

    Leave aside the legalities. Are you comfortable with a POTUS who is too dumb to things via normal channels?

    My comfort level is irrelevant. I wish Trump would do things differently, yes… but his actions over Ukraine, based on what we know, isn’t impeachable.

    I actually agree on a lot of things with you and Munroe…but you apparent inability to recognize that Trump is as swampy as any other denizen of DC does make me go “arggh”.

    Kishnevi (d99923) — 11/8/2019 @ 5:38 pm

    Um… Trump *is* swampy as all hell. Where did you get the impression otherwise?

    whembly (c30c83)


  185. Paul Sperry
    @paulsperry_
    ·
    BREAKING: Eric Ciaramella’s Internet footprint–including photos & bios–began to be scrubbed beginning in early Sept, after the National Intelligence director transmitted whistleblower letter to Congress,like the digital tracks of Dems’ other”whistleblower” Christine Blasey Ford

    _

    harkin (337580)

  186. To me, the simplest reason why the aid was withheld was due to lack of communication strategy between the White House and the diplomatic corps.

    Lack of communication being due to using Guiliani and company as back channel, instead of using the diplomats already in place.

    and the whole Burisma/China spiel with Hunter looks really, REALLY bad.

    But no one has pointed to anything Papa Biden has done as being wrong, except one thing in which he was merely an agent for the Obama administration and which actually was contrary to Hunter’s interests. (The prosecutor was fired because he wasn’t investigating Burisma.)

    Everyone seems to agree that Hunter is a greedy fool. But that’s long way to Joe Biden is corrupt.

    Kishnevi (d99923)

  187. 187

    To me, the simplest reason why the aid was withheld was due to lack of communication strategy between the White House and the diplomatic corps.

    Lack of communication being due to using Guiliani and company as back channel, instead of using the diplomats already in place.

    Right. Again, I don’t see this impeachable.

    and the whole Burisma/China spiel with Hunter looks really, REALLY bad.

    But no one has pointed to anything Papa Biden has done as being wrong, except one thing in which he was merely an agent for the Obama administration and which actually was contrary to Hunter’s interests. (The prosecutor was fired because he wasn’t investigating Burisma.)

    Everyone seems to agree that Hunter is a greedy fool. But that’s long way to Joe Biden is corrupt.

    Kishnevi (d99923) — 11/8/2019 @ 6:16 pm

    What? Am I missing something?

    Joe is on record bragging about getting a prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold fundings… a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma… which his son is on the board.

    Allegedly of course, which requires good faith investigations.

    Right?

    whembly (c30c83)

  188. Trump *is* swampy as all hell. Where did you get the impression otherwise?

    I thought you were defending him in the grounds that the Democrats are making it all up.

    Obviously I misunderstood you, and accordingly offer my apologies.

    But in the context of actual events, Biden was acting on behalf of Obama and acting in a way that was detrimental to Hunter and Burisma. The prosecutor was fired because the prosecutor was not investigating Burisma. If anything, after Biden’s intervention, Burisma and Hunter were at more risk, not less.

    I think that Trump subordinated US interests and Congressional mandates to his own short term benefit, and that should be impeachable.

    Kishnevi (d99923)

  189. What? Am I missing something?

    You are missing two things. First, Biden was no more than a messenger (if you want to say his boasts were lies, I won’t object). Second, the prosecutor was fired because he was not investigating corruption. If Biden was acting to protect his son, he would have tried to make sure the guy was not fired.

    Kishnevi (d99923)

  190. ”BTW, unless you want to say it was the will of the voters to have as President a man who is corrupt, statist, and monumentally incompetent, you shouldn’t be saying the Democrats are trying to nullify the will of the voters.”
    Kishnevi (d99923) — 11/8/2019 @ 5:21 pm

    I could accept that, if the attempts at nullification didn’t start on Inauguration Day.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  191. I could accept that, if the attempts at nullification didn’t start on Inauguration Day.

    You’re forgetting that the evidence of corruption, statism, and incompetence was obvious well before 20 January 2017.

    Kishnevi (d99923)

  192. ”You’re forgetting that the evidence of corruption, statism, and incompetence was obvious well before 20 January 2017.”
    Kishnevi (d99923) — 11/8/2019 @ 7:11 pm

    Wait — so it was the will of the people after all.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  193. Really wierd. Schiff heard about it, No. Schiff responded to a question that the WB had no contact with him or his committee said the WB should file a formal complaint instead of leaving it to the DC rumor mill. Not even close. Schiff’s committee hooked the WB up with a lawyer skilled in writing up WB complaints I mean, who would ever think a Democrat would tell people to do it the right way? ignoring completely that the Democrat lead HPSIC committee was contacting an ambassador to the Ukraine. According to Schiff, the WB had no contact with him or his committee, but even if there was contact, the nature of the complaint was a totally unknown quantity. to Schiff or the committee. If I were the chair of the HPSCI I would know that a potential complaint would deal directly with persons under the control of the DNI, or operations, fraud, or waste in the Intel Community. If I were guessing, I would never think to contact a foreign Ambassador, in general, but specifically the Ambassador to Ukraine. Talk about a lucky shot in the dark. Because a complaint concerning anything an Ambassador would be involved with, would have nothing to do with the IC

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  194. Munroe (dd6b64) — 11/8/2019 @ 7:16 pm
    Hah! Rhetorical point to you.

    Kishnevi (d99923)

  195. iowan2 (9c8856) — 11/8/2019 @ 7:18 pm

    Occam says Schiff heard rumors from other people, and since the rumors mentioned Ukraine, decided the former ambassador to the Ukraine.

    IOW, you are assuming Schiff had no sources of information besides the WB.

    Kishnevi (d99923)

  196. I am the egg man

    Former national security adviser John Bolton has “personal knowledge” of relevant meetings and conversations “that have not yet been discussed in testimonies thus far” as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, but he is still refusing to testify until a federal judge rules in an ongoing legal fight between House committees and the White House, according to his lawyer.

    They are the egg men

    Bolton’s lawyer, Charles Cooper, wrote a letter to lawmakers Friday in which he teased the idea that his client could offer new details related to the impeachment probe, as well as additional context about events that have been described in other witness testimony.

    I am the walrus…

    Bolton “was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far,” the letter reads.

    Goo-goo-ga-joob!

    Dave (dca46e)

  197. Its important to note that Trump always inserts the caveat into ihis agreeing to release tax documents (once he is no longer under audit)

    Fair is fair, steveg. I can’t really recall if he did or didn’t say it, and anything I dig up will be an MSM quote that could have dropped the caveat.

    It’s still really amusing to me that Trump said he’d be happy to share those tax returns, asterisk or no. I guess he realized that with all the fraud he does he’s always under audit. Old bone spurs got away with another one!

    Dustin (d42b09)

  198. Its important to note that Trump always inserts the caveat into ihis agreeing to release tax documents (once he is no longer under audit)

    The “once the audit is over” thing was what he settled on in late February 2016, after saying very different things many times.

    You can see the whole comedic history here:

    Over three minutes of Donald Trump promising to release his tax returns

    Bonus: All the times Donald Trump has made “big strong guys” cry!

    Dave (dca46e)

  199. 196. Why would The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be interested in an ambassador? That would fall under the Foreign Affairs oversight committee. Come to think of it. Eric Ciaramella’s complaint has no business in the HPSCI. But there it is. Just a wild coincidence that ONLY, WB complaints that originate with in the Intelligence Community are required by law to be forward to Congressional Intell Committees. If for instance, Ciaramella would have filed his WB complaint with the State Dept IG )The HPSCI staff would have recommended that). Congress would have never known about it. It’s just another coincidence. That Schiff hired 2 staffers in the last 5 months from the NSC tasked to the Obama White House in 2016, and carried over into the Trump White House. If you stack up all the coincidences, you could span the Potomac with them.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  200. Why would The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be interested in an ambassador?

    The committees have overlapping areas of interest. I can’t see how a single committee has zero interest in ambassadors except maybe education and labor, but even then it’s kinda plausible.

    You’re acting like every issue belongs solely to the one committee with exclusive dominion over it.

    If you stack up all the coincidences

    I think what you’re trying to say is that partisanship is a check and balance in and of itself, and both parties are trying to catch the other’s wrongdoing, rather zealously. For example, Trump was a hell of a nutty birther when Obama beat his friend Hillary in the democrat primary, and kept that going into his evolution into kinda sorta republican.

    But of course the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence overseas the Department of State, and has for years. Guess where Ambassadors come from. They have been investigating Trump’s obstruction of the collusion investigation more recently. Seems like more collusion is directly in line with their purpose.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  201. overseas

    😣

    Dustin (d42b09)

  202. 196. IOW, you are assuming Schiff had no sources of information besides the WB.

    Kishnevi (d99923) — 11/8/2019 @ 7:22 pm

    So you agree Schiff has cultivated traitors in the White House that are leaking classified information to him secretly, outside the law? Yes many are beginning to see the pattern you have spotted.

    iowan2 (9c8856)

  203. Schiff has cultivated traitors in the White House that are leaking classified information to him secretly, outside the law

    AKA whistleblowers who definitely won’t be retaliated against so why not doxx them?

    Anyway, I think there’s a process for getting classified information about misconduct to the guy who overseas misconduct in classified areas of government (this happens to be Schiff because the voters reacted very negatively to Trump and gave the House to the democrats).

    Dustin (d42b09)

  204. 😣

    Dustin (d42b09)

  205. This foursome could go on the Bloomberg thread, too, but it makes a more salient point here.

    nk (dbc370)

  206. RC, do you think Trump withheld aid to pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation of Hunter & Joe Biden?

    I see no hard evidence of that, other than speculation. BUT, if it was true, I would have no problem with it.

    We give foreign countries aid, partly to help them, and partly to use it as a carrot/stick to get them to act right (from our perspective). Ukraine and USA have a treaty to fight corruption, having Ukraine look into Joe Biden-Hunter Biden-and oil company is fighting corruption.

    People seem to be missing the point. What is WRONG with investigating whether Joe Biden and Hunter Biden were doing something corrupt? If there’s no Evidence, as all the D’s confidently assert, then an official investigation would prove them and be helpful to Biden’s campaign.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  207. BTW, Facebook and Youtube are now censoring their sites to remove any mention that Eric Ciaremella is the Whistle Blower.

    Its amazing how these social media and big media outlets all work in lockstep to PREVENT The American people from learning things. Who elected the head of Youtube or zuckerberg America’s Head Censor? Of course, liberal/leftist will cheer, because they have no principles except “What helps the Democrats is good, what hurts them is bad”. What’s hilarious is there is no law preventing Anyone except the IG from disclosing who the Whistleblower is, and Schiff has already outed him by failing to redact testimony.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  208. When the President of the United States stands before his rabid cultists and openly suggests executing an innocent victim, and the President’s attorneys argue in court that his office allows him to commit murder with impunity, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to publicize information about the defenseless target he marked for death.

    Dave (dca46e)

  209. Republicans with some remaining vestige of integrity and respect for the rule of law:

    Beldar
    Mike Pence
    Mitch McConnell
    Lindsey Graham
    Ben Sasse
    Ted Cruz
    Mike Lee
    Marco Rubio
    Rand Paul
    Joni Ernst
    Tom Cotton
    Jeff Sessions
    Kevin McCarthy
    Nikki Haley
    Liz Cheney (?)
    John Bolton (?)
    Rick Perry (?)
    Paul Ryan
    Will Hurd
    Mitt Romney
    Susan Collins
    Carly Fiorina
    Jeb Bush
    Jeff Flake
    John Kasich

    Dave (dca46e)

  210. Those Pierre Delecto’s are all traitorous pos. No man with any balls would vote for those rino lap dogs.

    mg (8cbc69)

  211. You forgot Justice Roberts, Dave.

    mg (8cbc69)

  212. When the President of the United States stands before his rabid cultists and openly suggests executing an innocent victim,

    The yellow pansy did do that, didn’t he, about the whistleblower, and not very long ago either.

    nk (dbc370)

  213. LTC Vindman on John Solomon’s “reporting”:

    During an exchange with pro-Trump Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), Vindman said that Solomon’s article was a “false narrative” and that he based that assertion on “authoritative sources.” When asked to elaborate, the NSC official said he talked to “interagency colleagues from State and the Intelligence Community,” adding they found the claims against Yovanovitch to be “preposterous.”
    When pressed by Zeldin on whether his sources found some or all of the parts of Solomon’s report to be false, Vindman replied: “I think all the key elements are false.”
    “Just so I understand what you mean when you say key elements,” the congressman asked. “Are you referring to everything John Solomon stated or just some of it?”
    “All the elements that I just laid out for you,” Vindman said. “The criticisms of corruption were false.”

    But Trump would rather listen to Putin, the Hungarian president and Solomon on matters Ukraine because he can’t process narratives that conflict with the stories in his head. As Mattis said, Trump is a man of “limited cognitive ability” and “generally dubious character”.

    Paul Montagu (00daa1)

  214. Here it is, on 9/27/2019. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/27/president-trump-whistleblower-spy-statement-un-event-newday-vpx.cnn At around 1:00 on the video.

    But I have to hand it to the Marching Morons. They cannot only themselves ignore the barefaced facts that contradict their daffodil’s narrative, they’re very good at guiding the narrative away from them too.

    nk (dbc370)

  215. Snowden is not a “whistleblower.” A whistleblower is someone who sees something illegal happening and cannot get the organization to fix it. He sought a position at NSA with the premeditated agenda of exposing all of NSA’s secrets, legal and illegal.

    That’s espionage.

    Kevin M (19357e)


  216. John Kasich

    Dave (dca46e) — 11/9/2019 @ 1:24 am

    John Kasich has never had integrity. He’s willing to say or do anything to get your vote, including taking all sides of an issue. He and Souter have much in common.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  217. BTW, there are those who feel that abandoning Party due to personal dislikes shows a lack of integrity. Sucking it up and soldiering on is the path of integrity for them.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  218. SF: Schiff has changed his accusation to fit the facts.

    138. Time123 (89dfb2) — 11/8/2019 @ 10:03 am

    Isn’t this proper? Shouldn’t the accusations be supported by the facts and not the narrative needs?

    What I mean by that is that he has so changed the nature of the charges so that it fits within the facts.

    He is taking the current assessment of the facts and drawing a bullseye around it.

    Instead of the accusation being him wanting to force Ukraine to “dig up dirt” (implying that is, to tell lies) about Biden, now it is enough if he was trying to use the power of the Office of the President to get Ukraine to help his political campaign. advance the President’s personal political interests. (No mixed motive allowed here.)

    It will be characterized as extortion and even bribery.

    And now attempting to conceal anything from Congress, even openly, with legal arguments, (even granted they may possibly be bad legal arguments) is to be itself maybe grounds for impeachment.

    Sammy Finkelman (a64d54)

  219. 182. whembly (c30c83) — 11/8/2019 @ 6:00 pm

    Just because Joe is likely Trump’s opponent doesn’t mean Joe is immunized from any sort of investigations. In pursuing such investigations, there better be some REAL compelling reasons to do so…

    That’s important, but Schiff has framed the issue in such a way so that that’s irrelevant, although, of course he’ll let people think Trump, at best, didn’t care whether anything Ukraine produced was true or not. (as Hilary Clinton put it)

    Now what the truth is, the stuff Giuliani was getting (it seems) was a very very far cry from the truth, and what Biden said in his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on January 23, 2018 speech was mispresented, as well the background facts. Of course there is an issue as as to what the owers of Burisma thought they would get with an association with Hunter Biden (besides a pliable Board member and consultant who wouldn’t make trouble, but you could probably get some cheaper)

    And then there’s the fact that Biden can’t explain what he really did, since the whole incident with him telling Ukrainian officials that unless the the prosecutor got fired within six hours (that is, before his plane left Kiev) he would call off or not attend a press conference where they were going to announce a $1.5 million loan guarantee probably never happened!

    Sammy Finkelman (a64d54)

  220. 139. rcocean (1a839e) — 11/8/2019 @ 10:09 am

    Biden was not just a random “American citizen”, he was the VP who bragged openly of putting pressure on the Ukrainian Government while his son was tied up in a sketchy business deal.

    Yes, but the accusation is that firing the prosecutor somehow protected that company. Viktor Shokin however told Giuliani on January 23, 2019 that the previous U.S. ambassador to Ukraine before Yovanovich was responsible for getting him to drop the investigation of Burisma by telling him to treat it with kid gloves (which may be a big lie)

    He also said that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko told him tat Biden was responsible for him getting fired, which may also be a lie.

    And the affdavit he supposedly signed may be not on;y true but a forgery.

    And in any case, Biden in fact was NOT </b the president, and couldn't have done anything

    And Biden probably made up the whole story he told in the recording, too.

    Sammy Finkelman (a64d54)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8041 secs.