Whistle blower allegation proves dems, media corruption in Biden Ukraine story

a reply to: thedigirati
could you imagine what would have happened to a "whistleblower" telling everyone about pallets of cash being sent to iran?
or a "whistleblower" telling everyone about gun shipments to mexican drug lords?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gorgonite
www.washingtonexaminer.com...



Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko denied reports that President Trump pressured Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky during a July phone call that is reportedly the subject of a whistleblower complaint.



Prystaiko, however, dismissed the claims in a Saturday interview, saying, "I know what the conversation was about, and I think there was no pressure. This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers."

Was trump not calling him in a "diplomatic" capacity?
Sorry you, or any other non elected bureaucrat, don't get to question potus's motives when he is fulfilling the duties of his office.
it was a privileged conversation between two heads of state.
SPECIFICALLY mentioned as protected by the scotus.

Thank you for providing the statement again.

Let's examine exactly what was said.

I know what the conversation was about, and I think there was no pressure. This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers.

You see, Zelensky is a politician and understands the art of denying while actually not denying. He didn't say "Trump didn't pressure me". He didn't say "We didn't talk about investigating Biden". He said I think there was no pressure. This gives him plenty of wiggle room if the recording or transcript is produced.

At the end, he circles back around and states "Sometimes requiring serious answers". This is just more politician speech that he can use if the transcript or recordings prove they did actually discuss Biden.

But in all honesty, Trump himself confirmed he discussed investigating Biden with Zelensky. So I am not sure why you think this statement proves anything at all?

www.forbes.com...

In summary, this is what we know for sure:

• There was a whistleblower complaint filed deemed to be serious and urgent by a Trump-Appointee
  
• The complaint supposedly pertains to a phone call between Trump and Ukranian president Zelensky
  
• Multiple papers (Including Murdochs WSJ) are reporting that Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and threatened to withhold funding until they did so.
  
• Rudy Giuliani was caught on national TV lying about asking the Ukrainians to investigate Biden
  
• The next day Trump has confirmed he asked Zelensky to look into Biden, but just the night before he was denying this on Twitter.
  
• The White House has blown past all the legal deadlines for reporting this complaint to Congress
  

There is no way for us to know for sure what happened on that call until we either hear it, or see a transcript. You can't argue nothing illegal took place, just like I can't argue something illegal did take place. All we can do is look at the available evidence and draw conclusions.

Based off what is currently available, the Trump administration has already broken the law by withholding the complaint from the oversight committee. This in and of itself should be enough to draw red flags but there is more. Additionally, a Trump appointee has specifically stated the complaint is serious and urgent. I'm sure they wouldn't put their career on the line if it was just a congratulatory call.

As for your argument that any call between Trump and other heads of states is privileged, you are just wrong. Like I have said already, executive privilege is for communications between Trump and his advisors. Nowhere has it ever been stated that communications with foreign leaders are covered by executive privilege? If it was, then why has the intel community listened in on all presidential conversations with foreign leaders since Nixon?

a reply to: Gorgonite

Trouble is, there's no actual law that requires an IG to turn over a whistleblower complaint to Congress.

And, yes, phone calls to other heads of state are privileged.

😃

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: thedigirati
could you imagine what would have happened to a "whistleblower" telling everyone about pallets of cash being sent to iran?
or a "whistleblower" telling everyone about gun shipments to mexican drug lords?

Do you honestly not see the difference between a president negotiating a hostage release and a president potentially using the power of the presidency to dig up dirt on a political opponent?

I'm starting to think that your partisanship is blinding to your logic.

You can disagree that Obama was doing the right thing to send that money to Iran. You can be upset about it. But there was nothing illegal about those actions. If you didn't like it don't vote for him, give money to his opponent, etc. This situation was just politics.

I don't believe there is enough evidence to draw a conclusion that Obama "sent gun shipments to Mexican drug lords". However, I also do not believe Obama should have been able to declare executive privilege over those records either. The American people have a right to know if Obama or any president acted against the interests of this country.

If you are upset about Obama using executive privilege, why are you championing Trump's attempt to do the same? Do your values change just because the president changes?

a reply to: Gorgonite

without an impeachment "hearing" this is all moot.

no impeachmenat hearing, no legal rights to the info

you, like Nadler, want it both ways.

Sorry it does not work that way.


ETA what hostages did Iran have that we gave them monies for?

you seem to be confused about some things......

a reply to: Gorgonite
caselaw.findlaw.com...

In a unanimous opinion, the Court agreed that there was “a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications,” 418 U.S. at 708, 94 S.Ct. at 3107, founded on “a President's generalized interest in confidentiality.” Id. at 711, 94 S.Ct. at 3109. It found such a privilege necessary to guarantee the candor of presidential advisers and to provide “[a] President and those who assist him ․ [with] free[dom] to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.” 418 U.S. at 708, 94 S.Ct. at 3107. Although not expressly provided for in the Constitution, the privilege nonetheless has constitutional origins; it is “inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution,” id., and also “flow[s] from the nature of enumerated powers” of the President.

well now

Nowhere has it ever been stated that communications with foreign leaders are covered by executive privilege?

so uh...discussions with Ukraine are not shaping policies and making decisions?

also

You see, Zelensky is a politician and understands the art of denying while actually not denying. He didn't say "Trump didn't pressure me".

Zelensky didn't.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko did, in an official statement.
Your analysis is askew.
I will take an official statement from the foreign minister all day long.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gorgonite

Trouble is, there's no actual law that requires an IG to turn over a whistleblower complaint to Congress.

And, yes, phone calls to other heads of state are privileged.

😃

I'm sorry, but yes, there is a law, which requires the complaint to be sent over to Congress.

(4) The Director shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees any report or findings and recommendations of an investigation, inspection, audit, or review conducted by the office which has been requested by the Chairman or Vice Chairman or ranking minority member of either committee.
(5)
(A) An employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern may report such complaint or information to the Inspector General.
(B) Not later than the end of the 14-calendar-day period beginning on the date of receipt from an employee of a complaint or information under subparagraph (A), the Inspector General shall determine whether the complaint or information appears credible. Upon making such a determination, the Inspector General shall transmit to the Director a notice of that determination, together with the complaint or information.
(C) Upon receipt of a transmittal from the Inspector General under subparagraph (B), the Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees, together with any comments the Director considers appropriate.

www.law.cornell.edu...

I'm very confused. Why would you say there was no such law if you haven't researched this for yourself? It is fairly easy to find this information, are you just attempting to spread misinformation?

a reply to: Gorgonite
I dont think there is any place for anyone to be listening in on potus's conversations with foreign leaders. Period.
Any potus not just trump.
We elected potus to make those decisions, not some unelected beurocrat who disagrees.

a reply to: Gorgonite
nymag.com...

DNI general counsel Jason Klitenic responded to Schiff, saying that after consulting with the Justice Department, they had overruled the inspector general. In their determination the complaint was not of “urgent concern,” as it “concerns conduct by someone outside of the Intelligence Community” (i.e., the president), and it “involves confidential and potentially privileged communications.”

seems the complaint does not meet the standard after all

a reply to: Gorgonite

in your own link is says "credible" so, the DNI did not find this complaint credible.


thanks for posting that, it answers why the complint did not go further.


and it's perfectly legal.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gorgonite
caselaw.findlaw.com...

In a unanimous opinion, the Court agreed that there was “a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications,” 418 U.S. at 708, 94 S.Ct. at 3107, founded on “a President's generalized interest in confidentiality.” Id. at 711, 94 S.Ct. at 3109. It found such a privilege necessary to guarantee the candor of presidential advisers and to provide “[a] President and those who assist him ․ [with] free[dom] to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.” 418 U.S. at 708, 94 S.Ct. at 3107. Although not expressly provided for in the Constitution, the privilege nonetheless has constitutional origins; it is “inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution,” id., and also “flow[s] from the nature of enumerated powers” of the President.

well now

Nowhere has it ever been stated that communications with foreign leaders are covered by executive privilege?

so uh...discussions with Ukraine are not shaping policies and making decisions?

also

You see, Zelensky is a politician and understands the art of denying while actually not denying. He didn't say "Trump didn't pressure me".

Zelensky didn't.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko did, in an official statement.
Your analysis is askew.
I will take an official statement from the foreign minister all day long.

The case you cited in no way involves communication of the president and a foreign government. The case involves communications between the president and his council. You are being disingenuous in your arguments.

At best you are attempting to say "Trump could have been talking about "shaping policies and making decisions" with the Ukrainian president and therefore it is covered by executive privilege." Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The only executive privilege precedents come from cases involving presidential discussions with advisors and never with a foreign head of state.

You can't just hope and wish that the law works a certain way. The only way what you are implying could become executive privilege precedent is if a court rules that executive privilege covers those conversations. As of today, that has not happened and therefore as of today executive privilege does not cover those conversations.

You seem very dogmatic. Even to the point that you presume to draw conclusions for how the law is supposed to work to fit your world view. It's impossible to carry on an intellectual argument if one party intends to be disingenuous.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris

How do you think that will work out?

It will be dropped by the msm in a couple of days when they realize potus has privilege when conducting diplomacy on behalf of the usa.

Extorting foreign nations under threat of withholding military aid in exchange for help with a campaign is not "Diplomacy", it is "Abuse of Power" and SCOTUS has unanimously shot down executive Privilege claims over illicit activity in the past, USA vs. Nixon.

As there are no official "impeachment" activities going on in the house,

They already instituted an impeachment inquiry with Subpoena powers

it will be dropped there as well as they do not have the votes

Trump might have fixed that problem for them. A lot of Dems on the fence are now leaning fro Impeachment.

let alone a 2nd hand story from an unknown bureaucrat who
doesnt have direct knowledge of anything really;

You mean Trump? He admitted they discussed Biden or do you mean his Personal Attorney (Not the one in jail) who admitted Trump had the State Department arrange a meeting for him in Europe where he pressured the Ukraine Government to re-open the investigation?

and they in no way have the votes in the senate for impeachment.

Who cares? Impeachment is a trial. Let the truth come out and all Senators go on record for what they defend or condemn. It will make for great town-halls going into the 2020 Senate elections.

Especially when the Ukrainians have denied what has been accused.

You mean they dispute Donald Trump's admission that Biden and son were a topic?

I, however would love to see the dems take this to the scotus. Potus's privilege in this matter is long established. As head of the executive branch he alone determines diplomacy and foreign policy. I would love to see a separation of powers standoff.

Right. I would love to see POTUS make the legal case that soliciting or extorting a foreign government to interfere our elections on his behalf under threat of withholding military aid appropriated by congress falls under "diplomacy".

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Gorgonite

in your own link is says "credible" so, the DNI did not find this complaint credible.


thanks for posting that, it answers why the complint did not go further.


and it's perfectly legal.

I'm afraid you are making dangerous assumptions.

The unidentified whistleblower filed the complaint with the intelligence community inspector general, Michael Atkinson, on August 12. Federal law stipulates that the inspector general must investigate any report of an "urgent concern" by an employee of the intelligence community and determine whether it "appears credible" within two weeks. If it is, the inspector general must then report it to the director of national intelligence, whose office is responsible for overseeing the nation's 17 intelligence agencies.

The inspector general investigated the complaint and deemed it credible, forwarding it to the acting director as required, according to a letter from the inspector general released by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

The committee only became aware of the whistleblower complaint when the inspector general wrote to Schiff on September 9 to inform him of Maguire's decision not to provide it to Congress.

It was deemed credible.

www.cbsnews.com...

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Extorris

Impeachment hearings are not the same as an "inquiry" (a made up term the democrats use)

Six of that a half dozen of the other.

An inquiry requires hearings.

The filings of Articles of Impeachment begin a "Trial" where evidence is weighed.

a reply to: Extorris

Extorting foreign nations under threat of withholding military aid in exchange for help with a campaign is not "Diplomacy"

In your opinion, too bad the Ukrainians state that was not the case.
It appears all you are looking for is another way to smear the president.
Another meandering investigation into something which was not a crime.

There is nothing but air and opportunity stopping the house dems from taking a floor vote as they have the majority.
Why in the face of such "overwhelming" evidence(lol) have they not?

Perhaps because even they understand there are no "high crimes and misdemeanors" to warrant such?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gorgonite
nymag.com...

DNI general counsel Jason Klitenic responded to Schiff, saying that after consulting with the Justice Department, they had overruled the inspector general. In their determination the complaint was not of “urgent concern,” as it “concerns conduct by someone outside of the Intelligence Community” (i.e., the president), and it “involves confidential and potentially privileged communications.”

seems the complaint does not meet the standard after all

Two things. One is that "after consulting with the DOJ", which means Bill Barr, Trumps personal fixer. If this isn't a big deal why are they trying so hard to hide it? If there is anything sensitive get that scrubbed out before releasing the transcript. Release the transcript and clear this right up.

Secondly, I have provided the statute already. No where does it state the complaint has to be "urgent". It does however state that if the complaint is deemed credible "the Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees". There isn't any wiggle room there.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Extorris

Impeachment hearings are not the same as an "inquiry" (a made up term the democrats use)

Six of that a half dozen of the other.

An inquiry requires hearings.

The filings of Articles of Impeachment begin a "Trial" where evidence is weighed.

so you only follow the rules when convenient?
tlb

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gorgonite
www.washingtonexaminer.com...



Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko denied reports that President Trump pressured Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky during a July phone call that is reportedly the subject of a whistleblower complaint.



Prystaiko, however, dismissed the claims in a Saturday interview, saying, "I know what the conversation was about, and I think there was no pressure. This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers."

Was trump not calling him in a "diplomatic" capacity?
Sorry you, or any other non elected bureaucrat, don't get to question potus's motives when he is fulfilling the duties of his office.
it was a privileged conversation between two heads of state.
SPECIFICALLY mentioned as protected by the scotus.

The examiner is trash reporting.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the qoute is accurate by the Foreign Minister:

"I know what the conversation was about, and I think there was no pressure. This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers."

This statement is not by the either person on the call. It is by the Ukrainian Foreign Minister.
He says "I THINK there was no pressure"....from what "I know"

Doesn't sound a convincing or complete denial. He wasn't on the call. It also doesn't account with the pressure Trump had Rudy apply behind the scenes prior to the call. It looks like damage control and he left room to escape being caught in a lie by saying "I think there was no pressure".

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Gorgonite

without an impeachment "hearing" this is all moot.

no impeachmenat hearing, no legal rights to the info

you, like Nadler, want it both ways.

Sorry it does not work that way.


ETA what hostages did Iran have that we gave them monies for?

you seem to be confused about some things......

I suppose you missed my earlier response, but the impeachment hearings kicked off with Lewindoski last week. Here is the hearing in its entirety.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hunter Biden owns investments in Chinese nuclear power company accused of stealing US nuclear secrets.

And if that claim was true, how does that excuse Trump extorting a foreign nation to help him in a domestic election?

You guys keep trying to muddy the waters, but don't address the topic.