JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[RedFromMI]

Sounds a lot like soliciting a bribe. Waiting for Chris Wray to assign the Kavanaugh do-nothing team.

Actually more like extortion - give me this investigation that might help me politically against Biden, or I won't give you security money. But even if it does not fit a particular law's definition of extortion (or any other statutory crime) it DOES fit the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution...

[foreverlax]

Sounds a lot like soliciting a bribe. Waiting for Chris Wray to assign the Kavanaugh do-nothing team.

Actually more like extortion - give me this investigation that might help me politically against Biden, or I won't give you security money. But even if it does not fit a particular law's definition of extortion (or any other statutory crime) it DOES fit the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution...

If you don't see the "crime", even if there isn't a law, then it's purely a partisan position.

A sitting President can not jingle cash, especially my cash, to get a political outcome that benefits him. Can't do that...ethics shouldn't be this f'ing hard.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Barr is the AG, confirmed by the Senate -- just like "tarmac hostage" Lynch, "wingman" Holder & all their predecessors.
Before resorting to personal attacks on fellow posters, consider some facts.
It's complicated. REALLY complicated. To get a feel for "the law", consider this Twitter thread from Jack Goldsmith, starting with #1.

I didn't attack YOU. I attacked your POSITIONS. I'll consider my words more carefully, though.

And you and JackGoldsmith are acting as though you know what the whistleblower complaint is. You have no clue what's in there, and more to the point, IT DOES NOT MATTER what the complaint is. The whistleblower law does not care. It has specific time constraints to reduce corruption in government by giving employees a lawful path to get their complaint to the proper parties, while maintaining the classified information that for the last three years was really important to you. Now you suddenly get a case of "it depends". No. It doesn't depend.

If you don't protect the whistleblower law, you are telling all Federal employees who are patriots that your only avenue is the press. This is the opposite outcome from what Old Salt wanted for the last three years.

Snowflake

[Trinity]

Multiple events, says Wash Po.
When does Mattis warn us? Trump still deserves cover?

[dislaxxic]

AF, i admire your rope-a-dope here. Have for many years now. You have him dead to rights this time...total lack of credibility on full display. Someone blew the whistle on my earlier post, probably crying about someone being "mean" . Done with him SO much longer ago than you others...but that said, it is also SO useful to make a clear, 100% contrast...to "win the day" (over and over) as it were.

Well done.

..

[Typical Lax Dad]

AF, i admire your rope-a-dope here. Have for many years now. You have him dead to rights this time...total lack of credibility on full display. Someone blew the whistle on my earlier post, probably crying about someone being "mean" . Done with him SO much longer ago than you others...but that said, it is also SO useful to make a clear, 100% contrast...to "win the day" (over and over) as it were.

Well done.

..

These dudes are supposed to be the best and the brightest. Shocking....just shocking.

[a fan]

AF, i admire your rope-a-dope here. Have for many years now. You have him dead to rights this time...total lack of credibility on full display. Someone blew the whistle on my earlier post, probably crying about someone being "mean" . Done with him SO much longer ago than you others...but that said, it is also SO useful to make a clear, 100% contrast...to "win the day" (over and over) as it were.

Well done.

..

Nice to see you pop in! You should post more. Too many of us moderates banging around in here. Have a great weekend...

[DocBarrister]

This isn’t complicated.

Donald Trump violated the law, betrayed his nation, and abused his office.

A whistleblower filed a complaint about Trump’s illegal acts.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General, appointed by Donald Trump, determined that the whistleblower complaint was credible, “serious”, and of “urgent concern”, meriting disclosure to the United States Congress.

Donald Trump and his administration are now engaging in a criminal coverup of Donald Trump’s criminal acts.

It. Is. That. Simple.

Any support of Donald Trump at this point is completely and absolutely disgraceful.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Barr is the AG, confirmed by the Senate -- just like "tarmac hostage" Lynch, "wingman" Holder & all their predecessors.
Before resorting to personal attacks on fellow posters, consider some facts.
It's complicated. REALLY complicated. To get a feel for "the law", consider this Twitter thread from Jack Goldsmith, starting with #1.

I didn't attack YOU. I attacked your POSITIONS. I'll consider my words more carefully, though.

And you and JackGoldsmith are acting as though you know what the whistleblower complaint is. You have no clue what's in there, and more to the point, IT DOES NOT MATTER what the complaint is. The whistleblower law does not care. It has specific time constraints to reduce corruption in government by giving employees a lawful path to get their complaint to the proper parties, while maintaining the classified information that for the last three years was really important to you. Now you suddenly get a case of "it depends". No. It doesn't depend.

If you don't protect the whistleblower law, you are telling all Federal employees who are patriots that your only avenue is the press. This is the opposite outcome from what Old Salt wanted for the last three years.

You're the one acting like you know what the whistleblower's complaint is, just based on unconfirmed leaks.
Goldsmith & I are reacting based on not knowing what the whistleblower's complaint is ...because we don't.
We are ALL responding to what's been leaked & reported (so far) as uncorroborated facts.
I'm not going to respond to your what if/if true hypotheticals. They never end.
I continue to caution -- wait until the facts emerge, as they surely will, now that the whistle blower has been burned.

Goldsmith knows a hell of a lot more about the applicable law than anyone posting here.
He maintains that the whistleblower protection act does not override the confidentiality of a President's classified communications with a foreign leader. Schiff knows this, which is why he's threatening the DNI via witholding appropriations rather than via the courts.

The whistleblower has been outed now. If the documents upon which he bases his complaint are not released, Schiff will drag him before the HSPIC. That's Schiff's objective anyway.

Did you see former acting DCI McLaughlin on MSNBC ? He explained how these complaints are resolved, in secret, via an "accomodation," by briefing 2 - 4 key members of Congress, while protecting the whistleblower, without going to the media, as Schiff did.

Your sacred 7 day limit has not halted the process. I'm just not going to join you in chasing hypotheticals over the cliff until more facts come out.

This is what took place after the ph call in question :
https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-pres ... nd-1459100
No Ukrainian prosecutors were fired to secure that aid.

[a fan]

Did you see former acting DCI McLaughlin on MSNBC ? He explained how these complaints are resolved, in secret, via an "accomodation," by briefing 2 - 4 key members of Congress, while protecting the whistleblower, without going to the media, as Schiff did.

Yep. And they failed to follow the law and do just that. And we're supposed to believe that you don't care. 3 years of bloviating about the importance of intel laws, and now here you are making fun of them, and trying to sell us that you now think they are unimportant.

Troll. On everything Trump you troll. You don't mean a word of it.

[Farfromgeneva]

Barr is the AG, confirmed by the Senate -- just like "tarmac hostage" Lynch, "wingman" Holder & all their predecessors.
Before resorting to personal attacks on fellow posters, consider some facts.
It's complicated. REALLY complicated. To get a feel for "the law", consider this Twitter thread from Jack Goldsmith, starting with #1.

I didn't attack YOU. I attacked your POSITIONS. I'll consider my words more carefully, though.

And you and JackGoldsmith are acting as though you know what the whistleblower complaint is. You have no clue what's in there, and more to the point, IT DOES NOT MATTER what the complaint is. The whistleblower law does not care. It has specific time constraints to reduce corruption in government by giving employees a lawful path to get their complaint to the proper parties, while maintaining the classified information that for the last three years was really important to you. Now you suddenly get a case of "it depends". No. It doesn't depend.

If you don't protect the whistleblower law, you are telling all Federal employees who are patriots that your only avenue is the press. This is the opposite outcome from what Old Salt wanted for the last three years.

You're the one acting like you know what the whistleblower's complaint is, just based on unconfirmed leaks.
Goldsmith & I are reacting based on not knowing what the whistleblower's complaint is ...because we don't.
We are ALL responding to what's been leaked & reported (so far) as uncorroborated facts.
I'm not going to respond to your what if/if true hypotheticals. They never end.
I continue to caution -- wait until the facts emerge, as they surely will, now that the whistle blower has been burned.

Goldsmith knows a hell of a lot more about the applicable law than anyone posting here.
He maintains that the whistleblower protection act does not override the confidentiality of a President's classified communications with a foreign leader. Schiff knows this, which is why he's threatening the DNI via witholding appropriations rather than via the courts.

The whistleblower has been outed now. If the documents upon which he bases his complaint are not released, Schiff will drag him before the HSPIC. That's Schiff's objective anyway.

Did you see former acting DCI McLaughlin on MSNBC ? He explained how these complaints are resolved, in secret, via an "accomodation," by briefing 2 - 4 key members of Congress, while protecting the whistleblower, without going to the media, as Schiff did.

Your sacred 7 day limit has not halted the process. I'm just not going to join you in chasing hypotheticals over the cliff until more facts come out.

This is what took place after the ph call in question :
https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-pres ... nd-1459100
No Ukrainian prosecutors were fired to secure that aid.

It doesn’t take long to find you making assumptions all over the place on here. Your being completely and unambiguously dishonest in this post

[seacoaster]

Did you see former acting DCI McLaughlin on MSNBC ? He explained how these complaints are resolved, in secret, via an "accomodation," by briefing 2 - 4 key members of Congress, while protecting the whistleblower, without going to the media, as Schiff did.

Yep. And they failed to follow the law and do just that. And we're supposed to believe that you don't care. 3 years of bloviating about the importance of intel laws, and now here you are making fun of them, and trying to sell us that you now think they are unimportant.

Troll. On everything Trump you troll. You don't mean a word of it.

I did see McLaughlin. This is exactly what went wrong in the sequence: the IG passed the complaint over to the DNI noting its apparent credibility and seriousness. The next step would have been to consult the "2-4 key members of Congress," one of whom would have been the Chairman of the HSCI (which democracy in action made Schiff, who you loathe) and another might have been Burr, to seek the accommodation. I assume this process -- the effort at accommodation -- would have substantially complied with the 7 day deadline. But the DNI stopped that process, and appears to have allowed Barr to step in and help the DNI (and, not parenthetically) Trump figure a way to nullify the law. It's really bad, and should be terrifying to any American who understands shared powers, checks and balances, the proper governance.

Sorry if I called you names. That was my TDS.

[seacoaster]

This morning's Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

President Trump pressed the leader of Ukraine to investigate the son of former vice president Joe Biden in a call between the two leaders that is at the center of an extraordinary whistleblower complaint, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Trump used the July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pressure the recently elected leader to pursue an investigation that Trump thought would deliver potential political dirt on one of his possible challengers in 2020, the people said.

The descriptions of the call provide the clearest indication to date that Trump sought to use the influence of his office to prod the leader of a country seeking American financial and diplomatic support to provide material that could aid the president’s reelection. After spending much of his presidency fending off allegations that he welcomed 2016 campaign help from Russia, Trump now stands accused of soliciting political ammunition from a country next door to Russia.

Trump on Friday repeated his denial that he has done anything untoward in his conversations with world leaders, but he refused to address whether he had raised the issue of a dormant investigation of a company that previously employed the Democratic presidential contender’s son, Hunter Biden.

“It doesn’t matter what I discussed,” said Trump, who criticized journalists for covering the issue. “It’s another media disaster,” Trump said, even though the intelligence community’s inspector general has assessed the whistleblower complaint as credible and a matter of such urgency that it should be disclosed to the relevant committees in Congress.

One source familiar with the contents of the phone call said that Trump did not raise the issue of American military and intelligence aid that the administration was at the time withholding from Ukraine — indicating that there may not have been an explicit quid pro quo expressed in that conversation.

The call, however, is part of a broader set of facts included in the whistleblower complaint that is at the center of a showdown between the executive branch and Congress, with officials in the Trump administration refusing to divulge information about the substance of an Aug. 12 complaint to the inspector general of the U.S. intelligence community.

Other former U.S. officials familiar with the substance of the whistleblower complaint said it alleges that Trump at some point came closer to conveying a proposed quid pro quo. They said the complaint described a “promise” the president made or an offer of some benefit to a foreign leader.

The revelation that Trump pushed Zelensky to pursue the probe of a company with links to Biden, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, helps to explain why a U.S. intelligence official who apparently learned about the call felt compelled to file a whistleblower action against the president.

The disclosure comes amid new details about the White House’s role in preventing acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire from complying with congressional demands for the material in the complaint.

White House counsel Pat Cipollone has been engaged in the matter since shortly after the whistleblower action surfaced, officials said, helping to identify legal obstacles to the sharing of information that could be politically damaging to Trump.

Cipollone’s involvement reveals a more direct White House role in the dispute than has previously been reported.

The issue has become a source of tension between the White House and the office of the DNI, with Maguire forced into the position of fending off lawmakers’ demands — citing jurisdictional objections — while the White House avoids asserting executive privilege or taking a clear legal position."

We can talk about the propriety of the WH Counsel's actions later, I guess.

[ABV 8.3%]

This morning's Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

President Trump pressed the leader of Ukraine to investigate the son of former vice president Joe Biden in a call between the two leaders that is at the center of an extraordinary whistleblower complaint, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Trump used the July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pressure the recently elected leader to pursue an investigation that Trump thought would deliver potential political dirt on one of his possible challengers in 2020, the people said.

The descriptions of the call provide the clearest indication to date that Trump sought to use the influence of his office to prod the leader of a country seeking American financial and diplomatic support to provide material that could aid the president’s reelection. After spending much of his presidency fending off allegations that he welcomed 2016 campaign help from Russia, Trump now stands accused of soliciting political ammunition from a country next door to Russia.

Trump on Friday repeated his denial that he has done anything untoward in his conversations with world leaders, but he refused to address whether he had raised the issue of a dormant investigation of a company that previously employed the Democratic presidential contender’s son, Hunter Biden.

“It doesn’t matter what I discussed,” said Trump, who criticized journalists for covering the issue. “It’s another media disaster,” Trump said, even though the intelligence community’s inspector general has assessed the whistleblower complaint as credible and a matter of such urgency that it should be disclosed to the relevant committees in Congress.

One source familiar with the contents of the phone call said that Trump did not raise the issue of American military and intelligence aid that the administration was at the time withholding from Ukraine — indicating that there may not have been an explicit quid pro quo expressed in that conversation.

The call, however, is part of a broader set of facts included in the whistleblower complaint that is at the center of a showdown between the executive branch and Congress, with officials in the Trump administration refusing to divulge information about the substance of an Aug. 12 complaint to the inspector general of the U.S. intelligence community.

Other former U.S. officials familiar with the substance of the whistleblower complaint said it alleges that Trump at some point came closer to conveying a proposed quid pro quo. They said the complaint described a “promise” the president made or an offer of some benefit to a foreign leader.

The revelation that Trump pushed Zelensky to pursue the probe of a company with links to Biden, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, helps to explain why a U.S. intelligence official who apparently learned about the call felt compelled to file a whistleblower action against the president.

The disclosure comes amid new details about the White House’s role in preventing acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire from complying with congressional demands for the material in the complaint.

White House counsel Pat Cipollone has been engaged in the matter since shortly after the whistleblower action surfaced, officials said, helping to identify legal obstacles to the sharing of information that could be politically damaging to Trump.

Cipollone’s involvement reveals a more direct White House role in the dispute than has previously been reported.

The issue has become a source of tension between the White House and the office of the DNI, with Maguire forced into the position of fending off lawmakers’ demands — citing jurisdictional objections — while the White House avoids asserting executive privilege or taking a clear legal position."

We can talk about the propriety of the WH Counsel's actions later, I guess.

Per the usual, you and yours aren't the slightest bit concerned about what Biden's son did. The illegality of it. How bout Mitt Romney's kid?

Suddenly, the Ukraine is similar to Russia , Alaska in next to Russia too

[Farfromgeneva]

Everyone around Trump is fubarred the day he’s out of office. Guess that’s why it’s all geriatric people who don’t see a long horizon.

[youthathletics]

They have at least 6 more years to prepare for retirement.

[youthathletics]

This morning's Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

One source familiar with the contents of the phone call said that Trump did not raise the issue of American military and intelligence aid that the administration was at the time withholding from Ukraine — indicating that there may not have been an explicit quid pro quo expressed in that conversation.

Per the usual, you and yours aren't the slightest bit concerned about what Biden's son did. The illegality of it. How bout Mitt Romney's kid?

Suddenly, the Ukraine is similar to Russia , Alaska in next to Russia too

Is this the crux (in red) of the issue and it is not that asking Ukraine to investigate Biden's son a big deal....legally? I wonder if they (trump) already knows what happened and we are giving Ukraine an opportunity make it right.

ABV 8.3 makes a valid point, if team Biden truly did do something wrong, as many have suggested on both sides, it seems this is a valid request to another gov't. Additionally, campaign op-research is not a crime.....right? the HRC precedent already established that?

[runrussellrun]

who is THEY? as in THEY broke the law. Do agencies have multiple directors, or just one ? But, I'm sorry, what IS the issue , this time? Is THIS leak about AF golf course stays?

tough to keep up, what with every thread being about him.....and THEY

From my earlier post a page or two back....

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.

Once the director receives the report, the law states he or she "shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees."

The date of that letter, attached, is Sep 9th.

They have, therefore, broken the law. "They" meaning the Acting Director of National Intelligence, Joe Maguire.

But, you just can't rap your head around the Pentagon being audited........we need to focus on OTHER laws

What does Sept. 9th have to do with anything? What is the penalty for transmitttal beyond the 7 days? Nothing? exactly

Meanwhile, our tax dollars are feeding the oligarchy to the tune of almost a $100 billion a day. And no one cares.

The idiots at the MSM need to understand this: to destroy tRump, you MUST put out 24/7/365 POSITIVE news stories, if you really want him gone. But, they don't.

[runrussellrun]

This morning's Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

One source familiar with the contents of the phone call said that Trump did not raise the issue of American military and intelligence aid that the administration was at the time withholding from Ukraine — indicating that there may not have been an explicit quid pro quo expressed in that conversation.

Per the usual, you and yours aren't the slightest bit concerned about what Biden's son did. The illegality of it. How bout Mitt Romney's kid?

Suddenly, the Ukraine is similar to Russia , Alaska in next to Russia too

Is this the crux (in red) of the issue and it is not that asking Ukraine to investigate Biden's son a big deal....legally? I wonder if they (trump) already knows what happened and we are giving Ukraine an opportunity make it right.

ABV 8.3 makes a valid point, if team Biden truly did do something wrong, as many have suggested on both sides, it seems this is a valid request to another gov't. Additionally, campaign op-research is not a crime.....right? the HRC precedent already established that?

Clearly, tRump asking the Mexican govt. to investigate el chappo or other cartel members is treasoness. Or, is it only wrong when the tRump kids do it?

[seacoaster]

This morning's Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

President Trump pressed the leader of Ukraine to investigate the son of former vice president Joe Biden in a call between the two leaders that is at the center of an extraordinary whistleblower complaint, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Per the usual, you and yours aren't the slightest bit concerned about what Biden's son did. The illegality of it. How bout Mitt Romney's kid?

Suddenly, the Ukraine is similar to Russia , Alaska in next to Russia too

I'm not sure if Hunter Biden did anything illegal; here's the one article I've read about him and his involvement in the Ukraine:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019 ... s-campaign

I don't know anything about Mitt Romney's kid.

I think the idea of a head of government -- whose nation has authorized aid, which is as yet not released -- asking a recently installed head of government, the putative recipient of the unreleased aid, to investigate the activities of the son of a real political rival, is pretty sketchy behavior. To the extent you care, I and mine (e.g., "you and yours....") are not big fans of Biden for the 2020 nomination. Let me know, if you have a minute, what other things don't concern me and mine. Just trying to keep up.