Controversy over Trump phone call centers on Ukraine, as president decries 'partisan' complaint

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/controversy-over-trump-phone-call-centers-on-ukraine-as-president-claims-new-plot-by-schiff

 

 

Here we go again

 

[Dashinka 24,591]

My thoughts exactly.  News Flash, an American President talks to a foreign leader on the phone.

 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Well, I'm going to be controversial (!) and say what is the harm in having the IG present the information provided by the whistleblower to the Intelligence Committee? If the IG for the DNI, who is by all accounts an attorney with a sterling reputation, considers in his neutral evaluation the report to rise to the level which warrants passing the information on as required by statute, what is the boon for the country and the country's security to keep this information locked away. We need MORE transparency, not less, in government unless there are serious issues of national security that are in play. This is our country and we just let them -- whatever flavor "them" happens to be at any given time -- run it. 

 

There is a saying I used to use in a former life working in Evil Evil Big Big Finance Markets: it is not enough to do the right thing. One must be seen to do the right thing. What does being seen not doing the right thing communicate? If one is doing something that looks like the wrong thing, but is in all reality the right thing, it is necessary to communicate effectively why the "wrong" thing is being done. It instills confidence in leadership. It quiets down the rabble. (Of course it is also a fantastic way of doing the actual wrong thing, by selling it as the right thing!) Why does this administration insist on making things look wrong again and again and again? This could have been spun differently. Now it looks petulant, half-arsed and, dare I say it, wrong. It doesn't look "tough," it looks wasteful and not very clever. They will lose this battle, and the information will be released after more money wasted on lawsuits. For every win this administration has had in court, it has lost far more. The odds are not in their favor on this one.

[Dashinka 24,591]

38 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Well, I'm going to be controversial (!) and say what is the harm in having the IG present the information provided by the whistleblower to the Intelligence Committee? If the IG for the DNI, who is by all accounts an attorney with a sterling reputation, considers in his neutral evaluation the report to rise to the level which warrants passing the information on as required by statute, what is the boon for the country and the country's security to keep this information locked away. We need MORE transparency, not less, in government unless there are serious issues of national security that are in play. This is our country and we just let them -- whatever flavor "them" happens to be at any given time -- run it. 

 

There is a saying I used to use in a former life working in Evil Evil Big Big Finance Markets: it is not enough to do the right thing. One must be seen to do the right thing. What does being seen not doing the right thing communicate? If one is doing something that looks like the wrong thing, but is in all reality the right thing, it is necessary to communicate effectively why the "wrong" thing is being done. It instills confidence in leadership. It quiets down the rabble. (Of course it is also a fantastic way of doing the actual wrong thing, by selling it as the right thing!) Why does this administration insist on making things look wrong again and again and again? This could have been spun differently. Now it looks petulant, half-arsed and, dare I say it, wrong. It doesn't look "tough," it looks wasteful and not very clever. They will lose this battle, and the information will be released after more money wasted on lawsuits. For every win this administration has had in court, it has lost far more. The odds are not in their favor on this one.

Just curious legally speaking, is the President or executive conversations covered under the whistleblower law?  I guess I was not aware that the DNI or the intelligence community had oversight on the President constitutionally speaking.  Regardless, sure, release a transcript of the call, and let the Dems impeach Trump.  It will be fun to watch another Nader and Schiff circus.

[Dashinka 24,591]

Interesting read.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/19/trump-whistleblower-loophole-1505636

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

18 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Just curious legally speaking, is the President or executive conversations covered under the whistleblower law?  I guess I was not aware that the DNI or the intelligence community had oversight on the President constitutionally speaking.  Regardless, sure, release a transcript of the call, and let the Dems impeach Trump.  It will be fun to watch another Nader and Schiff circus.

It's unclear, and from a very quick skim of that Politico article which deserves more time than I can give to it right now it looks like there may be an inadvertent out here where there should not be one. I'm no constitutional scholar (though I play one on VJ having gotten an A in Con Law because I am a professional Try Hard) but there may have been a stumble into an escape hatch. Whether or not it does exist, or should exist, I leave to greater minds. Which is why I invoke NB on this one for his sage counsel.  

 

Nah, thanks for that article. I will read and see if I can figure anything out with a bit more digging.

[Dashinka 24,591]

It is interesting how this one went from blowing up in Trump's face to now maybe a bigger issue for Old Joe and the DNC.

 

Missing piece to the Ukraine puzzle: State Department's overture to Rudy Giuliani

 

By John Solomon, opinion contributor — 09/20/19 07:30 PM EDT

 

According to interviews with more than a dozen Ukrainian and U.S. officials, Ukraine’s government under recently departed President Petro Poroshenko and, now, Zelensky has been trying since summer 2018 to hand over evidence about the conduct of Americans they believe might be involved in violations of U.S. law during the Obama years.

The Ukrainians say their efforts to get their allegations to U.S. authorities were thwarted first by the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, which failed to issue timely visas allowing them to visit America.

Then the Ukrainians hired a former U.S. attorney — not Giuliani — to hand-deliver the evidence of wrongdoing to the U.S. attorney's office in New York, but the federal prosecutors never responded. 

The U.S. attorney, a respected American, confirmed the Ukrainians’ story to me. The allegations that Ukrainian officials wanted to pass on involved both efforts by the Democratic National Committee to pressure Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election as well as Joe Biden’s son’s effort to make money in Ukraine while the former vice president managed U.S.-Ukraine relations, the retired U.S. attorney told me. 

Eventually, Giuliani in November 2018 got wind of the Ukrainian allegations and started to investigate. 

As President Trump highest-profile defense attorney, the former New York City mayor, often known simply as Rudy, believed the Ukrainian's evidence could assist in his defense against the Russia collusion investigation and former special counsel Robert Mueller.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/462422-missing-piece-to-the-ukraine-puzzle-state-departments-overture-to-rudy

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

It is interesting how this one went from blowing up in Trump's face to now maybe a bigger issue for Old Joe and the DNC.

 

Missing piece to the Ukraine puzzle: State Department's overture to Rudy Giuliani

 

By John Solomon, opinion contributor — 09/20/19 07:30 PM EDT

 

According to interviews with more than a dozen Ukrainian and U.S. officials, Ukraine’s government under recently departed President Petro Poroshenko and, now, Zelensky has been trying since summer 2018 to hand over evidence about the conduct of Americans they believe might be involved in violations of U.S. law during the Obama years.

The Ukrainians say their efforts to get their allegations to U.S. authorities were thwarted first by the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, which failed to issue timely visas allowing them to visit America.

Then the Ukrainians hired a former U.S. attorney — not Giuliani — to hand-deliver the evidence of wrongdoing to the U.S. attorney's office in New York, but the federal prosecutors never responded. 

The U.S. attorney, a respected American, confirmed the Ukrainians’ story to me. The allegations that Ukrainian officials wanted to pass on involved both efforts by the Democratic National Committee to pressure Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election as well as Joe Biden’s son’s effort to make money in Ukraine while the former vice president managed U.S.-Ukraine relations, the retired U.S. attorney told me. 

Eventually, Giuliani in November 2018 got wind of the Ukrainian allegations and started to investigate. 

As President Trump highest-profile defense attorney, the former New York City mayor, often known simply as Rudy, believed the Ukrainian's evidence could assist in his defense against the Russia collusion investigation and former special counsel Robert Mueller.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/462422-missing-piece-to-the-ukraine-puzzle-state-departments-overture-to-rudy

Oh its a non issue now 

[Dashinka 24,591]

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 7:06 PM, elmcitymaven said:

It's unclear, and from a very quick skim of that Politico article which deserves more time than I can give to it right now it looks like there may be an inadvertent out here where there should not be one. I'm no constitutional scholar (though I play one on VJ having gotten an A in Con Law because I am a professional Try Hard) but there may have been a stumble into an escape hatch. Whether or not it does exist, or should exist, I leave to greater minds. Which is why I invoke NB on this one for his sage counsel.  

 

Nah, thanks for that article. I will read and see if I can figure anything out with a bit more digging.

Some more for you from Mr. McCarthy.

 

In our system, the conduct of foreign policy is a nigh plenary authority of the chief executive. The only exceptions are explicitly stated in the Constitution (Congress regulates foreign commerce, the Senate must approve treaties, etc.). Congress may not enact statutes that limit the president’s constitutional power to conduct foreign policy; the Constitution may not be amended by statute.

Consistent with this principle, the Justice Department has long adhered to the so-called “clear statement” rule: If the express terms of a statute do not apply its provisions to the president, then the statute is deemed not to apply to the president if its application would conflict with the president’s constitutional powers. Section 3033 does not refer to the president. By its terms, it applies to intelligence-community officials. And, in any event, it may not properly be applied to the president if doing so would hinder the president’s capacious authority to conduct foreign policy.

At least when a Republican is in the White House, progressives are enthralled by laws that, in effect, empower bureaucrats — here, “intelligence professionals”– to second-guess and otherwise check the president’s power to direct the executive branch. That is not our system.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/trump-whistleblower-claim-congress-should-investigate/

[Dashinka 24,591]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Oh its a non issue now 

 

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 11:36 AM, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/controversy-over-trump-phone-call-centers-on-ukraine-as-president-claims-new-plot-by-schiff

 

 

Here we go again

 

Reference this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[TBoneTX 45,498]

Dems & the media (we repeat ourself) are focusing on phone calls rather than on corruption.