Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[Belsnickel]

I listened to this interview on the way home from work. There was more to it than this, but this part set me off: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/20/762594886/pelosi-says-congress-should-pass-new-laws-so-sitting-presidents-can-be-indicted

Quote:In an exclusive interview with NPR, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has not changed her mind on pursuing impeachment but is ready to change the law to restrain presidential power and make it clear that a sitting president can, in fact, be indicted.

"I do think that we will have to pass some laws that will have clarity for future presidents. [A] president should be indicted, if he's committed a wrongdoing — any president. There is nothing anyplace that says the president should not be indicted," Pelosi told All Things Considered host Ari Shapiro and NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis on Friday. "That's something cooked up by the president's lawyers. That's what that is. But so that people will feel 'OK, well, if he — if he does something wrong, [he] should be able to be indicted.' "

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. I get it, it's frustrating that a sitting president can't be indicted right now. But you know what? They shouldn't be. In our system of government the agency that does the indicting reports to--gasp--the president! The job of oversight over the executive branch lies with Congress. I know that it is an inherently political process and because of the partisan asshattery occurring in Washington right now it seems pointless at best, potentially destructive at worst, to carry out the impeachment hearings. I get it. BUT THAT'S YOUR ***** JOB!!!

If you think the president has acted in a way to deserve an indictment well then put on your big girl britches and bring impeachment proceedings to the floor, because that is the process laid out in the Constitution for this. Stop playing a bureaucratic blame game because you're scared of the politics. Make your case to the American people and send it to the Senate. If you do your job well enough, then you should convince the citizens that aren't already on your side that what you're doing is the right thing which will make obstruction from McConnell that much more difficult.

I'm sick and tired of Congress handing over its authority to the executive branch, and this power is one that I am just baffled over the concept of passing along.

[*Nately120*]

Didn't we elect Trump because we are sick of our president being nice and playing fair, though? What's going to change? The guy is a dirty rotten cheater, but hey, that's what we need because whichever "other side" you are fighting at the moment isn't playing fair.

[BmorePat87]

(09-20-2019, 04:48 PM)GMDino Wrote:

**Eight times** Trump urged Ukrainian president about eight times to investigate Biden's son during a July phone call that has come under scrutiny in the wake of a whistleblower complaint.
via @AlanCullison @rebeccaballhaus & @dnvolz:https://t.co/Rw7ZAaL7JV

— Michael C. Bender (@MichaelCBender) September 20, 2019

8 times in one call. This is the kind of stuff that should alarm Republicans, but they're too worried canceling their primary. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-20-2019, 06:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I listened to this interview on the way home from work. There was more to it than this, but this part set me off: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/20/762594886/pelosi-says-congress-should-pass-new-laws-so-sitting-presidents-can-be-indicted


This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. I get it, it's frustrating that a sitting president can't be indicted right now. But you know what? They shouldn't be. In our system of government the agency that does the indicting reports to--gasp--the president! The job of oversight over the executive branch lies with Congress. I know that it is an inherently political process and because of the partisan asshattery occurring in Washington right now it seems pointless at best, potentially destructive at worst, to carry out the impeachment hearings. I get it. BUT THAT'S YOUR ***** JOB!!!

If you think the president has acted in a way to deserve an indictment well then put on your big girl britches and bring impeachment proceedings to the floor, because that is the process laid out in the Constitution for this. Stop playing a bureaucratic blame game because you're scared of the politics. Make your case to the American people and send it to the Senate. If you do your job well enough, then you should convince the citizens that aren't already on your side that what you're doing is the right thing which will make obstruction from McConnell that much more difficult.

I'm sick and tired of Congress handing over its authority to the executive branch, and this power is one that I am just baffled over the concept of passing along.

Agreed. We don't need the law when the impeachment process exists for that very reason. If you feel like the President did enough to be indicted under normal circumstances then bring up articles of impeachment. 

[Stonyhands]

(09-20-2019, 10:14 AM)jj22 Wrote: We are living in a moment that will live in History for ever and for that we should take a minute to appreciate the moment. High crimes and misdemeanors is staring us right in the face and with Rudy's confession Trump must be impeached and arrested for treason.

He should have never got away with it the first time, but he did, and like any criminal went back to the well one too many times.

The question on everyone's mind this morning is what other countries has he reached out to and blackmailed into attacking America and our Democracy to help him win 2020?

Amazing to live through this in real time.

That’s some great fiction writing you have going on there. Be sure to let me know when your fictional book is finished and published as I can always use a good laugh.

[Dill]

(09-20-2019, 10:30 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: That’s some great fiction writing you have going on there.  Be sure to let me know when your fictional book is finished and published as I can always use a good laugh.

People should just get over it if Trump breaks the law.

And when he does it he's not breaking the law anyway because he's president.

Obama did it all the time, but he get's a break because no one saw him do it.

[Dill]

(09-20-2019, 09:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Agreed. We don't need the law when the impeachment process exists for that very reason. If you feel like the President did enough to be indicted under normal circumstances then bring up articles of impeachment. 

That's a problem. Impeachment is the only real remedy at this point. And it is such a BIG step that it becomes an obstacle to accountability. What if Pelosi is right and the attempt to impeach Trump backfires, giving him another four years? People who don't think that possible still haven't grasped why Trump was elected in the first place.

The Founders never envisioned a president who would so flagrantly violate the separation of powers and the emoluments clause, and they also never supposed someone that corrupt could get sufficient and continued support from an electorate supposed to prefer democracy to top down rule. Those supporters will make it impossible for Congress to pass laws allowing the indictment of a sitting president--at least so long as their guy is in power.

There is still a plurality of the electorate who believe Trump over the "fake news" and think all this talk of obstruction, abuse of power, corruption and self-dealing is just smoke from Hillary losers who want to unseat a duly elected president. "Hate" becomes the cover-all explanation for why people who stand up for the rule of law report Trump's violations and seek to hold him accountable.

A partial remedy would be for the Dems to get off their asses and get some of the current obstruction into the courts so Congress can get Trump's tax records and documents/evidence/depositions from the Russia investigation.

That would help them better sell impeachment to those swing voters Pelosi is so concerned about. They are doing a poor job of that, i.e., of explaining exactly HOW the president continues to violate the law and WHY THAT IS BAD, even if the president is of their party.

[BmorePat87]

(09-21-2019, 11:18 AM)Dill Wrote: That's a problem. Impeachment is the only real remedy at this point. And it is such a BIG step that it becomes an obstacle to accountability. What if Pelosi is right and the attempt to impeach Trump backfires, giving him another four years? People who don't think that possible still haven't grasped why Trump was elected in the first place.

The Founders never envisioned a president who would so flagrantly violate the separation of powers and the emoluments clause, and they also never supposed someone that corrupt could get sufficient and continued support from an electorate supposed to prefer democracy to top down rule. Those supporters will make it impossible for Congress to pass laws allowing the indictment of a sitting president--at least so long as their guy is in power.

There is still a plurality of the electorate who believe Trump over the "fake news" and think all this talk of obstruction, abuse of power, corruption and self-dealing is just smoke from Hillary losers who want to unseat a duly elected president. "Hate" becomes the cover-all explanation for why people who stand up for the rule of law report Trump's violations and seek to hold him accountable.

A partial remedy would be for the Dems to get off their asses and get some of the current obstruction into the courts so Congress can get Trump's tax records and documents/evidence/depositions from the Russia investigation.

That would help them better sell impeachment to those swing voters Pelosi is so concerned about. They are doing a poor job of that, i.e., of explaining exactly HOW the president continues to violate the law and WHY THAT IS BAD, even if the president is of their party.

You face the same political issues with convicting the President, though, and the DOJ, which is controlled by the President, is even less likely to do anything with that, which makes allowing convictions a pointless gesture. 

The House Judiciary Committee is currently working on what you're suggesting. We had one of their lawyers come to my county's professional development day for Social Studies and present to us about court cases. Since we all were already knowledgable on the cases, he just talked to us about how they apply in his present day work with the committee. He said that the issue they're running into is time. They can subpoena someone and that person might refuse and then they have to wait for the courts to compel them to come. Then they come and they might have the WH claim executive privilege, so then they have to get the courts to rule on that. By the time they finally have to testify, the election may be over. 

[GMDino]

So over the weekend DJT went through the usual motions of complete denial, to eventually admitting he made the call, to saying he never did anything wrong to admitting he talked about investigating Biden on the call.

IMHO if he does not allow the release of the whistleblower complaint and/or the call transcript they should begin impeachment proceedings and get it over with.

The US is not a Trump branded company where he can do whatever he wants.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-20-2019, 06:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I listened to this interview on the way home from work. There was more to it than this, but this part set me off: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/20/762594886/pelosi-says-congress-should-pass-new-laws-so-sitting-presidents-can-be-indicted


This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. I get it, it's frustrating that a sitting president can't be indicted right now. But you know what? They shouldn't be. In our system of government the agency that does the indicting reports to--gasp--the president! The job of oversight over the executive branch lies with Congress. I know that it is an inherently political process and because of the partisan asshattery occurring in Washington right now it seems pointless at best, potentially destructive at worst, to carry out the impeachment hearings. I get it. BUT THAT'S YOUR ***** JOB!!!

If you think the president has acted in a way to deserve an indictment well then put on your big girl britches and bring impeachment proceedings to the floor, because that is the process laid out in the Constitution for this. Stop playing a bureaucratic blame game because you're scared of the politics. Make your case to the American people and send it to the Senate. If you do your job well enough, then you should convince the citizens that aren't already on your side that what you're doing is the right thing which will make obstruction from McConnell that much more difficult.

I'm sick and tired of Congress handing over its authority to the executive branch, and this power is one that I am just baffled over the concept of passing along.

Yes.  Impeach then indict.  If he committed crimes, you won't lose independents, you just will continue not to get the fierce Trump supporters which you were never going to get.

[Goalpost]

So it is being reported that the whistleblower's info is thru hear say. He didn't actually hear it 1st hand.

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2019, 03:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: So over the weekend DJT went through the usual motions of complete denial, to eventually admitting he made the call, to saying he never did anything wrong to admitting he talked about investigating Biden on the call.

IMHO if he does not allow the release of the whistleblower complaint and/or the call transcript they should begin impeachment proceedings and get it over with.

The US is not a Trump branded company where he can do whatever he wants.

Completely agree. Just refusing to follow the law and turn over the complaint is an impeachable offense in itself.

(09-23-2019, 03:34 PM)Goalpost Wrote: So it is being reported that the whistleblower's info is thru hear say. He didn't actually hear it 1st hand.

This is highly doubtful considering a Trump appointed listed the complaint as both credible and urgent. Were the whistleblower's complaint based on hearsay, I doubt it would've been classified in that manner, especially by someone appointed by the administration.

Edit: I've seen the sourcing on this not from extremely biased media. So it seems it was indirect knowledge not obtained through the normal course of work by the whistleblower. The issue still remains that the IG determined the complaint to be credible and urgent, which is the highest classification they can give such complaints and requires by law to be sent to Congress.

[GMDino]

[Benton]

(09-21-2019, 11:18 AM)Dill Wrote: That's a problem. Impeachment is the only real remedy at this point. And it is such a BIG step that it becomes an obstacle to accountability. What if Pelosi is right and the attempt to impeach Trump backfires, giving him another four years? People who don't think that possible still haven't grasped why Trump was elected in the first place.

The Founders never envisioned a president who would so flagrantly violate the separation of powers and the emoluments clause, and they also never supposed someone that corrupt could get sufficient and continued support from an electorate supposed to prefer democracy to top down rule. Those supporters will make it impossible for Congress to pass laws allowing the indictment of a sitting president--at least so long as their guy is in power.

There is still a plurality of the electorate who believe Trump over the "fake news" and think all this talk of obstruction, abuse of power, corruption and self-dealing is just smoke from Hillary losers who want to unseat a duly elected president. "Hate" becomes the cover-all explanation for why people who stand up for the rule of law report Trump's violations and seek to hold him accountable.

A partial remedy would be for the Dems to get off their asses and get some of the current obstruction into the courts so Congress can get Trump's tax records and documents/evidence/depositions from the Russia investigation.

That would help them better sell impeachment to those swing voters Pelosi is so concerned about. They are doing a poor job of that, i.e., of explaining exactly HOW the president continues to violate the law and WHY THAT IS BAD, even if the president is of their party.

The backfire is possible. Maybe even likely. That's why I thought it was the wrong play to wait close to the next election to do it. There was enough to impeach the first year in. Now if it fails, he has a ton of momentum heading into the election.

[GMDino]

Since DJT was still talking about Biden I'll leave this here.

In this 5 second clip, Trump demeans the journalists in the room as "cooked as hell," before in very next breath saying, "okay thank you very much, I hope you enjoyed it." #unhinged #unga pic.twitter.com/TwtSgnBcIj

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 23, 2019

 

[Dill]

(09-21-2019, 12:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:
You face the same political issues with convicting the President, though, and the DOJ, which is controlled by the President, is even less likely to do anything with that, which makes allowing convictions a pointless gesture. 

The House Judiciary Committee is currently working on what you're suggesting. We had one of their lawyers come to my county's professional development day for Social Studies and present to us about court cases. Since we all were already knowledgable on the cases, he just talked to us about how they apply in his present day work with the committee. He said that the issue they're running into is time. They can subpoena someone and that person might refuse and then they have to wait for the courts to compel them to come. Then they come and they might have the WH claim executive privilege, so then they have to get the courts to rule on that. By the time they finally have to testify, the election may be over. 

Yes. I agree. The Founders supposed there would always be Richardsons and Ruckelshauses out the checking the executive from within. Now we have Barr appointed to be loyal, and further appointing people below him to be loyal. That, plus the Mitch-run Senate, pretty much knocks out checks and balances.

Your students maybe learning something though. We need millions more like that.

[Dill]

(09-23-2019, 04:42 PM)Benton Wrote: The backfire is possible. Maybe even likely. That's why I thought it was the wrong play to wait close to the next election to do it. There was enough to impeach the first year in. Now if it fails, he has a ton of momentum heading into the election.

Yeah, the Dems are hardly blameless right now.  They should be MAKING A CASE in part by EXPLAINING THE CONSTITUTION, especially oversight responsibility, and why that is not "presidential harassment" as the Trump team terms it.

They could be explaining the case while still withholding impeachment following Pelosi, but can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time.

That makes for a confused message to those who most need the explanation.

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2019, 04:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes. I agree. The Founders supposed there would always be Richardsons and Ruckelshauses out the checking the executive from within. Now we have Barr appointed to be loyal, and further appointing people below him to be loyal. That, plus the Mitch-run Senate, pretty much knocks out checks and balances.

Your students maybe learning something though. We need millions more like that.

The Republicans' refusal to acknowledge wrong doing is the biggest issue. We should have Republicans pushing back on severely under-qualified judicial and executive appointees, but we can't get even something as simple as that. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2019, 07:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Republicans' refusal to acknowledge wrong doing is the biggest issue. We should have Republicans pushing back on severely under-qualified judicial and executive appointees, but we can't get even something as simple as that. 

This is my position. Trump doesn't have any true political ideology. He is out for himself. I don't expect him to have any concern for the Constitution. I can't understand any official that tolerates this because of the politics. Because they want to keep the power. There are a whole lot of people putting themselves and their party over the well being of the country, and it is sickening to me.

[*bfine32*]

Is this a time where we don't care about finding out the truth?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bidens-ukraine-know-dont-know-185409553.html

Isn't this pretty much the same as Obama green lighting an investigation into Trump during the 2016 election? I get that one is using our agency and another is using a foreign agency but isn't the bottom line of seeking truth the same?

In before the peanut galley: I really haven't spent much time on this and there may be huge differences; I'm simply asking instead of defending.