Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[Sam]

Whoa.

Usually they bend over backwards excusing such behavior from those on the left. For them to issue four Pinocchios wrt to Schiff's deliberate lie is quite telling.

Kessler recently gave Sanders Three Pinocchios for using an accurate figure that WaPo itself had cited earlier.

[Sam]

Relying on Michael Cohen's testimony -- someone who was obviously making it clear he was willing to say anything if it meant leniency for him -- is not exactly convincing.

If there was anything there then where is the FEC's audit and penalty. Maybe, just maybe, they are more familiar with the case and the law than you are.

Kind of hard to have a ruling when the FEC doesn't even have a quorum anymore.

[rogue06]

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...t-false-claim/

Whoa.

Usually they bend over backwards excusing such behavior from those on the left. For them to issue four Pinocchios wrt to Schiff's deliberate lie is quite telling.

[rogue06]

By memory, Michael Cohen testified that the payments were explicitly linked to the election ... which is pretty obvious, given the timeline. Regardless, it's a defense to be made in court that Trump was sufficiently unaware of campaign finance law and/or arranged these payments in the last days of a general election only after Cliffords had threatened to go public unrelated to the campaign.

But the Obama campaign, let alone Obama himself never came close to this kind of egregious violation. Only the willfully obtuse pretend otherwise.

--Sam

Relying on Michael Cohen's testimony -- someone who was obviously making it clear he was willing to say anything if it meant leniency for him -- is not exactly convincing.

If there was anything there then where is the FEC's audit and penalty. Maybe, just maybe, they are more familiar with the case and the law than you are.

[rogue06]

Let me be more clear: I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I'm asking what specifically was the campaign finance violation in order to show how it is distinct from Trump's personal campaign finance violation.

--Sam

IIRC in part it was failing to report between 1000 to 1500 large money (over $1000) campaign contributions.

If you are really curious either Bing or Google can assist you.

[Sam]

Drat. You gave Sam the answer to the question I asked him in the post above.

By memory, Michael Cohen testified that the payments were explicitly linked to the election ... which is pretty obvious, given the timeline. Regardless, it's a defense to be made in court that Trump was sufficiently unaware of campaign finance law and/or arranged these payments in the last days of a general election only after Cliffords had threatened to go public unrelated to the campaign.

But the Obama campaign, let alone Obama himself never came close to this kind of egregious violation. Only the willfully obtuse pretend otherwise.

--Sam

[rogue06]

What law or statute is he accused of breaking?

**Edit to ad** Biden running for President does not make him any more immune to legal scrutiny. To quote Pelosi... "No one should be above the law."

Well obviously she didn't mean that it should be applied to everyone -- especially anyone with a "D" after their name.

In the words of Orwell, "Some animals are more equal that others"

[Sam]

Seriously? His campaign was found guilty of massive campaign financing violations and had to pay one of the largest fines ever issued against a presidential campaign by the FEC -- $375,000.

What sort of comparable fines have been levied against Trump or his campaign.

And here's something for you to mull over. Why do you think that there is such a startling difference?

Let me be more clear: I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I'm asking what specifically was the campaign finance violation in order to show how it is distinct from Trump's personal campaign finance violation.

--Sam

[rogue06]

Since Trump had a history of paying off people for their silence, this can not be reclassified as a campaign finance violation. Past precedent shows he would have paid her off even had he not run for office. Ergo, proving it was a campaign finance violation would be exceedingly impossible.

Drat. You gave Sam the answer to the question I asked him in the post above.

[rogue06]

What campaign finance violation was the Obama campaign found to have made?

Seriously? His campaign was found guilty of massive campaign financing violations and had to pay one of the largest fines ever issued against a presidential campaign by the FEC -- $375,000.

What sort of comparable fines have been levied against Trump or his campaign.

And here's something for you to mull over. Why do you think that there is such a startling difference?

[Sam]

What law or statute is he accused of breaking?

**Edit to ad** Biden running for President does not make him any more immune to legal scrutiny. To quote Pelosi... "No one should be above the law."

The same people making this argument now on the basis of absolutely no evidence other than speculation decry every attempt to investigate, say, Trump's tax returns as a partisan witch hunt, despite copious circumstantial evidence of criminal behavior.

--Sam

[Sam]

Simply false. How many times must I repeat myself? The ICWPA and subsequent PPD-19 deal with ALL whistleblower information from the Intelligence Community, not just classified information. Hence the bolded part "OR OTHERWISE" in the report from Congress on the inception of the Act. The Intelligence Community lacked their own whistleblower process, so the ICWPA was drafted and passed. PPD-19 added protections for the whistleblower to the Act.



I literally QUOTED the report and the site I retrieved it from. What the hell do you think "classified OR OTHERWISE" means?

:snip:ped your irrelevant tripe

Always helpful to actually read the statutes you're bold-texting cherry-picked clauses from. In this instance, just reading the link you provided would showcase the congressional intent:

Source: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/105th-congress/house-report/747

Purpose of the Bill

H.R. 3829, ``Intelligence Community Whistleblower
Protection Act of 1998'' (ICWPA), establishes a new and
additional means by which employees of the Intelligence
Community (IC) may report to the intelligence committees
classified information about wrongdoing.* This bill is intended
to protect employees from reprisal and to ensure the proper
handling of classified documents and information in the process
of reporting wrongdoing. By establishing this additional and
protected process, H.R. 3829 is intended to promote the
reporting of information to the intelligence committees, which
the committees need to perform effectively their oversight
role.

© Copyright Original Source

You would also find this section relatively quickly:

Source: Ibid.

(6) to encourage such reporting, an additional procedure
should be established that provides a means for such employees
and contractors to report to Congress while safeguarding the
classified information involved in such reporting.

© Copyright Original Source

And you might also be struck by the use of the word "may" numerous times in reference to reporting to the ICIG. Classified information must lawfully pass through ICWPA in order to avoid other laws against disclosure of classified information but nothing in ICWPA says that an employee must contact ICIG with allegations that do not contain classified information before making those allegations to another party.

As I'm frequently saying, gotta be able to both read and understand the legal stuff if you're wanting to make a legal argument ... especially one that's contradicted by the people in charge of enforcing the statute!

--Sam

*Emphasis added

[Roy]

What law or statute is he accused of breaking?

52 USC 30121(a): It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value from a foreign national in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.

I can't find any exception if the solicitation concerns acts of fraud.

Can you?

Also, how did you know there was such an exception without knowing which statue it was an exception to?

**Edit to ad** Biden running for President does not make him any more immune to legal scrutiny. To quote Pelosi... "No one should be above the law."

What law or statue is Biden suspected of breaking?

[Mountain Man]

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...t-false-claim/

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, even then.

Unless you can find a clause in the relevant statute that makes this exception?

What law or statute is he accused of breaking?

**Edit to ad** Biden running for President does not make him any more immune to legal scrutiny. To quote Pelosi... "No one should be above the law."