Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[Juvenal]

Trumpcast has the latest.

I have two concerns here.

First, it's Slate, something I'll read occasionally, but won't cite, on the basic principle that I prefer to stick with outlets that do actual investigative reporting. And second, because the name of the podcast essentially announces a menu of red meat for anti-Trump hyperpartisans. I wouldn't have paid this any attention at all were it not for the description in the Google podcasts link, (which is missing from the Slate link I looked up to provide here.)

Urgent Concern: This Unambiguously Constitutes an Impeachable Offense

Virginia Heffernan talks to Susan Hennessey of Lawfare blog and the Brookings Institution about why President Donald Trump’s reported pleas to Ukraine to help him rough up Joe Biden constitute an impeachable offense.

The Lawfare blog is highly credible, featuring a legal and constitutional expertise that is simply unmatched. Nominally non-partisan, in practice it's Republican-lite, à la David Brooks, to cite a better-known, mass media comparison.

With that in mind, and having listened to this podcast, I can recommend this episode, especially for those who haven't the time or paywall investments to follow this issue from its primary media sourcing, e.g. ...

Trump Repeatedly Pressed Ukraine President to Investigate Biden’s Son
Interactions under focus amid whistleblower complaint on U.S. president’s dealings with a world leader

President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden ’s son, according to people familiar with the matter, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump’s potential 2020 opponent.

“He told him that he should work with [Mr. Giuliani] on Biden, and that people in Washington wanted to know” if his lawyer’s assertions that Mr. Biden acted improperly as vice president were true, one of the people said. Mr. Giuliani has suggested Mr. Biden’s pressure on Ukraine to fight corruption had to do with an investigation of a gas company for which his son was a director. A Ukrainian official this year said he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden or his son Hunter Biden.

Mr. Trump in the call didn’t mention a provision of U.S. aid to Ukraine, said this person, who didn’t believe Mr. Trump offered the Ukrainian president any quid-pro-quo for his cooperation on any investigation.

Yes, if, if, if ... this is as serious as it gets for the president, but those who are willing to wait should note we're certain to see a transcript of this call soon enough, and quite possibly even an audio recording.

[Mountain Man]

The short version is that the Ukrainian government has reason to believe that US laws were broken by members of the Obama administration and the Democrat party, but their efforts to pass the information to US officials was repeatedly rebuffed, first by the US embassy in Kiev, and then by Federal prosecutors in New York. Then Rudy Giuliani caught wind of it and started his own investigation, but when the Ukrainian government told the media he was planning to visit the country, Giuliani backed away, fearing that his involvement would appear political. The Ukrainian government, fearing they had damaged US relations, reached out to the US State Department who in turn requested Giuliani's continued involvement. And now Trump, at Ukraine's request, has given his official blessing to the investigation.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...erture-to-rudy

So I was wrong about it being a nothing-burger. It's just not the something-burger the liberal media said it was. To be fair, President Trump did warn them not to get their hopes up.

[Mountain Man]

The Lawfare blog is highly credible.

In fact, they're not...

By now everyone is familiar with the Lawfare network; an alliance of ideological political interests inside and outside government who use the law to achieve their objectives.

During the Obama administration the Lawfare group: (1) weaponized the IRS for political targeting; (2) weaponized the DOJ and FBI for political targeting; (3) weaponized the intelligence community for political activism; (4) created new legal theories around ‘disparate impact’ to weaponize the National Labor Relations Board; and generally used embedded officials to advance far-left political interests across the spectrum of govt.

After they lost the 2016 election the Lawfare group immediately: (1) worked to delegitimize the presidency of Donald Trump; (2) delegitimize National Security Adviser General Flynn; (3) target, disempower and isolate AG Jeff Session; (4) delegitimize AG Bill Barr and the institution of the FBI outside their control; (5) delegitimize DHS, Border Patrol and Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE); and (6) delegitimize any institution or office that would now be removing or overturning their former Lawfare constructs.

What we are seeing today from the Lawfare Alliance appears as a designed effort to continue this overall agenda...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...omment-page-2/

[Cow Poke]

Well, that's not Clinton's doing....

...cause she never does anything bad.

[Mountain Man]

This Trump tweet is worth checking out...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...92716110401543

The "whistle-blower" story seems to have shot Joe and Hunter Biden to the top of the headlines. Was this Trump's plan all along?

[JimL]

You mean the way Biden extorted the Ukrainian government to drop an investigation against his son's company?

First off Biden was VP and didn't have the authority to do what you suggested he did for the reason you think he did. Second you have no evidence that was the case. The Obama administration gave their reason for the threat of withholding the aid and it had nothing to do with Bidens son, it had to do with the rampant corruption taking place to which this Prosecutor General in question was a big part. Besides that, even if your accussation was true, it doesn't rise to the level of what Trump is accused of, and we don't even know if that is the claim being made by the whistleblower. The complaint apparently involves a series of events, not only the extortion of an allied government to dig up dirt on a political rival.

Now why don't you prove the accusation the Obama threatened to withhold aid in order to save Bidens son from prosecution?

[Cow Poke]

First off Biden was VP and didn't have the authority to do what you suggested he did for the reason you think he did....

So, he was just as nutty as a fruitcake back then?

[JimL]

So, he was just as nutty as a fruitcake back then?

An irrelevant ad hominim attack doesn't help your case.

[Cow Poke]

An irrelevant ad hominim attack doesn't help your case.

Jimmy, honey, you don't know an ad hominem from an ad velorem or an add homonym! Heck, you can't even SPELL ad hominem, you goofus! --- all you're doing here is parroting Charles.

Don't be a Charles!

[Juvenal]

In fact, they're not...

By now everyone is familiar with the Lawfare network; an alliance of ideological political interests inside and outside government who use the law to achieve their objectives.

During the Obama administration the Lawfare group: (1) weaponized the IRS for political targeting; (2) weaponized the DOJ and FBI for political targeting; (3) weaponized the intelligence community for political activism; (4) created new legal theories around ‘disparate impact’ to weaponize the National Labor Relations Board; and generally used embedded officials to advance far-left political interests across the spectrum of govt.

After they lost the 2016 election the Lawfare group immediately: (1) worked to delegitimize the presidency of Donald Trump; (2) delegitimize National Security Adviser General Flynn; (3) target, disempower and isolate AG Jeff Session; (4) delegitimize AG Bill Barr and the institution of the FBI outside their control; (5) delegitimize DHS, Border Patrol and Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE); and (6) delegitimize any institution or office that would now be removing or overturning their former Lawfare constructs.

What we are seeing today from the Lawfare Alliance appears as a designed effort to continue this overall agenda...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...omment-page-2/

The Conservative Treehouse is a hyperpartisan source, and as such, their condemnations can only be relied upon to identify sources which are not similarly hyperpartisan. In this instance, its bizarre accusations provide only the limited utility of highlighting fringe conspiracy theories.

In this instance, in particular, rather than reading about Lawfare from a debased source, I believe you would be better served by reading Lawfare itself.

Intelligence Oversight
What the Latest Reports Say About the Whistleblower Complaint
Robert S. Litt
Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 4:17 PM
If the speculation is accurate, the actions by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence may have a firmer legal foundation than has so far been apparent.

As I outlined here, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act provides that if the ICIG determines that a complaint about a matter of “urgent concern” is credible, he sends it to the DNI, who within seven days “shall ... forward” it to Congress together with any comments. But a matter of “urgent concern” is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity within the authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information” (emphasis added). The alleged offer by the president, while perhaps criminal and possibly impeachable, does not obviously relate to any intelligence activity within the DNI’s authority.

Bio sketch:

Robert Litt formerly served as the General Counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under the Obama administration.

Which sounds more compelling to you, and indeed more supportive of your position, a defense of the ODNI withholding from the prior GC under Obama, or a hyperpartisan screed telling you not to pay attention to him?

[Mountain Man]

First off Biden was VP and didn't have the authority to do what you suggested he did for the reason you think he did. Second you have no evidence that was the case. The Obama administration gave their reason for the threat of withholding the aid and it had nothing to do with Bidens son, it had to do with the rampant corruption taking place to which this Prosecutor General in question was a big part. Besides that, even if your accussation was true, it doesn't rise to the level of what Trump is accused of, and we don't even know if that is the claim being made by the whistleblower. The complaint apparently involves a series of events, not only the extortion of an allied government to dig up dirt on a political rival.

Now why don't you prove the accusation the Obama threatened to withhold aid in order to save Bidens son from prosecution?

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"I said, 'You're not getting the billion.' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money,'" Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

"Well, son of a [beep], he got fired!"

...

Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn't mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member.

U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...obe-is-revived

It's also reported that out of that $166,000 a month, nearly a third of it, a staggering $50,000 a MONTH, went into the pockets of Hunter Biden!

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elect...father-was-vp/

And now we learn that the Ukrainian government was troubled enough by Biden's conduct that they repeatedly appealed to the US to investigate the matter only to be stonewalled by those opposed to Trump. Now it seems the story has finally become too big to ignore thanks to this "whistleblower".

[Juvenal]

Jimmy, honey, you don't know an ad hominem from an ad velorem or an add homonym! Heck, you can't even SPELL ad hominem, you goofus! --- all you're doing here is parroting Charles.

Don't be a Charles!

Spelling errors aside, he's used the phrase correctly here, making your attack something of an own goal, creacher. Doubling down, let me suggest your ad hominem attacks on your opponents are continuous, and just as continuously provide evidence that your position has no better support to rely upon.

It is my firm opinion that you mean well, an opinion supported by compelling evidence, and because of this, I hold on to my faith that this is not who you wish to be, whereas a more objective observer might assume you, as a "man of God," are intent upon driving all of your political opponents away from your faith.

It certainly works that way for me.

[JimL]

The Conservative Treehouse is a hyperpartisan source, and as such, their condemnations can only be relied upon to identify sources which are not similarly hyperpartisan. In this instance, its bizarre accusations provide only the limited utility of highlighting fringe conspiracy theories.

In this instance, in particular, rather than reading about Lawfare from a debased source, I believe you would be better served by reading Lawfare itself.

Intelligence Oversight
What the Latest Reports Say About the Whistleblower Complaint
Robert S. Litt
Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 4:17 PM
If the speculation is accurate, the actions by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence may have a firmer legal foundation than has so far been apparent.

As I outlined here, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act provides that if the ICIG determines that a complaint about a matter of “urgent concern” is credible, he sends it to the DNI, who within seven days “shall ... forward” it to Congress together with any comments. But a matter of “urgent concern” is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity within the authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information” (emphasis added). The alleged offer by the president, while perhaps criminal and possibly impeachable, does not obviously relate to any intelligence activity within the DNI’s authority.

Bio sketch:

Robert Litt formerly served as the General Counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under the Obama administration.

Which sounds more compelling to you, and indeed more supportive of your position, a defense of the ODNI withholding from the prior GC under Obama, or a hyperpartisan screed telling you not to pay attention to him?

The IG determines whether the complaint is of urgent concern or not, not the DNI, and once the IG passes the complaint along to the DNI he is to pass it along to Congress with any comments he chooses to add within 7 days. It is illogical on its face to turn over the complaint to the person being charged in order to figure out whether Congess should see it or not. That's how Congressional oversight is avoided and dictators are born.

[Cow Poke]

Spelling errors aside, he's used the phrase correctly here, making your attack something of an own goal, creacher. Doubling down, let me suggest your ad hominem attacks on your opponents are continuous, and just as continuously provide evidence that your position has no better support to rely upon.

It is my firm opinion that you mean well, an opinion supported by compelling evidence, and because of this, I hold on to my faith that this is not who you wish to be, whereas a more objective observer might assume you, as a "man of God," are intent upon driving all of your political opponents away from your faith.

It certainly works that way for me.

Jimmy is not here simply to be "a political opponent". He's here to mock and attack Christians and Christianity, and always manages to do so in such ignorant ways, on top of which, he's constantly distorting the truth about others' political positions. He's, IMOHBAO, a dishonest .

HOWEVER, I respect your opinion and will try to take it to heart.

[JimL]

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"I said, 'You're not getting the billion.' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money,'" Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

"Well, son of a [beep], he got fired!"

...

Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn't mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member.

U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...obe-is-revived

It's also reported that out of that $166,000 a month, nearly a third of it, a staggering $50,000 a MONTH, went into the pockets of Hunter Biden!

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elect...father-was-vp/

And now we learn that the Ukrainian government was troubled enough by Biden's conduct that they repeatedly appealed to the US to investigate the matter only to be stonewalled by those opposed to Trump. Now it seems the story has finally become too big to ignore thanks to this "whistleblower".

The company, (Burisma), to which Hunter Biden was a board member was being investigated, not Hunter Biden himself, and there is no evidence that Hunter Biden was guilty of anything or that he was personally being investigated. It is also reported that the investigation into Burisma itself was shelved before Biden even made the threat on behalf of the Obama administration to withhold the financial aid. Problem is, you got nothing, MM, but more obfuscation from the Trump mob.