Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[rogue06]

So basically, they were accusing Trump of pressuring a foreign country, threatening to withhold money in return for them doing something for Trump, when in fact, this is exactly what Biden did, twice. He first got the Ukraine and China to pay his son 1.5 BILLION dollars for his "company", then when the Ukraine prosecutor was going to investigate his son, he threatened the Ukraine that he was going to withhold money unless they fired the prosecutor.

AND we have Biden on tape bragging about it.

Where is the outrage from the democrats? Where is the outrage from the liberals in this very thread that were condemning Trump but are completely silent about Biden now?

00000000000000ab000-00aah.jpg

[Sparko]

So basically, they were accusing Trump of pressuring a foreign country, threatening to withhold money in return for them doing something for Trump, when in fact, this is exactly what Biden did, twice. He first got the Ukraine and China to pay his son 1.5 BILLION dollars for his "company", then when the Ukraine prosecutor was going to investigate his son, he threatened the Ukraine that he was going to withhold money unless they fired the prosecutor.

AND we have Biden on tape bragging about it.

Where is the outrage from the democrats? Where is the outrage from the liberals in this very thread that were condemning Trump but are completely silent about Biden now?

[seer]

You want to get into the weeds, and find the real collusion, well worth the read:

Andrew McCarthy: Triangulating Manafort -- Obama, Clinton and Ukraine

It is in connection with Paul Manafort that we encounter some genuine collusion targeting the 2016 campaign: willful collaboration among foreign governments, the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign.

Just a week after the campaign introduced Carter Page as a Trump foreign policy adviser, it announced that Manafort had been brought on board, too. The consultant was an old political hand, experienced managing the rough-and-tumble of a convention fight.

Manafort had longstanding, lucrative political consulting (and other business) arrangements with Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs who had Kremlin ties. These arrangements had already been spun into a narrative of political corruption in 2007 and 2008 by Glenn Simpson — then a Wall Street Journal scribe. In 2016, as the Fusion GPS impresario, Simpson would pull these articles off the shelf to help weave the Russia-gate tale.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andr...linton-ukraine

[seer]

And let's not forget, this old news:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

By KENNETH P. VOGEL and DAVID STERN 01/11/2017 05:05 AM EST

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

[Mountain Man]

Even CNN is now forced to admit that the "whistleblower" is in effect spreading gossip with no first hand knowledge of what took place.

To be fair, CNN wasn't forced; as far as I can tell, they were the first to report it, but they naturally buried this rather important revelation nearly two-dozen paragraphs below the headline. Of course people are are going to say, "Oh, so now you trust CNN?" but my thinking is this: CNN wouldn't report something that undermines the liberal narrative unless it was true. That's also why they buried it so deep in the article knowing that their low-information target audience won't read beyond the first couple of paragraphs, if they even make it past the headline.

[rogue06]

Is answered by this.

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.

It should be noted that, contrary to the reputation for conservative bias in their editorial content, WSJ reporting, like Fox news reporting, has long held a solid reputation, though there have been vocal protests against pressures exerted on reporters after its acquisition by Murdoch.

Even CNN is now forced to admit that the "whistleblower" is in effect spreading gossip with no first hand knowledge of what took place.

[rogue06]

The numbers are right in front of you.

48/46 actual vs. final poll numbers:

Abs 2 error: 49/45 or +1/-1 for Insights West
Abs 4 error: 47/43 or -1/-3 for ABC News
Abs 4 error: 47/43 or -1/-3 for Gravis marketing
Abs 2 error: 48/44 or 0/-2 for Fox News

vs.

Abs 6 error: 45/43 or -3/-3 for Rasmussen

This isn't even close.

Citing the Daily Caller, in clear contradiction to the numbers you can read yourself showing it ain't so, after taking potshots at the Times, is the definition of an own goal. This is why your comments on bias have negative credibility.

As you said the numbers are right in front of you:

The following table lists the accuracy of pollsters in the November 8, 2016 US Presidential election using the measure of polling accuracy proposed by Martin, Traugott, and Kennedy.

An accuracy measure of 0.00 indicates that the odds ratio of the survey results matches the odds ratio of the actual results (the closer to 0.00, the better).

00000000000000ab000-00aak.jpg

[Mountain Man]

Yet now apparently Trump is the one who is in the wrong for wanting to find out exactly what went on?

And I point out, again, that this whole thing was initiated by the Ukrainian government who had justifiable concerns about a Vice President of the United States extorting them to fire a prosecutor who was investigating the VP's son.

[Sparko]

Laughing. It's not just "what he was paid", but WHY he was paid it, Jimmy. They were buying the influence of his father -- Hunter had ZERO experience or expertise to serve on that board. That's the "corruption" you pretend to hate.

Yeah, wasn't Jimmy complaining about the nepotism in Trump's administration with his daughter and son-in-law? But it's just fine for Biden to use his political pressure to get his son a cushy board position with a foreign government? What the hell? If Trump had gotten one of his son's on the board of some Russian corporation they would be screaming collusion and corruption to the ends of the earth.

Yet now apparently Trump is the one who is in the wrong for wanting to find out exactly what went on?

IF that is what actually this is about.

Apparently the "whistle blower" was not even privy to the actual supposed phone call and is just reporting on something second hand, so who knows what is going on?

Yup, Looks Like That Big Anti-Trump, Whistleblower Story Was All Smoke And Mirrors

The media has spent the past few days speculating all the ways in which the Trump presidency could end after a whistleblower lodged a complaint regarding President Donald Trump’s communications with an unknown foreign leader.

It turns out the complaint is nothing more than a rumor reported by someone in the intelligence community. Buried in a lengthy CNN article about the complaint is the following paragraph:

The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower's concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration's determination that the complaint didn't fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.

Granted, this is yet another anonymous source giving more context on what another anonymous source told a different outlet, but it still calls the entire story into question.

The Washington Post first reported the complaint on Wednesday, using anonymous sources and vague descriptions. The outlet placed the story on its front page, with the headline, “Trump’s communications with foreign leader are part of whistleblower complaint that spurred standoff between spy chief and Congress, former officials say.”

The story was as vague as the headline, with “two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter” who were “speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly” claiming Trump made a “promise” to a world leader, which is apparently wrong.

The Post filled out its story with information about a “standoff” between Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire and Congress.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson – who was appointed by Trump – determined the whistleblower complaint to be of “urgent concern,” according to the Post. But Maguire argued he was not required by law to turn the complaint over to congressional Democrats seeking to impeach Trump.

The reason Maguire didn’t turn the complaint over is because of what CNN reported – that the person who made the complaint had no direct knowledge of what was said and was merely reporting a rumor. Why the inspector general determined it “urgent and credible” remains to be seen.

Media outlets have continued to speculate about what terrible thing Trump allegedly promised and to whom. The Post published a timeline of Trump’s calls with foreign leaders over the past four months, emphasizing his contacts with Russia and North Korea. Further reporting suggested Trump made some kind of “promise” with the newly elected leader of Ukraine, possibly over the country’s investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. The elder Biden reportedly bullied Ukraine into firing a prosecutor looking into a company that employed his son. Biden allegedly threatened to withhold U.S. loan guarantees if the prosecutor was not fired.

Some in the media suggested Trump withheld $250 million in military aid from Ukraine possibly in relation to whatever “promise” was made in that telephone call, which, again, the whistleblower didn’t overhear.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/52069...was-ashe-schow

[Mountain Man]

Is answered by this.

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.

It should be noted that, contrary to the reputation for conservative bias in their editorial content, WSJ reporting, like Fox news reporting, has long held a solid reputation, though there have been vocal protests against pressures exerted on reporters after its acquisition by Murdoch.

Except CNN reported that the "whistleblower" had no direct knowledge of the phone call -- in fact didn't even learn about it as part of his (or her) official duties -- and Ukraine's foreign minister said himself that they were not pressured by President Trump to investigate.

[Juvenal]

This.

Is answered by this.

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.

It should be noted that, contrary to the reputation for conservative bias in their editorial content, WSJ reporting, like Fox news reporting, has long held a solid reputation, though there have been vocal protests against pressures exerted on reporters after its acquisition by Murdoch.

[Juvenal]

I don't think we're disagreeing about the substance of our claims here so the above is more for broad clarification purposes.

I agree there's little disagreement, though I'd dispute the use of possessive pronouns. I am bringing forward the reporting of professional journalists working under standard editorial oversight. Right or wrong, the claims are theirs.

My opinions should be read as opinions only, and remain restricted to the ethics of crony capitalism.

Hope classes have started well and will only get better with cooler weather,

--Sam

Things are settling down remarkably under our new chair, who is still benefiting from a novel aura best described as, "Thank God she's not crazy." As someone who actually hired her in the past for an adjunct position at another university, I'd say she's much better than that, but a low bar is a low bar.

My own classes ... hmm, put it this way ... I've just bought a dozen calculators on eBay, with another half dozen bids that should close this week ... which probably says it all. These kids are not privileged. But they're my kids, and I'm going to do whatever is necessary to help them, so help me God.

[Mountain Man]

As Sam has noted, Solomon is not a reporter, he's an opinion writer...

And as I noted, Solomon's information comes directly from Ukrainian and US government officials, official Ukrainian government documents, and the Ukrainian prosecutor himself. And the link to (the highly reputable) Conservative Treehouse leads to a video statement from Ukraine's foreign minister, so you don't even have to take sundance's word for it.

But, sure, you can play the genetic fallacy if you want. It's a weak play, to be sure, but it seems to be the only move you have left.

[Juvenal]

I suppose that's why the Ukrainian government was so troubled by Joe Biden extorting them to fire a prosecutor who was about to drop the hammer on his son that they've been trying for nearly two-years to get the US to investigate the very real possibility that US laws were broken.

As this timeline coincides with the Trump presidency, there's good reason to believe any attempts to investigate Biden's son stem from political pressure from the Trump administration.

Ukraine's new president caught in US political crossfire

Ukrainian leaders feel trapped between warring Washington factions

All evidence to date supports the assertion that the investigation into Burisma was directed toward extorting its founder, and sufficient evidence exists to assume the extortion was successful.

Remember, this whole thing was initiated by the Ukrainian government contacting the State Department after they were stonewalled by the US embassy in Kiev, and federal prosecutors in New York.

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

We also know for a fact that it was an active investigation when Biden extorted them, contrary to the liberal narrative that the case had been dismissed. This information comes firsthand from official Ukraine government documents and the prosecutor himself.

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

Furthermore, Ukraine's foreign minister is on record saying that they initiated contact with the US government, and that President Trump did not pressure them to investigate.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...dent-zelensky/

So basically, the truth is almost the exact opposite of everything we're hearing from the liberal media and their "sources say" reports.

As Sam has noted, Solomon is not a reporter, he's an opinion writer, and not an upscale writer at that. The TCT, however, isn't even opinion, it's a conspiracy site. All of these citations provide further support to the reported claims of Ukraine being under improper pressure to support the Trump narrative. None of these citations include a reference to Zlochevsky, the obvious target of any probe, either legitimate or illegitimate, casting further doubt on their perspicacity.

[Sam]

Now that's whatcha call game, set, match.



Upthread I provided a link relevant to the more serious of these, a defense of withholding from Obama's general counsel to the ODNI.

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.

From all reports, the complaint does not relate to the "funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the authority of the DNI involving classified information."

So on the one hand, there's an actual, nonpartisan argument to be made for claiming the complaint was not, by definition, an "urgent concern." On the other, it is, by natural reasoning, quite obviously an urgent concern, and judged so by yet another "deep state" actor, aka a Trump appointee serving at the pleasure of the president.



Maybe it's not illegal, but it's absurd to suggest Biden wasn't sufficiently aware of his son's relationship with what he also could not have been unaware was a corrupt administration. Burisma was looking for energy contracts. These are properly described as up for bid, but the bidding comes inescapably in the form of bribes. Likely enough, Hunter's covered against legal action, because that's not that hard to do, but his efforts to distance himself from Burisma are telling. He's dirty.

Highlighting "crony capitalism" involving a close relative would be an entirely fair attack on a political opponent, though in this instance, with the muckraking coming from a businessman president profiting directly from his presidency, it might not be prudent to open that box.



Always a pleasure, Sam.

And again, as I mentioned upthread, those who are willing to wait will be rewarded. Both audio and transcripts of the call will be in the press soon enough, and we can move on from the if, if, if ... speculations to a more serious discussion of facts.

I do agree that the cronyism displayed by hiring Hunter Biden is dirty and unethical and I'm very much in favor of legislation that ends the practice. My point there is only that, like people being shocked, shocked, that Clinton used a personal email account for government work, we're talking about a relatively common practice in politics today. It's not a scandal in itself and we're not going to start talking about it like it's some new thing to hang around Biden's neck.

Relating to the whistleblower complaint/ICIG report, I don't think there's actually a non-partisan argument to be made concerning the designation of an urgent, credible complaint. As Robert Litt notes in the linked article, the legislature seems to have anticipated that a DNI might disagree with the IG's designation and directs that they send the IG report regardless, with notes if necessary. The DNI doesn't have the statutory authority to override the IG's decision as to what constitutes a credible complaint -- nor would such a power really make sense, as a whistleblower may well be filing a complaint regarding an activity the DNI ordered or an act they are complicit in. In any case, no effort was made by the DNI to comply with the law, not even a proactive letter to the relevant congressional committees that a report had been submitted but would be withheld. And since no exemption is made for executive communication privileges or classified information concerns in the statute, the executive branch cannot withhold such reports without it being, on the face, unlawful. How courts might rule regarding the law's effect on separation of powers is a useful question but, for the moment, the accurate term has to be 'unlawful'.

I don't think we're disagreeing about the substance of our claims here so the above is more for broad clarification purposes.

Hope classes have started well and will only get better with cooler weather,

--Sam