Whistleblower identified

[Mountain Man]

I take it that you don't believe that Trumps lawyer argued in court that while president, Trump is above the law.

You know better, Jimmy. Trump's lawyers never said that. You even started a thread about it, and your claims were thoroughly debunked.

[oxmixmudd]

Show me your best example of me "standing behind Trump" as opposed to standing up for the truth. As I have stated numerous times, Trump has actually done enough on his own to warrant criticism without people making stuff up, or going to extremes like declaring him a criminal when that hasn't yet been established. It MAY! But he's entitled to the same presumption of innocence as the rest of us.

Show me where I have excused or defended Trump's evil, please.

I believe in truth and decency, Jim.

I gave you the example CP. The example is defending the idea that there was nothing implying at the very least the potential for obfuscation of justice in the Meullar report when there clearly was. The example is standing with the idea that Muellar could have TOLD congress they needed to impeach, e.g. explicitly recommended it when he very likely could not, for the simple reason that such a recommendation would be effectively an indictment, and he was not allowed to indict, and that somehow that negates all the instances of apparent obstruction in the report.

If you are truly 'in the middle' and only care about the truth and do not wish to defend or excuse Trump's evil, then you can't be minimizing the evidence that is there that Trump is not following the law. You don't have to crawl over to the other side and be as sure as I am that he's guilty, but you are supporting the narrative there is nothing there, and that narrative is a lie. There is a lot there, it just may not be enough to convict.

[rogue06]

Not according to the NY Times I read. You obviously read the NY Times through Trump-tinted glasses.

“Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman had the courage to put the country’s interests before his own. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, came forward to tell the truth about President Trump’s actions, despite the obvious risks to his career”.

“Vindman reportedly told impeachment investigators that the White House record of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president contained deliberate omissions. “Every charge against the president has proved true as the investigation has progressed, and not a single witness so far has provided countervailing evidence,” the former Justice Department official Matthew Miller wrote”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/o...p-ukraine.html

That bit didn't have anything whatsoever to do with what I posted. Why is that?

[Cow Poke]

I gave you the example CP. The example is defending the idea that there was nothing implying at the very least the potential for obfuscation of justice in the Meullar report when there clearly was.

You might wanna try that sentence again, Jim.

The example is standing with the idea that Muellar could have TOLD congress they needed to impeach, e.g. explicitly recommended it when he very likely could not, for the simple reason that such a recommendation would be effectively an indictment, and he was not allowed to indict, and that somehow that negates all the instances of apparent obstruction in the report.

No, Jim, that's flat wrong - a recommendation for impeachment hearings is not an indictment. An indictment is what would be expected as the outcome of a successful impeachment hearing.

If you are truly 'in the middle'

Never claimed that. I'm pretty much conservative through and through.

and only care about the truth and do not wish to defend or excuse Trump's evil, then you can't be minimizing the evidence that is there that Trump is not following the law.

See, we have a difference of opinion on this --- your accusation of "minimizing the evidence" is my "waiting for actual facts and not jumping on the 'hate Trump' bandwagon".

You don't have to crawl over to the other side and be as sure as I am that he's guilty,

Guilty of what, exactly? Being a jackass? We're in agreement, I'm sure. Actually being a criminal? What's the crime?

but you are supporting the narrative there is nothing there, and that narrative is a lie.

No, Jim, I'm not. I'm just not wild-eyed hate-Trump absolutely totally obsessed with "get Trump".

There is a lot there, it just may not be enough to convict.

So, WHO CARES if there's not enough to convict, right? Let's just keep piling on and look at every single piece of gossip and salacious reporting and commentary from the left and rumor and leak...... lock him up! Who needs "enough to convict"?

[oxmixmudd]

No, Jim, that's flat wrong - a recommendation for impeachment hearings is not an indictment. An indictment is what would be expected as the outcome of a successful impeachment hearing.

CP - It would effectively be one if he had recommended it. The impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment as it relates to a criminal trial. It lists the crimes he is accused of and sets the stage for the trial in the senate. So to recommend impeachment is to effectively recommend indictment in terms of how crimes are handled with a sitting President. I recognize you'll probably deny that, but it is what it is.

Never claimed that. I'm pretty much conservative through and through.

You love to move the goal posts don't you? Every time I imply you might be for Trump, you hop all over me because you say you are not. If I try to acknowledge what you've told me about that and say you are in the middle and not necessarily for Trump, then poof, you get on me for being wrong because you are conservative through and through. And so on. The real deal here, CP, is you don't want to be nailed down more than me being 'wrong' about where you stand. You most stand with Trump, and you mostly defend him. That is what you do. And that speaks more clearly than anything else on the matter.

See, we have a difference of opinion on this --- your accusation of "minimizing the evidence" is my "waiting for actual facts and not jumping on the 'hate Trump' bandwagon".

It's not just a difference of opinion. You are not merely trying to hold off on a conclusion, you are redefining what the facts ARE.

Guilty of what, exactly? Being a jackass? We're in agreement, I'm sure. Actually being a criminal? What's the crime?

He has broken a multitude of laws CP. From obstruction, to quid-pro-quo, to receiving gifts or payment from foreign powers or persons. But he has not yet been held accountable to them.

The specifics for obstruction have mutliple examples in the Muellar report. The quid-pro-quo is all over the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses and the call transcipt, and the emoluments clause if his snubbing his nose at the entire idea from day one and pretending it doesn't even exist. Every time a Diplomat stays at the DC Trump hotel, it is a potential violation of the emoluments clause.

No, Jim, I'm not. I'm just not wild-eyed hate-Trump absolutely totally obsessed with "get Trump".

Neither am I CP. The difference between you and I is who is willing to look the other way when Trump violates the law, tramples on the constitution, or endangers the national security of the US. IT is not Trump, it is what he is DOING. You accusing me of being 'after trump' is just another way you minimize the evil he does. I am not crazy for being offended by what he does. But you are foolish for pretending it doesn't matter.

So, WHO CARES if there's not enough to convict, right? Let's just keep piling on and look at every single piece of gossip and salacious reporting and commentary from the left and rumor and leak...... lock him up! Who needs "enough to convict"?

Again, you are minimizing the issues and the evidence. If this were any other person, even any other president, they would be toast by now. But somehow Trump has convinced you and a large part of the US to pretend what he has done is 'not so bad'. That is just what he does. And he is good at it. What he said on the access hollywood tape was 'just locker room talk'. Forget about all those women that say he assaulted them, and who he paid off (possibly illegally). No - it wasn't 'that bad'. And he's doing that with the quid-pro-quo too. 'It was a perfect call'. Nothing wrong. he says. Yet the bottom line is he held up half a billion dollars in critical aid needed to defend against an enemy of the United States so he could get dirt on a political opponent. And here you and others are: 'It wasn't so bad', "you can't prooooove' that is why he did that" and so on.

[Cow Poke]

CP - It would effectively be one if he had recommended it. The impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment as it relates to a criminal trial.

No, Jim, ya got that wrong. The impeachment is not the equivalent of an indictment. It is the equivalent of a grand jury hearing as it relates to a criminal trial, not an indictment.

In both cases, impeachment or grand jury, the case for an indictment is considered. If an indictment comes forward, then it moves to trial. In the case of impeachment, that would be the Senate. In the case of grand jury, that would be the actual criminal trial.

Trump impeachment hearing: Here's how the process works

The presidential impeachment process

An impeachment proceeding is the formal process by which a sitting president of the United States may be accused of wrongdoing. The articles of impeachment are the list of charges drafted against the president. The vice president and all civil officers of the U.S. can also face impeachment.

The process begins in the U.S. House of Representatives, where any member of the House may make a suggestion to launch an impeachment proceeding. It is then up to the speaker of the House, as leader of the majority party, to determine whether or not to proceed with an inquiry into the alleged wrongdoing.

"The critical determination comes to the speaker about whether or not to forward it," Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina who authored a book on the impeachment process, told ABC News in 2017.

....

If there is a decision to move forward with impeachment proceedings, the speaker would decide if the House Judiciary Committee handles the impeachment inquiry, or if a separate special committee is formed.

The special committee would be empowered to broaden the focus of the inquiry -- or investigation.

If the speaker assigns the House Judiciary Committee to investigate, there is no time limit placed on their investigation and a likely public hearing would be scheduled at the discretion of the committee chair to vote on the articles of impeachment.

A simple majority of the members of the committee would have to vote in favor of approving an article or articles of impeachment in order to proceed to a vote by the full House. The House Judiciary Committee currently consists of 24 Democrats and 17 Republicans; 21 votes in favor would be necessary.

Each article of impeachment that is passed by a simple majority vote in committee would then be voted on by the full House of Representatives. If any of those articles gets a simple majority vote, which is 50% plus one more vote, "the House will have impeached the president," Gerhardt said.

Any (or all) of those articles of impeachment, having received the 50%-plus-one affirmative vote, constitute the equivalent of the indictment, which begins the trial in the Senate.

[rogue06]

According to the Associated Press, the supposed omissions were one or two words at most: "Vindman also told investigators he tried to change the White House’s rough transcript of the call by filling in at least one of the omitted words, 'Burisma'..." so nothing significant. Furthermore, there was nothing in Vindman's prepared opening statement that questioned the accuracy of the official transcript.

Vindman’s prepared statement indicates he believes that the released transcript is accurate. He said: “As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.” If Vindman had contended that the transcript was not accurate, then his recollection might be material. But that is not what he claimed.

Although some left-leaning media outlets now claim the transcript has omissions and is not accurate, Vindman did not make that claim or dispute the accuracy of the transcript. If he later changes course and claims, contrary to his prepared statement, that the transcript is not accurate, then such a shift would raise obvious credibility issues. But that discussion is for another day, if it happens.

And worst of all for the impeachment co-conspirators, Vindman's testimony did add any new facts. All we got from him were opinion and hand-wringing appeals to emotion...

Vindman’s testimony about the July 25 call between the two presidents does not add any new facts. So, what does he say? He offers his opinions about the wisdom of the call. That’s it. His testimony about the substance of that call consists of five sentences at the end of his prepared testimony. Those five sentences basically comprise two opinions.

Here is what he said: “I was concerned by the call. [1] I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. [2] I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.”

The two portions preceded by my bracketed numbers are Vindman’s opinions. Let’s analyze what he said. It is important to remember that he was not speaking off-the-cuff or just responding to questions. This was a carefully prepared opening statement that had been closely vetted by lawyers and others.

Regarding his first opinion, he says, “I did not think it was proper…” That is pure opinion, not fact. Moreover, if it is improper to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen, that would no doubt come as a big surprise to many in government.

Vindman’s statement is, in short, an unfounded and unsupported opinion. And the notion that the president could not properly ask a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen who may have engaged in illegal activity is nonsense; Joe Biden does not get a pass from investigation just because he is candidate for the nomination of his party.

There is nothing improper or illegal about an investigation into potentially illegal actions, much less anything that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. The notion that it does is so much tommyrot.

So, absent personal knowledge of a high crime or misdemeanor, Vindman’s first personal opinion is immaterial. I think most voters not swirling around in the vortex of Trump hatred care more about the opinions of the president and the secretary of State than those of a mid-level officer, at least on this topic.

Vindman’s second opinion is that if Ukraine investigated the Bidens as President Trump suggested, it would lose the support of Democrats in Congress. That may well be, but in addition to being a personal opinion, it is a pure political concern. It is properly the concern of the presidents of the United States and of Ukraine.

If he disagrees with the president’s approach and harbors a fear that Ukraine will lose Democrat votes if it investigates the Bidens, Vindman’s proper role is to give his best advice and then shut up. His proper role is not to volunteer to go before a congressional committee and complain about why he disagrees with the president.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/01...onal-opinions/

And yet we keep hearing how devastating his testimony was.

It's like how arms expert and former NSC official Tim Morrison (one of those who sat in on the call between Trump and Zelensky) testified yesterday that nothing illegal was said.

Source: NSC Official Tim Morrison To Schiff: ‘I Was Not Concerned That Anything Illegal Was Discussed’ In Trump-Ukraine Phone Call

Tim Morrison, a former National Security Council official under Trump, told Rep. Adam Schiff in testimony today that he was never concerned that Trump discussed anything illegal in his July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president.


A top National Security Council (NSC) official who listened to President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky testified to Congress today that he did not believe Trump had discussed anything illegal during the conversation.

“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison testified today, according to a record of his remarks obtained by The Federalist.

Morrison testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call, casting doubt on allegations that Trump somehow conveyed an illegal quid pro quo demand during the July 25 call.

“I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the [military funding] review until August 28, 2019,” Morrison said. That is the same day that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chief anti-Trump inquisitor in the U.S. House of Representatives, disclosed on Twitter that funding had been held up. Politico also published a story that day, sourced to anonymous leaks, that military funding had been temporarily held up.

Although Schiff claimed that neither he nor his staff ever spoke to the anti-Trump whistleblower, The New York Times reported that the complainant, whom RealClearInvestigations identified as Eric Ciaramella, coordinated with Schiff’s office before filing his complaint with the intelligence community inspector general on August 12. While Schiff initially demanded that the anti-Trump complainant be allowed to publicly testify, he quickly changed course following the reports that he and his staff had secretly colluded with the whistleblower and then lied about the interactions.

Morrison also pointed out key factual inaccuracies in testimony provided by William Taylor, a State Department official who works in the U.S. embassy in Kiev, Ukraine. Morrison said that, contrary to Taylor’s claims, Morrison never met with the Ukrainian National Security advisor in his private hotel room.

Morrison also said Taylor falsely claimed that Ambassador Gordon Sondland demanded a public statement from the Ukrainian president committing to investigate Burisma, a controversial Ukrainian energy company that paid Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter millions of dollars to sit on its board.

“My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland’s proposal to [Ukrainian National Security Advisor Andriy] Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general — not President Zelensky — would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation,” Morrison testified.

Morrison testified that the transcript of the phone call that was declassified and released by Trump in late September “accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call,” and that he was concerned that the substance of the call would be leaked to the media. Morrison said he immediately informed a NSC lawyer about his concerns that the phone call would be leaked. Democrats have alleged that security measures taken to prevent leaks of the top secret call transcript prove that Trump should be removed from office.

He also told lawmakers that the national security process worked as designed in the case of the military funding that Congress appropriated for Ukraine.

“I am pleased our process gave the president the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector assistance,” he said. “I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump administration accomplish.”

Democrats on Thursday morning voted to rubber-stamp Schiff’s efforts to impeach Trump with secret hearings and lopsided rules that prevent Republicans from subpoenaing witnesses or evidence without first obtaining Schiff’s permission. A bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans opposed the measure.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Yet how was this news that Morrison testifies he "wasn't concerned that anything illegal was discussed" during the Trump-Zelensky call?

Or that "Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019"?

Or that Morrison strenuously disagreed with several key claims made by State Department official William Taylor?



Well CNN reports it as ""Impeachment deposition: NSC official corroborates testimony linking Ukraine aid to investigations." And the Washington Post declares "White House Official Corroborates Diplomat’s Account that Trump Appeared to Seek Quid Pro Quo"

[Mountain Man]

And they wonder why the President decries them as fake news.

[oxmixmudd]

No, Jim, ya got that wrong. The impeachment is not the equivalent of an indictment. It is the equivalent of a grand jury hearing as it relates to a criminal trial, not an indictment.

In both cases, impeachment or grand jury, the case for an indictment is considered. If an indictment comes forward, then it moves to trial. In the case of impeachment, that would be the Senate. In the case of grand jury, that would be the actual criminal trial.

Trump impeachment hearing: Here's how the process works

The presidential impeachment process

An impeachment proceeding is the formal process by which a sitting president of the United States may be accused of wrongdoing. The articles of impeachment are the list of charges drafted against the president. The vice president and all civil officers of the U.S. can also face impeachment.

The process begins in the U.S. House of Representatives, where any member of the House may make a suggestion to launch an impeachment proceeding. It is then up to the speaker of the House, as leader of the majority party, to determine whether or not to proceed with an inquiry into the alleged wrongdoing.

"The critical determination comes to the speaker about whether or not to forward it," Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina who authored a book on the impeachment process, told ABC News in 2017.

....

If there is a decision to move forward with impeachment proceedings, the speaker would decide if the House Judiciary Committee handles the impeachment inquiry, or if a separate special committee is formed.

The special committee would be empowered to broaden the focus of the inquiry -- or investigation.

If the speaker assigns the House Judiciary Committee to investigate, there is no time limit placed on their investigation and a likely public hearing would be scheduled at the discretion of the committee chair to vote on the articles of impeachment.

A simple majority of the members of the committee would have to vote in favor of approving an article or articles of impeachment in order to proceed to a vote by the full House. The House Judiciary Committee currently consists of 24 Democrats and 17 Republicans; 21 votes in favor would be necessary.

Each article of impeachment that is passed by a simple majority vote in committee would then be voted on by the full House of Representatives. If any of those articles gets a simple majority vote, which is 50% plus one more vote, "the House will have impeached the president," Gerhardt said.

Any (or all) of those articles of impeachment, having received the 50%-plus-one affirmative vote, constitute the equivalent of the indictment, which begins the trial in the Senate.

Good enough. So then Mueller would have been recommending the equivalent of a grand jury hearing on the evidence. Either way he chose not to, and you and the others are assuming he made that choice for lack of evidence.

And yet the evidence is ther, per the 1000+ federal prosecutors. IOW, Muellers decision was not based on a lack of evidence, it was based on something else.

Yet over and over the claim is made it was for lack of evidence in spite of the fact there was plenty, or rather, the fact he made no explicit recommendation is taken as an evaluation of the strength of the evidence, when there is no objective evidence that is the case.

The only reason cited by Mueller for the why of his decisions not to make recommendations is that it is not DOJ policy to indict a sitting president. But he did say Congress could, and the way it was worded, it appears to be a strong hint that is the way it should proceed.

[Cow Poke]

Good enough. So then Mueller would have been recommending the equivalent of a grand jury hearing on the evidence.

Correct. Like Ken Starr did.

Either way he chose not to, and you and the others are assuming he made that choice for lack of evidence.

Please stop telling me what I think, Jim, because that's simply not true. This is one of the things that makes trying to have a discussion with you so frustrating.

[JimL]

You know better, Jimmy. Trump's lawyers never said that. You even started a thread about it, and your claims were thoroughly debunked.

Yes, I do know better, better than you apparently do. Trumps Lawyer argued that the President was not only above the law, but above even investigation so long as he is in office. The Judge of course shot that argument down, calling it repugnant, and I'm sure the wannabe dictator will appeal.



http://abovethelaw.com/2019/10/trump...ot-win-mazars/

[RumTumTugger]

I want JimL, oxmixxmudd, Tass and the other orangeman bad crew to show me in the actual transcript of the phone call(not Adam Schiff's lying "parody"of it) where Trump strong armed or insisted on Quid pro Quo. While you are at it tell me why if that is what happened Ukraine insists it didn't or didn't even know until a month after that aide was being witheld, and then recieved it shortly after he noticed it without having done anything for it.

You are making the claim that is it there something there then show me from the actual transcript not the so called whistleblower's third hand FEELINGS gotten from others on what the phone call was about Feelings are not facts.

[JimL]

I want JimL, oxmixxmudd, Tass and the other orangeman bad crew to show me in the actual transcript of the phone call(not Adam Schiff's lying "parody"of it) where Trump strong armed or insisted on Quid pro Quo. While you are at it tell me why if that is what happened Ukraine insists it didn't or didn't even know until a month after that aide was being witheld, and then recieved it shortly after he noticed it without having done anything for it.

You are making the claim that is it there something there then show me from the actual transcript not the so called whistleblower's third hand FEELINGS gotten from others on what the phone call was about Feelings are not facts.

First of all, it's only a summary transcript, which is bad enough in its redacted self. But, remember, don't focus solely on the transcript, which is what Trump and his minions would like you to focus on. The transcript, which Trump lawyers decided to hide in a super secure server after being informed of the contents of the call by the whistleblower, that transcript was just the alarm bell which led to the investigation, but it's what the investigation itself revealed that's led to the impeachment. You're going to get to see all of that evidence being testified to now that the inquirey is about to be opened to the public.

[oxmixmudd]

Correct. Like Ken Starr did.



Please stop telling me what I think, Jim, because that's simply not true. This is one of the things that makes trying to have a discussion with you so frustrating.

And you cutting of discussion over me simply making inferences that implied by almost every word you speak is one of the things that makes having discussions with you so frustrating.

Really, it's so bad that if yousaid 'I like like the sea' you would then throw a fit and stop the conversation if later I said in response to that 'CP likes the water'

[Mountain Man]

Trumps Lawyer argued that the President was not only above the law, but above even investigation so long as he is in office.

They never argued that at all.