White House also involved in advising DNI not to share whistleblower complaint

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Extorris

Who says the investigation was not going on into bidens son?

The Deputy under the ousted Prosecutor.

Vitaliy Kasko, who had been Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, produced documents to Bloomberg that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.

"There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky," Kasko told Bloomberg. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015."

Already linked in my last post.

Not the offical documents handed over by the new prosecutor showing hunter was a target.

A Target you say? And an Active investigation?

Can you please give me links to that proof? You offered official Docs?

The Deputy of the ousted Prosecutor said the investigation was not proceeding prior to Biden (AND THE REST OF THE WORLD) asking for the Prosecutor to be ousted.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: DanDanDat
The Democrats have played the week hand to many times now for me to take this seriously.

This is an IG that was appointed by Trump that determined the Whistle-Blower complaint was "Credible and Urgent".
Rudy admitted asking Ukraine to investigate Biden.
All the while Trump put a hold on releasing Military Aid to Ukraine.

Not really a Dem thing at all.

Hell Lindsay Graham and the GOP in the Senate were publicly asking the WH why they were holding up the approved aid to Ukraine.

This isn't a "Play". This needs to be examined and confirmed or disproved.

Trump is not permitted to Use US Military Aid to Foreign countries as extortion to help his Presidential Campaign.

That is not complex. If true, those are indisputable grounds for impeachment. If not true? Great! move on.

We need to see the Whistle Blower complaint that a Trump Appointed AG found "Credible and Urgent".

Sorry Extorris; unfortunately the Democrats have played the week hand to many times now for me to take this seriously.

Wait. So you took them seriously before???

LOL.

No offense, but who cares? No one needs you to take it seriously.

Yes; I try to keep an open mind about most things.


Who cares about me as an individual?

Slow your roll. I care about your opinion as an individual, but then again in the context of this very legal and constitutional issue, nobody that can effect the outcome cares about my opinion.

I guess that is what I am driving at. Some topics are a debate of political opinion. The circumstances around this Whistle blower Complaint are not. It is a BIG DEAL. If it is BS or if it is true, it needs to be SEEN. If the WH can Squash Whistleblowers when they don't like the complaints or content and SHUT DOWN IGs ? THAT is NEW TERRITORY.

The Courts will fast-track this if it goes there. Objectively the WH/Trump should stop interfering, let the Whistle-Blower complaint proceed and spin it how they want.

Jumping in and squashing it and denying it to the intelligence oversight committee?
They are creating a big problem for themselves.

They clearly think they need to make people take this seriously; unfortunately I think they are failing if for only one simply reason; they have saturated us with so many non-issues over the last two years that now every thing sounds like a non issue.

I understand what you are saying.

What I am saying, is it is not a partisan debate. What the WH is doing is able to be addressed in a clear, constitutional and legal way and as exhausted as the general public gets, the law never seems to tire of examining evidence and coming to conclusions and ..."but, but, but BIDEN!" as some posters are screaming isn't relevant in the courts.

This is not a recreational - opinion Debate.

It is National Security, Whistle-Blower Statutes, Subpoenas and at some point soon fast-track opinions from the Supreme Court.

Left, Right, Trump, Biden...all 2nd topics to the WH being so bold as to leap in an prevent a Whistle-Blower complaint endorsed by a Trump appointed IG as "Credible and Urgent" from reaching the intelligence committee.

The rules and laws that demand "Credible and Urgent" whistle blower complaints be seen by congress were put in place right after Nixon and Watergate and have never been challenged since, until now, with Trump denying access to the complaint.

THAT is the larger issue and legal one. THAT is what is going to cost Trump. He should release it now and deal with what the complaint says.

Otherwise the Supreme Court will have to weigh in, and they are conservative, but not THAT conservative, whistle-blower laws are clear and it speaks to transparent democracy.

a reply to: Extorris

The ousted [prosecutor says he was looking into Hunter.

Why is it you automatically assume the deputy was telling the truth, but not the actual prosecutor?

Especially when the prosecutor offered a rpeorter documents showing Hunter was a target?

And I suppose the new prosecutor who Biden called "slid" must be lying as well when he says the investgation was stalled after the prosecutor was fired, and there was still money going to Hunter that was never investigated?

And I suppose the US investigators are also lying in saying that the uncovered in a seperate investigation that Hunter was getting 5000 to 25000 a month from Bursima?



Geez I wonder if one ukrainian says trump is totally in the clear that you will accept that and say no need for an invetsigation?

Someone overheard something but not sure what it was but it was enough to cause a 3 day new cycle because the IG report is coming out as well as this implicating Biden in his dirty deals. I wonder if it was the Warren camp? LOL

How about we investigate why someone is listening in on the calls of the President of the United States?

You are doing that thing where you state something. I ask you to back it up, you fail to and ramble on to other claims.

You said this

originally posted by: Grambler

Who says the investigation was not going on into bidens son?

Not the offical documents handed over by the new prosecutor showing hunter was a target.

I asked to see the links to those documents and statement by the new prosecutor explaining the investigation was active when the first prosecutor was sacked.

You said it, show me links for that claim.

a reply to: Extorris

I bet you a permanent ban from ATS that this is all BS and nothing will happen to Trump.

Put up or shut up.

originally posted by: matafuchs
Someone overheard something but not sure what it was but it was enough to cause a 3 day new cycle

First time in history that a President has jumped up and squashed a Whistle-Blower Complaint from the intelligence community with the claim of Executive Privilege.

Could be nothing, could be damning, but even damning I care more about the issue of a WH being allowed to squash Whistle-Blower complaints from being seen by oversight committees just because they criticize a POTUS.

It's coming!

mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: Extorris

I bet you a permanent ban from ATS that this is all BS and nothing will happen to Trump.

Put up or shut up.

It is already "something". The very Act of a President claiming Executive Privilege over a Whistle Blower complaint to prevent it from being seen by an oversight committee IS A FIRST. The IG Trump himself appointed re-iterated that it is a "Credible and Urgent" complaint and the Intelligence Oversight Committee has a legal mandate to review it.

From a pure legal, process perspective the law that was put in place after Watergate to prevent exactly this kind of obstruction is being violated.

I will bet you a full and forever ban that A) the WH will relent and share the complaint or B) It will be elevated to the courts and Trump will lose...any court (likely SCOTUS and likely fast-tracked).

If the WH relents and retracts it executive privilege claim or if they refuse and the courts rule against them for release, you delete your account. Agreed?

If Trump doesn't tuck his tail between his legs and hand it over and/or the courts tell him it's OK to claim this as executive Privilege I will delete my account?

AGREED???

a reply to: Extorris

You are kidding right? Do you have any idea what past administrations did to whistleblowers?

I'll even use the left's favorite fact checking outlet...

Link

In the seven years of Obama's presidency, the administration launched a record number of cases against those who revealed what the government wanted kept secret. Under Obama, eight whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the World War I-era Espionage Act, more than under all other presidents combined.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Extorris

You are kidding right? Do you have any idea what past administrations did to whistleblowers?

You are talking about Whistle-Blowers that tried claim the status after leaking to press and public. That is sketchy legally.

Whistle-Blower statutes are strict regarding internal elevation of complaints. The WH has never before interfered with an internal complaint being legitimately elevated to an oversight committee. Not since Nixon and before laws were put into place forbidding that obstruction.

Let me know if you are still confused.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: Extorris

I bet you a permanent ban from ATS that this is all BS and nothing will happen to Trump.

Put up or shut up.

It is already "something". The very Act of a President claiming Executive Privilege over a Whistle Blower complaint to prevent it from being seen by an oversight committee IS A FIRST. The IG Trump himself appointed re-iterated that it is a "Credible and Urgent" complaint and the Intelligence Oversight Committee has a legal mandate to review it.

From a pure legal, process perspective the law that was put in place after Watergate to prevent exactly this kind of obstruction is being violated.

I will bet you a full and forever ban that A) the WH will relent and share the complaint or B) It will be elevated to the courts and Trump will lose...any court (likely SCOTUS and likely fast-tracked).

If the WH relents and retracts it executive privilege claim or if they refuse and the courts rule against them for release, you delete your account. Agreed?

If Trump doesn't tuck his tail between his legs and hand it over and/or the courts tell him it's OK to claim this as executive Privilege I will delete my account?

AGREED???

Deal, may want to start picking out your next username now!

a reply to: Grambler

Waiting for links. See last post.

originally posted by: PurpleFox

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: Extorris

I bet you a permanent ban from ATS that this is all BS and nothing will happen to Trump.

Put up or shut up.

It is already "something". The very Act of a President claiming Executive Privilege over a Whistle Blower complaint to prevent it from being seen by an oversight committee IS A FIRST. The IG Trump himself appointed re-iterated that it is a "Credible and Urgent" complaint and the Intelligence Oversight Committee has a legal mandate to review it.

From a pure legal, process perspective the law that was put in place after Watergate to prevent exactly this kind of obstruction is being violated.

I will bet you a full and forever ban that A) the WH will relent and share the complaint or B) It will be elevated to the courts and Trump will lose...any court (likely SCOTUS and likely fast-tracked).

If the WH relents and retracts it executive privilege claim or if they refuse and the courts rule against them for release, you delete your account. Agreed?

If Trump doesn't tuck his tail between his legs and hand it over and/or the courts tell him it's OK to claim this as executive Privilege I will delete my account?

AGREED???

Deal, may want to start picking out your next username now!

I suggest "bluefox" for you.

Imagine being the guy who thinks rudy giuliani is the "best people"?

It amazes me how consistently it turns out that the Democrats are doing whatever it is they accuse Trump of. What Joe Biden did with the Ukraine is obstruction of justice. And unlike Trump/Comey, there is no debating it (Trump did, in fact, have the authority to fire Comey, and the investigation was not impeded in any identifiable way, so it's debatable how the charge can apply to him). Of course we also have Hillary literally destroying her phones to keep them away from investigators, and refusing to allow the FBI to examine her server.

We also see the Dems whining over emoluments, a concept which has only rarely popped up in the entire history of our nation. Basically it means accepting improper gifts from foreign officials. Gee, isn't that what Biden's son was being investigated for by the Ukrainians before dear old dad got the prosecutor fired? And then we have the Clinton Foundation, which appears to be nothing less than a front for laundering bribe money, complete with a list of donations that track with favorable rulings from Hillary Clinton's State Department.

Given the above, I'm sure it's going to turn out that someone was, in fact colluding with Russia. But it was the Democrats.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Rudy will clear it up for you!

a reply to: Extorris

Confused? No. We are talking about whistleblowers.

However, There is also no protection for whistleblowers in the intel community. Might want to put down the talking points and do some of your own research. Look up Thomas Drake and Ed Snowden. NSA employees. Intel community....you don't know what you are talking about.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

This is because of internal leaks at the WH. Amazing how every time something is to be put in motion an issue like this occurs to try to discredit the president for doing what is right.

What Biden did was threaten a foreign nation to save his son.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Extorris

Confused? No. We are talking about whistleblowers.

However, There is also no protection for whistleblowers in the intel community.

About a month ago, an unidentified whistleblower fashioned an “urgent concern” disclosure to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG).

This is common practice for intelligence whistleblowers.

According to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), Intelligence Community whistleblowers can voice concerns to oversight entities responsible for investigating, adjudicating and correcting wrongdoing.

Following the standard process, the IC IG conducted an independent, preliminary investigation to evaluate the credibility of the whistleblower’s complaint.

That office found the disclosure credible and that it satisfied the statute’s definition of an “urgent concern.” It then transmitted both the disclosure and the credibility finding to the Acting DNI, affording him the chance to comment before quickly passing those same items to the congressional intelligence committees.

This is where the law’s practical implementation came to a halt.

Both the ICWPA process and stakeholder requirements are clearly spelled out in statute.

Using the operative “shall,” the ICWPA requires an agency-head to transmit credible whistleblowing complaints to the congressional intelligence committees within seven days of a credibility finding.

In this whistleblower’s case, the acting DNI apparently believed—with no public justification—that he could withhold the whistleblower’s urgent concern from his congressional overseers.

www.justsecurity.org...