What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (6 Viewers)

Federal agencies/departments with no permanent inspector general under Trump:

CIA DoD

Ex-Im Bank

EPA

OPM

FEC - note the FEC is currently not operating at all because a GOP seat has been vacated and remains unfilled.

DHS (has nominee)

DOI (has nominee)

Dept. of Education

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Government Publishing Office

CBS

And these guys.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s not a DOJ matter, that’s the point. This goes straight to Congress.
No.  It has currently followed the proper channel, but has stuck at Maguire as he seems to believe it’s not an “urgent concern”.  Sounds more like procedural squabbling than a national crisis.

Either way, they are working out a way to move forward.  That’s good.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No.  It has currently followed the proper channel, but has stuck at Maguire as he seems to believe it’s not an “urgent concern”.  Seems more like procedural squabbling than a national crisis.

Either way, they are working out a way to move forward.  That’s good.
It's solely a decision for the IG.

Congress is entitled to the information about the underlying complaint, if they get it tomorrow when the IG testifies, yep, that works for me too.

 
No.  It has currently followed the proper channel, but has stuck at Maguire as he seems to believe it’s not an “urgent concern”.  Sounds more like procedural squabbling than a national crisis.

Either way, they are working out a way to move forward.  That’s good.
Why does it matter what he believes?

 
This is the Comey argument. 

There are rules, and those rules are created for normal times. Say the IC IG was acting improperly, ie corruptly, then yes I agree the ODNI would be within his rights to avoid the regulation. This is what happened with Comey. What happens when the president himself is violating the law and suppressing the normal exercise of normal procedure? Plan B and extraordinary steps are necessary.

If there were some possibility of the IG acting illegally or corruptly then there might be something there. But Maguire isn't even claiming that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the Comey argument. 

There are rules, and those rules are created for normal times. Say the IC IG was acting improperly, ie corruptly, then yes I agree the ODNI would be within his rights to avoid the regulation. This is what happened with Comey. What happens when the president himself is violating the law and suppressing the normal exercise of normal procedure? Plan B and extraordinary steps are necessary.

If there were some possibility of the IG acting illegally or corruptly then there might be something there. But Maguire isn't even claiming that.
We won’t know all that he’s claiming until tomorrow.  I’m not going to crystal ball with you.  I’ve spent enough time on this as it is.

 
Eric Columbus

@EricColumbus

Key point: the Inspector General who is fighting the Acting DNI to transmit this info to Congress WAS APPOINTED BY TRUMP. If this alarms him, it’s bound to alarm us.

 
Seems like an easy problem to solve.  Trump should just release the transcript/audio of the call.  Put it to bed once and for all.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
now seeing chatter trump told this dude zelensky in the ukraine to reopen investigation into biden in exchange for improved US-Ukraine relations? 

 
Unless somebody high up is willing to leak a recording to journalists, this story will have no legs IMO, for two reasons: first because it’s hard for the public to understand. Second because, as usual, the White House is refusing to offer anything to Congress, and as usual the Democrats are yelling and screaming and unable or unwilling to do anything besides yell and scream. 

 
Unless somebody high up is willing to leak a recording to journalists, this story will have no legs IMO, for two reasons: first because it’s hard for the public to understand. Second because, as usual, the White House is refusing to offer anything to Congress, and as usual the Democrats are yelling and screaming and unable or unwilling to do anything besides yell and scream. 
Lordy, I hope there are tapes. 

 
The GOP is only participating in Democracy at this point when it benefits them.
I don’t quite agree with this. I think that the GOP is participating in democracy a little too much. What I mean by this is that they’re terrified of the conservative base that supports Trump; that’s why they don’t defy him at all because they don’t want to be voted out of office. So they’re sacrificing all principles in order to maintain voter approval. 

 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/us/politics/intelligence-whistle-blower-complaint-trump.html

Breaking. This is too rich! Allegations from whistleblower involve multiple instances, not just the reported quid-pro-quo with a world leader. 
Is it too soon to say that the Constitutional Republic is at stake here? If the Trump administration successfully keeps this information hidden from Congress, I think we can safely say that we have crossed the point of no return.

 
Is it too soon to say that the Constitutional Republic is at stake here? If the Trump administration successfully keeps this information hidden from Congress, I think we can safely say that we have crossed the point of no return.
Yes it is over folks.  Time to move to Canada. 

 
The country's No. 2 intelligence official, Sue Gordon, knew it was likely she would have to eventually step down from her post, but the timing of that decision became more urgent on Thursday after her boss -- outgoing spy chief Dan Coats -- interrupted a meeting she was holding on election security and asked his deputy to submit her letter of resignation, sources familiar with the events told CNN.

While details of the conversation between Gordon, an intelligence veteran of more than 30 years, and Coats remain unclear, sources say that the situation clearly abruptly changed after the meeting was interrupted.

Shortly after her encounter with Coats, Gordon submitted her letter of resignation to Vice President Mike Pence, though the document itself was addressed to Trump, according to officials, a highly unusual move that prompted some confusion among some West Wing officials who waited for the President's tweet confirming the news.
CNN

 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/us/politics/intelligence-whistle-blower-complaint-trump.html

Breaking. This is too rich! Allegations from whistleblower involve multiple instances, not just the reported quid-pro-quo with a world leader. 
For any who can't access this:

WASHINGTON — A potentially explosive complaint by a whistle-blower in the intelligence community said to involve President Trump was related to a series of actions that goes beyond any single discussion with a foreign leader, according to interviews on Thursday.

The complaint was related to multiple acts, Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for American spy agencies, told lawmakers during a private briefing, two officials familiar with it said. But he declined to discuss specifics, including whether the complaint involved the president, according to committee members.

Separately, a person familiar with the whistle-blower’s complaint said it involves in part a commitment that Mr. Trump made in a communication with another world leader. The Washington Post first reported the nature of that discussion. But no single communication was at the root of the complaint, another person familiar with it said.

The complaint cleared an initial hurdle when Mr. Atkinson deemed it credible and began to pursue an investigation. But it has prompted a standoff between lawmakers and the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who has refused to turn it over to Congress, as is generally required by law. It has become the latest in a series of fights over information between the Democratic-led House and the White House.

Democrats emerged from Mr. Atkinson’s briefing and renewed their accusation that the Trump administration was orchestrating a cover-up of an urgent and legitimate whistle-blower complaint that could affect national security.

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters after the briefing that he still did not know the contents of the complaint and had been unable to get an answer to whether the White House was involved in suppressing it.

“I don’t think this is a problem of the law,” he said. “I think the law is written very clearly. I think the law is just fine. The problem lies elsewhere. And we’re determined to do everything we can to determine what this urgent concern is, to make sure that the national security is protected and to make sure that this whistle-blower is protected.”

Mr. Schiff said he would explore potential recourse with the House’s general counsel to try to force the release of the complaint, including potentially suing for it in court.

Few details of the whistle-blower complaint are known, including the identity of the world leader involved in the single known communication. And it is not obvious how an exchange between Mr. Trump and a foreign leader could meet the legal standards for a whistle-blower complaint that the inspector general would deem an “urgent concern.”

Under the law, the complaint has to concern the existence of an intelligence activity that violates the law, rules or regulations, or otherwise amounts to mismanagement, waste, abuse, or a danger to public safety. But a conversation between two foreign leaders is not itself an intelligence activity.

And while Mr. Trump may have discussed intelligence activities with the foreign leader, he enjoys broad power as president to declassify intelligence secrets, order the intelligence community to act and otherwise direct the conduct of foreign policy as he sees fit, legal experts said.

Mr. Trump regularly speaks with foreign leaders and often takes a freewheeling approach. Some current and former officials said that what an intelligence official took to be a troubling commitment could have been an innocuous comment. But there has long been concern among some in the intelligence agencies that the information they share with the president is being politicized.

Andrew P. Bakaj, a former C.I.A. and Pentagon official whose legal practice specializes in whistle-blower and security clearance issues, confirmed that he is representing the official who filed the complaint. Mr. Bakaj declined to identify his client or to comment.

Mr. Trump denied wrongdoing on Thursday, explaining that he would not “say something inappropriate” on calls where aides and intelligence officials from both sides routinely listen in.

But Mr. Trump’s actions were startling enough to prompt the intelligence official to file a formal whistle-blower complaint on Aug. 12 to the inspector general for the intelligence agencies. Such a complaint is lodged through a formal process intended to protect the whistle-blower from retaliation.

Mr. Schiff has been locked in the standoff with Mr. Maguire over the complaint for nearly a week. He said Mr. Maguire told him that he had been instructed not to give the complaint to Congress, and that the complaint addressed privileged information — meaning the president or people close to him were involved.

Mr. Schiff has said that none of the previous directors of national intelligence, a position created in 2004, had ever refused to provide a whistle-blower complaint to Congress. The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena last week to compel Mr. Maguire to appear before the panel. He briefly refused but relented on Wednesday, and is now scheduled to appear before the committee in an open hearing next week.

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence panel, said on Thursday that he and the committee’s Republican chairman, Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, also expected both the inspector general and acting director to brief them early next week and “clear this issue up.”

Mr. Maguire and Mr. Atkinson are at odds over how the complaint should be handled. Mr. Atkinson has indicated the matter should be investigated, and alerted the House and Senate Intelligence committees, while Mr. Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, says the complaint does not fall within the agencies’ purview because it does not involve a member of the intelligence community — a network of 17 agencies that does not include the White House.

The inspector general of the intelligence community “determined that this complaint is both credible and urgent, and that it should be transmitted to Congress under the clear letter of the law,” Mr. Schiff, Democrat of California, said in a statement on Wednesday evening.

Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said the law is “very clear” that the whistle-blower complaint must be handed over to Congress.

“The Inspector General determines what level of concern it is,” said Mr. King, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Once the determination is made,” he added, the director of national intelligence “has a ministerial responsibility to share that with Congress. It is not discretionary.”

“This is based upon the principle of separation of powers and Congress’s oversight responsibility,” Mr. King said.

Mr. Maguire was named the acting director in August, after the president had announced that the previous director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, would be stepping down. Mr. Trump had planned to nominate Representative John Ratcliffe, Republican of Texas, a Trump loyalist without an extensive background in intelligence. But the president dropped the plan after lawmakers from both parties raised concerns about Mr. Ratcliffe’s qualifications and possible exaggerations on his resume.

The reports about the whistle-blower complaint touched off speculation about what Mr. Trump said and to whom.

In the weeks before the complaint was filed, Mr. Trump spoke with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan and the prime minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte.

And current and former intelligence officials have expressed surprise that during his first few months as president, Mr. Trump shared classified information provided by an ally, Israel, with the Russian foreign minister.

Such disclosures are not illegal, but Mr. Trump flouted intelligence-sharing decorum by sharing an ally’s intelligence without express permission.

Mr. King expressed some doubt about how serious the underlying complaint might be.

“I am a little concerned it is being overblown,” Mr. King said. “On the other hand, it may be significant. But we won’t know that for a few days.”


 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Absolutely.  New York Times is not worth buying a subscription to.  
Its not the only place reporting this.  Try again...about the actual story and not a shot at a poster or the paper.  Act like the allegations are against AOC instead of Trump.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously its a lot of speculation now - but procedurally this is kind of fascinating, given the various reactions.

Its not hard to envision a scenario where Gordon becomes aware of "troubling" information via Intelligence sources that borders on illegal or endangering national security.  We are pretty certain this involves Trump directly, but we should leave open the possibility that it involves a senior White House official - there are only a few people that this would ensnare - Kushner or Miller come to mind.

SPECULATING  - Gordon takes the information to Coats, who tells her there is nothing he can do personally, but that she should file it with the IG - so she does.  Coats and Gordon may now be witnesses, and essentially have to step down - but maybe forced out.  IG looks at the issues, decides its credible and urgent - and passes it on to Maguire - who is now in Coats role.

Maguire looks at the info - and it may be incredibly damaging to the President, personally or politically, but Maguire, after consulting DOJ, determines that this is above his pay-grade, and even if the allegations are 100% accurate, there is no action for him to take - thus making a determination that this is not a proper matter for the Intelligence IG to even handle - being that the wrongful conduct was not done by any IC personnel.

So - if the allegations are accurate, but not properly before the IG - where to next?  The original whistleblower could go to Congress directly - if it is determined this is not an Intelligence Community issue.  But, that then opens the whistleblower up to retaliation by the administration, given that it is not covered under this statute.  I don't know if there are other statutes that provide general protection in this instance - but I assume we are dealing with highly classified information, the disclosure of which is problematic.

Schiff will undoubtedly continue to pursue the complaint from Maguire - but if past lessons mean anything, the administration will not turn over the complaint - probably ever.  So, we go to court.  Then we go to the Court of Appeals.  Then we go to the Supreme Court.  Who knows how long that will take, or what that outcome might look like.  (My cynical side says the courts will rule based on the actual contents of the complaint - i.e. the more serious/credible the charges, the more likely the courts will rule against the President - even the packed Supreme Court.)

 
Obviously its a lot of speculation now - but procedurally this is kind of fascinating, given the various reactions.

Its not hard to envision a scenario where Gordon becomes aware of "troubling" information via Intelligence sources that borders on illegal or endangering national security.  We are pretty certain this involves Trump directly, but we should leave open the possibility that it involves a senior White House official - there are only a few people that this would ensnare - Kushner or Miller come to mind.

SPECULATING  - Gordon takes the information to Coats, who tells her there is nothing he can do personally, but that she should file it with the IG - so she does.  Coats and Gordon may now be witnesses, and essentially have to step down - but maybe forced out.  IG looks at the issues, decides its credible and urgent - and passes it on to Maguire - who is now in Coats role.

Maguire looks at the info - and it may be incredibly damaging to the President, personally or politically, but Maguire, after consulting DOJ, determines that this is above his pay-grade, and even if the allegations are 100% accurate, there is no action for him to take - thus making a determination that this is not a proper matter for the Intelligence IG to even handle - being that the wrongful conduct was not done by any IC personnel.

So - if the allegations are accurate, but not properly before the IG - where to next?  The original whistleblower could go to Congress directly - if it is determined this is not an Intelligence Community issue.  But, that then opens the whistleblower up to retaliation by the administration, given that it is not covered under this statute.  I don't know if there are other statutes that provide general protection in this instance - but I assume we are dealing with highly classified information, the disclosure of which is problematic.

Schiff will undoubtedly continue to pursue the complaint from Maguire - but if past lessons mean anything, the administration will not turn over the complaint - probably ever.  So, we go to court.  Then we go to the Court of Appeals.  Then we go to the Supreme Court.  Who knows how long that will take, or what that outcome might look like.  (My cynical side says the courts will rule based on the actual contents of the complaint - i.e. the more serious/credible the charges, the more likely the courts will rule against the President - even the packed Supreme Court.)
I agree with most of your speculation though I think Maguire plays a more nefarious role and Coats got rejected at some point.

My addition to your speculation is that I think Coats was made aware of the information and tried to bring it to someone else, perhaps DOJ and got stonewalled by a Trump loyalist. That led to Trump finding out and pushing Coats out. 

Gordon initially was planning to fight to stay and be the true acting director but changed her mind when Coats approached her. What changed her mind? Possibly Coats convinced her that the best way to get the information out would be to use the whistleblower statute that appeared to be airtight to get the info to Congress.

She resigned and Trump looked for a loyalist who would bury the info and found Maguire and that’s the role he’s playing.

I think in the end, the whistleblower or someone with knowledge will go directly to Congress.

 
Its not the only place reporting this.  Try again...about the actual story and not a shot at a poster or the paper.  Act like the allegations are against AOC instead of Trump.
:lmao:   The guy mentions the New York Times and you come back with this tripe?

 
NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/us/politics/intelligence-whistle-blower-complaint-trump.html

Though it is not clear how exactly Ukraine fits into the allegations, questions have already emerged about Mr. Trump’s dealing with its government. He spoke on July 25 with President Volodymyr Zelensky and said he was convinced that Ukraine’s new government would quickly improve the country’s image and investigate corruption, which “inhibited the interaction” between the two nations, according to a Ukrainian government summary of the call.

Mr. Trump’s close allies, including his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, were also urging the Ukrainian government to investigate matters that could help Mr. Trump by embarrassing his political rivals, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

According to government officials who handle foreign policy in the United States and Ukraine, Mr. Giuliani’s efforts created the impression that the Trump administration’s willingness to back Mr. Zelensky was linked to his government’s readiness to in turn pursue the investigations sought by Mr. Trump’s allies.

Mr. Giuliani said he did not know whether Mr. Trump discussed those matters with Mr. Zelensky, but argued it would not be appropriate.

The president has the right to tell another country’s leader to investigate corruption, particularly if it “bleeds over” into the United States, Mr. Giuliani said on Thursday. “If I were president, I would say that,” he added.

Around the same time, a separate issue was brewing. Congressional aides and administration officials who work on Ukraine issues had become concerned that the White House was slow-walking a military assistance package for Kiev, according to people involved in an effort to free up the assistance.

Last week, the two issues merged when Mr. Schiff and two other Democratic House committee chairmen requested the transcript of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky from the State Department and the White House as part of an investigation into whether Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani were misappropriating the American foreign policy apparatus for political gain.

The Democrats indicated they planned to examine whether the delay in the assistance “is part of President Trump’s effort to coerce the Ukrainian government into pursuing politically motivated investigations.”

The next day, Mr. Schiff wrote to Mr. Maguire seeking information about the whistle-blower complaint.

And the following day, the White House released the military assistance to Ukraine, with little explanation.

The unusual disagreement between Mr. Maguire and Mr. Atkinson centers on who is best suited to investigate the whistle-blower’s accusations.

In a letter to the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Atkinson wrote that the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the director of national intelligence and “relates to one of the most significant and important of the D.N.I.’s responsibilities to the American people.”

Mr. Maguire has not disputed the seriousness of the allegation but determined in consultation with the Justice Department that it was outside the scope of the law requiring whistle-blower complaints be forwarded to Congress. Any accusation that triggers the requirement must involve the funding, administration or operations of an intelligence agency.

Administration officials have shared at least some details of the accusations with the White House, to allow officials to weigh whether to assert executive privilege, an official said.

 
It sounds, to me, that Schiff knows exactly what is in the allegations - but is going through the motions to get the report through official channels.

But - if there is a tape of Trump offering financial aid in exchange for an investigation into Biden - I think that is well beyond what DC politicians would tolerate. 

But, if there is no tape, or if its kind of wishy-washy read-between-the-lines kind of stuff, then this goes nowhere.

 
If I had to guess - its not going to be a black or white issue.

White House will claim that yes, aid was dependent on Ukraine cleaning up its act, and rooting out corruption.  And, that, on its face, would be fine.  The question will be how far the administration went towards pushing an investigation on Biden specifically in exchange for the aid package.

 
It sounds, to me, that Schiff knows exactly what is in the allegations - but is going through the motions to get the report through official channels.

But - if there is a tape of Trump offering financial aid in exchange for an investigation into Biden - I think that is well beyond what DC politicians would tolerate. 

But, if there is no tape, or if its kind of wishy-washy read-between-the-lines kind of stuff, then this goes nowhere.
That’s what got Nixon- the tapes. If there were no tapes, Nixon never would have resigned. And if there was no stained dress, Clinton would have never admitted to an affair. 

You need evidence every time. 

 
ALL ABOARD! this train is about to leave the station! 

i haven't been this excited since the fast willie parker train of aught-four! 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top