Trump's communications with a foreign leader sparked whistleblower complaint

Under the circumstances it would seem Maguire should be speaking to both the WH and DOJ. Yeah since he can't speak directly to the contents of the exchange and only indirectly to how he reached his determination it's not gonna be much of a testimony. More political theater with nothing much in the way of substance is what I predict.

 

Absolutely not. A discussion in private with a foreign leader should never be made public, except in the nature of historical archives.

 

You see the problem here, right? You're asking others to support their argument with information you won't let them have. That probably has a word to describe it...

 

I wonder what obama talked to iran about before giving them nukes and a plane full of cash!

 

Why? Why wouldn't he INFORM them of his decision? So far, it appears he consulted them.

And this is again the root of the problem. Someone raises a concern, an IG takes it very seriously, and then a presidential appointee consults with other presidential appointees and decides it's not really anything. You see the problem here, right? How it appears is problematic. This would be true for any president, not just Trump.

 

As I understand the statute, and as Atkinson put it in his letter to Schiff, the DNI is simply a pass through of the information, so he can be aware of it and comment on it if desired, before he passes it on to Congress..

SNIP

ENDSNIP

Nowhere does it say "Get a confirmation from the DOJ"... It's unlikely I would ever say getting an opinion from the DOJ is illegal, but honestly, in a whistleblower environment, should the DOJ be involved?? A = No... Maybe later, when Congress has made their recommendations, but not now.

 

It's all here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework

Look at that! In the public view for consumption! All except your lie about the nukes of course, but the plane full of cash is mentioned there. So try again.

 

Get yourself some whistleblowers!

 

That is just the nature of private and confidential meetings. It is important to preserve the integrity of those meetings whether we like it or not. I don't care who the president is, those private meetings are an important aspect of governance.

 

I agree... the Thursday open hearing is almost guaranteed to be a dud, unless Schiff wants to pull rank and hold somebody in contempt of Congress (which scares nobody)

But it's likely he DID make a decision... Somebody had to ask the DOJ for advice... That's something he should be able to confirm, and who in his shop recommended that...

 

Are they? I again go back to what moral or ethical ground is the basis for your statement? The only reason governments keep secrets is to take action their constituents would oppose. Sometimes that action may be the best course of action, but I would argue that's the exception, not the rule.

Plus, you are avoiding the facts we do know. This whistle was blown over a promise made. It's not over a secret plan to defeat some hidden evil that if known will make Sauron suspect us. It's likely about a politically beneficial foreign policy decision, which most American voters tend to dislike.

 

To your point earlier, it doesn't even look like he has the power to make a decision, although I'm not a legal expert.

 

That is a very important question in this. I have no doubt that will be discussed in detail when the players come before the committee.

 

Of course it's ok to find out what the former VP and Obama did to him in Ukraine.

If they're innocent, they should welcome the investigation.

 

If Giuliani (Trump’s personal attorney) and Trump spoke to Ukraine about the same thing than Trump is done.

Unless what we’ve been witnessing over the past months is a slow moving coup.

 

If Trump, who was holding up Congressional passed funding for Ukrainian aid ($250 million), promised to release that funding as a quid pro quo to launch an investigation into his political opponent at home, without going through the appropriate channels, I would think that could be considered an "abuse of power" and serve as grounds for impeachment.

 

Mm no.

The POTUS asking the Ukraine to investigate the Vice President of the former administration, who had previously went to the Ukraine to get dirt on Trump, is investigating criminal activity.

If they're innocent, they'll welcome the investigation.

We should appoint a special council to find out how deep the Ukranian collusion between Biden/Obama and foreign actors was.

 

I realize in your imagination you probably believe that.

 

Do we really know the nature of the alleged infraction? I'm hearing a lot of speculation but haven't seen anything concrete.

I'll give you a hypothetical. In a private meeting DT hammers the prez of Mexico to increase its security along its borders and the conversation includes monetary threats. The Mexican president negotiates a deal and succumbs to DT's demands. If this exchange is made public a political opponent could use selective clips of this negotiation to make the Mexican president appear weak. He deserves to have that conversation remain private as that was his understanding when he entered into that meeting. We don't have the right to divulge private and confidential meetings, that would be morally wrong.

 

I can promise you that whatever Pelosi and Schiff are thinking is compromised by alcoholism and stupidity.

Oh I know, we could get Mueller back on the hill to testify to the American people about what he knows.

Let's do that again.

 

I bet they're playing whack-a-leaker.

 

Well, it's a loose definition.. he did make a decision, just one that's not covered in the statute...

I assume that is going to be the bulk of the hearing in front of Schiff... Maguire, like Atkinson, will not talk about the contents of the complaint, so that's really all that's left...

I read somewhere that it's possible Maguire might personally be in agreement the complaint should be forwarded on, but is following his cover...

I don't know anything about this guy so I will be interested to watch his demeanor... I don't anticipate it will be super antagonistic, but I could be wrong on that..

 

It's about protection the ability of the leaders of both countries to negotiate and present proposal without those being blasted all around the world and even into the hands of our advisaries until such plans and negotiations are complete. It allows them to discuss not just matters of trade but of national security in a candid open manner.

What am I defending now? The Constitution, separation of powers, the Presidency and our foreign policy. The IG reported to the AG and OLC which determined this did not meet the whistleblower law as the President is not an employee of the DNI and quite frankly can declassify any materials and can speak to foreign leaders about anything without Congress approval. Scroll back and watch the CNN counter intelligence guy and what he had to say about it.

 

Why? It was your statement I counter, do you agree or not? I don't care what unnamed unlinked conversations you have had. And you should know by now that I am VERY VOCAL about the fact that Congress controls the budget and controls taxation will you join me when confronting the leftist on those matters?

 

What if the 'monetary threat' is that we are going to spend whatever it takes to make sure that the president of Mexico loses his next election??

Is that cool in your world?

Hypotheticals can be fun!!