Uh he had until September 30th to release the funds so what law do you think he broke? It literally was released three weeks before the deadline and before you heard of any of this.
Those who read the entire document say: #releasethememo Reply Share Report wetmedic359Leader 7m A big nothing burger in her testimony. Most of the doctored transcript is about day to day duties except for the part where she admits to not knowing that the money was released before the required date. Reply Share Report wetmedic359Leader 12m She admits on page 21 that she does not know when the funding deadline is. The money was paid before the funding deadline. She gives an opinion, and not a correct one. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-laura-cooper-testimony-transcript
Obstruction of Justice exists because Trump tried to hide and lie about the transcript by placing it on a top secret server after being notified about the concerns of security officials. It exists because trump tried to hide the whistleblower complaint after the ICIG had already found the complaint credible and urgent. It also exists because Trump ordered all current and former employees to refuse to obey validly issued subpoenas.
She was also concerned about the legality of blocking the money at all. And that appears to have been a valid concern considering that Bolton got the money released several days before trump released the funds.
No, her concern (and those of the deputies nearby) is not that they were worried about the timing of the release of the money, but whether a freeze could be placed at all especially in light of the fact that either option for freezing the money would require congressional notification.
No...actually longer...about a month. remember, the IG first did his own investigation, in order to obtain his "credible and urgent" conclusion. So, I suppose a couple of weeks went by BEFORE the WH became aware of the WB compliant. Then, they attempted to bury it, via the DoJ ruling. Seems they acted in response to Adam Schiff's September 9th memo to the WH demanding documentation. At that point they became aware that Congress knew about the WB. Three days later (September 12th) they released the funding. IOW, they failed to notify Congress, attempted a cover-up, and when that failed released the funding, the transcript, met with the Ukraine President, etc. to cover-up the cover-up. Did they panic? Perhaps, sufficiently to deny Erdogan's request for a meeting at the U.N. (suddenly the Zelenskiy meeting became the priority), leading to the subsequent tel-con with Erdogan leading to the betrayal of the Kurds.
Yes, good call. It would be more accurate to say that they learned about the notification to Congress a few days before they released the funds.
The "funding deadline" was well-known...the end of the fiscal year...September 30th. But, suspending the funding would have required notification to Congress, at the time of suspension. Money not spent by September 30th, would have had to have been re-appropriated in the next fiscal year (2020). I suspect they knew it was an obvious quid pro quo and but for the Whistleblower would have never told Congress about the suspension or released the tel-con transcript (which is why it went into the special archive as soon as the National Security Council attorney got the Lt. Colonel's complaint immediately following the tel-con).
Well don't then. Wrong. The House holds the impeach hearings presenting all the evidence and witnesses and decides whether to impeach or not. If they decide to impeached he IS impeached and remains impeached regardless of what the Senate does. the Senate is limited to one judgement remove or not remove. The decisions to not remove Clinton was not because the Senate said he did not do that for which he was impeached. You really don't like that word 'indictment', do you? But every source I have compares the role of that impeachment resolution which differs for the actual articles, to a grand jury indictment in purpose and in form, except the only difference is where it lands is not in a courtroom but a senate chamber. I will stick with that analogy. Not according to the DNI and Office of Legal Counsel. Under the law it as not a whistleblower case which was why Schiff had to suddenly shift his plan and demand the complaint be release, after it was leaked it was even filed, and then based on hearsay begin this proceeding. Yeah. Well that holds no water https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/whistleblower-complaint-office-of-legal-counsel-secret-law.html The Office of Legal Counsel which acts independent of Barr and the DNI who acts independent of Barr said it did not meet the statutory requirements to be a whistleblower case. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/whistleblower-complaint-office-of-legal-counsel-secret-law.html I I don't have to report it we all know including the Republicans who are calling for the whistleblower to testify and for Schiff to testify and anyone on his staff who had any discussions with the complainer. We know that republicans want to conflate this alleged transgression of Mr. Schiff with Donald Trump's behavior that is getting his ass impeached instead of using the proper process in the House rules to investigate alleged impropriety. It's not up to the House, the House cannot dictate to the Senate. He gets no protection and we need to find out who leaked classified information to him, that is a felony espionage charge. Insofar as the House chairman and intelligence committee either cooperates or not with their requests, by releasing what they may know, the WB is getting protected. They will have to find out some other way. The committee and its chairman have a moral and possibly a legal duty to to protect him. I am arguing that they do what is in their power to impede the senate and protect him.
What classified information? The President released the transcript. It's not classified. And, you cannot "classify information," even as President, in an attempt to cover up a crime or declassify information to do the same.
IIRC Sen. Ron Johnson was one in on the discussions. He wasn't refused from testifying by Schiff -- and I never said nor claimed such -- he was not asked or subpoenaed to testify, and he never will be, for the same reason Schiff won't allow the whistle blower to testify..
If they are so aware of Law 101 about hearsay, why do they put so much stock and credence in hearsay evidence? They are triggering an impeachment of a president, one of the highest constitutional actions in the United States, based on evidence that they know is hearsay and wouldn't get within miles of a due process courtroom. There is no legal commitment of confidentiality afforded the whistle blower.
The president can classify and declassify information pretty much as he wants. Virtually all conversations between heads of state are classified and always have been.
Actually, the only person I'VE read that has a responsibility under law to protect a whistleblower's identity... LOL ... Is the POTUS!
"so I seriously doubt they would have minded a threat to the Ukraine regarding the dismissal of a pro-Russian prosecutor, " Hypothetical plus other reasons that you dont have a congressial resolution allowing Biden to leverage wirh the loan guarantees
"and now no dignity either" .... idk about you but that^^ ship sailed around the Kavanugh confirmation hearings and now when Dems are recycling a Jim Jordan story as new right after he was moved to the intelligence committee in order to kill the messenger
^^^ did Biden have congressial consent to use congressial approved funds as leverage? Was congress notified prior?
Holy chrimney. I spent several years as a member of two investigative committees for the then local real estate board and this line of percolation is making me think I am reading stuff on outhouse walls. I would probe all the time for truth. I will gladly love to read words when a Democrat or lackey thereof comes forth with the facts. I learned the proper way by being professionally trained. And Democrats shovel muck with the best of them. I am reading the crap pulled by the Democrats as to Laura Cooper expecting her to give them things that they can use to impeach. When I am done, I will happily report. As to the job at the Real Estate Board. To be a member for each of the two committees mentioned above, one had to be professionally trained to qualify for them both. Note too, my training in College in law. I spent time in college writing briefs as to a wide variety of cases on law. In short, I am hard to fool. Are you trying to say at Doral? Trump offered Doral at no cost. So where is the profit?
I have been studying the Cooper report to the Democrats in committee and so far taking you all up to paying the money to Ukraine, she describes a process where many cooks are cooking the pot. She has a fuzzzy memory on much of what happened and who authorized things. Tis is fun reading her reply to the Democrats anti Trump machine.
