• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Schiff Issues Subpoena for Whistleblower Complaint Being Unlawfully Withheld

Page 23 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
brandonbull said:
There was no clearing or exoneration to be done by Mueller or his report. He was to investigate and provide a recommendation on charges. The Mueller report ultimately concluded that there wasn't "Trump-Russia collusion" and the evidence didn't support obstruction charges.
Click to expand...

That’s not what Mueller said

Mueller said it is up to Congress to decide
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I would love to have that guy up on the stand to explain the difference between "shall" and "may". That he's Obama's man doesn't change the law.
Click to expand...

IANAL and again I'm looking for the transcripts but going by memory his thoughts followed these basic premises (which I'm probably summarizing badly if not outright incorrectly):

1. The whistleblower may have been someone not in the intelligence community or related to intelligence activities, therefore the statute didn't apply,

2. The DNI sought advice by the DNI Legal Counsel, and their opinion once rendered is nominally binding

3. The POTUS still has a fundamental right to redact portions of even whistleblower reports due to executive privilege and other claims.

Again, these aren't my arguments so don't beat up on me for repeating them (or trying to repeat them to the best of my recollection).
 
glenn1 said:
IANAL and again I'm looking for the transcripts but going by memory his thoughts followed these basic premises (which I'm probably summarizing badly if not outright incorrectly):

1. The whistleblower may have been someone not in the intelligence community or related to intelligence activities, therefore the statute didn't apply,

2. The DNI sought advice by the DNI Legal Counsel, and their opinion once rendered is nominally binding

3. The POTUS still has a fundamental right to redact portions of even whistleblower reports due to executive privilege and other claims.

Again, these aren't my arguments so don't beat up on me for repeating them (or trying to repeat them to the best of my recollection).
Click to expand...


No worries about you citing someone. The complaint was deemed credible and urgent and we'll (maybe) find out if the decision was one that was out of bounds for a whistleblower complaint. Regarding Executive Privilege, that has little meaning now under the umbrella of an impeachment inquiry as was determined by Nixon's attempted and failed use.

In any case this should be interesting.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
The complaint is up.

This is way more than one phone call and they've worked hard to try to obscure it.

Click to expand...
Yup, just read it, my basic takeaway is the allegation is Trump effed up big time and then proceeded to order a conspiracy to cover up his actions. Multiple people were aware of what went on. Giuliani is Trump's new Cohen and committed multiple crimes in his service.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
No worries about you citing someone. The complaint was deemed credible and urgent and we'll (maybe) find out if the decision was one that was out of bounds for a whistleblower complaint. Regarding Executive Privilege, that has little meaning now under the umbrella of an impeachment inquiry as was determined by Nixon's attempted and failed use.

In any case this should be interesting.
Click to expand...

Yeah those seem like two different issues. One is whether on the legal merits there was basis to withhold the report based on its source or content, it's hard to see how this phone call represents "intelligence activities" so perhaps the action had some amount of legal merit based upon what the statute actually says.

On the second and larger point, whether it followed exact legal processes and guidelines is somewhat irrelevant since not following the exact text of the law and allowing the report to be released has served the greater public good. I look at this as like the obverse of the Edward Snowden thing where "following the law" would have kept important information hidden to the detriment of the American people. I'm guessing the actual whistleblower might still lose his/her job if the statute doesn't truly apply but hopefully they don't.
 
sactoking said:
Yup, just read it, my basic takeaway is the allegation is Trump effed up big time and then proceeded to order a conspiracy to cover up his actions. Multiple people were aware of what went on. Giuliani is Trump's new Cohen and committed multiple crimes in his service.
Click to expand...


Yep and we haven't seen the attachment.
 
glenn1 said:
IANAL and again I'm looking for the transcripts but going by memory his thoughts followed these basic premises (which I'm probably summarizing badly if not outright incorrectly):

1. The whistleblower may have been someone not in the intelligence community or related to intelligence activities, therefore the statute didn't apply,

2. The DNI sought advice by the DNI Legal Counsel, and their opinion once rendered is nominally binding

3. The POTUS still has a fundamental right to redact portions of even whistleblower reports due to executive privilege and other claims.

Again, these aren't my arguments so don't beat up on me for repeating them (or trying to repeat them to the best of my recollection).
Click to expand...
The IG reviewed the complaint and found it credible and urgent. He followed the law and sent it to DNI.

DNI did not follow the law by forwarding the complaint to Congress.

Full stop.

Oh and on your POTUS claim, executive privilege does not apply in commission of crimes. Read you history on Nixon.
 
glenn1 said:
Yeah those seem like two different issues. One is whether on the legal merits there was basis to withhold the report based on its source or content, it's hard to see how this phone call represents "intelligence activities."

On the second and larger point, whether it followed exact legal processes and guidelines is somewhat irrelevant since the report has served the greater public good. I look at this as like the obverse of the Edward Snowden thing where "following the law" would have kept important information hidden to the detriment of the American people. I'm guessing the actual whistleblower might still lose his/her job if the statute doesn't truly apply but hopefully they don't.
Click to expand...


If you haven't seen the link to the unclassified complaint, you ought to. Holy "urgent and credible" Batman. No doubt the attachment will provide supporting statements at the very least and we haven't really gotten into much in terms of a formal investigation. There's already enough votes in the House to impeach so after they are finished it's going to hard for the Senate to not put lipstick on a pig, but Cthulhu.

Mitch can certainly force a vote his way but then in 2020, he'll be the Hellspawn Republican. In the interest of his party, he may have to go along with removal. But it's Mitch and he's done the incredible on a daily basis.
 
Lol. Republicans are already insisting that the whistleblower only had 2nd hand info but don't have an answer when asked if that matters when the memo the WH released of the call backs up key pieces of the complaint.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
If you haven't seen the link to the unclassified complaint, you ought to. Holy "urgent and credible" Batman. No doubt the attachment will provide supporting statements at the very least and we haven't really gotten into much in terms of a formal investigation. There's already enough votes in the House to impeach so after they are finished it's going to hard for the Senate to not put lipstick on a pig, but Cthulhu.

Mitch can certainly force a vote his way but then in 2020, he'll be the Hellspawn Republican. In the interest of his party, he may have to go along with removal. But it's Mitch and he's done the incredible on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

I agree it's urgent and credible. I don't especially agree this phone call represents "intelligence activities" in any sense a normal person or law would consider. That the report didn't technically meet the requirements of the law is really the least important consideration at this point. Again you and @HomerJS seem to be forgetting that I was attempting to summarize the points made by someone else on NPR this morning.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
If you haven't seen the link to the unclassified complaint, you ought to. Holy "urgent and credible" Batman. No doubt the attachment will provide supporting statements at the very least and we haven't really gotten into much in terms of a formal investigation.
Click to expand...
The unredacted portion of the attachment is downright eye-popping. When I read the talk about inappropriate security handling of the transcript, I did not think that was what they meant. Seriously, that bit warrants a "holy shit".
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Trump’s done. If these allegations are true, he abused a secure data system to hide the politically compromising and most likely criminal context of his conversation with the Ukraine.

Impeachment must move forward.
Click to expand...

The complaint alleges that this "was not the first time". It's entirely possible Trump has had a number of conversations similar to the Ukraine call and that proof of these conversations was hidden by the executive branch. Since the content of these conversations is likely known to one or more foreign intelligence services Trump is hopelessly compromised.
 
Honestly the concept of the President's private lawyer setting up back alley meetings with foreign leaders and superceding the role of official well vetted long term a-political state department staff is bad enough. Talk less the cover up and the actual extortion of the foreign country to do again "politically motivated investigations", extortion by the way using US tax payer assets and the weight of the US presidency.

Are we there yet? Can we impeach already?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top