Schiff Issues Subpoena for Whistleblower Complaint Being Unlawfully Withheld

[vi edit]

cough...cough...Mussolini...cough

I'd show up for that party

I was told the swamp needed raking.

 

[hal2kilo]

Well the intelligence community is supposed to independent. That is, there is supposed to oversight of the IC by congress and the IC is supposed to report information to the president.
Personally I think the oversight portion is highly lacking.

Not for Democrats not trying. I have never seen a more obstructive administration in my life.

 

[ivwshane]

Not for Democrats not trying. I have never seen a more obstructive administration in my life.

Even before trump I think oversight was severely lacking. For instance, Bush’s Iraq authorization should have never happened had there been proper oversight.

 

[sactoking]

So wouldn't his latest comments be ANOTHER count of obstruction? Isn't witness intimidation obstruction?

 

[emperus]

Aside: This is why voting matters. Without winning the house, this would have never come out!

 

[glenn1]

I think a possible solution, in this particular case, is to amend the law and state that if the whistleblower’s allegations involve people or entities that are part of the chain the complaint goes through they are allowed to take it to Congress directly and if the committee in congress is involved then they have the right to go directly to the press.

You're only dealing with half the issue here. Yes we need to protect whistleblowers, that's what the law was intended to do. Sure it might need to be changed.

The bigger picture issue we need to deal with was creating a mechanism for malfeasance in government to be reported to another independent branch where it can be investigated. This whistleblower complaint was sorta a back way of doing that and even so wasn't really a great avenue for doing that. The concern that needs to be addressed isn't the whistleblower being fired (although that's something we need to do for moral reasons) but rather the existing laws and checks and balances could prevent someone trying to prevent alerting others about a POTUS doing this stuff altogether. Separation of powers and executive privilege was almost successful in having Trump's actions never seen daylight.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Not for Democrats not trying. I have never seen a more obstructive administration in my life.

"We'd like you to talk about $things"
"I'm not sure if I should talk about $things"
"Did the $RepublicanControlledOrganization tell you to not talk about $things?"
"I don't think it's within my authority to talk about that organization, I'd like to stick to what we started talking about"
"Great, will you please talk about $things then?"
"I'm not sure I can talk about $things"

 

[zinfamous]

So wouldn't his latest comments be ANOTHER count of obstruction? Isn't witness intimidation obstruction?

yes.

 

[ivwshane]

You're only dealing with half the issue here. Yes we need to protect whistleblowers, that's what the law was intended to do. Sure it might need to be changed.

The bigger picture issue we need to deal with was creating a mechanism for malfeasance in government to be reported to another independent branch where it can be investigated. This whistleblower complaint was sorta a back way of doing that and even so wasn't really a great avenue for doing that. The concern that needs to be addressed isn't the whistleblower being fired (although that's something we need to do for moral reasons) but rather the existing laws and checks and balances could prevent someone trying to prevent alerting others about a POTUS doing this stuff altogether. Separation of powers and executive privilege was almost successful in having Trump's actions never seen daylight.

I agree and have said pretty much the same thing in other threads.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You're only dealing with half the issue here. Yes we need to protect whistleblowers, that's what the law was intended to do. Sure it might need to be changed.

The bigger picture issue we need to deal with was creating a mechanism for malfeasance in government to be reported to another independent branch where it can be investigated. This whistleblower complaint was sorta a back way of doing that and even so wasn't really a great avenue for doing that. The concern that needs to be addressed isn't the whistleblower being fired (although that's something we need to do for moral reasons) but rather the existing laws and checks and balances could prevent someone trying to prevent alerting others about a POTUS doing this stuff altogether. Separation of powers and executive privilege was almost successful in having Trump's actions never seen daylight.

Some of those 'gaps' are there to grease the wheels of government so that it can perform functions on human-timescales. It's expected that you don't fill those gaps with sewage, the whistleblowers are there as the check on that activity, and it seems to work fine.

I'd argue leaks are just as necessary for the 'gap' of failing whistleblower protections, see the President accusing whistleblowers of treason.

 

[hal2kilo]

Even before trump I think oversight was severely lacking. For instance, Bush’s Iraq authorization should have never happened had there been proper oversight.

Agreed.

 

[fskimospy]

I think a possible solution, in this particular case, is to amend the law and state that if the whistleblower’s allegations involve people or entities that are part of the chain the complaint goes through they are allowed to take it to Congress directly and if the committee in congress is involved then they have the right to go directly to the press.

Executive privilege is a constitutional argument so that means no statute can remedy it.

 

[vi edit]

You're only dealing with half the issue here. Yes we need to protect whistleblowers, that's what the law was intended to do. Sure it might need to be changed.

The bigger picture issue we need to deal with was creating a mechanism for malfeasance in government to be reported to another independent branch where it can be investigated. This whistleblower complaint was sorta a back way of doing that and even so wasn't really a great avenue for doing that. The concern that needs to be addressed isn't the whistleblower being fired (although that's something we need to do for moral reasons) but rather the existing laws and checks and balances could prevent someone trying to prevent alerting others about a POTUS doing this stuff altogether. Separation of powers and executive privilege was almost successful in having Trump's actions never seen daylight.

Yeah, have the IG/IC report to SCOTUS or something and remove it from the abuse cycle of self reporting.

 

[dank69]

So wouldn't his latest comments be ANOTHER count of obstruction? Isn't witness intimidation obstruction?

To any sane person, yes, but conservatives can only connect dots when dealing with Democrats and their words/actions. When dealing with conservatives and their words/actions, no ambiguity is too small to dismiss everything else.

 

[hal2kilo]

You're only dealing with half the issue here. Yes we need to protect whistleblowers, that's what the law was intended to do. Sure it might need to be changed.

The bigger picture issue we need to deal with was creating a mechanism for malfeasance in government to be reported to another independent branch where it can be investigated. This whistleblower complaint was sorta a back way of doing that and even so wasn't really a great avenue for doing that. The concern that needs to be addressed isn't the whistleblower being fired (although that's something we need to do for moral reasons) but rather the existing laws and checks and balances could prevent someone trying to prevent alerting others about a POTUS doing this stuff altogether. Separation of powers and executive privilege was almost successful in having Trump's actions never seen daylight.

The only thing that should not have been publicly released were the actual transcripts. Bad precedence for the future.

 

[Zorba]

While I know you're trolling the idea of Pelosi recusing herself is sound. Let's find someone to run the country who wasn't a bartender this time last year however if both Trump and Pence get replaced. We've had enough of the amateur hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

If we get there, I'm sure it'll go down like with Nixon. Pence resigns and is replaced prior to conviction of Trump.

 

[ivwshane]

Executive privilege is a constitutional argument so that means no statute can remedy it.

So then pass an amendment. I also have a hard time believing that executive privilege covers illegal activity. In fact isn’t that how congress got the Nixon tapes?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The only thing that should not have been publicly released were the actual transcripts. Bad precedence for the future.

I think it's a perfect precedent for any obstructive administration, and I don't care what letter they have next to their name.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

BTW - We were told by someone here we didn't know the definition of treason

Treason is narrowly defined. Almost every time someone screams treason, it isn't treason.

Opinion | Steve Vladeck: America's overuse of 'treason' has reached alarming levels

We are willfully turning a blind eye to the sordid history of treason that led to its unique treatment in the U.S. Constitution.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[HomerJS]

So then pass an amendment. I also have a hard time believing that executive privilege covers illegal activity. In fact isn’t that how congress got the Nixon tapes?

It does not

 

[dainthomas]

He should be careful what he asks for. We used to do different things to despots in the past too.

<looks around for light pole>

 

[fskimospy]

So then pass an amendment. I also have a hard time believing that executive privilege covers illegal activity. In fact isn’t that how congress got the Nixon tapes?

I 100% agree as I mean US v. Nixon says it doesn't cover criminal activity yet here were are, with it covering criminal activity. Courts and rules don't work when the branch that enforces them decides it no longer cares.

I think what we really need is some sort of amendment giving Congress enhanced law enforcement powers when it comes to the executive like some explicit carve out of inherent contempt powers and an enforcement mechanism like their own police force, etc. that can be used to arrest executive branch officials.

 

[K1052]

I 100% agree as I mean US v. Nixon says it doesn't cover criminal activity yet here were are, with it covering criminal activity. Courts and rules don't work when the branch that enforces them decides it no longer cares.

I think what we really need is some sort of amendment giving Congress enhanced law enforcement powers when it comes to the executive like some explicit carve out of inherent contempt powers and an enforcement mechanism like their own police force, etc. that can be used to arrest executive branch officials.

Or/also move the Attorney General and DOJ itself out from under most executive authority.

 

[dainthomas]

So wouldn't his latest comments be ANOTHER count of obstruction? Isn't witness intimidation obstruction?

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say a significant percentage of his twitter posts the last couple years have been some kind of witness tampering or obstruction.

 

[hal2kilo]

Wow, Trump's current ramblings at this moment I think can be an impeachable offense. He's threating the whistle blower and persons that talked to the whistle blower.
“I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy,” Mr. Trump said. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”
Death threats now.