Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

Just...you know....for context...this is directly lifted from government training materials.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that this whistleblower doesn't have first hand knowledge of what happened on the call? He heard it from someone else. A few more degrees and maybe we will end up with the name Kevin Bacon.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

As far as Schiff goes, we arent dealing with a straight shooter. Which we have known for awhile.

Schiff Told MSNBC ‘We Have Not Spoken Directly with the Whistleblower’ after Intel Aide Did Just That

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/adam-schiff-told-msnbc-we-have-not-spoken-directly-with-the-whistleblower-after-intel-aide-did-just-that/

His track record isn't so good. How many times did he claim to have evidence on Trump of Russian collusion? And misrepresenting the transcript of the Ukraine call at an official hearing in Congress. I know you dismiss that but that isnt a minor detail. All he had to do was read what was on the transcript but he took liberties with it to suit his agenda.

Big problem with Schiff heading this committee is that he is in search of a crime. Instead of letting the facts take him to a conclusion, Schiff has already made a conclusion and is looking for a way to get there. Even if that means lying. Hes a partisan hack. Schiff should step down and let someone who is more objective ( if there are any of them left ) lead the impeachment inquiry so we could have some confidence in the process.

[pilferk]

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that this whistleblower doesn't have first hand knowledge of what happened on the call? He heard it from someone else. A few more degrees and maybe we will end up with the name Kevin Bacon.

Again, nice "whataboutism".

But still: Nope.  

And it's not (and has never been) a requirement for such a complaint. Despite Trumps lies. Whistleblower alerts are often 2nd hand information....which is why the form was changed (AWHILE ago).  To make it clear those types of accounts are acceptable.

If your friend tells you that he just witnessed a murder, and you call the police to report it, with specific details to aid their investigation......should they not investigate?

Yes, they will eventually want to talk to your friend.  As congress will talk to the whistleblowers first hand witnesses as they proceed through their investigation.

I know this is tough for you, and you're looking for an out.  But the investigation is valid, the source is valid, and the information between ALL the sources (complaint, read out, president's words, RG's words) all jive.

At some point you're just going to have to come to terms with it......

[pilferk]

As far as Schiff goes, we arent dealing with a straight shooter. Which we have known for awhile.

Schiff Told MSNBC ‘We Have Not Spoken Directly with the Whistleblower’ after Intel Aide Did Just That

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/adam-schiff-told-msnbc-we-have-not-spoken-directly-with-the-whistleblower-after-intel-aide-did-just-that/

His track record isn't so good. How many times did he claim to have evidence on Trump of Russian collusion? And misrepresenting the transcript of the Ukraine call at an official hearing in Congress. I know you dismiss that but that isnt a minor detail. All he had to do was read what was on the transcript but he took liberties with it to suit his agenda.

Big problem with Schiff heading this committee is that he is in search of a crime. Instead of letting the facts take him to a conclusion, Schiff has already made a conclusion and is looking for a way to get there. Even if that means lying. Hes a partisan hack. Schiff should step down and let someone who is more objective ( if there are any of them left ) lead the impeachment inquiry so we could have some confidence in the process.

They haven't.  Speaking with an aide is not considered, via the committee rules, talking directly to the whistleblower.  They talked, VERY indirectly, to the whistleblower on a VERY specifc topic, and in generalities: How to get their complaint managed correctly.

AN APPROPRIATE intervention, FYI, according to Protected Disclosure guidelines.

On Schiffs "In essence" obvious paraphrasing, it IS a minute detail. He was making an opening statement, very obviously used language to convey that he was paraphrasing, and he laid out the way the read out read to HIM.  He's not alone in that interpretation, but he was clearly GIVING is interpretation.  Appropriate and not unusual.  HELL, read the transcript of Devin Nunes opening statement.  It's full of flat out lies, misrepresentations, and total and complete partisanship.  Including a completely tone deaf (aka demonstration of no reading comprehension) and innaccurate portrayal of the read out.  BUT, because it's in support of the president.......

More whataboutism. It's just another attempt to muddy the waters...and a frantic talking point from conservative media and the apoplectic president.  Who are searching desperately for ANY shiny they can get people to chase, other than the ACTUAL issue.

Schiff is fine. His influence on the process is minimal....other than as spokesperson.  The entire house has to vote on any articles of impeachment, the Senate would have to convict.  Even in the committee interviews, BOTH sides get to ask their questions.  Objections over Schiff running this process, from Republicans, after letting and supporting Nunes in the same position in the previous Congress ring hollow (and hypocritical).

You're just searching for an out (as a partisan, yourself). ANY out.  You're letting the presidents desperation fuel your own....

It's HILARIOUS though, that you take issue with Schiff who, in your mind, is doing things that Trump ACTUALLY does EVERY DAY...and you don't care. 

[sandman]

Now this makes things more interesting......has this all been a set up?  Appears that Schiff just hit the fan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html?fbclid=IwAR3y4b3FtDVxtzv_TSigw_H83RCmrFlUxJw86qgrefI-ioalW5qscMF4BlQ

Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations

WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a  whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.

In his whistle-blower complaint, the officer said Mr. Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate a host of issues that could benefit him politically, including one connected to the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

A reconstituted transcript released by the White House of a call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine backed up the whistle-blower’s account, which was itself based on information from a half dozen American officials and deemed credible by the inspector general for the intelligence community.

Mr. Trump has focused his ire on Mr. Schiff amid the burgeoning Ukraine scandal, even suggesting he could be arrested for treason. The president, who has also made thinly veiled threats against the whistle-blower and accused him of being partisan, is likely to use the revelation that the C.I.A. officer first approached the committee to try to undermine the complaint and suggest it was part of a Democratic plot against him.

The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.

“We don’t call him shifty Schiff for nothing,” said Mr. Trump. “He’s a shifty dishonest guy.”

Mr. Schiff’s aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer’s accusations, Mr. Boland said. They referred the C.I.A. officer to an inspector general and advised him to seek legal counsel.

Mr. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver, Mr. Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance,” he said. He said the committee received the complaint the night before releasing it publicly last week and noted that came three weeks after the administration was legally mandated to turn it over to Congress. The director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, acting on the advice of his top lawyer and the Justice Department, had blocked the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, from turning over the complaint sooner.

The future whistle-blower went to Mr. Schiff’s committee after he grew concerned about the first investigation he had touched off.

The C.I.A. officer first had a colleague take his concerns — in vague form — to the C.I.A.’s general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, who began a preliminary inquiry by contacting a deputy White House counsel, alerting the White House that complaints were coming from the C.I.A.

As C.I.A. and White House lawyers began following up on the complaint, the C.I.A. officer became nervous, according to a person familiar with the matter. He learned that John Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel and the legal adviser to the national security adviser, was among those scrutinizing his initial allegation.

Contacts in the National Security Council had also told the C.I.A. officer that the White House lawyers had authorized records of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky to be put in a highly classified computer system, meaning that the lawyers who were now helping the C.I.A. investigate the officer’s allegations were the same ones implicated in them. The officer has alleged that White House aides’ decision to store the call records more restrictively was itself an abuse of the system.

The C.I.A. officer decided the complaint he had brought to Ms. Elwood was at risk of being swept aside, prompting him to go to the lawmakers who conduct oversight of the intelligence agencies.

He followed the advice of Mr. Schiff’s aide and filed his complaint to Mr. Atkinson. And though Mr. Maguire blocked him from forwarding it to Congress, he did allow Mr. Atkinson to notify lawmakers of its existence.

The complaint was filed in consultation with a lawyer, officials said. “The intelligence community whistle-blower followed the advice of legal counsel from the beginning,” said Andrew Bakaj, the lead counsel for the whistle-blower. “The laws and processes have been followed.”

Filing a complaint with Mr. Atkinson gave the whistle-blower added protections against reprisals and also allowed him to legally report on classified information. While House Intelligence Committee members are allowed to receive classified whistle-blower complaints, they are not allowed to make such complaints public, according to a former official. A complaint forwarded to the committee by the inspector general gives it more latitude over what it can publicize.

By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained.

Mr. Schiff released a letter seeking the complaint and suggested it could involve Mr. Trump or others in his administration. Mr. Schiff followed up by subpoenaing Mr. Maguire to testify before the intelligence committee.

Mr. Schiff’s intense push took Mr. Maguire and his aides by surprise, current and former intelligence officials said. In other cases of lawmakers seeking classified material that the intelligence agencies were reluctant to share, including whistle-blower complaints, both sides usually tried to resolve the matter by holding quiet discussions.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations.

Congressional officials insisted that Mr. Schiff and his aides followed the rules. Whistle-blowers regularly approach the committee, given its role in conducting oversight of the intelligence agencies, Mr. Boland said.

“The committee expects that they will be fully protected, despite the president’s threats,” Mr. Boland said, referring to the whistle-blower without identifying his gender. “Only through their courage did these facts about the president’s abuse of power come to light.”

WHOOPS!

Facts are not important these days. but you know it's pretty sad when the NY Times is calling you out.      this is the NY Times, so we have to take it with a grain of salt.
 
I've been pissing myself over Trump tweeting that video with the Biden quote, "photograph" song, and the golf photo. I know people who somewhat support trump and "put up" with him hate this kind of crap, but it cracks me the hell up.

regardless, this hoax is dead. NEXT!

(or are we already back to "he's too unhinged!"? it seems like the media and far left wing social media is debating this now. should know by tomorrow AM.)

I don't think you're instating the word hoax. A hoax would be if it never happened. It did, we have the memo from Trump. I also wonder how much more outrageous his behavior has to get before you'll question it. If this were Obama or Bush, would you think it's still funny?

Whats sad is that you and most liberals are more bothered by a meme and comments than killing innocents with drones and starting bullshit wars for regime change. Any idea how libya is doing these days?

Personally, in the grand scheme of things, i consider THAT “outrageous” behavior. How about you? I certainly do not remember any libs questioning that.

Killing innocents and starting BS wars
vs
Saying “jock strap” and tweeting funny memes.

Tough call?

[sandman]

Sandman must be reading a different article because that NYT article specifically states Schiff didn't know who it was or any info about the complaint, and gave advice on how to proceed to file the complain. Talk about a nothing burger.

So why didnt schiff mention any of this during the last week?

You think trump is going down this time? I think i’ve been asking this question for at least a year. Hoax after hoax. You people keep falling for it.

Whats funny is that we even had a kavanaugh hoax #2 in there last week and the country barely had time to talk about it.

Like i said, time to move on to the next one. This one backfired just a little bit.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Misrepresenting a transcript in an official inquiry isn't a minute detail.  I guess white lies are OK in a court of law, for example?

Schiff is not fine. Guy has an agenda, just needs to figure out how to achieve it. This is not how investigations should work.

Trump is no saint, I think we know that.  I have taken issue with his style and actions at times. But the question is did he violate the constitution or commit a crime? So far no evidence of that. And one phone call wont remove him from office.  If you dont like him or hate him with an unhealthy rage, we have this thing called an election in November of 2020.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Fair process???



 https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/letter-mccaul-rejects-democrats-limitation-of-republican-involvement-in-volker-testimony-tomorrow/


LETTER: McCaul Rejects Democrats’ Limitation of Republican Involvement in Volker Testimony Tomorrow
Press Release 10.02.19
Media Contact: 202-226-8467

Expresses deep concern that the Foreign Affairs Committee’s authority and oversight responsibilities have been ceded to Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff

Washington, D.C. – After learning today that the Democrat-led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) will not allow Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans to have equal representation or the opportunity to question Kurt Volker at tomorrow’s scheduled interview, Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), Lead Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, demanded HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) allow Republicans and Democrats to participate on an equal playing field in their impeachment probe. Furthermore, Lead Republican McCaul expressed concern to Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) that the Foreign Affairs Committee’s oversight role over the State Department and the conduct of U.S. foreign policy has been usurped by another committee without jurisdiction. McCaul reinforced that “impeaching the President of the United States is a grave and serious matter for the American people,” and he expects the Democrats to lead their investigation in a fair, impartial manner.

Democrat staff on HPSCI informed the Foreign Affairs Committee that only one Republican staff member would be allowed to attend the transcribed interview of Kurt Volker, the former State Department Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, and would not be allowed to participate in questioning. However, under House Rule X, “Relations of the United States with foreign nations” is the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

In the letter, McCaul wrote: “I was alarmed to learn – less than 24 hours before the first interview is scheduled to start – that it will be led by the Intelligence Committee and that questioning will be done solely by their staff. Also we were told that only a single Republican professional staffer from the Foreign Affairs Committee will be allowed to attend while the majority will have two. These constraints on committee and Republican participation are unacceptable and at odds with House Rules and general fairness. …We demand equal representation and participation in this inquiry, there is too much at stake for America and Congress.”

Furthermore, contrary to statements made by Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats, there is not a “House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry.” Official impeachment inquiries are initiated by the adoption of a House resolution empowering or creating a committee or task force to undertake such activities.

McCaul continued, “Individual committees may conduct oversight and investigations only pursuant to their general jurisdiction and authority under House Rules X and XI. … Put simply, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff lacks the jurisdiction to investigate the Department of State’s conduct of United States foreign policy toward Ukraine. That prerogative belongs to our Members.”

 

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

 

October 2, 2019

 

The Honorable

Eliot L. Engel, Chairman

Committee on Foreign Affairs

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

 

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing to strongly object to the abdication of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s oversight jurisdiction to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It will damage the credibility of our committee and minimize our Members’ expertise in the exercise of that jurisdiction.

On September 27, 2019, you and two other chairmen sent a letter to the Secretary of State claiming to “schedule” without subpoena the depositions of five State Department officials to “be conducted jointly by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform.”  The stated subjects of the depositions – the conduct of U.S. relations with Ukraine, and U.S. security assistance to help Ukraine counter Russian aggression – are squarely within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.  According to House Rule X, our committee is responsible for “Relations of the United States with foreign nations generally.” This is not the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee.

Contrary to the first sentence of that letter, there is not a “House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry.”  Official impeachment inquiries are initiated by the adoption of a House resolution empowering or creating a committee or task force to undertake such activities.  In both the Nixon and Clinton cases, the Judiciary Committee debated and reported a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether there were sufficient grounds to impeach the President, which was then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives.[1]  There have been no such debates or votes in this Congress.

Unless and until that happens, individual committees may conduct oversight and investigations only pursuant to their general jurisdiction and authority under House Rules X and XI.  Except for the Committee on Oversight and Reform (which is granted plenary investigative authority by Rule X(4)(c)(2)), committees do not have the authority to conduct investigations within the jurisdiction of other standing committees.

Put simply, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff lacks the jurisdiction to investigate the Department of State’s conduct of United States foreign policy toward Ukraine. That prerogative belongs to our Members.

Thus, I was alarmed to learn – less than 24 hours before the first interview is scheduled to start – that it will be led by the Intelligence Committee and that questioning will be done solely by their staff. Also we were told that only a single Republican professional staffer from the Foreign Affairs Committee will be allowed to attend while the majority will have two.  These constraints on committee and Republican participation are unacceptable and at odds with House Rules and general fairness. Impeaching the President of the United States is a grave and serious matter for the American people, and they expect fairness and due process by their representatives in establishing the facts. We demand equal representation and participation in this inquiry, there is too much at stake for America and Congress.

 

                                                                                    Sincerely,

 

                                                                                    MICHAEL T. McCAUL

                                                                                    Ranking Member

                                                                                    House Foreign Affairs Committee

[pilferk]

Misrepresenting a transcript in an official inquiry isn't a minute detail.  I guess white lies are OK in a court of law, for example?

Thankfully, he did no such thing. He paraphrased, and then made clear TWICE during the hearing thats what it was.

Again, whataboutism. Its a distraction and deflection to not have to discuss the actual potentially illegal act the president undertook.

Schiff is not fine. Guy has an agenda, just needs to figure out how to achieve it. This is not how investigations should work.

You mean like Nunes did when leading the House investigation on Trumps collusion and obstruction?

Yeah, if you want a non-partisan person with no political agenda to lead an investigation, you're going to have to elect one, first.

Schiff is fine.  And unless you're going to take issue with Nunes, Gingrich, Banard, Ryan and the rest of the Republican political hacks that have "investigated" the other side in the past, your objection just rings like so much hypocrisy.

Trump is no saint, I think we know that.  I have taken issue with his style and actions at times. But the question is did he violate the constitution or commit a crime? So far no evidence of that. And one phone call wont remove him from office.  If you dont like him or hate him with an unhealthy rage, we have this thing called an election in November of 2020.

Read the statute i posted. Looks like he did based on his own transcript and words on live tv. Lots of evidence he did. Way more evidence than anything you have provided on Shiff...and yet....

Arguing bias while putting your own on display is an interesting look.

[pilferk]

Fair process???

LETTER: McCaul Rejects Democrats’ Limitation of Republican Involvement in Volker Testimony Tomorrow
Press Release 10.02.19
Media Contact: 202-226-8467

Expresses deep concern that the Foreign Affairs Committee’s authority and oversight responsibilities have been ceded to Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff

Washington, D.C. – After learning today that the Democrat-led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) will not allow Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans to have equal representation or the opportunity to question Kurt Volker at tomorrow’s scheduled interview, Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), Lead Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, demanded HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) allow Republicans and Democrats to participate on an equal playing field in their impeachment probe. Furthermore, Lead Republican McCaul expressed concern to Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) that the Foreign Affairs Committee’s oversight role over the State Department and the conduct of U.S. foreign policy has been usurped by another committee without jurisdiction. McCaul reinforced that “impeaching the President of the United States is a grave and serious matter for the American people,” and he expects the Democrats to lead their investigation in a fair, impartial manner.

Democrat staff on HPSCI informed the Foreign Affairs Committee that only one Republican staff member would be allowed to attend the transcribed interview of Kurt Volker, the former State Department Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, and would not be allowed to participate in questioning. However, under House Rule X, “Relations of the United States with foreign nations” is the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

In the letter, McCaul wrote: “I was alarmed to learn – less than 24 hours before the first interview is scheduled to start – that it will be led by the Intelligence Committee and that questioning will be done solely by their staff. Also we were told that only a single Republican professional staffer from the Foreign Affairs Committee will be allowed to attend while the majority will have two. These constraints on committee and Republican participation are unacceptable and at odds with House Rules and general fairness. …We demand equal representation and participation in this inquiry, there is too much at stake for America and Congress.”

Furthermore, contrary to statements made by Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats, there is not a “House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry.” Official impeachment inquiries are initiated by the adoption of a House resolution empowering or creating a committee or task force to undertake such activities.

McCaul continued, “Individual committees may conduct oversight and investigations only pursuant to their general jurisdiction and authority under House Rules X and XI. … Put simply, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff lacks the jurisdiction to investigate the Department of State’s conduct of United States foreign policy toward Ukraine. That prerogative belongs to our Members.”

 

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

 

October 2, 2019

 

The Honorable

Eliot L. Engel, Chairman

Committee on Foreign Affairs

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

 

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing to strongly object to the abdication of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s oversight jurisdiction to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It will damage the credibility of our committee and minimize our Members’ expertise in the exercise of that jurisdiction.

On September 27, 2019, you and two other chairmen sent a letter to the Secretary of State claiming to “schedule” without subpoena the depositions of five State Department officials to “be conducted jointly by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform.”  The stated subjects of the depositions – the conduct of U.S. relations with Ukraine, and U.S. security assistance to help Ukraine counter Russian aggression – are squarely within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.  According to House Rule X, our committee is responsible for “Relations of the United States with foreign nations generally.” This is not the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee.

Contrary to the first sentence of that letter, there is not a “House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry.”  Official impeachment inquiries are initiated by the adoption of a House resolution empowering or creating a committee or task force to undertake such activities.  In both the Nixon and Clinton cases, the Judiciary Committee debated and reported a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether there were sufficient grounds to impeach the President, which was then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives.[1]  There have been no such debates or votes in this Congress.

Unless and until that happens, individual committees may conduct oversight and investigations only pursuant to their general jurisdiction and authority under House Rules X and XI.  Except for the Committee on Oversight and Reform (which is granted plenary investigative authority by Rule X(4)(c)(2)), committees do not have the authority to conduct investigations within the jurisdiction of other standing committees.

Put simply, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff lacks the jurisdiction to investigate the Department of State’s conduct of United States foreign policy toward Ukraine. That prerogative belongs to our Members.

Thus, I was alarmed to learn – less than 24 hours before the first interview is scheduled to start – that it will be led by the Intelligence Committee and that questioning will be done solely by their staff. Also we were told that only a single Republican professional staffer from the Foreign Affairs Committee will be allowed to attend while the majority will have two.  These constraints on committee and Republican participation are unacceptable and at odds with House Rules and general fairness. Impeaching the President of the United States is a grave and serious matter for the American people, and they expect fairness and due process by their representatives in establishing the facts. We demand equal representation and participation in this inquiry, there is too much at stake for America and Congress.

 

                                                                                    Sincerely,

 

                                                                                    MICHAEL T. McCAUL

                                                                                    Ranking Member

                                                                                    House Foreign Affairs Committee

You should read the letter.

Majority gets 2 reps, minority gets one.

As it has been in pretty much every situation like this, ever.

And the intelligence committe has jurisdiction. Thats the way this works. Intelligence agency complaint...intelligence committee oversight.  The PARTISAN Republican claiming otherwise is misinterpreting the House Rules.  The SPEAKER has already addressed that point, and cited past precedent.

IF, in conducting that investigation, they find WRONGDOING (or potentially problematic behavior) THAT will then be referred to foreign affairs. 

Again,that's the way this works (and is supposed to work).

What was that about elections having consequences? Or is that only when Repubs win.

Keep searching for outrage in normal, accepted practice. Its gonna go well for you, for sure.

 

[tim_m]

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that this whistleblower doesn't have first hand knowledge of what happened on the call? He heard it from someone else. A few more degrees and maybe we will end up with the name Kevin Bacon.

Again, nice "whataboutism".

But still: Nope.  

And it's not (and has never been) a requirement for such a complaint. Despite Trumps lies. Whistleblower alerts are often 2nd hand information....which is why the form was changed (AWHILE ago).  To make it clear those types of accounts are acceptable.

If your friend tells you that he just witnessed a murder, and you call the police to report it, with specific details to aid their investigation......should they not investigate?

Yes, they will eventually want to talk to your friend.  As congress will talk to the whistleblowers first hand witnesses as they proceed through their investigation.

I know this is tough for you, and you're looking for an out.  But the investigation is valid, the source is valid, and the information between ALL the sources (complaint, read out, president's words, RG's words) all jive.

At some point you're just going to have to come to terms with it......

Not to mention the ABC news article i posted the other day clearly says the person had secondhand and SOME first hand knowledge.

[tim_m]

As far as Schiff goes, we arent dealing with a straight shooter. Which we have known for awhile.

Schiff Told MSNBC ‘We Have Not Spoken Directly with the Whistleblower’ after Intel Aide Did Just That

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/adam-schiff-told-msnbc-we-have-not-spoken-directly-with-the-whistleblower-after-intel-aide-did-just-that/

His track record isn't so good. How many times did he claim to have evidence on Trump of Russian collusion? And misrepresenting the transcript of the Ukraine call at an official hearing in Congress. I know you dismiss that but that isnt a minor detail. All he had to do was read what was on the transcript but he took liberties with it to suit his agenda.

Big problem with Schiff heading this committee is that he is in search of a crime. Instead of letting the facts take him to a conclusion, Schiff has already made a conclusion and is looking for a way to get there. Even if that means lying. Hes a partisan hack. Schiff should step down and let someone who is more objective ( if there are any of them left ) lead the impeachment inquiry so we could have some confidence in the process.

They haven't.  Speaking with an aide is not considered, via the committee rules, talking directly to the whistleblower.  They talked, VERY indirectly, to the whistleblower on a VERY specifc topic, and in generalities: How to get their complaint managed correctly.

AN APPROPRIATE intervention, FYI, according to Protected Disclosure guidelines.

On Schiffs "In essence" obvious paraphrasing, it IS a minute detail. He was making an opening statement, very obviously used language to convey that he was paraphrasing, and he laid out the way the read out read to HIM.  He's not alone in that interpretation, but he was clearly GIVING is interpretation.  Appropriate and not unusual.  HELL, read the transcript of Devin Nunes opening statement.  It's full of flat out lies, misrepresentations, and total and complete partisanship.  Including a completely tone deaf (aka demonstration of no reading comprehension) and innaccurate portrayal of the read out.  BUT, because it's in support of the president.......

More whataboutism. It's just another attempt to muddy the waters...and a frantic talking point from conservative media and the apoplectic president.  Who are searching desperately for ANY shiny they can get people to chase, other than the ACTUAL issue.

Schiff is fine. His influence on the process is minimal....other than as spokesperson.  The entire house has to vote on any articles of impeachment, the Senate would have to convict.  Even in the committee interviews, BOTH sides get to ask their questions.  Objections over Schiff running this process, from Republicans, after letting and supporting Nunes in the same position in the previous Congress ring hollow (and hypocritical).

You're just searching for an out (as a partisan, yourself). ANY out.  You're letting the presidents desperation fuel your own....

It's HILARIOUS though, that you take issue with Schiff who, in your mind, is doing things that Trump ACTUALLY does EVERY DAY...and you don't care. 

I personally watched the entire 3 hour testimony live. Yes he added some parody to the opening statement but clarified that after Nunes' opening statement.

[tim_m]

Sandman must be reading a different article because that NYT article specifically states Schiff didn't know who it was or any info about the complaint, and gave advice on how to proceed to file the complain. Talk about a nothing burger.

So why didnt schiff mention any of this during the last week?

You think trump is going down this time? I think i’ve been asking this question for at least a year. Hoax after hoax. You people keep falling for it.

Whats funny is that we even had a kavanaugh hoax #2 in there last week and the country barely had time to talk about it.

Like i said, time to move on to the next one. This one backfired just a little bit.

That i do not have the answer to obviously, but you're right Trump won't go down for this because the Republican controlled Senate can't find their balls/spines.

[pilferk]

That i do not have the answer to obviously, but you're right Trump won't go down for this because the Republican controlled Senate can't find their balls/spines.

Hint: Because he's not supposed to talk about any interaction the committee has with the whistleblower to protect their identity.  Literally, the committees are not supposed to talk about when they advise a whistleblower on their actions to get their complaint to who it needs to get to.  It happens, according to the committee, a few times a month.  They tell every one of them the same thing: Get an attorney and file your complaint "like this".

And never speak about it.

So...Shiff was following policy and procedure. Again.  Until the story leaked, and they were forced to comment.

[tim_m]

https://www.axios.com/trump-china-investigate-joe-biden-f7d034bf-91ea-4ede-a879-6b86c36e719a.html

Keep on digging that grave dude. This would be comical if it weren't so sad.

[sandman]

Misrepresenting a transcript in an official inquiry isn't a minute detail.  I guess white lies are OK in a court of law, for example?

Schiff is not fine. Guy has an agenda, just needs to figure out how to achieve it. This is not how investigations should work.

Trump is no saint, I think we know that.  I have taken issue with his style and actions at times. But the question is did he violate the constitution or commit a crime? So far no evidence of that. And one phone call wont remove him from office.  If you dont like him or hate him with an unhealthy rage, we have this thing called an election in November of 2020.

guy totally has an agenda. somehow I think Soros is involved. and many people and events are connected. Ukraine, Soros, Schiff, 2016, etc. etc. Barr's trip to Italy may turn out to be critical.

We have no information to say without a doubt that Trump committed a crime or violated the constitution. no one is making that clear argument, or we would all know EXACTLY what crime was committed.

AOC provide as much when she was pushed on it and said they want to impeach because of his policies. this is what it has always been about. they have been calling for impeachment from day 1.  

MSNBC is excusing Schiff for his lies this morning and trying to cover for him. Sam Stein said:

Schiff "clearly wasn't being forthright in that interview with us a couple weeks ago and he should have been."   but that Schiff "expressed regret".

and that's our media!! but hey, liberals don't question this and allow people like Schiff to get away with it (cause "orange man bad") so why should Schiff or MSNBC give a fuck.

[tim_m]

Misrepresenting a transcript in an official inquiry isn't a minute detail.  I guess white lies are OK in a court of law, for example?

Schiff is not fine. Guy has an agenda, just needs to figure out how to achieve it. This is not how investigations should work.

Trump is no saint, I think we know that.  I have taken issue with his style and actions at times. But the question is did he violate the constitution or commit a crime? So far no evidence of that. And one phone call wont remove him from office.  If you dont like him or hate him with an unhealthy rage, we have this thing called an election in November of 2020.

guy totally has an agenda. somehow I think Soros is involved. and many people and events are connected. Ukraine, Soros, Schiff, 2016, etc. etc. Barr's trip to Italy may turn out to be critical.

We have no information to say without a doubt that Trump committed a crime or violated the constitution. no one is making that clear argument, or we would all know EXACTLY what crime was committed.

AOC provide as much when she was pushed on it and said they want to impeach because of his policies. this is what it has always been about. they have been calling for impeachment from day 1.  

MSNBC is excusing Schiff for his lies this morning and trying to cover for him. Sam Stein said:

Schiff "clearly wasn't being forthright in that interview with us a couple weeks ago and he should have been."   but that Schiff "expressed regret".

and that's our media!! but hey, liberals don't question this and allow people like Schiff to get away with it (cause "orange man bad") so why should Schiff or MSNBC give a fuck.

The memo is the evidence we have so far, the inquiry is an investigation to determine if it rises to impeachable level and to find more evidence if it exists. You do understand what an Impeachment inquiry is i assume.

[tim_m]

Trump says he should start his own news network, i guess Fox news isn't far enough up his ass for his liking.

[tim_m]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-texts-diplomats-pushed-ukraine-to-open-investigations-into-bidens-for-weeks-messages-show/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6a&linkId=74735423#

Sure sounds like pro quid pro to me.