The complaint is public

[cosmickid]

I don't know how to post the complaint itslef (it's 9 pages), so I'll just provide the link to the story...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/full-whistleblower-complaint-ukraine-trump-125238707.html

One initial thought...A lot has been made (among Trump's allies) of the fact that the "whistleblower" did not personally witness the phone call or the numerous events he describes. But people who did came to him with their concerns. Following up on this will be extremely critical,and it appears there will be a lot of folks the various Committees will want to hear from...

 

[Fro]

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf

holy shit

 

[SNU0821]

I don't know how to post the complaint itslef (it's 9 pages), so I'll just provide the link to the story...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/full-whistleblower-complaint-ukraine-trump-125238707.html

One initial thought...A lot has been made (among Trump's allies) of the fact that the "whistleblower" did not personally witness the phone call or the numerous events he describes. But people who did came to him with their concerns. Following up on this will be extremely critical,and it appears there will be a lot of folks the various Committees will want to hear from...

So more hearsay from a partisan person who disagrees with the president.

I understand though. The Russian investigation hoax has been put to bed. The libs need some other hoax to lie about.

I hope they go forward with impeachment. It’ll do nothing other than help Trump.

 

[cosmickid]

So more hearsay from a partisan person who disagrees with the president.

I understand though. The Russian investigation hoax has been put to bed. The libs need some other hoax to lie about.

I hope they go forward with impeachment. It’ll do nothing other than help Trump.

It will help Trump with his base- they aren't ever going to change,just like the 25% that still supported Nixon at the time he made his helicopter ride. But Impeachment will open the flood gates to examining the obstruction instances that Mueller listed but wouldn't discuss, as well as reviving the collusion issues that Mueller dismissed from a criminal basis. Impeachment is a political exercise, as the Pubs demonstrated during Watergate...

 

[Fro]

It will help Trump with his base- they aren't ever going to change,just like the 25% that still supported Nixon at the time he made his helicopter ride. But Impeachment will open the flood gates to examining the obstruction instances that Mueller listed but wouldn't discuss, as well as reviving the collusion issues that Mueller dismissed from a criminal basis. Impeachment is a political exercise, as the Pubs demonstrated during Watergate...

I think it'll definitely draw blood politically on Trump with the people who aren't Trump bots, but some of those ex never-Trumpers may hold their nose and still vote for him. I agree that his base will follow him. Not sure if we'll reach a point where Fox News starts turning on Trump, but that might happen eventually.

 

[toastedbread]

It will help Trump with his base- they aren't ever going to change,just like the 25% that still supported Nixon at the time he made his helicopter ride. But Impeachment will open the flood gates to examining the obstruction instances that Mueller listed but wouldn't discuss, as well as reviving the collusion issues that Mueller dismissed from a criminal basis. Impeachment is a political exercise, as the Pubs demonstrated during Watergate...

I think raising the Mueller issues would be a catastrophic mistake. The conduct surrounding The Ukraine is much more direct and clear.

 

[SNU0821]

It will help Trump with his base- they aren't ever going to change,just like the 25% that still supported Nixon at the time he made his helicopter ride. But Impeachment will open the flood gates to examining the obstruction instances that Mueller listed but wouldn't discuss, as well as reviving the collusion issues that Mueller dismissed from a criminal basis. Impeachment is a political exercise, as the Pubs demonstrated during Watergate...

LOL! I don't know what world you live in, but it's not reality. Impeachment isn't a popular stance outside of the extreme left. Polls show as such. It's not just Republicans that don't care for impeachment, it's independents too.

By the way, weren't you one of the rank and file that fully believed Trump colluded with Russia? Yeah, we're going to take your posts at full value...

 

[Thyrsis]

LOL! I don't know what world you live in, but it's not reality. Impeachment isn't a popular stance outside of the extreme left. Polls show as such. It's not just Republicans that don't care for impeachment, it's independents too.

By the way, weren't you one of the rank and file that fully believed Trump colluded with Russia? Yeah, we're going to take your posts at full value...

Trump actively and publicly solicited Russia's help to defeat his opponent. Russia did just that in a manner that specifically benefitted Trump. When allegations of conspiracy arose, Trump actively obstructed justice to avoid the fallout. Mueller couldn't prove specific, direct interactions between Trump and Russia beyond the above and thus couldn't establish conspiracy, but confirmed there was ample evidence to support the obstruction of justice.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

LOL! I don't know what world you live in, but it's not reality. Impeachment isn't a popular stance outside of the extreme left. Polls show as such. It's not just Republicans that don't care for impeachment, it's independents too.

By the way, weren't you one of the rank and file that fully believed Trump colluded with Russia? Yeah, we're going to take your posts at full value...

Have we seen polling on an impeachment inquiry? I have seen polling of large numbers, before Ukraine, opposing impeachment. But I haven't seen polling on whether an inquiry should happen. Should the prosecutor look at charges is a different question than should the person be found guilty.

 

[SNU0821]

Trump actively and publicly solicited Russia's help to defeat his opponent. Russia did just that in a manner that specifically benefitted Trump. When allegations of conspiracy arose, Trump actively obstructed justice to avoid the fallout. Mueller couldn't prove specific, direct interactions between Trump and Russia beyond the above and thus couldn't establish conspiracy, but confirmed there was ample evidence to support the obstruction of justice.

So let me recap. Trump wasn't charge with collusion with Russia or obstruction related to the investigation? Got it. Innocent until proven guilty. So you're telling me all the media and Democrats who for two years screamed there was ample evidence to prove collusion and obstruction, never happened? Got it.

So now on to this issue. Trump didn't do anything inappropriate here. This is nothing more than the Democrats looking for the next "scandal" to try and damage the president. But again, I hope they impeach. It won't go anywhere in the Senate and it'll end up helping the president.

 

[SNU0821]

Have we seen polling on an impeachment inquiry? I have seen polling of large numbers, before Ukraine, opposing impeachment. But I haven't seen polling on whether an inquiry should happen. Should the prosecutor look at charges is a different question than should the person be found guilty.

One was out yesterday or the day before. I'm not sure this Ukraine fake story is going to move the needle, at all.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

One was out yesterday or the day before. I'm not sure this Ukraine fake story is going to move the needle, at all.

One item someone in the WH is going to have to answer is why if this was all fake they moved the call to a more secure server when it wasn't classified? That sure sounds like trying to hide incriminating evidence. And the other big question, why is Rudy conducting foreign policy for the US and not State?

 

[UncleMark]

Have we seen polling on an impeachment inquiry? I have seen polling of large numbers, before Ukraine, opposing impeachment. But I haven't seen polling on whether an inquiry should happen. Should the prosecutor look at charges is a different question than should the person be found guilty.

The public doesn't understand that "Impeachment" doesn't necessarily mean removal. Yes, even though Clinton was impeached but not removed. The public is dumb. I don't know how you'd ask the question to make the distinction.

 

[Rockfish1]

One item someone in the WH is going to have to answer is why if this was all fake they moved the call to a more secure server when it wasn't classified? That sure sounds like trying to hide incriminating evidence. And the other big question, why is Rudy conducting foreign policy for the US and not State?

His aides tried to keep him from the call, because they knew what he'd do, and they tried to cover up evidence of the call because they knew what he'd done. Meanwhile, Rudy's been publicly doing this and talking about it for at least months. There isn't any basis for the willful credulity about what's been going on here.

 

[UncleMark]

One item someone in the WH is going to have to answer is why if this was all fake they moved the call to a more secure server when it wasn't classified? That sure sounds like trying to hide incriminating evidence.

Also note that the whistleblower states that "this was not the first" time such measures had been taken. Isn't this what the shysters call "consciousness of guilt"?

 

[Fro]

One item someone in the WH is going to have to answer is why if this was all fake they moved the call to a more secure server when it wasn't classified? That sure sounds like trying to hide incriminating evidence. And the other big question, why is Rudy conducting foreign policy for the US and not State?

Yeah, I don't think anyone can logically defend Rudy doing foreign policy as Trump's "personal lawyer" outside of "WHATABOUT HILLARY?"

Barr or someone in the AG's office working with State department would be the proper people to do that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Also note that the whistleblower states that "this was not the first" time such measures had been taken. Isn't this what the shysters call "consciousness of guilt"?

I think this is where the case is going to rest. That and $10 will get you a Starbucks coffee (plain not one of the fancy ones). But if the people working for the administration have to come forward under oath and say they were hiding things because they made the president look guilty, it is going to be hard for Senators to say it is all very innocent. Its so innocent his inner circle thought it was guilt? Getting there is going to be the hard part, and the courts will be involved. But it is clear the whistle-blower claims to have been told of this sort of activity by multiple people.

 

[cosmickid]

LOL! I don't know what world you live in, but it's not reality. Impeachment isn't a popular stance outside of the extreme left. Polls show as such. It's not just Republicans that don't care for impeachment, it's independents too.

By the way, weren't you one of the rank and file that fully believed Trump colluded with Russia? Yeah, we're going to take your posts at full value...

So let me recap. Trump wasn't charge with collusion with Russia or obstruction related to the investigation? Got it. Innocent until proven guilty. So you're telling me all the media and Democrats who for two years screamed there was ample evidence to prove collusion and obstruction, never happened? Got it.

So now on to this issue. Trump didn't do anything inappropriate here. This is nothing more than the Democrats looking for the next "scandal" to try and damage the president. But again, I hope they impeach. It won't go anywhere in the Senate and it'll end up helping the president.

This whistleblower would not have made this complaint,and not had the where with all to even do so if people with KNOWLEDGE of the troubling events hadn't come to him. These were people within the WH,so presumably some people that at one point supported Trump. That means some Republican oriented folks were upset enough to complain about it. So apparently these folks with first hand knowledge disagree with your "Trump didn't do anything wrong here" claim...

In addition, the moderate Dems who won 2018 Congressional seats in districts Trump had won in 2016 would not have come forward en masse and moved to pro-Impeachment positions on Mon/Tues if they were getting anti Impeachment signals from their districts.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think this is where the case is going to rest. That and $10 will get you a Starbucks coffee (plain not one of the fancy ones). But if the people working for the administration have to come forward under oath and say they were hiding things because they made the president look guilty, it is going to be hard for Senators to say it is all very innocent. Its so innocent his inner circle thought it was guilt? Getting there is going to be the hard part, and the courts will be involved. But it is clear the whistle-blower claims to have been told of this sort of activity by multiple people.

I must be wrong, Cillizza seems to agree with that view.

 

[SNU0821]

This whistleblower would not have made this complaint,and not had the where with all to even do so if people with KNOWLEDGE of the troubling events hadn't come to him. These were people within the WH,so presumably some people that at one point supported Trump. That means some Republican oriented folks were upset enough to complain about it. So apparently these folks with first hand knowledge disagree with your "Trump didn't do anything wrong here" claim...

In addition, the moderate Dems who won 2018 Congressional seats in districts Trump had won in 2016 would not have come forward en masse and moved to pro-Impeachment positions on Mon/Tues if they were getting anti Impeachment signals from their districts.

Read this whole string of Tweets.

Side note. I’m sure you understand the hesitancy and skepticism of Republicans to just in full faith believe some anonymous sources, which is what this basically is. We’ve been down this road before and it was a big nothingburger.

 

[SNU0821]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...dont-want-trump-impeached-removed/2438970001/

 

[Marvin the Martian]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...dont-want-trump-impeached-removed/2438970001/

That polls is "impeached", not a question on hearings for impeachment.

 

[UncleMark]

But if the people working for the administration have to come forward under oath and say they were hiding things because they made the president look guilty, it is going to be hard for Senators to say it is all very innocent. Its so innocent his inner circle thought it was guilt? Getting there is going to be the hard part, and the courts will be involved.

IG Atkinson is also reported to have interviewed a number of officials after receiving the complaint. So there's a bunch of names that will have to come out and will need to testify. There's going to be a blizzard of subpoenas, and no doubt a ton of executive privilege claims.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I am not a fan of SurveyMonkey polls, but Business Insider just ran a poll and while a minority said the president should be impeached, a majority said he should be investigated.

We asked, "Do you believe launching a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump for soliciting foreign interference in a US election is the right thing to do?"
​

• • 33% said "definitely yes."
  • 20% said "probably yes."
  • 15% said "probably not."
  • 18% said "definitely not."

 

[Fro]

Get yer pro-Trump talking points here

 

[Ohio Guy]

LOL! I don't know what world you live in, but it's not reality. Impeachment isn't a popular stance outside of the extreme left. Polls show as such. It's not just Republicans that don't care for impeachment, it's independents too.

By the way, weren't you one of the rank and file that fully believed Trump colluded with Russia? Yeah, we're going to take your posts at full value...

Well, that very well might be changing.

There are rumblings of as many as 30 Republican representatives nearly on board with impeachment, with at least a handful of them - Michael Turner and Ben Sasse among them - going public with their concerns.

John Kasich has also been pretty vocal in scolding GOP lawmakers.

I'm sure you'll dismiss these guys and their growing numbers at RINOs, but it would seem that there is a shift happening. I don't know what the end result will be, but it looks like the winds are pointing to the adults in the room taking over.

 

[cosmickid]

IG Atkinson is also reported to have interviewed a number of officials after receiving the complaint. So there's a bunch of names that will have to come out and will need to testify. There's going to be a blizzard of subpoenas, and no doubt a ton of executive privilege claims.

My understanding is that the1974 SCOTUS ruling in US vs Nixon has significantly curtailed the effective use of Executive Privilege in the context of Impeachment...Of course, Trump is gonna Trump...

"The term executive privilege was not used until the 1950s. The doctrine’s contours were unclear until a 1974 Supreme Court ruling. In the case U.S. v. Nixon, President Richard Nixon was ordered to deliver tapes and other subpoenaed materials to a federal judge for review. The justices ruled 9-0 that a president’s right to privacy in his communications must be balanced against the authority of Congress to investigate and oversee the executive branch.

The U.S. v. Nixon ruling is also widely understood to mean that executive privilege cannot be used to cover up wrongdoing. That view was endorsed by current U.S. Attorney General William Barr during his Senate confirmation hearing.

One lesson of U.S. v. Nixon is that an executive privilege claim is particularly weak when Congress has invoked its power to remove a president from office through impeachment, University of Missouri School of Law professor Frank Bowman said. In the impeachment context, “virtually no part of a president’s duties or behavior is exempt from scrutiny,” Bowman added.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-to-block-congressional-probes-idUSKCN1TD2LE

 

[Stuffshot]

I think it'll definitely draw blood politically on Trump with the people who aren't Trump bots, but some of those ex never-Trumpers may hold their nose and still vote for him. I agree that his base will follow him. Not sure if we'll reach a point where Fox News starts turning on Trump, but that might happen eventually.

There may be signs that it already drew blood:

Trump hasn't fired Acting Director McGuire (who apparently disagrees with him

Trump hasn't fired Inspector General Atkinson.

Trump hasn't fired the unknown whistleblower (that we know of),

Trump released the non-transcript "transcript".

Trump released the whistleblower complaint.

A few Republicans (like Romney and Sasse) appear to be speaking out against Trump's conversation with the Ukraine president.

Barr has kept his mouth shut.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems Trump is handling this differently than the way Trump handled previous controversies. Don't see any obvious reason for Trump to be so tolerant of his subordinates in this matter, but it looks like that's what he may be doing (for now).

This story touches on some of these things:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/26/po...nt-strategy/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

 

[UncleMark]

My understanding is that the1974 SCOTUS ruling in US vs Nixon has significantly curtailed the effective use of Executive Privilege in the context of Impeachment...Of course, Trump is gonna Trump...

No doubt. That's his M.O. -- stonewall and obstruct on the most tenuous of grounds. Once the courts finally weigh in, I have to believe the floodgates will open.

 

[Stuffshot]

Yeah, I don't think anyone can logically defend Rudy doing foreign policy as Trump's "personal lawyer" outside of "WHATABOUT HILLARY?"

Barr or someone in the AG's office working with State department would be the proper people to do that.

Except that Barr is mentioned as an actor in some of the whistleblower documents and shouldn't investigate himself.

 

[Thyrsis]

Trump actively and publicly solicited Russia's help to defeat his opponent. Russia did just that in a manner that specifically benefitted Trump. When allegations of conspiracy arose, Trump actively obstructed justice to avoid the fallout. Mueller couldn't prove specific, direct interactions between Trump and Russia beyond the above and thus couldn't establish conspiracy, but confirmed there was ample evidence to support the obstruction of justice.

By the way, the American public knew what happened, knew that Trump was corrupt and un-fit, knew he was holding hands with Putin against America's interest. They fervently hoped that the factual details would support a legal conclusion by Mueller that it represented collusion/conspiracy, but they were unsure of the outcome legally. That doesn't mean they were wrong at all. This clip from March 2018 pretty accurately captures the mood.

 

[hoot1]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...dont-want-trump-impeached-removed/2438970001/

SNU, you bring up an important aspect regarding impeachment. This aspect being how the body politic feels regarding impeachment and the reaction to the latest report regarding Trump's alleged attempt to get a foreign government involved in our politics.

SNU, the poll you linked tells me the public is divided along political lines.

IMO only when a sizeable number (at least say 26%) of the Pubs and self proclaimed independents jump on the guilty bandwagon will a successful impeachment and Senate conviction process begin to take place.

 

[cosmickid]

SNU, you bring up an important aspect regarding impeachment. This aspect being how the body politic feels regarding impeachment and the reaction to the latest report regarding Trump's alleged attempt to get a foreign government involved in our politics.

SNU, the poll you linked tells me the public is divided along political lines.

IMO only when a sizeable number (at least say 26%) of the Pubs and self proclaimed independents jump on the guilty bandwagon will a successful impeachment and Senate conviction process begin to take place.

The latest Quinipiac poll on Impeachment put it at 37-57, with 73% of Dems in favor. However the Independent number was at 33%,not far off of the overall and higher than your 26% threshold.

The key is what the inquiries will reveal. At best Trump is at 45% approval,while Bill Clinton was at 63% heading into his Impeachment. Huge difference...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...dont-want-trump-impeached-removed/2438970001/

 

[Standard Issue]

My understanding is that the1974 SCOTUS ruling in US vs Nixon has significantly curtailed the effective use of Executive Privilege in the context of Impeachment...Of course, Trump is gonna Trump...

"The term executive privilege was not used until the 1950s. The doctrine’s contours were unclear until a 1974 Supreme Court ruling. In the case U.S. v. Nixon, President Richard Nixon was ordered to deliver tapes and other subpoenaed materials to a federal judge for review. The justices ruled 9-0 that a president’s right to privacy in his communications must be balanced against the authority of Congress to investigate and oversee the executive branch.

The U.S. v. Nixon ruling is also widely understood to mean that executive privilege cannot be used to cover up wrongdoing. That view was endorsed by current U.S. Attorney General William Barr during his Senate confirmation hearing.

One lesson of U.S. v. Nixon is that an executive privilege claim is particularly weak when Congress has invoked its power to remove a president from office through impeachment, University of Missouri School of Law professor Frank Bowman said. In the impeachment context, “virtually no part of a president’s duties or behavior is exempt from scrutiny,” Bowman added.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-to-block-congressional-probes-idUSKCN1TD2LE

When a president is under investigation for the purposes of impeachment wouldn't claiming executive privilege almost be viewed as a form of obstruction ?

 

[Fro]

Except that Barr is mentioned as an actor in some of the whistleblower documents and shouldn't investigate himself.

I'm saying even in an extremely charitable scenario where there was something that should have been investigated because there was actual credible evidence of wrongdoing (not a crackpot conspiracy theory), Rudy shouldn't be running as point man when he doesn't have an official government role.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm saying even in an extremely charitable scenario where there was something that should have been investigated because there was actual credible evidence of wrongdoing (not a crackpot conspiracy theory), Rudy shouldn't be running as point man when he doesn't have an official government role.

I cannot come up with any scenario where the president using his personal lawyer as point man on a diplomatic mission is acceptable. Maybe, just maybe, if Rudy was from Ukraine and had a close relationship with the Ukranian government. But given all their communications would be coveted by lawyer client privilege, even that case is a bad idea.

I know someone will defend it, but I am curious how they will.

 

[UncleMark]

I cannot come up with any scenario where the president using his personal lawyer as point man on a diplomatic mission is acceptable. Maybe, just maybe, if Rudy was from Ukraine and had a close relationship with the Ukranian government. But given all their communications would be coveted [sic] by lawyer client privilege, even that case is a bad idea.

Perhaps you've answered your own question.

(Obligatory [sic] for humiliation added.)

 

[UncleMark]

When a president is under investigation for the purposes of impeachment wouldn't claiming executive privilege almost be viewed as a form of obstruction?

Sure, why not. You can justify your stonewalling in many ways. The Supremes said executive privilege can't be used to coverup wrongdoing. I think GWB tried to hide behind "national security", too. That's my favorite.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

tRump this morning re: the whistleblower's sources per NYT:

“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.”

 

[meridian]

By the way, the American public knew what happened, knew that Trump was corrupt and un-fit, knew he was holding hands with Putin against America's interest. They fervently hoped that the factual details would support a legal conclusion by Mueller that it represented collusion/conspiracy, but they were unsure of the outcome legally. That doesn't mean they were wrong at all. This clip from March 2018 pretty accurately captures the mood.

44% will disagree with you!