Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[Teallaura]

Source: Fox News

A second unidentified whistleblower was confirmed Sunday morning, reportedly with firsthand information to support some of the allegations another whistleblower made in a complaint filed in August regarding a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Graham said that if Democrats follow through on their desire to impeach Trump, he will make sure that the whistleblowers will have to come forward and testify.

"Here’s what’s going to happen: if the whistleblowers' allegations are turned into an impeachment article it’s imperative that the whistleblower be interviewed in public, under oath, and cross-examined,” Graham told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," promising that "if that doesn't happen in the House, I'll make sure it happens in the Senate."

Graham pointed to the need for Trump to be able to confront his accusers, saying, "There can be no valid impeachment process unless the president can confront the witnesses against him."
Source

© Copyright Original Source

Sunlight, Baby!

[Sam]

Source: Fox News

A second unidentified whistleblower was confirmed Sunday morning, reportedly with firsthand information to support some of the allegations another whistleblower made in a complaint filed in August regarding a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Graham said that if Democrats follow through on their desire to impeach Trump, he will make sure that the whistleblowers will have to come forward and testify.

"Here’s what’s going to happen: if the whistleblowers' allegations are turned into an impeachment article it’s imperative that the whistleblower be interviewed in public, under oath, and cross-examined,” Graham told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," promising that "if that doesn't happen in the House, I'll make sure it happens in the Senate."

Graham pointed to the need for Trump to be able to confront his accusers, saying, "There can be no valid impeachment process unless the president can confront the witnesses against him."
Source

© Copyright Original Source

Sunlight, Baby!

Graham knows full well that impeachment doesn't involve the President being able to confront his accusers. Even in a Senate trial, the identity of the whistleblower would be subject to legal protections. I'm sure people remember the stereotypical mob court scene where the witness' identity is blacked out and their voice changed.

Impeachment proceedings are similar in format to a grand jury proceeding. Graham knows this so why does he feel like he can lie to Fox viewers and the American people?

--Sam

[Sam]

Reading comprehension still an issue, huh?


That, here, refers to BOTH previous sentences.

YOU are the only one to misrepresent ANYTHING.

Desperation doesn't suit you.


And then you add three paragraphs without ACTUALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

All you've got is bluster.

As you wrote it:

Step 1: Go to ICIG

Step 2: If ICIG declines to refer, go to a judge to overrule ICIG

Nowhere in ICWPA does it stipulate that a whistleblower is to take their complaint to a judge to "overrule" the ICIG's referral. They go to Congress, notifying ICIG & DNI that they're doing so.

It would be unlawful -- illegal, even -- for the whistleblower to, at any point, take a complaint containing classified information to a judge. If a whistleblower tried to sue for the complaint's release, the judge wouldn't overrule the ICIG, they'd just point out that the statute already provides the remedy: take it straight to either intelligence committee in Congress.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

Graham knows full well that impeachment doesn't involve the President being able to confront his accusers. Even in a Senate trial, the identity of the whistleblower would be subject to legal protections. I'm sure people remember the stereotypical mob court scene where the witness' identity is blacked out and their voice changed.

Impeachment proceedings are similar in format to a grand jury proceeding. Graham knows this so why does he feel like he can lie to Fox viewers and the American people?

--Sam

The Senate sets its own trial rules - or had you forgotten?

The protection from reprisal doesn't overrule the Sixth Amendment.

The House can't control the Senate - any courtesy (like extending whistle blower protection despite violation of the statute) extended by the House IS NOT BINDING on the Senate.

The removal of a duly elected President requires transparency. No, if the House brings articles, there WILL BE an open trial and the accused WILL get the chance to face his accusers. And the American people will bear witness - no stupid camera tricks; for that you have to establish a danger to the witnesses life - which seriously undermines the credibility of CIA assigned to the White House.

The Dems can't have it only their way - there had better be some sunlight soon or people are going to start smelling the Dems' rat.

[Teallaura]

As you wrote it:

Step 1: Go to ICIG

Step 2: If ICIG declines to refer, go to a judge to overrule ICIG

Nowhere in ICWPA does it stipulate that a whistleblower is to take their complaint to a judge to "overrule" the ICIG's referral. They go to Congress, notifying ICIG & DNI that they're doing so.

It would be unlawful -- illegal, even -- for the whistleblower to, at any point, take a complaint containing classified information to a judge. If a whistleblower tried to sue for the complaint's release, the judge wouldn't overrule the ICIG, they'd just point out that the statute already provides the remedy: take it straight to either intelligence committee in Congress.

--Sam

Word for word EXACT copy of my post:

Cutting out the indignant, and pretentious, bluster...


Following the law as set out in the statute. Going first to the IG exactly as stated in the statute.

IF, and only if, that fails and the whistle blower is convinced that the allegation needs to be made public, the next stop is a court. Let a judge over rule the IG - or decide not to - rather than playing self righteously stupid.


Now, what about the/these other 'whistle blowers'? Why haven't they filed complaints or come forward?

They are still hiding in the dark. Why? It's way too late to argue they fear reprisal - according (only) to you, the first one is protected by statute - so why hasn't he come forward at least?

Source
*formatting left as rendered


And the relevant portion:

Following the law as set out in the statute. Going first to the IG exactly as stated in the statute.

IF, and only if, that fails ...


Don't pull that stunt again.

[Sam]

The Senate sets its own trial rules - or had you forgotten?

The protection from reprisal doesn't overrule the Sixth Amendment.

The House can't control the Senate - any courtesy (like extending whistle blower protection despite violation of the statute) extended by the House IS NOT BINDING on the Senate.

The removal of a duly elected President requires transparency. No, if the House brings articles, there WILL BE an open trial and the accused WILL get the chance to face his accusers. And the American people will bear witness - no stupid camera tricks; for that you have to establish a danger to the witnesses life - which seriously undermines the credibility of CIA assigned to the White House.

The Dems can't have it only their way - there had better be some sunlight soon or people are going to start smelling the Dems' rat.

It's not a criminal trial, 6A protections don't come into play ... not least because the amendment opens with the clause "In all criminal prosecutions ..."

The President has already called the whistleblower a "spy" and has already referenced execution for the people involved in the complaint. We've had, what, half a dozen or more people plan or execute mass killings that they claim were based on the President's rhetoric. The legal threshold for anonymity would be met.

During the Nixon impeachment hearings, sworn depositions were utilized. Such depositions are conducted by staff and used during both impeachment hearings and Senate trials. The whistleblower has a substantial legal right to anonymity and their sworn deposition would be considered legally adequate, since their identity would be known to the ICIG and the relevant staff.

Impeachment proceedings won't depend on the whistleblower, anyway. He or she wasn't in the room for the call and the direct evidence they provided, reportedly, deals with discussions with others and documentary evidence. Documents and the testimony of already-public figures are likely to be the principal evidence in this aspect of an impeachment hearing.

--Sam

[Sam]

Word for word EXACT copy of my post:



Source
*formatting left as rendered


And the relevant portion:

Following the law as set out in the statute. Going first to the IG exactly as stated in the statute.

IF, and only if, that fails ...


Don't pull that stunt again.

Yes, first go the ICIG and then go to the court. That's what you wrote.

But the ICWPA says first go to the ICIG and then go directly to Congress. The sequence you wrote not only doesn't comport to the statute, it doesn't make sense if you're now trying to include going to Congress after the ICIG. Why go to a judge to overrule the ICIG if the whistleblower has already taken the complaint to Congress? For what?

As you wrote it, it was wrong. That happens; easy enough to brush off. As you're trying to argue it was written now, it's incoherent; does not and cannot make sense, stepwise. Better to say "I didn't know/forgot the statute had that provision" than "I meant to argue something that doesn't make any sense."

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

...one of the people Trump was calling a "spy" (and you know what we did with spies back in the good ol' days, he told the audience).

Yeah, we deported them if they were foreign and locked them up in prison if they were domestic. What did you think Trump meant?

[Teallaura]

It's not a criminal trial, 6A protections don't come into play ... not least because the amendment opens with the clause "In all criminal prosecutions ..."

...<more bluster>...

Right, right - we should just let the Dems have their little coup and not involve things like transparency and due process.

The Sixth will be applied because Graham just made it political suicide for the Senate not to. Why the heck did you think he was saying that so early?


Whatsamatta? Don't you like sunshine?

[Teallaura]

The pertinent posts:

And that none of them have come forward publicly...

Multiple new clients for Bakaj & Zaid, the attorneys representing the whistleblower.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40112[/ATTACH]

Didn't you join the argument recently that the first whistleblower probably broke the law because they talked to someone other than ICIG and didn't adhere to (a wrong interpretation of) the ICWPA?

I demonstrated reading comprehension that you were unable to do - probably because you mistook purpose for specific section in the statute. The first guy isn't a whistleblower - he isn't entitled to protection from a statute he/she violated.

So, ya got no argument against the obvious issue that two weeks in we still have no named accusers, huh? Obviously not since you attack me with your pretentiously declared victory instead of addressing the point.

Reality is beginning to set in - if no one goes on record with credible firsthand testimony this latest circus is gonna collapse, too.

The torturous reading y'all were trying to use of ICWPA has been dealt with, both in regards to the statutory context, the legislative history, and the opinion of the Trump-appointed officials in charge of enforcing the statute. Screaming against the wind on that one.

"No named accusers" is a rather absurd hill to die on when the ICIG is known and has the actual, real-life job of fielding these complaints to determine their credibility while shielding the people making the complaints from political reprisal ... say by a President who has called them traitors and spies.

The ICIG determined that the original whistleblower's complaint was both 1) credible and 2) included firsthand knowledge of elements of the complaint. Recall that the complaint contains more than just the summary transcript of Trump's call, some still classified and redacted.

At the very least, y'all need to keep yourselves in a straight line: if the first whistleblower isn't a "real" whistleblower, entitled to legal protection, because they talked about the complaint with someone that wasn't the ICIG, on what basis are you complaining that the new whistleblowers aren't making their complaints in public?

What, in your opinion, should someone with classified information of an administration's abuse be doing in this situation?

--Sam

Cutting out the indignant, and pretentious, bluster...


Following the law as set out in the statute. Going first to the IG exactly as stated in the statute.

IF, and only if, that fails and the whistle blower is convinced that the allegation needs to be made public, the next stop is a court. Let a judge over rule the IG - or decide not to - rather than playing self righteously stupid.


Now, what about the/these other 'whistle blowers'? Why haven't they filed complaints or come forward?

They are still hiding in the dark. Why? It's way too late to argue they fear reprisal - according (only) to you, the first one is protected by statute - so why hasn't he come forward at least?

Actually, the ICWPA directs that a whistleblower go to Congress, not court, with the complaint if the ICIG doesn't refer the matter up the chain. "Coming forward" (i.e., "going public") with classified information is exactly the conduct that ICWPA was created to prevent.

So often now, I'm getting my posts cropped by people complaining that it's "tripe" or "bluster" who go on to make false statements of fact. Weird!

Any road, NYT on the new whistleblower folk:

Source: Legal Team Says It Represents a Second Whistle-Blower Over Trump and Ukraine. Annie Karni. NYT. 2019.10.06

Mr. Zaid confirmed a report by the ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos on his show, “This Week,” which said the new whistle-blower had already been interviewed by the intelligence community’s inspector general’s office, but had not yet communicated with any congressional committees.

Another member of the legal team confirmed on Twitter that the firm was now representing “multiple whistleblowers” but declined to comment further.

© Copyright Original Source

One of the new persons appears to be an employee the ICIG had interviewed to determine the credibility of the first complaint -- in other words, one of the people Trump was calling a "spy" (and you know what we did with spies back in the good ol' days, he told the audience). Unclear whether that person has new information past what was previously used for corroboration or whether they'll file their own complaint.

--Sam

Reading comprehension still an issue, huh?


That, here, refers to BOTH previous sentences.

YOU are the only one to misrepresent ANYTHING.

Desperation doesn't suit you.


And then you add three paragraphs without ACTUALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

All you've got is bluster.

As you wrote it:

Step 1: Go to ICIG

Step 2: If ICIG declines to refer, go to a judge to overrule ICIG

Nowhere in ICWPA does it stipulate that a whistleblower is to take their complaint to a judge to "overrule" the ICIG's referral. They go to Congress, notifying ICIG & DNI that they're doing so.

It would be unlawful -- illegal, even -- for the whistleblower to, at any point, take a complaint containing classified information to a judge. If a whistleblower tried to sue for the complaint's release, the judge wouldn't overrule the ICIG, they'd just point out that the statute already provides the remedy: take it straight to either intelligence committee in Congress.

--Sam

Word for word EXACT copy of my post:



Source
*formatting left as rendered


And the relevant portion:

Following the law as set out in the statute. Going first to the IG exactly as stated in the statute.

IF, and only if, that fails ...


Don't pull that stunt again.

Yes, first go the ICIG and then go to the court. That's what you wrote.

But the ICWPA says first go to the ICIG and then go directly to Congress. The sequence you wrote not only doesn't comport to the statute, it doesn't make sense if you're now trying to include going to Congress after the ICIG. Why go to a judge to overrule the ICIG if the whistleblower has already taken the complaint to Congress? For what?

As you wrote it, it was wrong. That happens; easy enough to brush off. As you're trying to argue it was written now, it's incoherent; does not and cannot make sense, stepwise. Better to say "I didn't know/forgot the statute had that provision" than "I meant to argue something that doesn't make any sense."

--Sam

I am officially calling you a liar. You falsely, maliciously and intentionally misconstrued my comments despite clarification and repeated quotation.

If you feel the need to lie about what I said, what else are you lying about?

[Sam]

I am officially calling you a liar. You falsely, maliciously and intentionally misconstrued my comments despite clarification and repeated quotation.

If you feel the need to lie about what I said, what else are you lying about?

You can try, I guess.

I explained how, given what you wrote concerning the ICIG and a judge, that you were making a factual error. I'm fine accepting your clarification but I'm pointing out that it's totally incoherent: the statute already provides for IC whistleblowers to go directly to Congress. There'd be no remedy necessary for a judge to "overrule the IG". Personally, I'd rather be wrong on a correctable fact than persisting in an incoherent argument.

End of the road, the only other option would be a whistleblower goes to court to overrule the ICIG and the judge makes the complaint ... public? The judge rules that DOJ has to investigate? Both would be just as incoherent as the above.

So I don't know what you think I'm lying about but, as I'll explain more in the next post, I can't be very bothered by it.

--Sam

[Sam]

Right, right - we should just let the Dems have their little coup and not involve things like transparency and due process.

The Sixth will be applied because Graham just made it political suicide for the Senate not to. Why the heck did you think he was saying that so early?


Whatsamatta? Don't you like sunshine?

... and this is another example of why:

You wrote that Trump has the right to meet his accusers, thus necessitating the identity of the whistleblower be made public.

I responded that whistleblower protection laws would allow for anonymity to avoid retaliation.

You wrote that such protections don't "overrule the Sixth Amendment", thereby arguing that Trump has a constitutional right to face his accusers.

I responded that the Sixth Amendment applies to criminal proceedings, which impeachment is not.

Now there's another example of a factual statement (whistleblower protection laws do not overrule Trump's constitutional rights under 6A) that is in some error: Trump doesn't have 6A rights during an impeachment hearing or Senate trial. But, instead of copping to the mistake, you doubled down by arguing that the Sixth Amendment "will be applied" (that's not how constitutional amendments work, exactly!) because Graham has made it politically damaging not to do so.

The argument, you see, changed: instead of Trump's constitutional rights overriding the whistleblower's statutory protections, now you argue that the whistleblower's statutory protections can be disregarded for political expediency. It would have been easier to simply admit a mistake -- you utilized a talking point that has been widely circulated among right-wing sources for the last week but has no actual significance -- but instead have now made a bigger mistake by refusing to reassess what you said and bring it into line with a rational argument.

But someone's gonna point those problems out. And it doesn't do anyone any good to resort to calling them a liar or desperate as a defense mechanism.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

You can try, I guess.

...
--Sam

No, I proved that you are a liar. You could have reasonably misunderstood the original post - but I immediately clarified that the 'that' in the third sentence referred to both previous sentences. YOU don't get to tell ME what I meant. Stating as fact that I said something I did not say and that the inference YOU made is what I said when I demonstrated otherwise is A FLAT OUT LIE.

Dodge and distract as hard as you can - but you are a proven LIAR.

[Teallaura]

... and blah, blah, blah...

Who cares what you think, Pinocchio?

[NorrinRadd]

I demonstrated reading comprehension that you were unable to do - probably because you mistook purpose for specific section in the statute. The first guy isn't a whistleblower - he isn't entitled to protection from a statute he/she violated.
...

ISTM we need to question the Constitutionality of protections for even "real" whistleblowers. Trump was right: He has -- or at least *should* have -- the right to confront his accuser(s).