White House and DOJ recommend holding whistle blower complaint from Congress

[HumblePi]

I think it is time for the House to hold someone who fails to answer question in Contempt and put in the jail cell in the basement of the House building. A few days in therre and maybe they would start talking.

In my opinion, putting aside Corey Lewandowski's filibustering, it was his arrogance and downright nastiness to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee --and I'm sure he felt entitled to be nasty to her because she's a black woman. His shear haughtiness and sense of entitlement was like watching a gangster from the 50's being questioned by Congress. He's the kind of guy that if he sat in front of you in grammar school you'd flick one of those seams from a banana that nobody wants to eat so you peel it off then it sticks to your fingers -- yeah I'd have flicked it right on his back and let him walk the halls with that stuck to his back. :laughat: He has the kind of nasty, snotty face I'd bake a chocolate cake special for and stuff it in his face. And, I have heard him speak many times, and his pronunciation of certain words sounds like he has dentures. I'm a nurse and have heard many people with dentures and Corey sounds the same.(there's a sharp 's', almost a whistle) HAHAHA!

So for all of that nastiness, I'd kick him down to the cellar dungeon in an instant.

 

[HumblePi]

I think it is time for the House to hold someone who fails to answer question in Contempt and put in the jail cell in the basement of the House building. A few days in therre and maybe they would start talking.

Or tell him to quit the grandstanding, filibustering and arrogance or he'll spend a few nights in the same cell previously occupied by Jeffrey Epstein. I bet that would convince him to stop acting like an asshole real fast.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

In my opinion, putting aside Corey Lewandowski's filibustering, it was his arrogance and downright nastiness to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee --and I'm sure he felt entitled to be nasty to her because she's a black woman. His shear haughtiness and sense of entitlement was like watching a gangster from the 50's being questioned by Congress. He's the kind of guy that if he sat in front of you in grammar school you'd flick one of those seams from a banana that nobody wants to eat so you peel it off then it sticks to your fingers -- yeah I'd have flicked it right on his back and let him walk the halls with that stuck to his back. :laughat: He has the kind of nasty, snotty face I'd bake a chocolate cake special for and stuff it in his face. And, I have heard him speak many times, and his pronunciation of certain words sounds like he has dentures. I'm a nurse and have heard many people with dentures and Corey sounds the same.(there's a sharp 's', almost a whistle) HAHAHA!

So for all of that nastiness, I'd kick him down to the cellar dungeon in an instant.

That's the guy who was cheating on his wife with Hope Hicks.

 

[haymarket]

That's the guy who was cheating on his wife with Hope Hicks.

Sounds like a paragon of Christian values. :doh:roll:

 

[jet57]

Just maybe if the left wasn't so filled with fake news every day, you might get some attention. After crying wolf hundreds of times, day in and day out, nobody believes this crap anymore.

Thats what you get for constantly crying and whining over an election from two and a half years ago.

We don't buy the fake outrage anymore.

You know you’re just gaslighting right?

The report is absolutely true and you know it.

 

[HAL9000]

You are obviously way out of your pay grade on this. EVERYTHING a president says to his administration or employees of the White House is executive privilege.

The rest of your comments are just opinion and Liberal talking points. You are not entitled to anything so its better you just get over it.

You don't get to know everything the president discusses
You don't get to question his executive privilege
You don't get to question his interns
You don't get to oversee anything he does
You don't get to have your way just because you think your entitled to.

If you want to make a change, go vote or live with the consequences. Thats as simple as it gets.

America voted, Trump won, and there isn't thing one you can do about it so wouldn't it be better if you concentrate your efforts on something in your control?

The president can't invoke executive privilege on information that he already waived executive privilege on.

For example, the president waived executive privilege by McGahn testify to Mueller. Having done so, he can no longer assert executive privilege over the issues that McGahn discussed with Mueller.

US v. Nixon 1974

4. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e.g., 5 U. S. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 211. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution. Pp. 418 U. S. 703-707.

Committee on Judiciary v. Miers(2008)

Thus, it would hardly be unprecedented for Ms. Miers to appear before Congress to testify and assert executive privilege where appropriate. Still, it is noteworthy that in an environment where there is no judicial support whatsoever for the Executive's claim of absolute immunity, the historical record also does not reflect the wholesale compulsion by Congress of testimony from senior presidential advisors that the Executive fears.

Significantly, although the Supreme Court has established that the President is absolutely immune from civil suits arising out of his official actions, even the President may not be absolutely immune from compulsory process more generally. In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court held that the President is entitled only to a presumptive privilege that can be overcome by the requisite demonstration of need. 418 U.S. at 707-08. There, the Supreme Court indicated that "an absolute, unqualified privilege would place [an impediment] in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions . . . [and] would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III." Id. at 707. Seizing on that passage, the Executive insists that this case is distinguishable because it does not involve a core function of another constituent branch but rather a peripheral exercise of Congress's power. That is mistaken. As discussed above, Congress's power of inquiry is as broad as its power to legislate and lies at the very heart of Congress's constitutional role. Indeed, the former is necessary to the proper exercise of the latter: according to the Supreme Court, the ability to compel testimony is "necessary to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures."Bryan, 339 U.S. at 331, 70 S.Ct. 724 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress's use of (and need for vindication of) its subpoena power in this case is no less legitimate or important than was the grand jury's in United States v. Nixon. Both involve core functions of a co-equal branch of the federal government, and for the reasons identified in Nixon, the President may only be entitled to a presumptive, rather than an absolute, privilege here. And it is certainly the case that if the President is entitled only to a presumptive privilege, his close advisors cannot hold the superior card of absolute immunity.

 

[beefheart]

Just maybe if the left wasn't so filled with fake news every day, you might get some attention. After crying wolf hundreds of times, day in and day out, nobody believes this crap anymore.

Thats what you get for constantly crying and whining over an election from two and a half years ago.

We don't buy the fake outrage anymore.

Simple question: If it is determined that Trump has engaged in criminal behavior and is proven, will you support Trump for doing it?

Yes or No. No other answer will be accepted.

 

[Condor060]

Simple question: If it is determined that Trump has engaged in criminal behavior and is proven, will you support Trump for doing it?

Yes or No. No other answer will be accepted.

I would support putting him in jail and watching his personal empire and fortune burn to the ground.

 

[Condor060]

The president can't invoke executive privilege on information that he already waived executive privilege on.

For example, the president waived executive privilege by McGahn testify to Mueller. Having done so, he can no longer assert executive privilege over the issues that McGahn discussed with Mueller.

Agreed

 

[HumblePi]

So what law is being broken.
The president has a right to speak to foreign leaders.

i swear leftist invent new laws that don't exist anywhere.

diplomatic communications belong to the executive office.
reagan did it, clinton did it, bush x2 and obama did it all the time.

so another faux outrage by people.

Of course the president has the right to speak to anyone, friend or foe to the US. It's not even illegal for him to make promises like, "you give me Siberia and I'll buy your Russian oil" Even that's not illegal. Trump has a great amount of latitude as to what he promises. But this is different and I'll explain why it is. This whistle blower is an experienced, well-trained employee of the Dept of National Intelligence. They hear conversations from everyone including the president every day and in addition to hearing there is a transcript, a historical transcript of every conversation with a foreign government that Trump has in the Oval Office while officially representing this country. The whistle blower heard something that alarmed him/her evidently because the inspector general had determined it to be credible and a matter of “urgent concern.”

That's downright frightening to even conceptualize what could possibly cause this whistle blower and the inspector general to alert Congress that this was something so serious that it was classified as an 'urgent concern'. No director of national intelligence has ever refused to turn over a whistle-blower complaint. Joseph Maguire testified that he couldn't turn over the report because he was instructed not to by DOJ Attorney General Barr.

 

[SheWolf]

no he didn't.
Mueller inadvertently confirms William Barr didn't misrepresent the special counsel's report

That is an opinion piece. It clearly says so. Epic fail

 

[Helix]

More obstruction.

 

[Condor060]

You know you’re just gaslighting right?

The report is absolutely true and you know it.

You have no clue whats in the report, you have no clue what the report is about, you have no clue who the whistle blower is, but it's all true?

Now thats pretty funny, and you accuse me a gaslighting?

 

[HumblePi]

That's the guy who was cheating on his wife with Hope Hicks.

Yeah that's quite unbelievable. I'll bet Hope Hicks regretted that at the moment his five minutes was finished.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The Trump voters who claimed they were Law ans Order folks are just a bunch of liars.

 

[JackA]

Have to agree with GOPers on this one.

As we all know by now, Trump’s promises don’t mean a thing.

 

[noonereal]

Just maybe if the left wasn't so filled with fake news every day, you might get some attention. After crying wolf hundreds of times, day in and day out, nobody believes this crap anymore.

Thats what you get for constantly crying and whining over an election from two and a half years ago.

We don't buy the fake outrage anymore.

Absolutely.... there are no words

What the **** is wrong with you people?

Time for the "normal" Americans to immigrate to another country as did many Germans as Hitler rose.

 

[noonereal]

When is the Republican Party finally going to stand up to this?

Robert Mueller said he didn’t clear Trump of obstruction, and his report contained over 30 examples of obstruction. Trump is corrupt and an obstructionist, and he isn’t going to stop. The DOJ is simply functioning to protect Trump and has been politically corrupted by Trump.

WTF is the GOP doing?

The GOP has turned on America.

 

[OscarLevant]

I do not recall Mr. Mueller stating the report that his team prepared was NOT the report that was actually published by the government.

what I meant was that two Trump appointees found "No Obstruction", which defies where Mueller stated that his report does NOT exonerate Trump on the matter of obstruction, and gave 10 clear cut cases of obstruction, which consensus has it that at least four of them will hold up in court.

 

[OscarLevant]

no he didn't.
Mueller inadvertently confirms William Barr didn't misrepresent the special counsel's report

That's a technical point, and I realize repubs like to extrapolate that into something he does not intend to mean, because the truth was that he was in no mood to strike up a fight with his boss, and I note that repubs seem to be ignoring the very abundantly clear that the report does NOT exonerate Trump on the matter of obstruction. If that were not true, he would not have gone out of his way to put that in the report.

The point is, he can more or less accept that his boss is not going to prosecute Trump, but he is definitely holding the door open for Congress to impeach, should they choose to.

 

[OscarLevant]

Neither you or Congress has the right to invade a presidents executive privilege. Its there for a reason no matter who (Democrat or Republican) is president. Once you do it one time, it will be on forever with every president that comes into office.

How would you like it if a DA could invade your attorney client privilege. Now you can't even discuss your case our how best to defend yourself because your attorney could testify against you.

Before Trump came into office this was never even discussed before. Its a stupid notion to even discuss it.

A cop is not invading your right to drive on the road when he gives you a ticket, you can still drive on the road.

NO ONE is invading Trump's executive privilege, as long as all the rules are followed, and given that Trump is not above the law, there is the whistleblower law, as well.

If there is privilege, the substance of the complaint will be kept confidential. You do know that Schiff has a security clearance to observe confidential matters, which is necessary for his role as overseer of the executive branch.

The right seems to think we have a king. We do not.

 

[OscarLevant]

No it isn't.

White House also involved in advising DNI not share to whistleblower complaint - CNNPolitics

"I have requested authorization from the Acting DNI to disclose, at the very least, the general subject matter of the Complainant's allegations to the congressional intelligence committees," he wrote. "To date, however, I have not been authorized to disclose even that basic information to you."
But the inspector general insisted the matter was very relevant to those who have oversight of intelligence.
"The Complainant's disclosure not only falls within the DNI's jurisdiction, but relates to one of the most significant and important of the DNI's responsibilities to the American people," Atkinson wrote.

as i said you guys just make up whatever crap you want and you are not correct.
but don't let facts stop you they haven't yet.

Seems to me that the IG is siding with Schiff. I think you read it wrong. Last time I checked, Schiff is head of the Congressional Intel Committee.

It seems to me like Atkinson is saying "I submitted it to Schiff because intel is his turf, and he has oversight, but the WH is blocking me".

 

[jet57]

You have no clue whats in the report, you have no clue what the report is about, you have no clue who the whistle blower is, but it's all true?

Now thats pretty funny, and you accuse me a gaslighting?

We know who the whitsle blower is and he's been ordered by Trump not to talk.

I suspect that Trump told somebody that we'd send troops somewhere... It's all gonna come out so get you crow eating shoes on.

 

[ludin]

Of course the president has the right to speak to anyone, friend or foe to the US. It's not even illegal for him to make promises like, "you give me Siberia and I'll buy your Russian oil" Even that's not illegal. Trump has a great amount of latitude as to what he promises. But this is different and I'll explain why it is. This whistle blower is an experienced, well-trained employee of the Dept of National Intelligence. They hear conversations from everyone including the president every day and in addition to hearing there is a transcript, a historical transcript of every conversation with a foreign government that Trump has in the Oval Office while officially representing this country. The whistle blower heard something that alarmed him/her evidently because the inspector general had determined it to be credible and a matter of “urgent concern.”

Not really. From the sounding of it out of the hundreds of people that heard or new about the conversations no one else thought it was an issue.
sounds like another deep state attack against the president since all of the people have failed. *yawn*
but get excited for more anonymous sources which have worked out so well for you so far.
these leftists are like lemmings all you need to is point an anonymous source and they will dive off a cliff.

That's downright frightening to even conceptualize what could possibly cause this whistle blower and the inspector general to alert Congress that this was something so serious that it was classified as an 'urgent concern'. No director of national intelligence has ever refused to turn over a whistle-blower complaint. Joseph Maguire testified that he couldn't turn over the report because he was instructed not to by DOJ Attorney General Barr.

not really

 

[ludin]

That's a technical point, and I realize repubs like to extrapolate that into something he does not intend to mean, because the truth was that he was in no mood to strike up a fight with his boss, and I note that repubs seem to be ignoring the very abundantly clear that the report does NOT exonerate Trump on the matter of obstruction. If that were not true, he would not have gone out of his way to put that in the report.

The point is, he can more or less accept that his boss is not going to prosecute Trump, but he is definitely holding the door open for Congress to impeach, should they choose to.

it isn't a technical point at all. it is called facts.
mueller gave no opinion trump is innocent until proven guilty.

since mueller gave no opinion it means that trump is innocent.
more so since barr and rosenstien both cleared him of any wrong doing.

you can't seem to get this through your head.

sure it would because mueller was playing politics.
mueller gave no opinion on the obstruction charges.

which means he defers to his boss which was rosenstien.
rosenstien and barr both found that there was not enough evidence
for an obstruction charge.