***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Also, based on my reading of the relevant statute, it appears the whistleblower can’t go directly to Congress in this situation.

The statute does provide one pathway for an IC whistleblower to go directly to Congress but only if the IC Inspector General determined the complaint wasn’t credible.
In this case he determined it was both credible and of urgent concern, thus that option can’t be invoked.
The Inspector General has no authority to disclose the content of the complaint to Congress either.

If the whistleblower were to go to Congress, I assume Barr’s DOJ would prosecute him/her.

It seems like a deeply flawed law as the whole thing relies on the DNI turning over the complaint rather than withholding it in violation of the statute.
 
Last edited:
Can't wait to release Coal Gang's holiday cards with Belgium Belgium in Black face aka Coal Lotion.
giphy.gif

Bruh :lol: :rofl:
 
giphy.gif

https://globalnews.ca/news/5922861/justin-trudeau-brownface-video/

They found another video of Trudeau in black face.

Dear osh kosh bosh osh kosh bosh , one question....


The reality is Imma vote liberal even if he shoes up to the next debate with a shaved head, the number 23 taped to his chest and his entire body covered in shoe polish and introduced himself as "Michael Jordan"

I just don't care all that much about these personal racism things that get white progressives all hot and bothered. :lol:
 


He is not equipped mentally or intellectually to deal with foreign leaders, or any people in power. There is a reason he isn't truly a successful businessman. He bullies, steals, cons, and gets bailed out by his daddy and corrupt oligarchs. He's an embarrassment.

The Onion predicted this FOUR MONTHS AGO:



:smh:



Then let the whistleblower complaint get through and prove they're lying. I get the sycophants and corrupt amdin members going along with this, but how can a real supporter see this and say it's ok? If you're being honest why block him?
 
Last edited:
Here is the statute I mentioned earlier that allows for an IC whistleblower to go directly to Congress. As you can see though, it can't apply in this current whistleblower case because the Inspector General did find it credible.
In other words, the whistleblower can't legally take the complaint to Congress and the Inspector General simply has no authority to disclose it to Congress.
As long as the Acting DNI continues violating the law under protection by Barr's DOJ, there doesn't appear to be any legal means of disclosing the whistleblower complaint to Congress.
The whistleblower would certainly be prosecuted if he/she did go directly to Congress.
The IC Inspector General presumably could also face some type of prosecution if he did so.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(D)
3b242f00ef3d3d0c5fe67af6f66c5a0a.png


This is the statute the Acting DNI is violating. The word "shall" is by no means ambiguous but Barr's DOJ has ignored that in other areas. One example is the statute that says the Treasury Secretary "shall furnish" any return or return information to the Committee On Ways And Means, Committee On Finance, or Joint Committee On Taxation upon receiving a written request from a committee chairman.
The DOJ under Barr ignored the word "shall" and instead invented another requirement (the request needs to have a valid legislative purpose) to avoid complying.
50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(C)
6a8c999876761d59c9eb84cd0fcfd881.png
 
Last edited:
Jake Tapper obtained a second letter the IC Inspector General, who is a Trump appointee by the way, sent to Congress regarding Maguire's withholding of the whistleblower complaint. It's dated September 17.
In the letter he refutes the arguments used by Acting DNI Maguire and the DOJ to unlawfully withhold the complaint. He requested authorization to disclose at least some basic details so he could better explain his disagreement with the position of Maguire and the DOJ but Maguire refused. The DOJ says the complaint does not concern any intelligence activity under the supervision of the DNI, the IC Inspector General says he particularly disagrees with that conclusion. In fact, he says the complaint not only does fall within the DNI's jurisdiction but also that it concerns one of the DNI's most significant and important responsibilities.

He also points to the gap in the law that I pointed out earlier on this page.
Addtionally, he says the actions of the Acting DNI and the DOJ are interfering with his statutory responsibilities to keep the Intel Committees informed of "significant problems and deficiencies relating to programs and activities within the responsibility of the [DNI]."


Clearly something very serious is going on here.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...g_second_letter_to_hpsci_on_whistleblower.pdf
f5f4a115e93c794c4644c995199ee70b.png

024efc9ae4b4b3a059552aef0f784a14.png

0c90470206e73b14016f858781669baa.png

74160a2e1b0c10628ae55378e63106e5.png

303f3a51629224e5caeea0d1ac3dc5f3.png


Edit: NYT is now reporting that the Inspector General told Congress that the complaint involves a series of multiple acts, not just one communication Trump had with a foreign leader that involved a "promise" of some sort as the Washington Post reported earlier.
 
Last edited:
So what do we think this whole thing is. Russia or saudis?
I'm not sure how it would fit in the jurisdiction of the DNI or how it would relate to "one of the most significant and important responsibilities of the DNI" but we also know that Giuliani was recently pressuring Ukraine's president into investigating Trump's political opponents. Trump had a call with president Zelensky on July 25 and later held up a $250m military aid package to Ukraine for some time, though he eventually approved it after bipartisan pressure from Congress.
The whistleblower complaint was filed on August 12 but we don't know when the timeframe of the series of multiple acts.


Edit: Actually, pressuring a foreign government into investigating political opponents would probably be considered election interference, which would put it under the DNI's jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom