- In making the request, Mr. Trump was in effect asking the Australian government to investigate itself. The F.B.I.’s counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election began after Australian officials told the bureau that the Russian government had made overtures to the Trump campaign about releasing political damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
Australian officials shared that information after its top official in Britain met in London in May 2016 with George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser who told the Australian about the Russian dirt on Mrs. Clinton.
Probably another leak of a Trump conversation stored on the "super secure" national security server. If I had to guess, we're only a few days from learning that Putin himself has been stoking Trump's belief in Ukrainian-based conspiracy theories during many of their private conversations. And eventually, we'll probably find that Giuliani has been fed bogus information by Ukrainian FSB/GRU field agents in an effort to lead Trump on further. In case it wasn't clear, this entire paragraph is mostly speculation and prediction, and I definitely concede that I could be very wrong. We'll see!
What is more certain: Seeding destabilization and distrust of our government is Russia's endgame. We must remove Trump and try to unify the country. Which is why it hurts so badly when Trump retweets some lunatic's rant about a civil war erupting should Trump be impeached. And then calls the lead investigator of the impeachment proceedings a traitor. And then broadcasts that he is actively trying to root out the whistleblower, who is protected under whistleblower laws from retaliation.
---
UPDATE:
Barr personally asked foreign officials to aid inquiry into CIA, FBI activities in 2016
- Attorney General William P. Barr has held private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials seeking their help in a Justice Department inquiry that President Trump hopes will discredit U.S. intelligence agencies’ examination of possible connections between Russia and members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, according to people familiar with the matter.
...
The attorney general’s active role also underscores the degree to which a nearly three-year old election still consumes significant resources and attention inside the federal government. Current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials expressed frustration and alarm Monday that the head of the Justice Department was taking such a direct role in re-examining what they view as conspiracy theories and baseless allegations of misconduct.
I'm not sure that there's technically any illegal conduct on Barr's part, here, but it's at the very least alarming to coordinate with foreign governments to investigate the actions of the branch of government you supposedly control. What will certainly matter is whether or not Barr saw his name in the July 25th Trump-Zelensky transcript before the DOJ decided to keep the whistleblower complaint from Congress.
It will be necessary and interesting for the impeachment inquiry to pursue Trump's motivations behind re-investigating the origins of the Mueller probe, but shy of a recording of him saying that he wants to discredit the Mueller report's findings (or worse?), I don't expect Republicans to be open to the suggestion that it's improper, in any way. And it's sad that I'm framing things in those terms, but at least if documentation or corroborated testimonies come out that Trump held up Ukrainian military aid with the intent to leverage it for the Biden investigation, I think that might finally be enough to do Trump in.
Does anyone know if Trump-style NDAs are rendered null if one party commits serious crimes? I'm guessing there's no such clause?
---
UPDATE #2:
The ICIG has just issued a "stfu" to two White House talking points; The first is the dismissal of the whistleblower's complaint based on the claim that it contained "only second-hand knowledge", and the second is a response to a falsehood espoused by Trump this morning, claiming that the intel community whistleblower rules were changed "...JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT":
- ...Consistent with the law, the new forms do not require whistleblowers to possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern.
In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower’s filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress’s intent, and the whistleblower’s intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.
kleinbl00, yes, certainly, the IC's sourness on Trump has at long last unmistakably putrefied.
Mutherfucker is colluding with foreign governments to interfere in the election. We are legit at "obvious example of high crimes & misdemeanors for civics 101 class" impeachment proceedings. Last night Jon Oliver made the point that "this time is different" because it's (A) the president (B) doing something obviously illegal (C) for personal gain. That's it. That's the whole enchilada. And because everyone is an "acting" something, and any career guys have been taillights for a year or more, nobody has had the sense to go "when this gets out we're gonna fry unless we do something sensible." Somebody on Twitter pointed out that John Bolton is a nightmare, but he's a career nightmare. He's been like an off-brand Kissinger for 20 years. And when Bolton got shown the door, he had every reason to burn the mutherfucker down. “Let all the poison that lurks in the mud, hatch out.” Robert Graves, I, ClaudiusI'm not sure that there's any illegal conduct on Barr's part, here.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with this perspective, but I don't know that it can be proven in impeachment and/or criminal proceedings. Maybe we'll get multiple testimonies that are compelling enough to establish that intent, but I dunno. Until I hear that a handful of White House aides didn't come into work and cannot be reached for comment, I'm not holding my breath. Barry Zuckercorn, who works in the OLC, has basically been caught shredding evidence already. (he's very good) Edit: What's crazy about theHill.com right now is that there's so obviously a campaign to push John Solomon's old "scoops" on Ukraine into the top rankings. It happens right after they're first published, too. They're all in the "opinion" section. Every single one. I've been reading a few of them, spread out over months, because it's absolutely fantastic to hear so many re-hashings of the same plot, in which the Deep State lied, and only Solomon's unnamed sources can be trusted. At the least, the complexity of the story he's woven is respectable, but Comey was supposed to be arrested about eight times by now. McCabe, too, and Strojk. Everyone who isn't a Trump loyalist. It's so unhinged that sometimes I wonder if The Hill isn't partnered with somebody in the IC as a honeypot.Mutherfucker is colluding with foreign governments to interfere in the election.
"Proven" is a whole 'nuther thing in impeachment. It's a parliamentary procedure, not a legal judgement. 51% of the house has to say "we think think this guy oughtta be impeached" and then 66% of the senate has to say "ayup, fucker's outta here." They can do that over, oh, whether he lied about banging an intern or unlawfully fired a cabinet minister or anything at all, really. Impeachment is not "if the glove does not fit you must acquit" it's "67 senators are sick of your face."
Oh, I'm painfully familiar with the mechanics of impeachment. Apparently, I'm muuuuuuch more familiar with it than my mom, despite her having lived through two, and during Bill's, she was very much an adult. It was funny to point out to her that migrants naturalizing here probably have a better understanding of our government than she does. At least, I thought it was funny. Hey don't give them ideas for chantsglove does not fit you must acquit