Whistle blower Identified?

[Erik Nelson]

If, after Giuliani reportedly told Trump about the things Lutsenko stated about Ukraine, Trump had gone to Barr and asked for an investigation into those allegations, Trump would have done the right thing. But, he didn't.

You could even argue if Trump had officially appointed a US government envoy to Ukraine -- though he'd likely still need to get Barr to open and investigation, and get Giuliani onboard as an independent prosecutor on the case -- then he arguably would have been fine.

But no, Trump never tells Barr, he never opens any official US investigation. Instead, despite the fact that he claimed he'd have Barr call, he only ever sends his personal attorney doing a private investigation -- never even telling US law enforcement what he's found, what he's doing in Ukraine, etc. Yes, this is corrupt and illegal, particularly since it is against a rival candidate for the Presidency.

It isn't that he asked, it is how he did it, and the things he didn't do. Particularly the fact, if there was no whistleblower, we still likely wouldn't have heard much about Trump's investigation. My guess is Trump was wanting to sit on this information, keep it secret, and only announce it at a key point of the campaign -- maybe hopefully right after Biden accepted the Democratic nomination -- then give it to Barr to open an official US investigation. Granted, that is speculation on my part but it is not unfounded, not when Trump was keeping that investigation completely hidden from US law enforcement.



No, everyone else understands that what the President is alleged to have done is wrong, if not illegal.



No, we don't have the right to know "allegations." As I've mentioned, there are reasons investigations are held in private, and police rarely state who the suspects are. Part of that is to protect the reputation of the innocent, until they feel they have the evidence to charge people with a crime.

I've stated that I have no issue with Biden being investigated, multiple times. I personally don't care for Biden and hope the Democrats do not nominate him; I'm not a Democrat.



I'm not sure why that would matter, that seems to be off topic.

(Since this is too long, I'll continue in my next post)

Trump never took anything to Barr because he didn't have time to get anything

You acknoweldge how this would have played out?

1. Giuliani meets with Zelensky & aides, as invited on explicit request
2. information is shared, evaluated
3. pertinent information is prepared for AG Barr

We never got to step 3 because of the "WB complaint".

Nipped the investigation in the bud?

 

[SimplyMe]

From your timeline:

April 2014 – Hunter Biden joins Ukrainian firm Burisma

Joe Biden’s younger son, Hunter Biden, joins the board of Burisma Holdings, the largest private oil and gas extracting company in Ukraine, controlled by founder Mykola Zlochevskiy, who had served as a Cabinet minister under former pro-Russian Presidents Leonid Kuchma and Yanukovych. Both administrations had been suspected of corruption, and once they were ousted, successor administrations pledging reforms targeted previous officials, including Zlochevskiy, for investigation. Allegations against Zlochevskiy center on the funding schemes he used to form the company in 2002. But cases against him stall in each instance.

An American business partner of Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, also joins the board. The company issues a press release about the Biden appointment in May (see below). The appointment draws criticism for the potential perception of a conflict of interest with Vice President Biden’s role as the White House’s point man on Ukraine. News reports later in 2014 reveal that Hunter Biden had been discharged from the Navy in February for testing positive for cocaine (clearly just months before the Burisma board appointment).​

So, you acknowledge, that the VP's son:

• had an expensive drug habit
• received a lucrative board appointment, from a foreign firm, under his father's oversight

?

No quid pro quo?

Absolutely cannot read into that any appearance of impropriety?

None whatsoever?

No story?

Move along, move along?

(So glad the United States is such a secure nation -- don't try to pull nothin' on them Americanos, they'll spot you lightyears away)

Again, I keep stating that I have no issue with the Biden's being investigated. Beyond that, it is nothing more than a distraction from what Trump did. Trump has been in office for three years, he could have started an investigation at any time; yet he doesn't even think about it, apparently, until Biden announces his candidacy for President.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Zelensky has preferred dealing through Giuliani from before the 25 July call:

About July 19, 2019 — Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelenskyy, reportedly asks Volker to help him make contact with Giuliani. On July 19, Volker sends a text message to Giuliani saying, “Mr. Mayor—really enjoyed breakfast this morning. As discussed, connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky.”

Yermak speaks with Giuliani for the first time by phone. They discuss the Trump-Giuliani demands for investigations and the new Ukrainian leader’s desire for a White House meeting to affirm continued U.S. support for Ukraine. “Mr. Giuliani in television appearances over the summer had repeatedly singled out Ukraine over corruption, putting pressure on Mr. Zelensky’s new administration. Yermak called Mr. Giuliani to ask him to tone it down, according to a person familiar with the call. Mr. Giuliani in response suggested that Ukraine investigate Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma,” the Wall Street Journal reports (on Sept. 26).
​

A week later, on the 25th, the President said "AG [Barr]" and Zelensky countered "Giuliani"

​

For whatever reason, Zelensky was never (yet) comfortable dealing with the AG. He was only comfortable dealing "back-channel" thru Giuliani.

Back-channel negotiations saved the world from nuclear war about this time 57 years ago?

Since when since then did the POTUS lose their back-channel option?

President Trump did not bypass AG Barr -- the preliminary back-channel look-see never got that far

Trump is being condemned for a crime he wasn't given time to commit [which means he didn't commit it]

 

[Erik Nelson]

Again, I keep stating that I have no issue with the Biden's being investigated. Beyond that, it is nothing more than a distraction from what Trump did. Trump has been in office for three years, he could have started an investigation at any time; yet he doesn't even think about it, apparently, until Biden announces his candidacy for President.

You toss around the term "POTUS" like it's nothing

Yes. exactly. Biden. enters. a. whole. new. ballgame. when. he. announces. his. candidacy. for. POTUS.

whole new (higher) level of scrutiny

you like the sound of that, yes?

You are condemning the POTUS, for not wasting precious POTUS time, investigating Biden, years before he makes himself a POTUS-level priority?

Biden announces his candidacy for POTUS, and that "mysteriously surprisingly huh? what?" affects other peoples' priorities?

 

[SimplyMe]

Apples & oranges

Your timeline says Lutsenko re-opened investigations into "Biden-Burisma" in March 2019, Hunter quit the board in April 2019 as his father announced his candidacy, and Lutsenko cleared the Bidens in May 2019

Acknowledged.

Now please acknowledge, "Lutsenko's complaints" are about Ukraine-based interference into the 2016 elections

Two (2) issues here:

1. Biden-Burisma
2. Ukraine election meddling

Um -- Biden-Burisma has zero to do with the 2016 elections. Though it is interesting that you can't seem to believe that Biden is innocent, yet suddenly you admit that Lutsenko has stated there is nothing there. So how many investigations into the Bidens are you wanting? And why was it so important to the President to start yet another one?

Additionally, Trump (through AG Barr) started an investigation into the 2016 election already -- being led by Special Prosecutor Durham. Odd that Trump never mentioned Durham, or helping Durham, on the phone call.

It is also fascinating how Trump does not care about Russia's meddling in our 2016 election, he actually apparently told Russian emissaries that in an Oval Office meeting. Yet, for some reason, he suddenly cares about interference that allegedly came from the Ukraine (which appears to not be based in fact, but is a popular conspiracy theory among the Far Right). Am I to believe this is for any other reason than he wants to dig up dirt on Democrats -- particularly since he waited until 2019 to start looking?

 

[SimplyMe]

Zelensky has preferred dealing through Giuliani from before the 25 July call:

About July 19, 2019 — Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelenskyy, reportedly asks Volker to help him make contact with Giuliani. On July 19, Volker sends a text message to Giuliani saying, “Mr. Mayor—really enjoyed breakfast this morning. As discussed, connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky.”

Yermak speaks with Giuliani for the first time by phone. They discuss the Trump-Giuliani demands for investigations and the new Ukrainian leader’s desire for a White House meeting to affirm continued U.S. support for Ukraine. “Mr. Giuliani in television appearances over the summer had repeatedly singled out Ukraine over corruption, putting pressure on Mr. Zelensky’s new administration. Yermak called Mr. Giuliani to ask him to tone it down, according to a person familiar with the call. Mr. Giuliani in response suggested that Ukraine investigate Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma,” the Wall Street Journal reports (on Sept. 26).
​

A week later, on the 25th, the President said "AG [Barr]" and Zelensky countered "Giuliani"

View attachment 266018
​

For whatever reason, Zelensky was never (yet) comfortable dealing with the AG. He was only comfortable dealing "back-channel" thru Giuliani.

Back-channel negotiations saved the world from nuclear war about this time 57 years ago?

Since when since then did the POTUS lose their back-channel option?

President Trump did not bypass AG Barr -- the preliminary back-channel look-see never got that far

Trump is being condemned for a crime he wasn't given time to commit [which means he didn't commit it]

As I've pointed out previously, to be a "back channel" Trump has to appoint him as an envoy. We have no evidence Trump ever did and Giuliani states he was in Ukraine as a private citizen, not as an envoy. We also know there was no US investigation -- something that needs to occur before the government starts an investigation into a US citizen.

 

[Bobber]

But no, Trump never tells Barr, he never opens any official US investigation. Instead, despite the fact that he claimed he'd have Barr call, he only ever sends his personal attorney doing a private investigation -- never even telling US law enforcement what he's found, what he's doing in Ukraine, etc. Yes, this is corrupt and illegal, particularly since it is against a rival candidate for the Presidency.

But this is and always will remain speculative. Can it be proved Biden's name was mentioned for the reason Biden was to be a candidate for the Presidency? Why can't it equally be considered for only the motive of to see what all actually took place to cause problems in the 2016 election NOT 2020?
Is it not one of the President's chief responsibilities to do whatever possible to protect foreign intrusion into an election?

And you argue the President can't send his personal attorney to do work? What about the right of the President to send forth an individual that can be considered a special envoy. History reveals other Presidents did this as well. About a Special Envoy below,

"AMONG all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens. He may give them such rank and title as seem appropriate to the tasks; these designations may be ambassador, commissioner, agent, delegate; or he may assign no title at all. He may send his agents to any place on earth that he thinks desirable and give them instructions either by word of mouth, or in writing, or through the Department of State, or in any other manner that seems to him fitted to the occasion."

The Special Envoy

Notice it didn't say it had to be through the Department of State....but could be.

 

[SimplyMe]

Trump never took anything to Barr because he didn't have time to get anything

You acknoweldge how this would have played out?

1. Giuliani meets with Zelensky & aides, as invited on explicit request
2. information is shared, evaluated
3. pertinent information is prepared for AG Barr

We never got to step 3 because of the "WB complaint".

Nipped the investigation in the bud?

Trump doesn't need to "take anything to Barr," the President is not an investigator.

Again, if the President felt Biden needed to be investigated he should call AG Barr. AG Barr can check to see what, if any, prior investigations have been done and what leads they might have. Barr can then assign it to investigators, or even appoint an Independent Prosecutor -- to keep it from looking like a political "witch hunt." Barr (or the person assigned) then finds evidence and decides if charges are warranted.

Your steps are not how the justice system works. And, again, they had plenty of information to turn over to Barr in March. Giuliani was allegedly extremely excited about what he'd found. The fact that they didn't go to Barr then, when they had something that appeared to be solid evidence, is a good indication that they were never planning to take this to Barr.

 

[SimplyMe]

But this is and always will remain speculative. Can it be proved Biden's name was mentioned for the reason Biden was to be a candidate for the Presidency? Why can't it equally be considered for only the motive of to see what all actually took place to cause problems in the 2016 election NOT 2020?

Except Biden had nothing to do with the 2016 election, beyond the fact that he was the outgoing Vice President. He did not run in 2016, he was not on any campaign staff, etc.

Is it not one of the President's chief responsibilities to do whatever possible to protect foreign intrusion into an election?

I once thought that but Trump seemingly has no interest in election interference by foreign powers, or at least didn't prior to Ukraine. He told the Russians, allegedly in an Oval Office meeting, that he did not care about the Russians interfering in US elections. He's routinely blocked any attempts to try and better secure our elections, including initially refusing to put sanctions on Russia that were passed by unanimous votes in the House and Senate. He has even stated he believes Putin over our own intelligence services.

And you argue the President can't send his personal attorney to do work? What about the right of the President to send forth an individual that can be considered a special envoy. History reveals other Presidents did this as well. About a Special Envoy below,

"AMONG all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens. He may give them such rank and title as seem appropriate to the tasks; these designations may be ambassador, commissioner, agent, delegate; or he may assign no title at all. He may send his agents to any place on earth that he thinks desirable and give them instructions either by word of mouth, or in writing, or through the Department of State, or in any other manner that seems to him fitted to the occasion."

The Special Envoy

Notice it didn't say it had to be through the Department of State....but could be.

You are correct that the President can appoint a special envoy -- but he does need to appoint him to be an official representative of the President. He has not done that for Giuliani, who has stated he was working as a private citizen. I'll be interested to see what is in the texts between Giuliani and the State Department, when they are released (allegedly next week).

 

[Bobber]

It is also fascinating how Trump does not care about Russia's meddling in our 2016 election, he actually apparently told Russian emissaries that in an Oval Office meeting.

Sorry but it's actually fascination that you would consider that the President would have to be totally upfront of what his true intentions were with the Russians talking to Russians. You can't imagine that he wouldn't with good reason be totally candid with them in this regard?

Am I to believe this is for any other reason than he wants to dig up dirt on Democrats -- particularly since he waited until 2019 to start looking?

Yes I would suggest you should consider it. 2019 is only 1 years from the next election and it wouldn't be strange to consider he wanted to start working on this issue now to ensure it doesn't happen again. Now even if you struggle to accept this the basics of law have it one is innocent unless proven guilty. So are you really in favour of seeing a President impeached on that which is obscure and speculative? Who will be the next President who is found guilty of such low bar evidence and do you really think that's good for the country?

 

[Erik Nelson]

 

[Erik Nelson]

Obama wire tapped Trump -- digging up dirt?

Whole impeachment process simultaneously interferes in both the 2016 election (by challenging the results) and the 2020 election

 

[Erik Nelson]

 

[Erik Nelson]

You are correct that the President can appoint a special envoy -- but he does need to appoint him to be an official representative of the President. He has not done that for Giuliani, who has stated he was working as a private citizen. I'll be interested to see what is in the texts between Giuliani and the State Department, when they are released (allegedly next week).

that would only happen after something substantive was acquired, yes?

so, by all appearances, despite all this looking into things, nothing which can be officially formally at law pinned on Biden has been found?

And has the President made any specific allegations?

IOW:

• where there's smoke there's fire
• there's obvious smoke around the Biden-Burisma connection
• some digging's been done
• nothing actionable has been found
• nothing specific has been alleged
• no official filing with the AG has been bothered to be made

No harm no foul? You cannot accuse the President of bypassing AG Barr, when he hasn't done anything that "only AG Barr is allowed to do", e.g. formally charge Biden with crimes

no bypassing of Barr

You accept, that the POTUS is allowed to have his own trusted "eyes & ears", yes?

(However, the intense reaction to even informal, preliminary investigation makes it look like Biden & Democrats have a lot to hide ??

Shouldn't everyone be suspicious and look there instead ???)

 

[Erik Nelson]

the President is not an investigator.

right, the POTUS has "eyes & ears" which do the investigations for the POTUS, correct ?

you're not saying that the POTUS should be "deaf & blind" and have no clue what's going on, are you ?​

if the President felt Biden needed to be investigated he should call AG Barr. AG Barr can check to see what, if any, prior investigations have been done and what leads they might have. Barr can then assign it to investigators, or even appoint an Independent Prosecutor -- to keep it from looking like a political "witch hunt." Barr (or the person assigned) then finds evidence and decides if charges are warranted.

​

Your steps are not how the justice system works. And, again, they had plenty of information to turn over to Barr in March. Giuliani was allegedly extremely excited about what he'd found. The fact that they didn't go to Barr then, when they had something that appeared to be solid evidence, is a good indication that they were never planning to take this to Barr.

right, yes, exactly

and how would the "President feel Biden needed to be investigated" ?

By sending in his own "eyes & ears" (like Giuliani) to "sniff around" and see if there was anything actionable to bring to the AG's attention ?

Or, are you saying, that the POTUS should pester the AG on a whim with no evidence?

Then you seriously would be having an absolute field day!

"In the news today! Extra extra hear all about it! President calls AG on whim to investigate Biden on no evidence!"

You are putting every cart before every horse, on the names "POTUS" and "AGOTUS"

You are throwing the President into the Chesapeake, saying:

• "he was innocent if he drowns [he should call the AG, before he has any evidence so he can be accused of abusing AG power]...
• if he floats he is guilty [if he sends his "eyes & ears" in to fact-find first before bothering the AG then he's accused of abusing his own power]"

 

[Bobber]

View attachment 266019

Another here has used the word fascinating....I'll add to that shocking, stunning and beyond outrageous how ANY fair, objective, reasonable individual shouldn't condemn the Dems shame investigation even for the reasons stated above. It seems all is forgiven, and overlooked as long as it's about one thing.....removing a President some don't like.

Here's Adam Schiff having foreigners, RUSSIANS no less contacting HIM (Russians comedians playing a joke) portraying they had dirt on Trump but his being more than willing to receive their goods! Future historians will absolutely marvel how the populace of our time could allow themselves duped by their blind rage and not to be seen gathering in unison before Congress and exclaiming with such elevated passion, "Stop! This is NOT the American way!"

This very Schiff is playing judge, jury and prosecuting attorney with the most ironic thing being having himself guilty of the very thing he would accuse the other of doing! Let's just assume for a moment that the President was guilty.....but who and what party is guilty of a greater sin?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Um -- Biden-Burisma has zero to do with the 2016 elections.

we don't know that

There smoke pouring out one side of the building (Biden-Burisma in Ukraine) and more smoke pouring out the other side of the same building (Crowdstrike 2016 election meddling from the same Ukraine)

Some sort of (as yet unknown) connection is perfectly possible, plausible, even probable

Though it is interesting that you can't seem to believe that Biden is innocent

you can't seem to believe that he is guilty?

yet suddenly you admit that Lutsenko has stated there is nothing there. So how many investigations into the Bidens are you wanting? And why was it so important to the President to start yet another one?

If Trump did not suspect strongly that there was something there, he wouldn't waste his time & money, yes?

Additionally, Trump (through AG Barr) started an investigation into the 2016 election already -- being led by Special Prosecutor Durham. Odd that Trump never mentioned Durham, or helping Durham, on the phone call.

a.g.a.i.n.

Trump never mentioned any human in the universe...

after Zelensky requested Guiliani

Zelensky. said. "Giuliani". and. Giuliani. it. was.

It is also fascinating how Trump does not care about Russia's meddling in our 2016 election, he actually apparently told Russian emissaries that in an Oval Office meeting. Yet, for some reason, he suddenly cares about interference that allegedly came from the Ukraine (which appears to not be based in fact, but is a popular conspiracy theory among the Far Right). Am I to believe this is for any other reason than he wants to dig up dirt on Democrats -- particularly since he waited until 2019 to start looking?

competition serves the consumer in economics, yes?

ditto, politics, yes?

having candidates policing each other & digging up any & all dirt there is anywhere (in the US, in Ukraine, in the universe) on each other serves the voter, yes?

you think the Founding Fathers (and their followers) were intellectually-challenged?

in your economy, Tesla can't point out how polluting & bad for the environment BMW gas-guzzlers are...

and then consumers, in a non-competitive marketplace, are deprived of valuable information

So, you're nominating yourself as our Central Economic Policy Planner ?

 

[Gigimo]

I never said anything about the Party's followers... only Donald's.

And that happens to be people from both parties.

The biggest problem is most of the insinuations/innuendos being passed around about Trump don't pass the "smell test", so consequently some folks recognize and verbalize this, then they get accused of being a Trump supporter for pointing this out go figure.

 

[Gigimo]

Both parties are NOT the same. No Democrat has ever done what Donald Trump did in 2016 and is doing now.

Lets see one party gave us the biggest legislative turkey in the last 100 years and the other party had the chance to do the right thing and repeal it, which of course they didn't. Doesn't sound like either one is looking out for the people just their own ambitions of power and money, you don't matter...

 

[TLK Valentine]

And that happens to be people from both parties.

Right -- Party has nothing to do with it... Donald demands loyalty to himself above all things.