Does Wall Street Journal Op-ed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey Strike Fear in Democrats?

[NightHawkeye]

Mukasey Op-ed Should Strike Fear in Democrats

If I were a Democrat, I would be afraid, I would be very afraid, after reading former Attorney General Michael Mukasey's Monday WSJ oped: "John Durham's Ukrainian Leads." The subtitle is "What the prosecutor has found may be quite different from what the Democrats are looking for."
...
That Justice Department statement makes explicit that the president never spoke with Attorney General William Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son” or asked him to contact Ukraine “on this or any other matter,” and that the attorney general has not communicated at all with Ukraine. It also contains the following morsel: “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.”

... it appears that Ukrainian officials who backed the Clinton campaign provided information that generated the investigation of Mr. Manafort — acts that one Ukrainian court has said violated Ukrainian law and “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”​

 

[Speedwell]

What is the assumption here? That any wrongdoing by the Bidens or any other Democrat in or with respect to Ukraine justifies Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine? Or, that however bad Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine were, Ukraine is a can of worms that the Democrats shouldn't want to open? What is there to be "very afraid " of?

 

[Nithavela]

Betteridge's law of headlines - Wikipedia

 

[tulc]

...so the dad of one of President Trumps attorneys (and one of Rudy Giuliani's oldest friend) thinks the Democrats should leave his sons client alone? Because, reasons. Okay, sounds legit to me.
tulc(notes this isn't the actual Op/ed it's someones op/ed about someones op/ed)

 

[DaisyDay]

Actual WSJ OP: Opinion | John Durham’s Ukrainian Leads

Whether Mr. Trump’s conversation with Mr. Zelensky constitutes “high crimes” or “misdemeanors” depends at least in part on what he was getting at when he raised the subject of a “favor.” He asked not about the Bidens but rather about CrowdStrike, a private company hired by the Democratic National Committee to conduct a forensic examination of the DNC server. The FBI took its word, instead of conducting its own examination, for the conclusion that the Russians had hacked the DNC.

While it is true that Donald mentioned CrowdStrike immediately after the word "favor", he also brought up the Bidens soon after with great emphasis. And he lied saying that Joe Biden bragged about "stopping the prosecution."

And there is this:

Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I
stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower.

That there is money in Donald's pocket.

 

[NightHawkeye]

And he lied saying that Joe Biden bragged about "stopping the prosecution."

Huh?

Joe Biden was quite proud of extorting Ukraine to get the prosecutor fired who was investigating his son's company.

And there is this:

That there is money in Donald's pocket.

Did Donald force him to stay there?

 

[DaisyDay]

Huh?

Joe Biden was quite proud of extorting Ukraine to get the prosecutor fired who was investigating his son's company.

No, that's also a lie as the prosecutor was fired for NOT investigating corruption, as you already know. Shokin had stopped investigating Burisma before Hunter Biden joined the BOD.

Did Donald force him to stay there?

Did Donald fork over the profits from his stay?

 

[miamited]

Hi NH,

Ahhh, the old scrapping up the gum from under the tables method. When I want to chew gun, I generally buy it new.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[NightHawkeye]

No, that's also a lie as the prosecutor was fired for NOT investigating corruption, as you already know. Shokin had stopped investigating Burisma before Hunter Biden joined the BOD.

... at least that's the current claim ... which may or may not withstand scrutiny.

Did Donald fork over the profits from his stay?

Relevance?

 

[miamited]

Hi NH,

Not to speak for daisy, but...

You asked concerning President Trump giving over the money that he is making from stays to his establishments which seem to be fairly obvious 'gratuitous' offerings to the president from foreign leaders, and, as in the case of the airmen being put up in a Trump property in Scotland, just outright direction of the government to provide income to President Trump through the use of such properties:

Relevance?

I would contend that it holds at least the same relevance as President Trump seems to think the Obama's getting paid for their services, although they are out of government service and should be free to make their income in whatever way seems fitting to them, is some sinister and nefarious money making plot.

At the very, very least, Donald Trump profiting from these stays, which likely wouldn't even be happening if he weren't the president, is as relevant as his claim that the Obama's are somehow receiving tainted money for their work. Maybe, if you, or someone could convince Donald Trump that it's not only ok, but has been the practice of past presidents once they leave office, to profit from book writing and speech making about their time as the head honcho of the United States, he wouldn't be seen as so very, very hypocritical in his many, many condemnations of others as he goes right on doing those same things himself.

I''m sure daisy may have some other response for your query, but that's mine.

Donald Trump finds it somehow effective to throw stones from his glass house, and is so simple as to not even understand or make the connection that many of the very things that he condemns in others, are a part of his own practices.

His claim that the whistleblower is some traitor or spy is ludicrous. The whistleblower program was designed and installed as a way to do the very thing that is being done. A method by which the powerless can hold the powerful to account. Such reports are then reviewed, at which point one could say, "Nope, this is all just a bunch of noise from a disgruntled citizen". Or, it can be determined by the objective reviewer that the complaint has merit and should be passed up the chain. The president's own person whose job it is to make that determination seems to have found that the complaint was credible.

How that makes the person who made out the report a traitor is quite beyond me. The person who filed the report was just doing what he felt was the right thing to do and there are checks built into the system to decide that it wasn't the right thing to do and just shelve the complaint. However, I repeat, the president's own person whose job it is to do the checking, did the checking, and determined that the complaint needed to be seen by Congress. So far, other than the president's determined effort to detract, everything has operated exactly as it was designed to operate.

Traitor? I don't think so. Misguided? Maybe, but if it were determined that it was misguided, then it wouldn't have gotten to this point.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[DaisyDay]

... at least that's the current claim ... which may or may not withstand scrutiny.

Not only the current claim, but the claim at the time. You can look it up - it has already been scrutinized, now Donald's lie, this current one of ten thousand, is just mud on the wall.

Relevance?

Graft, corruption at the top.

 

[NightHawkeye]

His claim that the whistleblower is some traitor or spy is ludicrous. The whistleblower program was designed and installed as a way to do the very thing that is being done. A method by which the powerless can hold the powerful to account. Such reports are then reviewed, at which point one could say, "Nope, this is all just a bunch of noise from a disgruntled citizen". Or, it can be determined by the objective reviewer that the complaint has merit and should be passed up the chain. The president's own person whose job it is to make that determination seems to have found that the complaint was credible.

It's the New York Times which indicates the so-called whistleblower is a "spy".

How that makes the person who made out the report a traitor is quite beyond me. The person who filed the report was just doing what he felt was the right thing to do and there are checks built into the system to decide that it wasn't the right thing to do and just shelve the complaint. However, I repeat, the president's own person whose job it is to do the checking, did the checking, and determined that the complaint needed to be seen by Congress. So far, other than the president's determined effort to detract, everything has operated exactly as it was designed to operate.

Innocent until proven guilty?

I agree with that.

Traitor? I don't think so. Misguided? Maybe, but if it were determined that it was misguided, then it wouldn't have gotten to this point.

Sure it would. Law required it to get to this point as far as the IG is concerned ... even if the claims turned out to be baseless ... which they were.

The only thing out of the ordinary here is Congress jumping the shark on impeachment.

 

[miamited]

Hi NH,

Thanks for your response. I so enjoy honest dialogue with honest people. You responded:

It's the New York Times which indicates the so-called whistleblower is a "spy".

Really? That's what you're going with as the source of who has referred to the whistle blower as the 'spy'? Ok.

You then responded:

Innocent until proven guilty?

I'm not even sure that such an idea applies here. I've merely explained that what the whistleblower did was a perfectly admissible use of the whistleblower platform. The whole idea came out some 30 years ago that there needed to be a safe way for people to call out perceived fraud or other problems seen in government dealings. As a part of the platform, the reports were to be handed to someone who would evaluate each and every one and decide the proper response. In this case, that person deemed the complaint worthy of further inquiry by Congress and so it was passed on.

Innocent until proven guilty is now for Congress to decide. If they deem the complaint has no basis in fact, then they will shelve it. If not, then they should investigate the claim further. How this should hold me or you to some 'innocent until proven guilty' rebuke is quite beyond my understanding. We have merely moved into the investigative portion of the whistleblower platform and until all the facts have been checked, then there is no determination of guilt or innocence for the involved parties on this specific issue.

However, we have already seen, in the transcripts of the call that the WH released, that there was some questionable activities regarding the conversation between the two nation leaders. So, the investigation continues until we get the facts of the matter. The House will call people to give testimony concerning the incident that such an individual might have and it will all be noted and checked and verified, hopefully with other corroborating testimony from other witnesses. Right now, we are merely in the investigative phase.

It is all in keeping with exactly how whistleblower complaints were established to be handled waaaaay back in 1989.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again NH,

Again, thanks for your response:

Sure it would. Law required it to get to this point as far as the IG is concerned ... even if the claims turned out to be baseless ... which they were.

You wrote that in response to my statement that if it had been determined by the person whose job it is to check these whistleblower reports, that they deemed the report was misguided. I'm sorry, but I'm not in agreement with your claim that 'sure it would'. No, it wouldn't. If the IG, rather than pigeon holing this report for further Congressional review, had determined that it was 'baseless', as you claim it is and you haven't the slightest idea what all went on here, then the report would likely be in some incinerator by now or filed away in the back of some filing cabinet as an unreliable and uncredible report. I'm sorry, but you're wrong and you apparently don't know how the process works.

It is strictly and solely up to the discretion of the IG what was to happen to that whistleblower report once it was turned in.

How are intelligence whistleblower complaints addressed?
The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 requires that, if the inspector general determines that the complaint is credible and of urgent concern, then the director of national intelligence "shall, within 7 calendar days ... forward such transmittal to the intelligence committees."
If the inspector general doesn't find the complaint credible or of urgent concern, then the whistleblower can take it to Congress. But to be protected, a whistleblower would have to follow orders from the director of national intelligence on transmitting that information in a way that doesn't compromise national security.

So, had the IG not found the evidence credible, then the whistleblower himself could have taken it directly to Congress, but in this case it didn't get that far. The fact, yes it's a fact at this point, that the whistleblower's complaint making it to Congress is solely the responsibility, at this point, of the IG. He read it and he determined that the complaint was substantive enough to deserve further investigation and so he pushed it on up the line.

Those, NH, whether you choose to believe it or not, are the facts as to how this report got before Congress.

Most of what you have written in your response to my post are claims that have been well debunked by now. If you choose not to keep up, for whatever reason, that's on you, bud.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[tulc]

It's the New York Times which indicates the so-called whistleblower is a "spy". (snip)

...the New York times called the whistle blower a spy or the New York Times quoted someone else calling the whistle blower a spy? There's a difference. If you have a link to that I'm pretty sure a lot of people would like to see it.
tulc(knows he would)

 

[SimplyMe]

Hi again NH,

Again, thanks for your response:


You wrote that in response to my statement that if it had been determined by the person whose job it is to check these whistleblower reports, that they deemed the report was misguided. I'm sorry, but I'm not in agreement with your claim that 'sure it would'. No, it wouldn't. If the IG, rather than pigeon holing this report for further Congressional review, had determined that it was 'baseless', as you claim it is and you haven't the slightest idea what all went on here, then the report would likely be in some incinerator by now or filed away in the back of some filing cabinet as an unreliable and uncredible report. I'm sorry, but you're wrong and you apparently don't know how the process works.

It is strictly and solely up to the discretion of the IG what was to happen to that whistleblower report once it was turned in.

How are intelligence whistleblower complaints addressed?
The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 requires that, if the inspector general determines that the complaint is credible and of urgent concern, then the director of national intelligence "shall, within 7 calendar days ... forward such transmittal to the intelligence committees."
If the inspector general doesn't find the complaint credible or of urgent concern, then the whistleblower can take it to Congress. But to be protected, a whistleblower would have to follow orders from the director of national intelligence on transmitting that information in a way that doesn't compromise national security.

So, had the IG not found the evidence credible, then the whistleblower himself could have taken it directly to Congress, but in this case it didn't get that far. The fact, yes it's a fact at this point, that the whistleblower's complaint making it to Congress is solely the responsibility, at this point, of the IG. He read it and he determined that the complaint was substantive enough to deserve further investigation and so he pushed it on up the line.

Those, NH, whether you choose to believe it or not, are the facts as to how this report got before Congress.

Most of what you have written in your response to my post are claims that have been well debunked by now. If you choose not to keep up, for whatever reason, that's on you, bud.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

And the claims are most definitely not baseless. The information released, so far, backs up the claims made in the whistleblower complaint. Perhaps the lone issue that may have proved incorrect is that the whistleblower stated that Barr is involved -- and he may have inferred that from the fact that the phone call mentions Barr calling the Ukraine, along with Giuliani, multiple times. However, Barr is on record stating that he hasn't talked to the Ukraine (from what I recall of the statement) and that Trump never talked to him about calling the Ukraine.

 

[miamited]

...the New York times called the whistle blower a spy or the New York Times quoted someone else calling the whistle blower a spy? There's a difference. If you have a link to that I'm pretty sure a lot of people would like to see it.
tulc(knows he would)

Hi tulc,

I was also going to call the poster on that statement, but decided that I was probably going to be seen as being too hard on them. I am, however, interested in seeing the response that, hopefully, is forthcoming.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Tanj]

No, it shouldn't. No "Op-ed" by anyone at any time on any topic should strike fear into anyone with at least 2 neurons to run together.

Seriously, hands up anyone that got fearful of someone else's opinion

 

[NightHawkeye]

And the claims are most definitely not baseless. The information released, so far, backs up the claims made in the whistleblower complaint. Perhaps the lone issue that may have proved incorrect is that the whistleblower stated that Barr is involved -- and he may have inferred that from the fact that the phone call mentions Barr calling the Ukraine, along with Giuliani, multiple times. However, Barr is on record stating that he hasn't talked to the Ukraine (from what I recall of the statement) and that Trump never talked to him about calling the Ukraine.

I see. The complaint is accurate ... except for its numerous and egregious falsehoods.

Kinda lends new meaning to cherry-picking doesn't it? It certainly doesn't inspire confidence in believing any aspect of it ... given the overt and acknowledged BIAS of the complainant.

 

[hislegacy]

No, that's also a lie as the prosecutor was fired for NOT investigating corruption, as you already know. Shokin had stopped investigating Burisma before Hunter Biden joined the BOD.

That is not what Shokin states.....