CIA's top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on complaint about Trump Ukraine call

[debbiedowner]

Wait a sec....

What is the CIA doing spying domestically?

Why are the liberoids cheerleading for CIA spies and spooks who are clearly operating far outside their designated box?

What in the name of Sam Hill (who was a real person) ever happened to the civil libertarians on the left?

Yea, go figure she is a Trump appointee.

 

[Oddball]

Wait a sec....

What is the CIA doing spying domestically?

Why are the liberoids cheerleading for CIA spies and spooks who are clearly operating far outside their designated box?

What in the name of Sam Hill (who was a real person) ever happened to the civil libertarians on the left?

Yea, go figure she is a Trump appointee.

And I hated her appointment....So your point is?

 

[debbiedowner]

I keep seeing Trumpers claim the phone call showed nothing.

Ummm...yea it did.It was clear as day.

"Well I'd like to ask a favor though..."

In response to Zelensky mentioning that he wanted more missiles to fend off the Russian invasion of his country.

And there were TWO favors asked for. Help in exonerating Russia (the country attacking Ukraine) in the hack of our election in 2016...and opening a bogus investigation of Trump's political rival

Tucker Carlson criticizes Trump's Ukraine call

 

[Coyote]

Barr is part of the corruption. The DoJ is broken. The State Department is broken. This administration has a record number of temporary appointees, unconfirmed by a Congress, taken no oath of office, and loyal to Trump personally, not the office of the presidency, the Constitution or the country. Career diplomats suddenly recalled for no reason and replaced by idiots. What is happening now is the tip of the iceberg.


CIA's top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on complaint about Trump Ukraine call


WASHINGTON — Weeks before the whistleblower's complaint became public, the CIA's top lawyer made what she considered to be a criminal referral to the Justice Department about the whistleblower's allegations that President Donald Trump abused his office in pressuring the Ukrainian president, U.S. officials familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

The move by the CIA's general counsel, Trump appointee Courtney Simmons Elwood, meant she and other senior officials had concluded a potential crime had been committed, raising more questions about why the Justice Department later declined to open an investigation.

The phone call that Elwood considered to be a criminal referral is in addition to the referral later received as a letter from the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community regarding the whistleblower complaint.

Justice Department officials said they were unclear whether Elwood was making a criminal referral and followed up with her later to seek clarification but she remained vague.

In the days since the anonymous whistleblower complaint was made public accusing him of wrongdoing, Trump has lashed out at his accuser and other insiders who provided the accuser with information, suggesting they were improperly spying on what was a "perfect" call between him and the Ukrainian president.

But a timeline provided by U.S. officials familiar with the matter shows that multiple senior government officials appointed by Trump found the whistleblower's complaints credible, troubling and worthy of further inquiry starting soon after the president's July phone call.

While that timeline and the CIA general counsel's contact with the Justice Department has been previously disclosed, it has not been reported that the CIA's top lawyer intended her call to be a criminal referral about the president's conduct, acting under rules set forth in a memo governing how intelligence agencies should report allegations of federal crimes.

The fact that she and other top Trump administration political appointees saw potential misconduct in the whistleblower's early account of alleged presidential abuses puts a new spotlight on the Justice Department's later decision to decline to open a criminal investigation — a decision that the Justice Department said publicly was based purely on an analysis of whether the president committed a campaign finance law violation.

"They didn't do any of the sort of bread-and-butter type investigatory steps that would flush out what potential crimes may have been committed," said Berit Berger, a former federal prosecutor who heads the Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia Law School. "I
While that timeline and the CIA general counsel's contact with the Justice Department has been previously disclosed, it has not been reported that the CIA's top lawyer intended her call to be a criminal referral about the president's conduct, acting under rules set forth in a memo governing how intelligence agencies should report allegations of federal crimes.

The fact that she and other top Trump administration political appointees saw potential misconduct in the whistleblower's early account of alleged presidential abuses puts a new spotlight on the Justice Department's later decision to decline to open a criminal investigation — a decision that the Justice Department said publicly was based purely on an analysis of whether the president committed a campaign finance law violation.

"They didn't do any of the sort of bread-and-butter type investigatory steps that would flush out what potential crimes may have been committed," said Berit Berger, a former federal prosecutor who heads the Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia Law School. "I don't understand the rationale for that and it's just so contrary to how normal prosecutors work. We have started investigations on far less."

Great article.. So what was "the crime"?? Apparently even BLATANT strong arming of foreign power for favors can be done by just about ANY Congress critter.. Need examples???

I need a crime to give a hoot. Not just some gossip from NBC news...

What was his crime? Haven’t said there was one, yet. That is why it needs to be investigated. And, imo, with holding promised aid in exchange for an investigation into a political rival and the promise of an Oval Office date is as blatant as it gets in strong arming.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

The Ukrainian President didn't know about the withholding of military aid and Trump never mentioned it. In fact, the withholding of the aid happened weeks before the call and was done in order to pressure NATO into paying more of their fair share of support to Ukraine.

Lie #1: “The Ukrainian President didn't know about the withholding of military aid ”

Stalled Ukraine military aid concerned members of Congress for months - CNNPolitics

State Department officials told Senate staffers in a briefing last week that the department had no objections to the money moving forward and were not aware that OMB had sat on it, according to a Senate source. But officials in the meeting pointed the finger directly at Mulvaney as the person who directed the State Department not to send out the funds.

In the beginning of September, Johnson and Murphy traveled to Ukraine. When they returned, they both talked to Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, about the need to make sure Ukraine got their money.

"I will tell you who brought it up to me was Ron Johnson," Durbin said. "He came back from Ukraine and said 'we gotta get this money released.' And, I said, 'I'll look into it.' "

Murphy would say later about his time in Ukraine that there had been "near panic" in the country during his trip about whether America was really committed to their relationship in part because of delayed aid.​

Lie #2: “...was done in order to pressure NATO into paying more of their fair share of support to Ukraine”

Trump Wrong on European Aid to Ukraine

European countries have contributed an estimated two-thirds of all of the aid to Ukraine since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and launched a conflict in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, according to Iain King, a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

...According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, EU institutions top the OECD’s list of the top 10 donors of official development assistance to Ukraine, with $425.2 million contributed on average for 2016-2017. The U.S. was second with $204.4 million in assistance, closely followed by Germany, which contributed $189.8 million on its own, in addition to contributions it would have made through the European Union.

CSIS’ King, a former U.K. defense and foreign conflict specialist, detailed the aid the U.S. and other countries have provided to Ukraine in a Sept. 26 report. U.S. Agency for International Development figures King cited show the U.S. has contributed between $272 million and $513 million annually since 2014. As for military assistance, the U.S. has contributed about $800 million, “which includes small arms, counter-narcotics efforts, training programs, and military advisers to support and improve the Ukrainian forces, among others,” King wrote.

Those are sizable numbers, but the EU has given more. “The European Union is the largest donor to Ukraine” King wrote, estimating that the EU has given almost twice as much on average per year than the U.S. since 2014.​

 

[westwall]

Wait a sec....

What is the CIA doing spying domestically?

Why are the liberoids cheerleading for CIA spies and spooks who are clearly operating far outside their designated box?

What in the name of Sam Hill (who was a real person) ever happened to the civil libertarians on the left?

Maybe they are wondering why Trump keeps getting free passes.

The only people getting free passes are the political class.

 

[Coyote]

1 their corruption that could be cleaned up had ZERO to do with the Bidens from 3 years ago

2 they cleaned up a lot of their corruption and some time in May 2019, our State dept gave the Ukraine a ''clean bill of health''


Now tell me... what do you think Zelensky thought when the very country asking them to clean up their corruption... yet the President of the USA was holding his aid back and strong arming him, unless he illegally helped investigate Trump's upcoming political rival's son and made a Public Announcement that he was investigating him, so Trump could use it in his upcoming campaign?


Zelensky paraphased

''What?? The country's president that is asking me to get rid of the corruption here in the Ukraine wants me to work with his personal consigliere Giuliani, to help him in his own dirty and corrupt scheme for his own political reelection campaign?''

First let's get one thing straight, the favor Trump asked for was aid in ascertaining the genesis of the 2016 collusion delusion. If you can't admit that then there is no point in further discussion.

Second, if you read the transcript out loud, the mention of the Bidens lasted about 8 seconds of the 30 minute call and occurred toward the end of the call.

You're entitled to your own opinions, facts are facts, they belong to no one. Zelensky didn't take office till May, how could the State Dept given him a clean bill in May?

.

Yes, it's an opinion!!

Yes, Crowdstrike is part of the collusion delusion conspiracy cooked up that would help manafort and trump' s ego.

We got only 5 to 10 minutes of the call in their summary, there were ellipses... right where the alleged quid pro quo took place

Could have been June, I will look for the link... it's possible it was a State dept analysis on corruption there on its own to assess the country.

Wow more conspiracy theories, you have no proof there were any gaps in the transcripts. If you actually read the transcripts, it was clear he asked Ukraine to cooperate with the US DOJ in both instances. That's another fact, there's nothing wrong with that.

.

It is not transcript. It is a memo if a phone call. This administration, unlike prior administrations, stopped doing verbatim transcripts of calls within the first year.

Are you trying 5o say Obama was transparent?

No. I am trying to say exactly what I said. Verbatim transcripts of phone calls were the standard practice in prior administrations and were at the start of Trump’s, but ceased within the first year. You really can’t call it a transcript, it is a memo of a phone call.

 

[Coyote]

The Justice Department declined to open an investigation because it has become the partisan arm of the GOP and protector of Trump.

Enforcing the law is subordinate to that.

Yea Obama DOJ NEVER did anything questionable AT ALL. fucking hypocrites.

No elected official is perfect, some are better, some are worse and that applies equally to the left and the right. That said there are scumwaffle individuals. I try hard to see both sides but sometimes I think a spade is a spade and falae moral equivalencies are not going to change ut.

The way everything looks, fron the limited array of facts (not conjecture, not conspircy theory) that are available to us is that Trump might have comnitted and act of corruption, using his offoce to withold aid, and promise an oval office meeting in exchange for a favor: investigate specifically, a political rival, based on unsubstantiated allegations, and make a public notice to that effect.

There is no way to take those facts and spin it into something acceptable. It realy isnt. It really really isnt. And once we start defending this sort of abuse of power, WHERE IS THE BOTTOM?

No, Obama did not do anything approaching this. Neither did Bush. That is left and right.

We need ti stop the false comparisons.

The fact is you have no clue what maobama or Bush did, they didn't have the leaks that exist in the Trump white house. Once again Trump asked Ukraine to cooperate with the US DOJ as they look into these situations. There is nothing untoward about that.

.

The Trump administration did not ask Uktaine to cooperate with the DoJ.

Trump personally asked them to investigate Biden, not "these situations" but one specific person who just happened to be his political rival. He asked them to work with his PERSONAL lawyer in this matter.

Keep spinning the lies, it doesnt change the facts.

He asked for cooperation on the genesis of the Mueller probe and mentioned Attorney General Bar 4 times during the conversation. Biden and his son were mentioned once.

Child I'm not the one doing the spinning, that would be you.

Got to run for now, but will be back tonight.

.

Child, you do not know how many times Biden was mentioned.

 

[Meister]

I keep seeing Trumpers claim the phone call showed nothing.

Ummm...yea it did.It was clear as day.

"Well I'd like to ask a favor though..."

In response to Zelensky mentioning that he wanted more missiles to fend off the Russian invasion of his country.

And there were TWO favors asked for. Help in exonerating Russia (the country attacking Ukraine) in the hack of our election in 2016...and opening a bogus investigation of Trump's political rival

Tucker Carlson criticizes Trump's Ukraine call

From your source.
Carlson asserts that it is "hard to argue" that Trump's behavior is worthy of impeachment.

"The president did not, as was first reported, offer a quid pro quo to the Ukrainians," Carlson wrote.

"He did not condition any U.S. support on a Biden investigation. The Justice Department has already looked at the totality of the call and determined that Trump did not break

 

[Coyote]

Barr is part of the corruption. The DoJ is broken. The State Department is broken. This administration has a record number of temporary appointees, unconfirmed by a Congress, taken no oath of office, and loyal to Trump personally, not the office of the presidency, the Constitution or the country. Career diplomats suddenly recalled for no reason and replaced by idiots. What is happening now is the tip of the iceberg.


CIA's top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on complaint about Trump Ukraine call


WASHINGTON — Weeks before the whistleblower's complaint became public, the CIA's top lawyer made what she considered to be a criminal referral to the Justice Department about the whistleblower's allegations that President Donald Trump abused his office in pressuring the Ukrainian president, U.S. officials familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

The move by the CIA's general counsel, Trump appointee Courtney Simmons Elwood, meant she and other senior officials had concluded a potential crime had been committed, raising more questions about why the Justice Department later declined to open an investigation.

The phone call that Elwood considered to be a criminal referral is in addition to the referral later received as a letter from the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community regarding the whistleblower complaint.

Justice Department officials said they were unclear whether Elwood was making a criminal referral and followed up with her later to seek clarification but she remained vague.

In the days since the anonymous whistleblower complaint was made public accusing him of wrongdoing, Trump has lashed out at his accuser and other insiders who provided the accuser with information, suggesting they were improperly spying on what was a "perfect" call between him and the Ukrainian president.

Read the rest of the article using the link

The Justice Department declined to open an investigation because it has become the partisan arm of the GOP and protector of Trump.

Enforcing the law is subordinate to that.

Yea Obama DOJ NEVER did anything questionable AT ALL. fucking hypocrites.

No elected official is perfect, some are better, some are worse and that applies equally to the left and the right. That said there are scumwaffle individuals. I try hard to see both sides but sometimes I think a spade is a spade and falae moral equivalencies are not going to change ut.

The way everything looks, fron the limited array of facts (not conjecture, not conspircy theory) that are available to us is that Trump might have comnitted and act of corruption, using his offoce to withold aid, and promise an oval office meeting in exchange for a favor: investigate specifically, a political rival, based on unsubstantiated allegations, and make a public notice to that effect.

There is no way to take those facts and spin it into something acceptable. It realy isnt. It really really isnt. And once we start defending this sort of abuse of power, WHERE IS THE BOTTOM?

No, Obama did not do anything approaching this. Neither did Bush. That is left and right.

We need ti stop the false comparisons.

We need to call a crime a crime regardless of who does it.

You destroy evidence requested, you pay. Those things when justified are fuel to a fire.

Saying Trump should be impeached for a slice of a conversation yet defending Hillary will keep the divide alive n well and trying to call them false equivalencies won't cut it.

Our hate for 5he other side blinds us to our own actions n we dig this hole deeper.

Hillary was investigated to the nth degree. Do you support the results of it? If you don’t, how can you support the results of the investigation that found insufficient evidence to support a crime of criminal conspiracy by Trump? Neither investigation found enough to support a criminal charge. Folks seem to want to pick and choose guilt and innocence here,

Secondly, I am not calling for impeachment, but I support an impeachment investigation particularly since it may be the only way to cut through the Administration’s obstruction and get at the facts. It is not based on just a slice of conversation, in fact, the primary reasons are laid out in the whistle blowers complaint which was taken seriously by both the IG and DNI.

Do you support an investigation into this? If not, why, when you supported investigations into Hillary?

 

[Lesh]

I keep seeing Trumpers claim the phone call showed nothing.

Ummm...yea it did.It was clear as day.

"Well I'd like to ask a favor though..."

In response to Zelensky mentioning that he wanted more missiles to fend off the Russian invasion of his country.

And there were TWO favors asked for. Help in exonerating Russia (the country attacking Ukraine) in the hack of our election in 2016...and opening a bogus investigation of Trump's political rival

Tucker Carlson criticizes Trump's Ukraine call

From your source.
Carlson asserts that it is "hard to argue" that Trump's behavior is worthy of impeachment.

"The president did not, as was first reported, offer a quid pro quo to the Ukrainians," Carlson wrote.

"He did not condition any U.S. support on a Biden investigation. The Justice Department has already looked at the totality of the call and determined that Trump did not break

Tucker Carlson?

The Justice Department headed by Billy the Bagman?

Oh please...my sides...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"He did not condition any U.S. support on a Biden investigation"

Who can even say this with a straight face? Are we all supposed to pretend we are stupid?

 

[OKTexas]

Yea Obama DOJ NEVER did anything questionable AT ALL. fucking hypocrites.

No elected official is perfect, some are better, some are worse and that applies equally to the left and the right. That said there are scumwaffle individuals. I try hard to see both sides but sometimes I think a spade is a spade and falae moral equivalencies are not going to change ut.

The way everything looks, fron the limited array of facts (not conjecture, not conspircy theory) that are available to us is that Trump might have comnitted and act of corruption, using his offoce to withold aid, and promise an oval office meeting in exchange for a favor: investigate specifically, a political rival, based on unsubstantiated allegations, and make a public notice to that effect.

There is no way to take those facts and spin it into something acceptable. It realy isnt. It really really isnt. And once we start defending this sort of abuse of power, WHERE IS THE BOTTOM?

No, Obama did not do anything approaching this. Neither did Bush. That is left and right.

We need ti stop the false comparisons.

The fact is you have no clue what maobama or Bush did, they didn't have the leaks that exist in the Trump white house. Once again Trump asked Ukraine to cooperate with the US DOJ as they look into these situations. There is nothing untoward about that.

.

The Trump administration did not ask Uktaine to cooperate with the DoJ.

Trump personally asked them to investigate Biden, not "these situations" but one specific person who just happened to be his political rival. He asked them to work with his PERSONAL lawyer in this matter.

Keep spinning the lies, it doesnt change the facts.

He asked for cooperation on the genesis of the Mueller probe and mentioned Attorney General Bar 4 times during the conversation. Biden and his son were mentioned once.

Child I'm not the one doing the spinning, that would be you.

Got to run for now, but will be back tonight.

.

Child, you do not know how many times Biden was mentioned.

I do know what the record of the call said. Evidently you don't. So spin away commie, spin away.

.

 

[OKTexas]

"He did not condition any U.S. support on a Biden investigation"

Who can even say this with a straight face? Are we all supposed to pretend we are stupid?

How about you show us in the transcript where it is said. And your assumptions and intimations are meaningless.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How about you show us in the transcript where it is said.

I get it, it's a difference of opinion. You are strident that Trump was not pressuring them, using his power as president, to benefit his campaign. You are, of course, lying. It's bad acting. You know exactly what was going on. You know what was implied by what said in the transcript. This defense that "He didn't say it explicitly!" is not a good one. It is a loser in court, too. His aides knew what he meant. His diplomats knew what he meant. Everyone on the planet knows what he meant, including the President of Ukraine. The Trump cult simply pretends, en masse, that we can't know, since it was not stated directly. It's bad acting.

 

[OKTexas]

How about you show us in the transcript where it is said.

I get it, it's a difference of opinion. You are strident that Trump was not pressuring them, using his power as president, to benefit his campaign. You are, of course, lying. It's bad acting. You know exactly what was going on. You know what was implied by what said in the transcript. This defense that "He didn't say it explicitly!" is not a good one. It is a loser in court, too. His aides knew what he meant. His diplomats knew what he meant. Everyone on the planet knows what he meant, including the President of Ukraine. The Trump cult simply pretends, en masse, that we can't know, since it was not stated directly. It's bad acting.

Yeah, that's what you commies keep saying, of course there are many constitutional scholars that disagree. That makes your "everyone on the planet" statement a LIE. Spin on commie, spin on.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, that's what you commies keep saying

You sound smart!

That makes your "everyone on the planet" statement a LIE.

Hmm, no, I bet they are lying, too. Name some names. Let's see.

 

[22lcidw]

How about you show us in the transcript where it is said.

I get it, it's a difference of opinion. You are strident that Trump was not pressuring them, using his power as president, to benefit his campaign. You are, of course, lying. It's bad acting. You know exactly what was going on. You know what was implied by what said in the transcript. This defense that "He didn't say it explicitly!" is not a good one. It is a loser in court, too. His aides knew what he meant. His diplomats knew what he meant. Everyone on the planet knows what he meant, including the President of Ukraine. The Trump cult simply pretends, en masse, that we can't know, since it was not stated directly. It's bad acting.

Does it really matter? The federal government let us down a long time ago. So to believe you or the spy agencies or politicians that have been there since methuselah blaming the people for their errors is mute point now. Go Trump!

 

[Care4all]

1 their corruption that could be cleaned up had ZERO to do with the Bidens from 3 years ago

2 they cleaned up a lot of their corruption and some time in May 2019, our State dept gave the Ukraine a ''clean bill of health''


Now tell me... what do you think Zelensky thought when the very country asking them to clean up their corruption... yet the President of the USA was holding his aid back and strong arming him, unless he illegally helped investigate Trump's upcoming political rival's son and made a Public Announcement that he was investigating him, so Trump could use it in his upcoming campaign?


Zelensky paraphased

''What?? The country's president that is asking me to get rid of the corruption here in the Ukraine wants me to work with his personal consigliere Giuliani, to help him in his own dirty and corrupt scheme for his own political reelection campaign?''

First let's get one thing straight, the favor Trump asked for was aid in ascertaining the genesis of the 2016 collusion delusion. If you can't admit that then there is no point in further discussion.

Second, if you read the transcript out loud, the mention of the Bidens lasted about 8 seconds of the 30 minute call and occurred toward the end of the call.

You're entitled to your own opinions, facts are facts, they belong to no one. Zelensky didn't take office till May, how could the State Dept given him a clean bill in May?

.

Yes, it's an opinion!!

Yes, Crowdstrike is part of the collusion delusion conspiracy cooked up that would help manafort and trump' s ego.

We got only 5 to 10 minutes of the call in their summary, there were ellipses... right where the alleged quid pro quo took place

Could have been June, I will look for the link... it's possible it was a State dept analysis on corruption there on its own to assess the country.

Wow more conspiracy theories, you have no proof there were any gaps in the transcripts. If you actually read the transcripts, it was clear he asked Ukraine to cooperate with the US DOJ in both instances. That's another fact, there's nothing wrong with that.

.

It is not transcript. It is a memo if a phone call. This administration, unlike prior administrations, stopped doing verbatim transcripts of calls within the first year.

Actually no administration since Nixon has kept recordings or transcripts verbatim. All have had note takers that are to listen in and take notes of the call.

.

They have a word for word transcript, it was hidden in above Top Secret, compartment files by WH Lawyers.

 

[Olde Europe]

They have a word for word transcript, it was hidden in above Top Secret, compartment files by WH Lawyers.

We do know how "perfect", and perfectly innocent, that call was upon learning that immediately after the call a bunch of cleaners in the form of White House lawyers arrived, confiscating everything - every note, tape, or whatever else there was - and hiding everything away.

If you want a report card of the state of this administration, consider White House lawyers - folks who are paid to ensure that everything goes by the book - are now being deployed to conceal and cover up whatever isn't done by the book, and pretty routinely, as it seems.

 

[Care4all]

"He did not condition any U.S. support on a Biden investigation"

Who can even say this with a straight face? Are we all supposed to pretend we are stupid?

How about you show us in the transcript where it is said. And your assumptions and intimations are meaningless.

.

It is clear as day, the summary memo is only 5 pages, read it, the whole thing was the sickening schmoozing and the glorifying praise of Trump and the wheeling and dealing dancing, and groveling for Arms....

And guess what Trump said?

''I need a favor though,,,''

And then goes in to his PERSONAL, politically motivated requested FAVOR of Crowdstrike and the Bidens and with his opinion of them...

And tells the guy to work with his PERSONAL lawyer/fixer/ consigliere, Giuliani




QUID PRO QUO

quid pro quo
/ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō/
noun
noun: quid pro quo; plural noun: quid pro quos

a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.