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

[Billiejeens]

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."

Sadly, she apparently did not put her criminal referral in writing. She did it on a telephone call - with a White House lawyer also on the line.

Why "sadly"?

Because it is customary to put such criminal referrals in writing. It is also customary NOT to have the same White House lawyer who hid stuff in a classified server to be on the call.

So why do you think that she didn't,
Other than the fact that she actually knows that there is no crime?

 

[Care4all]

Here's your example of hyper partisan hypocrisy in action below for you.. That letter is actually in the Senate.gov archives with the 3 Dem Congress critters signatures on it.. APPARENTLY -- you want to refer them for prosecution as well... AMIRITE???

Here's the Independent "I don't give a flying fuck about Dems or Reps" view on all this.. There are HUNDREDS of things that are highly unethical and seditious that are NOT codified into "House or Senate or Prez Ethics"... And BOTH parties are so severely compromised by playing the loopholes, that NEITHER of them has a leg to stand on with "indignation"... They've been going at this power abuse thingy for so long now -- that EITHER OF THEM can away with anything short of murder. And I wouldn't be surprised if they crossed that bridge in the near future....

Hypocrites: Senate Dems Sent Letter Pressuring Ukraine To Investigate Trump In May 2018


Yes, the very same Democrats who are now supposedly aghast that President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to look into Joe Biden's family corruption, actually sent Ukraine a letter saying "U.S. assistance" was at stake unless the Ukrainian government complied with the bogus special counsel Robert Mueller investigation and conducted their own investigation into the president and his former aid Paul Manafort. Marc Theissen of the Washington Post brought this up yesterday, and after seeing what the president actually said to his call to the newly elected president Volodymyr Zelensky, it looks like the Democrats have nothing but egg on their face.

Here's what Theissen reported Tuesday:

It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?

FYI...
your getting a very biased account by Townhall imo

read the ACTUAL letter sent by the congress critters, it seems NOTHING like your article describes!!! Official business on behalf of the USA vs. Giuliani

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/...cutor of Ukraine on Mueller investigation.pdf

 

[Lakhota]

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."

Sadly, she apparently did not put her criminal referral in writing. She did it on a telephone call - with a White House lawyer also on the line.

Why "sadly"?

Because it is customary to put such criminal referrals in writing. It is also customary NOT to have the same White House lawyer who hid stuff in a classified server to be on the call.

So why do you think that she didn't,
Other than the fact that she actually knows that there is no crime?

She obviously thought it was a potential crime or she wouldn't have filed a verbal criminal referral with the DOJ.

From the OP:

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's your example of hyper partisan hypocrisy in action below for you.. That letter is actually in the Senate.gov archives with the 3 Dem Congress critters signatures on it.. APPARENTLY -- you want to refer them for prosecution as well... AMIRITE???

Here's the Independent "I don't give a flying fuck about Dems or Reps" view on all this.. There are HUNDREDS of things that are highly unethical and seditious that are NOT codified into "House or Senate or Prez Ethics"... And BOTH parties are so severely compromised by playing the loopholes, that NEITHER of them has a leg to stand on with "indignation"... They've been going at this power abuse thingy for so long now -- that EITHER OF THEM can away with anything short of murder. And I wouldn't be surprised if they crossed that bridge in the near future....

Hypocrites: Senate Dems Sent Letter Pressuring Ukraine To Investigate Trump In May 2018


Yes, the very same Democrats who are now supposedly aghast that President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to look into Joe Biden's family corruption, actually sent Ukraine a letter saying "U.S. assistance" was at stake unless the Ukrainian government complied with the bogus special counsel Robert Mueller investigation and conducted their own investigation into the president and his former aid Paul Manafort. Marc Theissen of the Washington Post brought this up yesterday, and after seeing what the president actually said to his call to the newly elected president Volodymyr Zelensky, it looks like the Democrats have nothing but egg on their face.

Here's what Theissen reported Tuesday:

It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?

It's always (D)ifferent when their team does it.

The emphasis should be on REAL ethics laws, because apparently the abuse has become systemic and toxic..

 

[Billiejeens]

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."

Sadly, she apparently did not put her criminal referral in writing. She did it on a telephone call - with a White House lawyer also on the line.

Why "sadly"?

Because it is customary to put such criminal referrals in writing. It is also customary NOT to have the same White House lawyer who hid stuff in a classified server to be on the call.

So why do you think that she didn't,
Other than the fact that she actually knows that there is no crime?

So your response is a smiley face.
The site should have white flags for when you realize that you just had your ass handed to you.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

What aid was withheld? They weren't discussing aid, they were discussing a purchase of military hardware. Read the transcripts.

.

Duh, it takes money to buy military hardware.

 

[Billiejeens]

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."

Sadly, she apparently did not put her criminal referral in writing. She did it on a telephone call - with a White House lawyer also on the line.

Why "sadly"?

Because it is customary to put such criminal referrals in writing. It is also customary NOT to have the same White House lawyer who hid stuff in a classified server to be on the call.

So why do you think that she didn't,
Other than the fact that she actually knows that there is no crime?

She obviously thought it was a potential crime or she wouldn't have filed a verbal criminal referral with the DOJ.

Doesn't seem like it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's your example of hyper partisan hypocrisy in action below for you.. That letter is actually in the Senate.gov archives with the 3 Dem Congress critters signatures on it.. APPARENTLY -- you want to refer them for prosecution as well... AMIRITE???

Here's the Independent "I don't give a flying fuck about Dems or Reps" view on all this.. There are HUNDREDS of things that are highly unethical and seditious that are NOT codified into "House or Senate or Prez Ethics"... And BOTH parties are so severely compromised by playing the loopholes, that NEITHER of them has a leg to stand on with "indignation"... They've been going at this power abuse thingy for so long now -- that EITHER OF THEM can away with anything short of murder. And I wouldn't be surprised if they crossed that bridge in the near future....

Hypocrites: Senate Dems Sent Letter Pressuring Ukraine To Investigate Trump In May 2018


Yes, the very same Democrats who are now supposedly aghast that President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to look into Joe Biden's family corruption, actually sent Ukraine a letter saying "U.S. assistance" was at stake unless the Ukrainian government complied with the bogus special counsel Robert Mueller investigation and conducted their own investigation into the president and his former aid Paul Manafort. Marc Theissen of the Washington Post brought this up yesterday, and after seeing what the president actually said to his call to the newly elected president Volodymyr Zelensky, it looks like the Democrats have nothing but egg on their face.

Here's what Theissen reported Tuesday:

It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?

FYI...
your getting a very biased account by Townhall imo

read the ACTUAL letter sent by the congress critters, it seems NOTHING like your article describes!!! Official business on behalf of the USA vs. Giuliani

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18 Menendez joint letter to General Prosecutor of Ukraine on Mueller investigation.pdf

Oh HELL no... I was forced to take time out of my day this week to go FETCH the ACTUAL menendez et al letter and the townhall quotes I bolded are COMPLETELY accurate as is their analysis...

 

[OKTexas]

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.

What aid was withheld? They weren't discussing aid, they were discussing a purchase of military hardware. Read the transcripts.

.

Duh, it takes money to buy military hardware.

Simple question, were Javelin Anti Tank mussels part of the aid package voted on by congress?

.

 

[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.

What aid was withheld? They weren't discussing aid, they were discussing a purchase of military hardware. Read the transcripts.

.

It was $391 million in military aid.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

What aid was withheld? They weren't discussing aid, they were discussing a purchase of military hardware. Read the transcripts.

.

Duh, it takes money to buy military hardware.

Simple question, were Javelin Anti Tank mussels part of the aid package voted on by congress?

.

No, but the money was. Didn't you read the transcript of Trump's call with the Ukraine president. Javelin's were mentioned.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are you sure about that? They threatened Ukraine? Did they withhold money? Dangle the promise of a state visit?

Trump said they threatened. And in this hyperpartisan age, Trump plays by different rules and is judged by different rules apparently.

Instead of relying on Town Hall’s interpretation, here is the actual letter: https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18 Menendez joint letter to General Prosecutor of Ukraine on Mueller investigation.pdf

OF COURSE, the TownHall is completely accurate.. Prove it not so... It was a POLITICAL FAVOR backed by BLATANT threats...

Are you ready to indict them yet?? Don't care that you think the Mueller circus is the ONLY investigation that needs to be done.. There are even more insidious political abuses being investigated RIGHT NOW..

 

[Lakhota]

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.

What aid was withheld? They weren't discussing aid, they were discussing a purchase of military hardware. Read the transcripts.

.

It was $391 million in military aid.

My understanding is that it was Javelin missiles that were outside of the 391 million military package

The U.S. aid money was needed to buy Javelin missiles - among other things.

 

[Meister]

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.

What aid was withheld? They weren't discussing aid, they were discussing a purchase of military hardware. Read the transcripts.

.

Duh, it takes money to buy military hardware.

Simple question, were Javelin Anti Tank mussels part of the aid package voted on by congress?

.

No, no they were not part of the package.

 

[Care4all]

Here's your example of hyper partisan hypocrisy in action below for you.. That letter is actually in the Senate.gov archives with the 3 Dem Congress critters signatures on it.. APPARENTLY -- you want to refer them for prosecution as well... AMIRITE???

Here's the Independent "I don't give a flying fuck about Dems or Reps" view on all this.. There are HUNDREDS of things that are highly unethical and seditious that are NOT codified into "House or Senate or Prez Ethics"... And BOTH parties are so severely compromised by playing the loopholes, that NEITHER of them has a leg to stand on with "indignation"... They've been going at this power abuse thingy for so long now -- that EITHER OF THEM can away with anything short of murder. And I wouldn't be surprised if they crossed that bridge in the near future....

Hypocrites: Senate Dems Sent Letter Pressuring Ukraine To Investigate Trump In May 2018


Yes, the very same Democrats who are now supposedly aghast that President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to look into Joe Biden's family corruption, actually sent Ukraine a letter saying "U.S. assistance" was at stake unless the Ukrainian government complied with the bogus special counsel Robert Mueller investigation and conducted their own investigation into the president and his former aid Paul Manafort. Marc Theissen of the Washington Post brought this up yesterday, and after seeing what the president actually said to his call to the newly elected president Volodymyr Zelensky, it looks like the Democrats have nothing but egg on their face.

Here's what Theissen reported Tuesday:

It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?

FYI...
your getting a very biased account by Townhall imo

read the ACTUAL letter sent by the congress critters, it seems NOTHING like your article describes!!! Official business on behalf of the USA vs. Giuliani

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18 Menendez joint letter to General Prosecutor of Ukraine on Mueller investigation.pdf

Oh HELL no... I was forced to take time out of my day this week to go FETCH the ACTUAL menendez et al letter and the townhall quotes I bolded are COMPLETELY accurate as is their analysis...

Was there an official investigation by the USA going on in the Ukraine by our government on Hunter Biden, as there was one on Paul Manafort, even previous to him being caught up in Trump;s campaign????

i'm sorry, there is NO comparison in the article's examples

 

[Meister]

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.

What aid was withheld? They weren't discussing aid, they were discussing a purchase of military hardware. Read the transcripts.

.

It was $391 million in military aid.

My understanding is that it was Javelin missiles that were outside of the 391 million military package

The U.S. aid money was needed to buy Javelin missiles - among other things.

Please supply that link and thank you in advance

 

[Lakhota]

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.

What aid was withheld? They weren't discussing aid, they were discussing a purchase of military hardware. Read the transcripts.

.

It was $391 million in military aid.

My understanding is that it was Javelin missiles that were outside of the 391 million military package

The U.S. aid money was needed to buy Javelin missiles - among other things.

Please supply that link and thank you in advance

Read the transcript of Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

 

[Coyote]

Here's your example of hyper partisan hypocrisy in action below for you.. That letter is actually in the Senate.gov archives with the 3 Dem Congress critters signatures on it.. APPARENTLY -- you want to refer them for prosecution as well... AMIRITE???

Here's the Independent "I don't give a flying fuck about Dems or Reps" view on all this.. There are HUNDREDS of things that are highly unethical and seditious that are NOT codified into "House or Senate or Prez Ethics"... And BOTH parties are so severely compromised by playing the loopholes, that NEITHER of them has a leg to stand on with "indignation"... They've been going at this power abuse thingy for so long now -- that EITHER OF THEM can away with anything short of murder. And I wouldn't be surprised if they crossed that bridge in the near future....

Hypocrites: Senate Dems Sent Letter Pressuring Ukraine To Investigate Trump In May 2018


Yes, the very same Democrats who are now supposedly aghast that President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to look into Joe Biden's family corruption, actually sent Ukraine a letter saying "U.S. assistance" was at stake unless the Ukrainian government complied with the bogus special counsel Robert Mueller investigation and conducted their own investigation into the president and his former aid Paul Manafort. Marc Theissen of the Washington Post brought this up yesterday, and after seeing what the president actually said to his call to the newly elected president Volodymyr Zelensky, it looks like the Democrats have nothing but egg on their face.

Here's what Theissen reported Tuesday:

It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?

FYI...
your getting a very biased account by Townhall imo

read the ACTUAL letter sent by the congress critters, it seems NOTHING like your article describes!!! Official business on behalf of the USA vs. Giuliani

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18 Menendez joint letter to General Prosecutor of Ukraine on Mueller investigation.pdf

Oh HELL no... I was forced to take time out of my day this week to go FETCH the ACTUAL menendez et al letter and the townhall quotes I bolded are COMPLETELY accurate as is their analysis...

Town Hall was very selective in it’s quotes and leaves out an entire paragraph of information that describes the problematic issues with Ukraine’s deliberate blocking of the investigation.

There is another concerning part in the second paragraph, where it states that it was reported that Ukraine was blocking the investigation out of concern it might jeopardize military aid.

Why?

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's your example of hyper partisan hypocrisy in action below for you.. That letter is actually in the Senate.gov archives with the 3 Dem Congress critters signatures on it.. APPARENTLY -- you want to refer them for prosecution as well... AMIRITE???

Here's the Independent "I don't give a flying fuck about Dems or Reps" view on all this.. There are HUNDREDS of things that are highly unethical and seditious that are NOT codified into "House or Senate or Prez Ethics"... And BOTH parties are so severely compromised by playing the loopholes, that NEITHER of them has a leg to stand on with "indignation"... They've been going at this power abuse thingy for so long now -- that EITHER OF THEM can away with anything short of murder. And I wouldn't be surprised if they crossed that bridge in the near future....

Hypocrites: Senate Dems Sent Letter Pressuring Ukraine To Investigate Trump In May 2018


Yes, the very same Democrats who are now supposedly aghast that President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to look into Joe Biden's family corruption, actually sent Ukraine a letter saying "U.S. assistance" was at stake unless the Ukrainian government complied with the bogus special counsel Robert Mueller investigation and conducted their own investigation into the president and his former aid Paul Manafort. Marc Theissen of the Washington Post brought this up yesterday, and after seeing what the president actually said to his call to the newly elected president Volodymyr Zelensky, it looks like the Democrats have nothing but egg on their face.

Here's what Theissen reported Tuesday:

It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?

Are you sure about that? They threatened Ukraine? Did they withhold money? Dangle the promise of a state visit?

Trump said they threatened. And in this hyperpartisan age, Trump plays by different rules and is judged by different rules apparently.

Instead of relying on Town Hall’s interpretation, here is the actual letter: https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18 Menendez joint letter to General Prosecutor of Ukraine on Mueller investigation.pdf

And the context: a request to provide an explanation as to why Ukraine was impeding investigations related to the Mueller probe.

Was this a legitimate and legal investigation? Yes.

Was it for personal political benefit? No.

Were any threats made or delivered? No.

So how is this comparable to what we know so far regarding Trump’s actions with Ukraine, and, apparently, he is now flailing at China, to pressure them to investigate his political rival?

Here are some key points. Trump has plenty of legal and transparent channels he can use to conduct a legitimate investigation into corruption. He opted not to, and instead used his personal lawyer, recalled a career diplomat abruptly from Ukraine, and worked through people with a personal loyalty to him rather than the nation. Worse, attempting to suppress whistle blowers, threatening to expose them...and muse about the good old days of executing “traitors”.

It isn’t hyperpartisan to say this is very concerning, and it isn’t hyperpartisan to say that comparing this the what senators wrote on behalf of the Mueller investigation is a false equivalency.

The key points in the TownHall article are in the very first paragraph of that archived letter at senate.gov.. MASSIVE blatant threats in exchange for partisan political gain...

Trump does need to off Biden right now... I don't Dems often think deep enough about effective strategery.. If Trump was interested in the POLITICAL value of Biden's misdeeds with Ukraine, he would HOLD that arrow in the quiver until the party NOMINATES HIM... And then smash him with it... And THAT would be the end of that election.... No way is there equal value to making it an issue now other than pointing out the hypocrisy and corruption.....

 

[Meister]

What aid was withheld? They weren't discussing aid, they were discussing a purchase of military hardware. Read the transcripts.

.

It was $391 million in military aid.

My understanding is that it was Javelin missiles that were outside of the 391 million military package

The U.S. aid money was needed to buy Javelin missiles - among other things.

Please supply that link and thank you in advance

Read the transcript of Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

I'm asking you to provide where the missiles are part of the package....financially.