Once again, the administration is doing all in its assumed powers to prevent Constitutional oversight by the House.
If there is nothing illegal going on, why the obstruction? I thought the innocent have nothing to hide.
Obstruction DOESN’T Take a Holiday
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I wonder if this administration is truly an outlier or if these kinds of things are par for the course for presidents, but he and everyone in his orbit are just too stupid to not leave their fingerprints on everything.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The regime runs on a fuel of required loyalty to Trump. True, presidents are certainly entitled to appointees who are in step with his agenda.
Yet, this administration seems to take the loyalty to a personal level. And it also seems that it is a one way proposition. We’ve seen a number of dismissed aides, appointees, etc. that suddenly acquired the nomenclature of “I hardly knew the guy” or worse. The phrase “what have you done for ME lately” has been taken to a new level.
To me at least that would spread a rot of insecurity among staffers and administration personnel. CYA becomes almost a sacrament.
This whistleblower fiasco may yet being the president’s undoing. Trump’s argument that he wouldn’t be stupid enough to say anything compromising because all his words are a matter of record somewhere.
Well, anyone who has listened to his non-scripted speeches would question that assertion.
Plus, that is not denial. That is just a version of “trust me”. And that is not a good defense for any politician, much less one with Trump’s entire life’s reputation.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “If there is nothing illegal going on, why the obstruction?”
A better question is, Why ask?
In our society no one, not even the president, is obligated to prove their innocence just because some knucklehead (Adam Schiff in this case) raises suspicions.
LikeLike
You have the wrong knucklehead. The suspicions were not raised by Adam Schiff, but by an intel employee. The IG deemed the case “urgent” and “serious”. The IG wants to tell the House committee what they are entitled to know as part of their oversight. It is the ACTING DNI, under the guidance of the DOJ, who is preventing the information from going where it is supposed to.
And in answer to your question: The transparency promised is not being followed through on. If Trump is innocent of everything as he says he is, why not let the info go forward? It would stop a lot of the folderol and give the American people what they deserve; the TRUTH.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “If Trump is innocent of everything as he says he is, why not let the info go forward?”
The president is entitled to privacy in his conversations with others, just as you are. Why harp on the question of innocence, when it isn’t even an issue?
LikeLike
Silly me. The idea that one of our own intelligence agencies believes that POTUS is stepping out of bounds in dealings with leaders of foreign nations, possibly someone not-so friendly, isn’t an issue is just plain partisan hooey to a Trump supporter. A closed door session where the information will not be made public would solve the issue in 30 minutes. If it is a nothing burger, Schiff comes out and tells the country that. Problem solved, privacy secured. If not, the proper proceedings should ensue.
Keep in mind, the IG and DNI-INO are Trump appointed. The IG is being prevented from performing his duties wrt a situation he deems “urgent” and “serious” because the DNI-INO, under the direction of the AG, is telling him not to in order to protect Trump. That should raise the eyebrows of even the most ardent, least intelligent of supporters. But the sky is yellow and the grass is red if Trump say it is.
LikeLiked by 3 people
He can’t hear you, but I applaud the effort.
This may well be the tipping point that ends this corrupt Administration.
Even Moscow Mitch sees the writing on the wall and has begun to de-couple from the stupidity of trump’s multiple follies. Of course, I hope he doesn’t survive either, but he’s a consummate expert at playing the game…
LikeLiked by 2 people
The IG in question followed protocol in seeking a DOJ opinion. If he’s not satisfied, or unable to do his job, he can and should resign.
Neither you, nor Congress, has a right to force the president to prove anything at all in this matter.
LikeLike
“Neither you, nor Congress”… Half right. I don’t have a right to force the President to do anything. However, Congress has a CONSTITUTIONAL duty to perform oversight of the ART II office. The actions of the acting DNI are preventing them from doing so. That, sir, is obstruction of Congress. If the Executive branch officers are being told not to allow information required to be passed to Congress, the Executive Branch head is in violation of the Constitution. There is no gray area.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LMFAO
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Congress has a CONSTITUTIONAL duty to perform oversight of the ART II office.”
That duty is not unlimited. In this case, the DOJ apparently thinks Congress wants too much. Until new or more substantive facts emerge, it is irresponsible to allege any wrongdoing.
LikeLike
Based on the consistent stonewalling and obstruction by the current administration, it is irresponsible to ignore it.
I go back to my original thought that if there is nothing to see here, then PROVE it. And don’t give me the “innocent until proven guilty” on this one. The terms “serious” and “urgent” from a TRUMP appointee is cause enough to look a lot deeper.
…”the DOJ apparently thinks Congress wants too much” The DOJ is ALSO responsible to Congress. ART I gives oversight power to offices that fall under ART II. For a guy who claims to be so Constitutionally savvy, you sure do pick your nits poorly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “The DOJ is ALSO responsible to Congress.”
So what?
LikeLike
The President is entitled to privacy? Not when he is breaking the law, he doesn’t.
“Innocence” IS an issue since SOMEBODY in a position to know what he did has staked his career on following the law instead of simply leaking what he knows. And the IG agreed that serious matters which the law requires be referred to Congress had taken place. The whistleblower and the IG have been betrayed by the DNI, Barr and Trump. Yet another impeachable offense.
And now a matter of great public interest is exactly what did Trump promise and to whom? One well-informed speculation is that he explicitly tied the unblocking of military aid to Ukraine to the Ukraine initiating criminal investigations of Joe Biden’s son. If that is actually what this jackass did, are you still going to support him?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course he will. Truth and honesty are not part of Trump-World. And those that live in it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My guess is that this wil turn out to be someone who was about to get referred for prosecution on the FISA court fraud by the Inspector General preemptively grasping for ‘whistleblower’ protection.
LikeLike
Interesting theory. However, if that were the case, why would Trump want to cover it up? It would give his arguments creedence. Sorry to blow your conspiracy theory up. but it had to be done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If my guess is right then Trump CAN’T say much about it.
He also can’t say much about the content of a private discussion with a foreign leader.
At this point, we have to let the IG and Justice Dept inquiry run its course.
LikeLike
RE: “My guess is that this wil turn out to be someone who was about to get referred for prosecution on the FISA court fraud by the Inspector General preemptively grasping for ‘whistleblower’ protection.”
That makes sense. We could also be dealing with an Obama holdover or a Bolton sympathizer. And so it goes.
LikeLike
@Roberts
You and Tabor are illustrating very well just how you have to check your integrity, your common sense and your patriotism at the door as you continue the never ending job of defending the indefensible charlatan in the White House.
In this case, you both push wild conspiracy theories that attribute dishonest motives to the whistleblower and the IG that he referred the matter to rather than looking at the facts objectively.
We do not know who the whistleblower is but we do know that IG who was appointed by Trump and HE found the matters to be very serious.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-what-the-inspector-general-said-about-the-urgent-whistleblower-concern-blocked-from-congress
LikeLiked by 1 person
To Trump supporter it ALL makes sense. Of course, if that were the case, then it would benefit Trump to provide the info, discredit, formally and PROPERLY, the claims made and then we can move on. However, I am having a hard time swallowing what Don threw up here because, well, it is just that: throw up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “In this case, you both push wild conspiracy theories that attribute dishonest motives to the whistleblower and the IG that he referred the matter to rather than looking at the facts objectively.”
OK, then, the conspiracy theory doesn’t wash with you. I’m happy to admit there’s not much known to sustain it.
The problem is, there’s not much known to support the alternative conspiracy theory that the president or someone in his orbit did something terribly wrong. If you or anyone else has something more then “serious suspicions” to report in this matter, let’s hear it.
Until then, “serious suspicions” and a $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.
LikeLike
Where is your common sense?
Somebody who was somehow privy to a conversation that Trump had with a head of state found the promise Trump made to that person was a serious violation of the law – so serious that he followed the procedure set out in the Whistleblower statute and referred the matter to the Inspector General. The IG in his turn found that the disclosure was indeed a serious matter and that the law required Congress to be informed. So, there we have two professional opinions that a matter requiring referral to Congress had occurred. You cannot dismiss these facts as comparable to the cock and bull stuff you and Tabor are dreaming up about FISA problems or Obama loyalties or Bolton’s Revenge motivating criminal behavior by these two people. In fact, the IG was appointed in 2018. Trump became President in 2017.
The IG has gone on record to challenge the suppression of these matters by DNI and DOJ in the letters he wrote to Congress . . .
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-what-the-inspector-general-said-about-the-urgent-whistleblower-concern-blocked-from-congress
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “You cannot dismiss these facts…”
If they were facts, I wouldn’t dismiss them. As it is, two participants having “professional opinions” is largely meaningless.
LikeLike
If they were facts? They are facts. Can’t you read? I have posted the letters from the IG to the Congress twice.
Fact one – someone raised a Whistleblower complaint about Trump’s promise.
Fact two – The IG reviewed the case and passed it to the DNI for referral to Congress.
Fact three – Trump’s acting DNI refused to share with Congress.
Like I have said before, check you integrity, your common sense and your patriotism at the door as you continue your blind support for the criminal now sitting in the oval office. After all, what’s it to me – it’s your integrity being pissed away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Fact three – Trump’s acting DNI refused to share with Congress.”
Fact 3A — according to the DOJ, Congress is not entitled to receive the complaint.
LikeLike
I’ll take the “under”, but it does exemplify the definition of “grasping” to suggest it….
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Tabor
Worst guess ever. One that does not even remotely conform to the facts and does not take account of the concurrence of the IG that the matter in question was serious enough that a report to the Congress was required by law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “concurrence of the IG that the matter in question was serious enough that a report to the Congress was required by law.”
The IG wasn’t sure about that. That’s why he asked for a DOJ opinion in the matter. It appears the system worked as it was supposed to, so far as we know.
LikeLike
“he asked for a DOJ opinion in the matter”
The fact that you have no clue about the facts of the matter explains why you reach false conclusions consistently.
“He” did NOT, please pay attention before embarrassing yourself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The IG was not sure about that? BULL! He was dead sure. He did not ask any opinion. He referred the matter to the DNI for action.
The law requires that the DNI refer such serious whistleblower complaints to Congress – not the IG – and it was the DNI who refused to follow the law on some phony pretext and the Barr DOJ was called in to back him up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “The fact that you have no clue about the facts of the matter explains why you reach false conclusions consistently.”
Instead of criticizing me personally, why not just correct the record? I’m happy for you to do so.
In this case, however, it makes no difference whether it was the IG or the DNI which sought input from DOJ. The issues at stake are the same. Neither you, nor I, nor anybody else except the participants knows whether the matter at hand really was subject to Congressional oversight, or should have been.
As a result, this whole discussion is academic. That is to say, it is not obvious that any problem exists at all.
LikeLike
RE: “it was the DNI who refused to follow the law on some phony pretext and the Barr DOJ was called in to back him up.”
So you say, but you’re just guessing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Guessing? uh no. I was able to read the IG’s letters to Congress. Maybe you can’t read?
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Maybe you can’t read?”
Maybe you can’t. The DOJ looked at the law and determined Congress was not entitled to receive the complaint. Your accusation that someone refused to follow the law is without merit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are obviously missing the point that the DOJ position on this matter is complete BULL. Since Barr took over they are now the Department of Protecting Trump. Their criminal role makes this scandal even more egregious.
LikeLike
RE: “the DOJ position on this matter is complete BULL.”
So you say, again, but there are no facts to substantiate that claim.
LikeLike
There are no facts?
Uh, no. The FACT is that the Whistleblower and the Inspector General who are privy to the details of Trump’s latest criminal behavior have risked their careers to bring the matter to Congress as the LAW requires. Maybe Mr. Barr really believes they are wrong (Ha!) but that is NOT a reason to withhold the complaint. If there really is a legitimate difference of opinion (Ha!) let the House Intelligence Committee decide for themselves.
The whole point of the whistleblower law is to prevent an administration from hiding embarrassing or criminal behavior. If any serious complaint can be buried and hidden then the law has not been “faithfully executed.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
@John Roberts: Your complete disdain of the Constitution, unless it supports your position, is noted. Thank you for proving the point of hypocrisy on the right. You have represented your tribe quite well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Thank you for proving the point of hypocrisy on the right. You have represented your tribe quite well.”
Your comment is out of line, Mr. Green.
Nothing I have said is inconsistent with the Constitution or the long-established legal doctrine of executive privilege. There is no hypocrisy on my part.
Moreover, it should be obvious that I represent myself when I post here. Only in your overheated imagination do I represent anyone else, and certainly not a “tribe.”
I’m sorry you find it necessary to be uncivil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I could have been a lot less civil if I chose to. Pointing out the hypocrisy of your opinions, especially wrt to the Constitution, is a reasoned observation of someone who yells about the sanctity of the Constitution, until something like Constitutional oversight by Congress of this POTUS comes up.
You are an intelligent man, Mr. Roberts. But you don’t see very well. And while your opinions are your own, your hypocrisy is shared by many on the right. You have told me about my left wing radicalism on several occasions. Apparently you don’t see what others see in you. Maybe you should look harder at your own own reflection.You are as tribalistic as anyone else on this blog.
And Executive privilege goes out the window if criminal conduct is potentially involved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “And Executive privilege goes out the window if criminal conduct is potentially involved.”
That’s true, but there has been no allegation of criminal conduct here. Only vague inferences that something bad may have happened.
Since you call my a hypocrite, I challenge you to state clearly what I have done or said that is hypocritical. If you can’t, keep your name-calling to yourself or go away.
LikeLiked by 1 person