WSJ: Trump Knew About Whistleblower Complaint In August

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that President Donald Trump was briefed on the whistleblower complaint earlier than previously assumed. The Journal says that the briefing by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and National Security Council attorney John Eisenberg occurred in August, not September. That could offer significant support for the narrative of the Democrats in the ongoing impeachment effort.

The importance of the August date is not that President Donald Trump knew about the complaint but when he knew. There has been direct evidence presented on three conversations with Trump on an alleged quid pro quo. The first is the Ukrainian call and transcript. In that transcript, Trump calls for investigations but does not direct state a quid pro quo to the military aid for Ukraine. The second is a call on August 31st with Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) in which Johnson says that Trump angrily denied a quid pro quo. The third call is with Ambassador Gordon Sondland on September 9th where Trump again angrily denied the quid pro quo.

I have previously stated that the Sept. 9th call can be challenged by Democrats as occurring after Trump learned of the referral of the complaint to Congress. However, the Johnson call occurred before that time. Now, the Journal is suggesting that Trump knew about the complaint and the unfolding scandal when he spoke with Johnson. That undermines the use of the August 31st call, though Trump is still on two calls expressly denying a quid pro quo.

There still remains serious problems with the suggested articles of impeachment as well as the thin record created by the House Intelligence Committee in comparison to past impeachments. However, the Journal article raises a significant new fact on the timing of these calls.

70 thoughts on “WSJ: Trump Knew About Whistleblower Complaint In August”

  1. you lost the argument by proving you did not have an acceptable source of information although it could have been worse.

    Iambic pentameter?
    Who would translate words,
    Content, and meaning
    To those used to leaning
    The subjective extremes –
    and stuff of empty dreams?

  2. “They weren’t released until after Trump found out there was a whistleblower and the shit would ultimately hit the fan.” Enig

    Proof? A spoonful of accuracy mixed with gallons of blinding hatred and twisted thinking does not equal truth

  3. I’ve figured this out. Peter used to work for Enigma’s nimble office-politician brother.

  4. It’s been a hectic holiday travel day. Crashes on the highways, airport delays & train issues. Fear not…..It could be worse!

    Chief Perry White is about to be sawed in half, Lois Lane is about to be run over by a speeding train & Jimmy Olsen just drove a car off the cliffs.

    Superman to rescue…..Fighting for truth, justice & the American way

  5. I recently saw a shameful video in which First Lady Melania Trump was booed by middle and high schoolers at an event where she was to speak on the opioid crisis. Ugly. All this talk of “toxic masculinity” rings hollow when teenagers are encouraged by political activists to harass a woman on stage. She is a mother to a boy their own age.

    Democrats have caused a deep rift in our society, by teaching young people to hate Republicans. Democrats bring their personal politics into the classroom K-grad school. The mainstream media and Hollywood amount to Democrat propaganda at this point. They brain wash young people to believe Republicans are evil, and they grow up into adults who think Republicans are evil. They never learned critical reasoning, or to research what they are told before blindly believing in it.

    This has been going on for years. You don’t see Republicans threatening violence at virtually all college campuses across America, in order to cancel invited Leftist speakers. You don’t see them “occupy” Democrat businesses, leaving behind feces, urine, and trash, and trying to close their businesses. You don’t see them target and destroy Democrat small business owners for their values, harassing them non stop, like pizza parlors who theoretically would not want to participate in a gay wedding. You don’t see Republicans routinely beat up Democrats over their political clothing, to the point that millions of them would be too afraid to wear it out in public for fear of violence. You don’t see Republicans politicizing K-grad school, harassing Democrat students with regularity and trying to force their views upon them. The hate and intolerance is mostly on the Left. There are individual extremists among the Republican party, but the trend is obvious. Leftists judge everyone by skin color and gender. It is beyond comprehension how Democrats think that is OK, in 2019.

    You are left with teenagers brought up like trash, who would boo hiss at the First Lady of the United Starts. Michelle Obama caused high school athletes to go hungry. Because of her, my son was only given the option of low fat milk if he bought school lunch, even though he’s lean and fit. And yet, it is an honor to see a First Lady in person. Whether or not you personally agree with any of her politics, her position deserves respect. A First Lady has her title because of a fair election, and so will be addressed appropriately by all not raised in a barn.

    But these teenagers have been influenced by activists to believe that Melania Trump is married to Hitler. There is no tolerance of other parties anymore. Moderates appear to have lost all control of the Democrat Party, and that’s sad. Every time I see another person on social media, whom I thought was a reasonable, moderate, kind person, spew vicious bigoted garbage against Republicans in general, it is a symptom of the national tragedy. The Left is extremist, and all extremism ruins everything it touches. Moderate Democrats can make a useful contribution to politics, but all the Left brings is hatred and intolerance.

    Here the founder of the #WalkAway movement describes how when he first learned of exonerating information about Trump in his early days, he lost friends over it. People didn’t want to hear anything that would make them hate Trump less. If they were wrong, they did not want to know it. We have seen this here on the blog, the active fighting against acknowledging facts. They have their emotional argument, and they will cling to it.

    Because otherwise they would be forced to admit they had been wrong, supported shameful and evil acts. It’s like Antifa. One day, they might comprehend they behaved like fascists themselves, and were utterly, completely, violently wrong. That’s going to hurt badly, so they resist that catharsis with everything they have.

    1. “It’s like Antifa. One day, they might comprehend they behaved like fascists themselves, and were utterly, completely, violently wrong. “
      “Might” is the operative. But I doubt many of them will. They are too stupid, vain and arrogant to arrive at such a conclusion. Once they are no longer useful to democrats and leftists, or more expediently become a liability, they will be abandoned and thereafter universally scorned. Nobody will give them any credit or praise and they will find themselves self-marginalized. Out of foolishness they will cling to the halcyon days when They Knew Everything and drive those around them further away. They’ve made their own bed. Let them sleep in it.

    2. Where were you when they were shouting, “lock her up!” Better still when they attacked Chelsea Clinton’s looks when she was a child? Or compared Michelle Obama to an ape? Or made Billy Carter out to be a buffoon (that one might have been right). The point is when you can only see the mote in their eyes, you’re missing the beam in your own.

      1. “Or made Billy Carter out to be a buffoon (that one might have been right).”
        I never criticize stupid. It has its own special kind of reward. Hey maybe I’m a Buddhist.

      2. Where was I when they chanted, “Lock her up?” Hillary Clinton has been accused of getting away with serious crimes. No one else could hide a server in her bathroom in order to circumvent the records act, upload classified information to the Cloud, cut off classified headers before sending faxes, smash phones and laptops and wipe servers while under subpoena, or have their spouse receive multiples of his usual speaking feed from countries with business before State, and stay out of jail.

        I was wondering why the law does not apply to prominent Democrats, and why the intelligence community was allowed to become politicized.

        Where was I when Chelsea Clinton’s looks we’re mocked? I was pretty young and not political, but I openly said that was terrible. That’s not how I was raised.

        We’re either Obama’s compared to apes in the mainstream? No. Racists are a tiny minority. They are condemned. Bush and Trump have been compared with apes and orangutans too, about which you were silent.

        If you deny the trend of harassing conservatives then you must not read Professor Turley’s posts very often.

        Is this all you can come up with to counter the nationwide bigotry and harassment of conservatives?

        Why do you keep defending the party that judges someone’s worth based on skin color and gender? If you became conservative Democrats would fall you every racist name in the book. Doesn’t that bother you, only being respected if you are an obedient Democrat?

    3. You watched Hannity last night, didn’t you, Karen? Yes, I saw it, too, and see you are channeling him, verbatim. No one has to brain wash people not to respect Melania, the former soft-core porn model. What is there to respect about her? She stands for conspicuous consumption: arm-candy for a lying narcissist, with her 7-carat diamond ring, rehearsed model’s pout and designer duds. She is uneducated and shallow. She purports to be supportive of children while the orange slob she appears with cages innocent children and even separates them from their families. Ever heard the word “hypocrite”? Her jacket said it all: “I really don’t care do U?”. The slob she’s married to cheated to get into the White House, and this is the source for the position you believe entitles her to respect? Disrespecting this person, who is NO lady, has nothing to do with politics. Her job is to try to provide validity to a criminal who once referred to her as a “good-looking piece of ass”. He even cheats on her. He doesn’t respect her, so why should we? That you would feel “honored” to view this nullity proves you are the one lacking critical reasoning skills. And, no, Karen, he did not win a fair election.

        1. I agree. She must be glued to Fox 24/7, biting her nails. She is the only person who brings them up in virtually every single post. It’s so weird.

            1. There was a recurring SNL skit about the crazy church lady, played by Dana Carvey. She would always say this line, “Now what does this remind me of? Oh…I don’t know…maybe…SATAN!!!”

              Scrolling down the comments, Natacha pops up, saying, now, what does this remind me of? Oh, I don’t know…maybe HANNITY!!!! YOU’VE BEEN WATCHING HANNITY HAVEN’T YOU???!!! She is a bit more aggressive than the SNL crazy church cross dresser.


      1. Natacha:

        “You watched Hannity last night, didn’t you, Karen? Yes, I saw it, too, and see you are channeling him, verbatim.“

        No, I did not. I have been stating my opinion for years.

        Your obsession with Hannity is weird. You come across like you are desperately obsessed, like you are stalking him. You constantly bring him up in virtually every post, over and over and over again. You are a good example of the toxic hatred I referenced above. The Left has ruined you until you are constantly angry and resentful, obsessed beyond reason with a single conservative news channel and one host in particular. Leftists really are miserable, bigoted human beings.

        You incessantly guess wrong about me. Your tone is shrill and hysterical.

        Why don’t you go boycott fossil fuels, which would forbid you to use the plastics found in keyboards and cell phones.

    4. Karen, Melania was speaking in Baltimoe which her husband labeled as a “rat infested sh**hole”. Apparently those booing feel a sense of civic pride.

  6. Not a whistle blower but a CIA leaker.

    Obama prosecuted more whistle blowers than all other presidents combined.

    People who dared to expose torture and illegal spying and Julian Assange is being murdered by the state for exposing USA crimes and election fraud as a journalist.

    The CIA was behind the torture and illegal spying and lying the world into war and want more.

    Kennedy wanted to destroy the CIA and was murdered.

  7. There needs to be two sides with a mutual understanding for there to be the offer of a quid pro quo. Ukraine was never informed.

    The gist of the WSJ allegation is that a Democrat activist misconstrued the original Ukraine call as a quid pro quo. The transcript showed that it was not. After Trump was apprised of the complaint, he denied a quid pro quo. Which is the truth.

    I am frankly amazed at the great lengths Democrats are willing to go in order to obstruct an investigation into alleged criminal wrongdoing on the part of their presidential candidate.

    After so many false allegations of obstruction against Trump, Democrats are obstructing an investigation right out in the open, through abusing their power of impeachment.

    1. Is this the big gotcha moment? The transcript shows no quid pro quo. When you engage in a quid pro quo you have to actually proposition someone.

      Is Trump to be impeached for angrily denying the demonstrably false accusation that there was a quid pro quo?

      The whistleblower/Democrat activist may have been the one to start the rumors of the quid pro quo himself. Along with Sondland.

      Will there be any consequences to Democrats for obstructing an investigation into Biden’s alleged criminal and unethical activity?

  8. Let us give an illusion of a thing to see if the thing is denied thus showing corruption. The President of the Ukraine denies ‘Quid Pro Quo’ thus that denial shows he is corrupt.

  9. The New York Times is making the same claim, but so what? Distribution of foreign aid is an Executive Branch responsibility and is often based on conditions. In this case, we have the appearance of a corrupt former high government official and evidence of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election to benefit Clinton. President Trump has every right to demand that Ukraine investigate, especially since the fired prosecutor has repeatedly stated that he was investigating the irresponsible Hunter Biden. As for the whistleblower, if one actually reads the regulation and IC policy, they’ll discover that it only applies to complaints about issues WITHIN THEIR OWN AGENCY! Now, anyone, government employee as well as the rest of us, has the right to contact their Congressmen with complaints. It’s obvious that Adam Schiff or his staff knew about the complaint before it was filed. When the head of the DNI testified before Congress, he made it clear that the complaint was inappropriate and that his and DOJ legal experts had determined that it would be improper to forward it to Congress. In short, Schiff, or someone close to him, came up with the idea of taking the whistleblower route so they could claim they were “protecting” the person by refusing to reveal their identify. In reality, they’re protecting themselves and their CONSPIRACY. By the way, Ukraine has no more effect on US national security than Mexico affects Russian national security. This is all a political farce and there are people in the Legislative Branch who need to spend a long time breaking rocks in a Federal institution.

    1. well said semc

      here’s the current political hashtag on twitter: devin nunes is “director of butt licking”

      this is the political discourse that the Democratic leadership has engendered!

  10. How about lecturing Mueller for wasting time and money. Removal will not happen, you know it. This just keeps this country divided.

    1. Succinct. Relevant. On point.

      A similar observation is now evolving in other sectors of our nation, e.g. the Catholic Church in America

      There is no “conservative” or “liberal” American or in the Body of Christ. We are all Americans. Those who insist on dividing us are the problem.

      “E pluribus unum is the motto suggested by the committee Congress appointed on July 4, 1776 to design “a seal for the United States of America.“

      1. yeah but America is not the Body of Christ. Though some folks seem to misunderstand that.

        So it’s perfectly fine for it to be divided, at least in the sense that we’re all a little different. Viva la difference!

        1. You pulled a Peter Shill. Cherry pick much or were you channeling George Washington?

          Hint: a good attorney knows latin and is fit in his mid-50s!


  11. A held back deposition released. “House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees released White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official Mark Sandy’s deposition transcript on Tuesday. The transcripts reveal aid to Ukraine was put on hold because President Donald Trump was concerned about other countries’ failure to provide aid.”

    1. Your interpretation of Sandy’s deposition was way off. He said the first they heard about concern for other countries’ contribution was “early September.” Long after they knew about the whistleblower complaint. He also said two people resigned because they believed the hold was illegal. He added that all the career staff who complained about the potentially illegal order were cut out of the loop and replaced by a political appointee who had no qualms.

      1. Enigma:

        #1 I did not see you answer my previous question. Would you be just as supportive if this was happening to you instead of Trump? If the minute you got your dream job, your jurors went on camera and said they would ruin you and get you fired, no matter what. This was long before this allegation and obviously before they saw any evidence. They just didn’t agree with you and were willing to do whatever it takes to get rid of you. One false allegation after another piled upon you, disproven, but the media failed to fact check, and instead gave free propaganda to the people trying to destroy you. What about if there was no evidence that the current allegation was true, either. And there were people like Peter who said the police should be pounding at your door for your personal papers, even though there was no law whatsoever requiring them. You enemies want them, and seem willing to use the power of government to get it, against the law. Would you still think this was fine if it was you?

        #2 The allegation was based upon the rumor mill. See link: In fact, it appears that both Sondland and the anti-Trump activist, AKA “whistleblower” may have been the source of the quid pro quo rumors, themselves.

        #3 If employees try to interfere with the President, refusing to do their jobs, they will be fired. This is not controversial. The “whistleblower” himself turned out to be an anti-Trump activist with ties to the Democrat presidential campaign, operating as a mole. Obviously any and all such people should be removed from their jobs, as they are abusing their access for political purposes. The intelligence community is supposed to be apolitical. Instead, it has become part of the Deep State, fun by Democrat activists willing to use their authority to help Democrats.

        #4 Ukraine did not know about any quid pro quo. Hence there was no quid pro quo. It takes two parties for there to be a proposition. It’s like someone claiming you should be fired for making an indecent proposal, but the girl knew nothing about it. That makes no sense.

        1. I did respond earlier to at least the first question. If this happened to me with the evidence and allegations involved. I’d be in jail, no question about it. The only two reasons Trump isn’t is 1. Because he’s President and for some reason the Justice Department (no Court has ever said so) thinks he can’t be prosecuted and two, he’s prevented much of the evidence from being seen and testimony from being heard. I assure you. I would have no such safeguards.
          2. Who the whistleblower is seems totally irrelevant as everything in his report has been substantiated, most of it confessed to by the President. The whistle-blower is a rabbit hole. Sunderland doesn’t have the intelligence or the guts.
          3. Employees aren’t supposed to break the law to please their boss, President or not. That’s why two people in OMB quit and several others wanted to go to the lawyers because they felt it wan’t legal. (Withholding Congress approved aid without notifying them and following procedure). Trump removed the career people and got a political appointee to do his dirt.
          4. Ukraine did know and began emailing people in July asking what was going on.
          5. You didn’t throw this one out but the funds got released only because Trump was told about the whistle-blower complaint and the upcoming shit storm.

          1. Enigma – yes, you’d be in jail, because your jurors declared years before the allegation that they would do everything in their power to throw you in jail. I directly asked you how you would feel if your jurors bragged they would send you to jail before seeing any evidence. You just ignored it…because no reasonable person would find this acceptable. It takes political bias to ignore it.

            What evidence have you seen for a quid pro quo. I’ve been watching the testimony, although I haven’t been able to catch all of it. People have testified that they heard about it, but when all those people were gathered in a room, they all heard about it from each other. Sondland admitted no one on Earth told him. He’d just assumed. (Example:

            Perhaps you haven’t seen each witness crumble. Or you were not aware that each witness confirmed there was a conflict of interest, at the very least, in Joe Biden’s actions. This clearly justified investigating him.

            Do you believe that Trump has received due process? Do you find it appropriate that those who serve as his jurors have declared they would impeach him, no matter what, years before this allegation, or that they continue to say they will impeach him when they have not heard all the evidence, and in spite of their witnesses crumbling under cross?

            Ambassador Taylor confirmed Ukraine knew nothing about the quid pro quo. They heard about it when the allegations were brought up. It has been confirmed that no one proposed a quid pro quo to them.

            What do you have to say about the lengths the Democrats in Congress have gone to in order to obstruct an investigation into alleged criminal activity by Joe Biden, their presidential candidate?

            The identity of the whistleblower is important if it confirms he was a staunch anti-Trump political activist who set out to abuse his access to get dirt on the president. In light of the fact that he had no first hand knowledge (again, it’s the rumor game), and his complaint was in direct contradiction to the transcript of the phone call that he claimed his complaint was based upon, then this is significant. It brings up the possibility that he deliberately lied, or started this rumor himself, in order to take down the President.

            #5 was disproven.

            I read articles from myriad sources. After Sondland admitted that “no one on Earth” told him there was a quid pro quo, and he just assumed it, headlines in media such as WaPo read “Sondland confirmed quid pro quo.” This is not journalists. It’s political activism, materially changing the facts to suit a political goal. It’s wrong.

            Joe Biden claims Ukraine was corrupt. Trump claims he delayed funds to confirm the new Ukrainian president was fighting corruption.

            How can Democrats believe Joe Biden’s claim that Ukraine was corrupt, and therefore it was appropriate to openly offer a quid pro quo of American aid to get a prosecutor fired, who was investigating Burisma, but Trump’s claim that Ukraine was corrupt was false, and therefore proof of a quid pro quo, which was suddenly grounds for impeachment.

            Biden openly brags about a quid pro quo: I will leave in 6 hours with over a $ billion in aid, unless you fire this guy.
            Biden is a prominent Democrat Presidential candidate with the support of the DNC. His son, with no skills whatsoever, gets paid $50,000 a month to work for a company doing business in Ukraine, under investigation. His father says, on camera, that he is in charge of Ukraine policy, not Obama. The firing of the prosecutor benefited Hunter Biden, who seems to have been paid a fortune because of his connection to the vice president, in charge of policy with the country in which they do business. And…Democrats see no problem with this.

            Trump delays Ukraine aid. The transcript shows no quid pro quo. Democrats who ignored Biden’s open quid pro quo are trying to impeach Trump, despite there being no evidence of a quid pro quo.

            In what way does this make sense to you? In what way do both of these situations get judged by the same rules?

            Are you honest enough to admit that Republicans would have a problem with this? Can you see any sincere objection to the disparity here? Upon watching the two video clips, can you admit that there are serious flaws in the Democrat witnesses?

            1. Sonderland directly testified there was a Quid Pro Quo. Mulvaney said there was a Quid Pro Quo, even after being given a chance to correct himself. Because Trump started saying there wasn’t after he heard about the whistle-blower report means nothing.
              If you’re so concerned about Hunter Biden’s 50,000 per month. You must be highly concerned about Guiliani’s %00K from Lev Parnas so that Parnas could work for Guiliani? MAke that make sense. Then Guiliani’s proposed contracts for $200K and $300K with Ukranians he was working with to dirty up Biden, Then Rick Perry getting a huge contract for his political donors? Hunter Biden’s problem was he wasn’t getting enough money for Trump to respect.
              BTW, every YouTube video you post is proof of nothing. Just as the posts I write are my opinion (but documented).


              1. “Sonderland directly testified there was a Quid Pro Quo. Mulvaney said there was a Quid Pro Quo, even after being given a chance to correct himself. ”
                So? Both said they had no personal knowledge and merely presumed it based on the “common knowledge” of their peers none of whom had personal knowledge. It takes a special kinda stupid to conclude that kind of “evidence” is persuasive. For example, if I told you the common sentiment around here is that you are a polygamist despite no one knowing you, would you accept our assessment? If you’re intellectually honest, you know the answer.

                1. I don’t believe Mulvaney said he had no personal knowledge, he simply refused to testify. Whatever anyone from the Trump administration says not under oath is likely a lie. Anything they say under oath is still questionable as Sonderland has had to change his testimony twice and questions have been raised regarding his last outing. Not that Quid Pro Quo is even the standard, Trump broke the law by withholding the aid without notifying Congress. Several people told his OMB crony (Duffy not Mulvaney) it was probably illegal and they all didn’t even hesitate. All to help Trump with his election.

                  1. “That’s what people are saying that I said, but I didn’t say that,” Mulvaney claimed on “Fox News Sunday,” insisting that his words were taken the wrong way. Mulvaney acknowledged that President Trump had mentioned concern regarding Ukraine and the Democratic National Committee’s hacked server, “but it wasn’t connected to the aid.”

                    The confusion over whether or not Mulvaney had admitted to a quid pro quo stemmed from an exchange with ABC News reporter Jon Karl. Karl asked if the investigation of Ukraine’s possible ties to Democrats during the 2016 election was connected to the withholding of the money, stating that this would be a quid pro quo.

                    “We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney said. He later issued a statement saying that “there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election.”

                    1. Yes he walked it back. In the exchange (which I watched) the reporter said approximately, “That’s the very definition of Quid Pro Quo” and Mulvaney agreed. Nobody put words into his mouth. He had to take them out after getting cayght telling the truth.

                    2. Here’s the exact wording:

                      Q: “So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?”

                      Mulvaney: “The look back to what happened in 2016 —”

                      Q: “The investigation into Democrats.”

                      Mulvaney: “— certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.”

                      Reporters press Mulvaney to clarify if aid hinged on the DNC investigation
                      Q: “But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well.”

                      Mulvaney: “We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration.”

                  2. enigma – Trump delayed aid, he did not withhold it. He was required by law to do that.

                    1. He released it after finding out the whistle-blower complaint had been made and after Congress and the media started raising hell. His extortion attempt got blown up by external forces. It was still extortion.

                    2. enigma – according to 3 Senators, Trump released the funds after speaking them after they got back from Ukraine.

                    3. Which doesn’t take away from the fact that Trump had been informed of the whistle-blower report and the press and the Congress were on his ass. Sen. Ron Johnson (R) had been talking freely about the Quid Pro Quo until they put the kibosh on him.

                    4. enigma – there are a lot of balls in the air here. The question is if one or more of them adds up to an impeachable offense.

                    5. enigma – the DNC is attacking the messenger, that is how afraid they are that their message is failing.

                      Happy Thanksgiving!!!

                    6. Did you see every fact witness during the recent hearings attacked by the President? Those particular messengers have little redeeming value. Graham used to be fairly honorable though I disagreed with his views on many things. Now, John McCain wouldn’t recognize his former friend. Nunes has been slime throughout, maybe he should go back to tending non-existent cows?
                      Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours as well.

                    7. enigma – you don’t attack Trump without getting attacked back. On Graham, I think his balls have descended since McCain died.

                    8. I listeden to much of the testimony. They didn’t attack Trump, they told what they knew. It may be true that none of the facts were favorable for Trump but those were the cards they were dealt. Trump started attacking them before they uttered a word. Are you suggesting Trump didn’t actually do the things they said? Not even the Republicans on the committee’s are saying that.

            2. A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

              The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions

              October 16, 2000

              M e m o r a n d u m O p in io n f o r t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

              In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

              We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution. The Department’s consideration of this issue in 1973 arose in two distinct legal contexts. First, the Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) prepared a comprehensive memorandum in the fall of 1973 that analyzed whether all federal civil officers are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office, and, if not, whether the President and Vice President in particular are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office. See Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973) (“ OLC Memo” ). The OLC memorandum concluded that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process. Second, the Department addressed the question later that same year in connection with the grand jury investigation of then-Vice President Spiro Agnew. In response to a motion by the Vice President to enjoin grand jury proceedings against him, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution. See Memorandum for the United States Concerning the Vice President’s Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5, 1973), In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972:
              1 Since that time, the Department has touched on this and related questions in the course of resolving other questions, see, e g . The President — Interpretation o f 18 U.S C. §603 as Applicable to Activities in the White House, 3 Op. O.L.C. 31, 32 (1979); Bnef for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 15 n 8, Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (No. 95-1853), but it has not undertaken a comprehensive reexamination of the matter. We note that various lawyers and legal scholars have recently espoused a range of views of the matter See, e.g, Impeachment or Indictment• Is a Sitting President Subject to the Compulsory Criminal Process’ Hearings Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights o f the Senate Comm, on the Judiciary, 105th Cong (1998)

              – DOJ

  12. Let me see if I understand the point of this breathless reporting. The WSJ is reporting that President Trump was briefed about a non-WB WB, that had no first-hand knowledge, about an alleged QPQ that never happened, less than a month earlier than previously thought.

    Slow news day. Yawn.

    1. Let me help you out OLLY; when you and others say there was no harm because the funds were released. They weren’t released until after Trump found out there was a whistleblower and the shit would ultimately hit the fan. Emails reported yesterday show that the Administration started trying to create a rationale for holding the funds well after the knowledge of the whistleblower report.

      1. So the funds were released within the fiscal year and without any of the alleged preconditions being met. Got it.

        Well, son of a bitch. He got fir..

        Oops, wrong QPQ.

        And he would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddli..

        No, that’s not right either.

        I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it.

        There we go. Pure Democrat projection.

        Bring on Barr, Horrowitz and Durham for a proper cleansing.

  13. DUH! Of course it was a quid pro quo. Trump ain’t an idiot. You don’t make a billion bucks by being naive and stupid.
    People say things. Trump says way, WAY, too much. In his mind he probably thought he was doing a little arm twisting, a little persuading, throwing a little the mix that people do all the time. I bet Trump would not have withheld the aid regardless what Zelensky did or whether the “story” broke about the conversation. Is anyone around here human? He wanted to communicate how much he hoped for an investigation.

    It’s like a powerful man with bulging biceps wearing a tight short sleeve shirt in front of a bully.

    I want to know what Hunter and Jose were up to in Ukraine, too. Don’t you? We already know Jose is a liar and a plagiarist and Hunter is a drug addict and playboy.

    1. It happens. I live not far from Chambers County and there are feral hogs all over the place. When I was growing up, my family raised hogs and we knew to be careful when around them. As for Ana Navarro, she’s a Democratic asset.

      1. I knew years back 40 miles west of Tulsa Ok they were having trouble with feral hogs. Friends would go hunting there. The last Gov got a bill passed allowing hunting them from copters & planes across the state.

        They’re fast moving & very dangerous to humans, pets, livestock & crops.

        I say Ana Navarro & CNN are feral hogs as they’ve been leaders in attacking American’s free speech Rights among other Anti USA crap. They should move to the countries that fund them, I think it’s still the Saudis & Qatar.

  14. While the defense of “look, they got the money anyway” is ugly and distasteful, it may turn out to be the only defense that will save his ass. If Trump did in fact know of the complaint before the two phone calls, it may help him. Especially with his supporters. It fits in with what we have found is consistent about him: when his feet are held to the political fire, he always pulls them out. Did he do it in time? It depends on how you define the “crime” that was committed. Was the shoplifter guilty when he put the necklace in his pocket? Yes, of course he was. But in this case, the shoplifter did not walk out of the store, but put the necklace back. On his own volition. Can we convict by totally ignoring that? As a juror, I wouldn’t. But, as is always true of impeachment, none of the actual jurors would ever be allowed on a real jury held to due process standards. I still think it’s 50-50, but there’s something reassuring about the new revelation. It fits in with what we’ve always known about his character. For me, he gets points for consistency.

    1. A shoplifter is not guilty until he leaves the shop with whatever he is attempting to steal. If you don’t know that, I suspect we should not be trusting your political analysis whatsoever.

    2. And your point is? Just what offense did the president commit? Foreign policy is an Executive Branch responsibility. All Congress does is make appropriations. They have no control over how they’re spent, fi they are.

  15. Even if he knew about the supposed whistle-blower, Trump seems pretty open and the diplomats seemed miffed that they were not getting to run things the way they wanted. I think the WSJ is stretching.

  16. Shakespeare could write a book about all of the and he would title it: Much Ado About Nada.

    1. Shakespear’s book on the topic would be a hybrid with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. There is a plot afoot. Well acquainted with palace intrigues, and betrayal, the Bard would make a good play of it.

      I’d like to see this coup attempt in iambic pentameter.

Comments are closed.