Adam Schiff Drops A Bomb On Trump: There Is No Privilege That Covers Corruption

[babylonsister]

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/09/22/adam-schiff-trump-ukraine.html

Posted on Sun, Sep 22nd, 2019 by Jason Easley
Adam Schiff Drops A Bomb On Trump: There Is No Privilege That Covers Corruption


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) blew up Trump claims that his phone call with Ukraine’s president is privileged and can’t be released.”

Transcript:

TAPPER: Well, I said that to Secretary Mnuchin just two minutes ago, why not just release this to settle the issue? And he said, because it would set a horrible precedent, because world leaders should be able to talk to President Trump without having those conversations shared. Your response to that?

SCHIFF: Well, not if those conversations involve potential corruption or criminality or leverage being used for political advantage against our nation’s interest. And that’s what’s at stake here.This would be, I think, the most profound violation of the presidential oath of office, certainly during this presidency, which says a lot, but perhaps during just about any presidency. There is no privilege that covers corruption. There is no privilege to engage in underhanded discussions. And, again, I don’t know if this is the subject of the whistle-blower complaint. But if it is, it needs to be exposed.

And we know the inspector general found that complaint urgent. We also know the inspector general found this did not involve a policy disagreement. It’s one thing if you’re talking about a presidential communication that involves a policy issue. That is not a valid whistle-blower complaint. But, here, the inspector general said, this is not what is at issue. We’re talking about serious or flagrant abuse, impropriety, potential violation of law.

And there’s no privilege that protects that. And the reason I think that, if these two issues are, in fact, one issue, if there is a relationship between this complaint and this issue, you have not only this illicit conduct by the president of the United States, but you also have the added element of a cover-up.

Video @ link~

Chairman Schiff was right. If Trump’s behavior was criminal, there is no privilege covering that phone call. Executive privilege does not extend to cover potentially criminal activity by the president. Trump knows this at some level, which is why he keeps saying that he did nothing wrong during the phone call. However, Chairman Schiff also pointed out during the same CNN interview that if Trump did nothing wrong, there is no reason for him not to release the transcript of the call.

Trump can’t hide his potentially criminal efforts to rope Ukraine into a conspiracy against Joe Biden.

The Democratic House is proving to be a valuable check against Trump’s efforts to smear his way into a second term.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Hear, hear, Chairman Schiff!

[lindysalsagal]

2. The GOP keeps conveniently forgetting that accusations of wrongdoing change everything

[AncientGeezer]

3. Crap load of "Ifs" in this article. Ifs don't cut it. Need House hearings to find the "Dids"

[empedocles]

4. 'Probable cause' strengthens Schiff

[spanone]

5. I have no doubt that trump would alter the transcript if he released it......none at all

[KPN]

13. Same here. Anyone who thinks he wouldn't actually try that

is fooling themselves. Any transcript or recording itself will need to be investigated forensically.

[cannabis_flower]

15. Maybe..

We could get a transcript from the Ukrainian president?

[spanone]

16. he's already echoed trump's assessment of the 'discussion' useless

[ecstatic]

6. Stop saying "if"

He did it, dammit! This is why the democratic message is so muddled and why Americans are confused about impeachment. Stop being so overly cautious and careful when we all know trump is a criminal!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

8. it's the GOP who think accusations equal guilt

Adam Schiff knows that it is still possible that TrumPutin didn't violate the law in this instance, however improbable that is.

If the call was an abuse of power, then the attempt to cover it up is obstruction of justice. If the whistleblower's complaint really is urgent, then withholding that from Schiff's Committee beyond the seven days is likewise a violation of law.

So, either TrumPutin is not guilty and has no reason to conceal the call from the Committee, or he and others are guilty of muliple crimes.

[ecstatic]

9. Look at their position and look at ours. This overly

cautious crap, I get it, that's who we are, but we're in an emergency now. Trust your gut and speak forcefully, ffs!

[stopdiggin]

31. No. "trust your gut" is not good enough.

If you're leveling charges, real legal stuff, against someone -- you damned well better have some facts. Let the bloggers and the pundits throw around speculation and accusation -- but I want my representatives to be talking truth, not trash.

[malaise]

7. ITTMF

RFN!

[Fan of Da Bearse]

10. Right On!

[Botany]

11. "... if Trump did nothing wrong, there is no reason for him not to release the transcript of ...

... the call."

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

21. That implies there is a transcript -- or tape -- of the calls.

Given that he doesn't even allow an American translator or notetaker into the room when he's talking with Putin, and refuses to use email, I seriously doubt there are any written or audio records of his conversations, unless the CIA intercepted them.

Our best starting place is with the whistleblower.

[Botany]

22. I betya Vlad has a tape of the phone call.

n/t

[pangaia]

12. I don't know how he keeps his cool knowing what he must know about everything...

[KPN]

14. No kidding. I hope he writes a book about this

when it is all said and done. It’s got to be incredible — and not in a good sense.

[yuiyoshida]

17. I would like to know

Who has the power to handcuff him?

I WANT TO SEE THAT DAY!!

[Karadeniz]

18. If you were a president, why would you ever want to have a private, unshared conversation

With anyone? For one thing, it's the law that everything be archived, so right off the bat, no communication is totally private. When trump told his notetaker to tear up her notes after meeting privately with Putin, that was against the law. Since I wouldn't be knowingly sharing secret information or discussing personal business or concerns, I'd want evidence that the conversation was on the up and up. I'd also want someone in the room to make sure I had covered all the topics that needed to be covered, as well as another set of ears in case something I said may not have come across as intended. As it is, Trump's readouts of phone calls are ridiculously nonspecific...I remember one of his two sentence readouts was compared with the Chinese readout which took a page and was actually helpful.

[Piasladic]

19. How many years has it been?

Last edited Mon Sep 23, 2019, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)

After so many Fitzmasses, I am sick of strongly worded rebukes.

My country is is getting worse for me (a white, mostly straight, woman in the education field) and even worse for my friends. I know I am a lucky one in this mess. Because I live in the (middle of Florida) South, my colleagues are mostly on the "conservative" side, even as they get screwed. I ask my husband why they vote this way, and he argues it's because of how in our generation, the K-12 system was cool with average classes, in that most people were educated in underfunded, under-expectant, overcrowded classrooms.

I am not old enough to have watched Watergate or Carter/Reagan, but was somewhat aware of Iran-Contra and Bush2. After I learned my history, all I can conclude is we are screwed. Republicans fight dirty, and we are meek.

[DemocracyMouse]

25. Beautifully told story of USA, USA mediocrity!

[LTG]

20. A couple possible snags

There are a couple arguments that may be offered by both the DNI and the White House for refusing release to Congress of the whistle blowers complaint and the conversation. It would the require a ruling by the court, with attendant appeals up the federal judicial ladder.

The ICIG and the DNI can argue that mandatory forwarding of the complaint only applies to matters that fall under the IC whistleblower statute. That statute only covers actions by members of the IC, which doesn’t include the President. Further it only applies to issues involving intelligence activities and operations. Once more the President’s communications with foreign leaders falls under neither category.

The issue of probable cause to believe a crime has taken place is possibly undercut if the recent reporting that the whistleblower has no direct knowledge of the conversation is accurate, thus hearsay.

The President’s powers include the sole power to deal with foreign leaders and foreign policy, unless specifically delegated by him. Communication being passed to people outside those chosen by the President could chill the ability of the President to deal with foreign leaders. Thus a strong Executive Privilege claim.

I don’t know that either claim would survive a full hearing in federal court, but they are possibly enough to slow the court’s decision making. The court hates being in between the Executive and Legislative branches on questions of privilege, the question of interpreting statutory language is more strictly in the purview of the courts.

Stonewalling, absent a court order, under these circumstances is not just possible but likely and would possibly preclude any successful assertion and enforcement of contempt.

All part of the playbook, Stall, Hinder, Delay and Distract, without any seeming consequences.

[not_the_one]

23. then the courts need to get to it, in a greatly expedited fashion

yes, I know that cases have to be brought, verdicts rendered, appeals made....

THAT is why all this 3D chess strategy is driving us up the wall. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!

Slowing, stonewalling, THAT is what they are doing. Running out the clock.

And sorry, but given the circumstances and the gravity of the situation... the fact that the court hates being in between...blah blah blah. If the validity and credibility of the courts are lost, being "in between" is of little consequence.

Let's get this show on the road!!!

[bucolic_frolic]

24. That line of reasoning is weak executive privilege undercut by his own actions

"Communication being passed to people outside those chosen by the President could chill the ability of the President to deal with foreign leaders."

You mean like choosing a person outside the government, outside the IC, an outside person like a private citizen campaign operative like Rudy Giuliani?

Trump already delegated his duties to a third party. He wasn't considering executive privilege then, which makes it a weak and ludicrous assertion now.

[Takket]

26. By using his personal lawyer

He is acting as a citizen and candidate. Not the president.

Also as Schiff points out privilege does not cover criminal activity and the IG has already called this an “urgent matter”.

Seems a deal could be struck with the White House... promise them if the call really is innocuous it will only be viewed by the intelligence committee. But if there is a crime it can be used against drumpf.

Drumpf has nothing to hide, right? So it is a good deal.

[stopdiggin]

32. thanks. we need to hear some of the real legal points here

thanks for laying them out. I've also read a couple of things on Lawfare -- also seems helpful, and somewhat authoritative (or at least informed).

[ooky]

27. If Trump had proof he didn't do it he'd have already released the transcript of the call and

be taking victory laps. He did it alright.

[grumpyduck]

28. So what are you going to do about it?

Besides blow hot air?

[PoliticAverse]

29. The first sentence doesn't imply the second.

If Trump’s behavior was criminal, there is no privilege covering that phone call.

That's correct.

Executive privilege does not extend to cover potentially criminal activity by the president.

That's a completely different claim and it isn't necessarily true.

Any conversation a President has with anyone could constitute "potentially criminal activity" this obviously doesn't mean that no conversation a president has is covered by executive privilege.

[emmaverybo]

30. Chairman Schiff is so articulate when he sums up the matter. He puts a case together succinctly.

Always sober and judicious in speech, never needs to exaggerate or go to emotionalism.

[War Pigs]

33. Transcript released

In Sharpie. Perfectly legal I say!