General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAdam Schiff Drops A Bomb On Trump: There Is No Privilege That Covers Corruption
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/09/22/adam-schiff-trump-ukraine.htmlPosted 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 Ukraines president is privileged and cant be released.
Transcript:
SCHIFF: Well, not if those conversations involve potential corruption or criminality or leverage being used for political advantage against our nations interest. And thats whats 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 dont 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. Its one thing if youre 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. Were talking about serious or flagrant abuse, impropriety, potential violation of law.
And theres 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 Trumps 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 cant 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 Trumps efforts to smear his way into a second term.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,516 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,570 posts)AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)empedocles
(15,751 posts)spanone
(135,781 posts)KPN
(15,635 posts)is fooling themselves. Any transcript or recording itself will need to be investigated forensically.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)We could get a transcript from the Ukrainian president?
spanone
(135,781 posts)ecstatic
(32,641 posts)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
(33,238 posts)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
(32,641 posts)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
(11,238 posts)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
(268,664 posts)RFN!
Fan of Da Bearse
(75 posts)Botany
(70,442 posts)... the call."
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,563 posts)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
(70,442 posts)n/t
pangaia
(24,324 posts)KPN
(15,635 posts)when it is all said and done. Its got to be incredible and not in a good sense.
yuiyoshida
(41,818 posts)Who has the power to handcuff him?
I WANT TO SEE THAT DAY!!
Karadeniz
(22,461 posts)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
(1,160 posts)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
(2,275 posts)LTG
(215 posts)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 doesnt include the President. Further it only applies to issues involving intelligence activities and operations. Once more the Presidents 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 Presidents 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 dont know that either claim would survive a full hearing in federal court, but they are possibly enough to slow the courts 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
(2,227 posts)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
(43,027 posts)"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
(21,526 posts)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
(11,238 posts)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
(8,905 posts)be taking victory laps. He did it alright.
grumpyduck
(6,221 posts)Besides blow hot air?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)That's correct.
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
(8,144 posts)Always sober and judicious in speech, never needs to exaggerate or go to emotionalism.
War Pigs
(252 posts)In Sharpie. Perfectly legal I say!