Most of the country has been burying the lede on the Ukraine call / whistleblower story

[Stinky The Clown]

Yes, Trump's actions were wrong and almost certainly impeachable.

But there is the actual BIGGER story that the citizenry, punditry, and electedry (<--made up word) have not been taking about. The bigger issue, it seems to me, is the black and white fact that the administration was under legal order, legal obligation, no wiggle room legal mandate, to make the allegations and whistleblower known to the Congress. It isn't a suggestion. It isn't a guideline. It is THE FUCKING LAW.

THEY

BROKE

THE

FUCKING

LAW

!!!

The call and its intent, much as we think we know what went on, is debatable. It really is.

But not informing the Congress is a CRIME.

And THAT . . . . . is the lede.

[DemocracyMouse]

1. You are right! And the second most important story is Pelosi failing to address the crime

[TwilightZone]

3. She has addressed it.

It was reported extensively.

From a 10-second search:

https://www.axios.com/nancy-pelosi-trump-ukraine-whistleblower-complaint-2ae15fd7-83c1-47a4-ab0c-87e28e9ff5ff.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/most-profound-violation-yet-democrats-assail-trump-s-ukraine-phone-n1057406

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/pelosi-hints-impeachment-ukraine-whistleblower-dear-colleague-letter-888296

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/09/nancy-pelosi-trump-whistleblower-impeachment-ukraine/

[LiberalLovinLug]

9. Please point out just exactly where it says Pelosi is ordering the arrest of of the DNI head

This is all I garnered from those articles:

Pelosi hints at impeachment

Pelosi threatens 'new stage' of probe

Pelosi hints at impeachment

Nancy Pelosi Just Sent a Dire Warning


How exactly is this any different from her comments before this?

Enough of the "Why I otta...."

[TwilightZone]

17. "failing to address"

She did *clearly* address it, as I pointed out.

"Address" does not mean "arrest the DNI head".

It means address.

[LiberalLovinLug]

19. Well there is address and then there is address

From the Cambridge dictionary

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/address


to speak to a group of people, especially in a meeting or formal event:
He addressed a group of forty industrialists and politicians.

to deal with a particular problem or need:
It is time to address the budget deficit.


You clearly meant the former. I am talking about the latter. Actually addressing a particular problem.
Its obvious Pelosi is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the impeachment table. But when she finally does, I will be there supporting her.

[TwilightZone]

36. She did that, as well.

Still want to stick to your assertion that she isn't addressing it, in any form of the word?

Pedantic arguments aren't terribly compelling. And a lot of people look quite foolish today.

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. Finally, yes.

Foolish might be a little harsh, but I do believe it is those of you that hung back defending Nancy's resistance to impeachment and that only quickly jumped on board when she finally relented, and joined the majority of Democrats who have been calling for it for weeks and months already that look a little foolish.

'Because of all the foot dragging, we've had to put up with more months of Trump's destructive embarrassing behaviour, when there was plenty enough evidence of crimes and misdemeanours before this Ukraine story came out. Which of course also would have come out during a sooner impeachment. As Obama said. "We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." Enough pressure from folks that were not afraid to go against the speakers scolding admonitions against it, built up and it looks like this straw was enough to break the camels back for her. Good! I support her 100% now. One thing I do believe is that Nancy is a tough customer, and once she has decided on a course of action, she will put in 100% as well.

[DemocracyMouse]

14. Moving in the right direction! She blew her first chance to get

the public behind impeachment after the Muellar report all but yelled out for it. This may be her only next chance to bring this lawless German fascist to justice.

[DENVERPOPS]

29. All I recall

All I recall is Reports that Pelosi was going to write another (yet again) "Stern Letter"........

[TwilightZone]

35. And your assertion looks a little silly today, no?

[DENVERPOPS]

37. No not really

Look at the timeline of events...............

It wasn't until the group of seven freshmen wrote their letter that moved her off her position.

[stopdiggin]

4. not true

it's been addressed -- and extensively reported.

[intrepidity]

2. It's worth reading Lawfareblog.com on this

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-latest-reports-say-about-whistleblower-complaint

As I outlined here, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act provides that if the ICIG determines that a complaint about a matter of “urgent concern” is credible, he sends it to the DNI, who within seven days “shall ... forward” it to Congress together with any comments. But a matter of “urgent concern” is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity within the authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information” (emphasis added). The alleged offer by the president, while perhaps criminal and possibly impeachable, does not obviously relate to any intelligence activity within the DNI’s authority.

Still, some have argued that the statute does not allow the DNI to make his own determination of the applicability of the statute but, instead, requires him to accept the ICIG’s determination that something is a matter of urgent concern. In this case, however, it appears that the DNI went to the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for an opinion. OLC opinions are considered to be binding and authoritative interpretations of law within the executive branch. So if OLC in fact formally opined that this complaint was not an “urgent concern” as defined in the statute, the DNI could take the position that the ICIG must follow that interpretation.

Still, we know now that the ICIG also asked permission to transmit the complaint to the intelligence committees apart from the statute and was told he could not do so for reasons of privilege. Here again, a claim that the president’s communications with foreign leaders should be protected by a privilege is not, in the abstract, a frivolous one. Indeed, when Congress sought to obtain memoranda of Trump’s conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone cited a long history, going back to George Washington, of presidents declining to reveal such communications. The extent of such a privilege—and in particular whether it would protect communications that might constitute bribery—is untested. But if the White House asserted such a privilege, the ODNI would be bound to honor it.

Make no mistake about it. This allegation is a grave one. Even if there is a plausible legal basis to defend withholding the whistleblower’s complaint, if the president has offered financial incentives in an attempt to enlist a foreign power against his political opponents, the public needs to know—by one means or another.

[stopdiggin]

5. thanks for a good explanation

As I read the article, it looks like the legal wrangling could go on for a good long time. This apparently is not nearly the slam dunk (as far as forwarding the complaint) as some are making it out to be. (dang it!) Flip side of the coin -- the nuts and bolts of the story are out there and enjoying wide coverage -- and I think the sheer mendacity, and WHY this is utterly wrong and corrupt, is there for the public to see (and understand) in a fairly basic "paint-by-numbers" picture. Win or lose on the finer points of law -- this clearly a case of Trump shooting himself in the foot -- right out in the middle of 5th Ave.

[kentuck]

6. It said "shall" give the IG complaint to the Intel Committees of House and Senate.

It doesn't say, "whenever you want to", or "mind your own business", or "law don't go down 'round heah"...

It is the job of the Executive to make sure all laws are faithfully executed.

[spooky3]

13. The GOPers had a similar inability to understand "shall" why Trump's tax returns

were requested.

[Larrybanal]

16. hahahahaha

give me a break...the executive to make sure laws are executed???? you mean like the death penalty for laws? because trump will never uphold the law

[bucolic_frolic]

7. It's just more obstruction

It's what Trump always does

[Pepsidog]

8. Breaking the law used to be a big deal. Today not so much.

[ffr]

10. The lesson I hope democrats learn most from this episode is that "TWO CAN PLAY THIS GAME"

When our turn comes around, I can only hope that democrats live up to the hype the Fox News fakes day-in day out. I want our future leaders to run rough shod over every norm republicans could ever imagine, so that we all can proudly wear T-shirts that read,

Conservatives, awwwww. Did you have a sad today?

FU and your mothers!

[cstanleytech]

12. I kinda like the idea of the next Democrat banning Fox News and other nutjob right wing media from

the White House press room.

[blm]

27. I wish.

And wish we had a Dem who would follow through with it.

[cstanleytech]

11. If he did it then of course he broke the law but there are some huge problems in the way of

proceeding.
The two main ones being William "Obstructist" Barr heading the DoJ so we cannot rely on them and if we use our majority in the House to impeach we have the second which is Mitch "Putin's Bitch" McConnell waiting over in the Senate to kill it.

[ancianita]

32. Pelosi is not bound to send the impeachment over to the Senate. It can sit 'til we get a new Senate.

Then indicting a sitting president can be done before inaugurating the next president.

Removal is about timing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. Horrifying. But we don't stand up to crimes and

injustice in a formal, recorded for history, kinda way, do we? We didn't when I left Friday to go off grid for weekend anyway. Did something great happen over weekend STC? Hope so

[Fan of Da Bearse]

20. "Lede"?

Should be "lead." I confirmed this with Check Spelling.

[obamanut2012]

24. It is either --lede is traditional

[Stinky The Clown]

30. As good an explanation as any:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/lede

[ArcticFox]

21. Why "lede," and not "lead"?

What the heck is a lede?

[obamanut2012]

25. It is what it is - lede is a well known word

A traditional usage in journalism.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. Here is as good an explanation as any:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/lede

[RVN VET71]

34. I did not know that.

Thanks!

[malaise]

22. THEY BROKE THE FUCKING LAW

This deserves 500 recs

[uponit7771]

23. K&R,

[calimary]

26. Yep. THEY BROKE THE FUCKING LAW.

That’s the long and the short of it.

[RVN VET71]

33. I agree that the law has been broken here, without question.

But has it been clearly demonstrated/documented that the "urgent" issue raised by the whistle-blower was, in fact, the pressure applied to Ukraine? I'm asking because there seems to be a lot of public discourse about what Trump did with the president of Ukraine, his attempt at extortion, etc. And I just have to wonder if an intelligence operative would be so alarmed by it, considering it was already in the news, that he or she would lodge a formal, urgent complaint with the IG.

If it is the Ukraine thing, so be it. But are we not rushing to a conclusion here that may, in fact, be off the mark?