Don't Forget The Cover-Up
>
To Señor Trumpanzee, any Republican civil servant who puts country before Trumpism is automatically a #NeverTrumper. He casts the aspersion on anyone who testifies to the facts, a way of targeting them for his moron followers and supporters. However, that isn't to say that there are no #NeverTrumpers. There are; and almost all of them work at The Bulwark... which, by the way, has recently modified it's logo:
Early yesterday, The Bulwark performed a service by publishing Chris Truax's piece, There Was Also A Cover-up. He pointed out that "Lost in all of the current impeachment talk is the very start of this incident: How the whistleblower complaint was initially handled. As Howard Baker once put it during the Watergate investigation, the question is 'What did the President know and when did he know it?' In Trump’s case, we can add, 'And what did he do about it?' Because the administration’s initial handling of the whistleblower report now looks less like an attempt to preserve executive authority and much more like an attempt at a cover-up."
When the whistleblower filed the complaint, the Office of the Inspector General quickly concluded that it was both credible and “a matter of urgent concern.” Consequently, the OIG had a legal duty to report it to Congress. But when the OIG filed what should have been a pro-forma notification of the complaint with the Director of National Intelligence, something happened. Instead of facilitating the passing of the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees as the law requires, the administration began a frantic effort to bottle it up, permanently.
That effort culminated in an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel concluding that the president’s efforts to get Ukraine to do him a “favor” and investigate Joe Biden was not “a matter of urgent concern” under the whistleblower act. The OLC’s analysis is a stretch, at best. Seventy Inspectors General, including the Inspector General of the Justice Department itself, signed a joint letter insisting that the OLC withdraw or modify that opinion.
What’s particularly damning about this chain of events is that the OLC opinion only concluded that the statute did not “require” DNI Maguire to send the complaint to Congress. It did not conclude that the complaint could not or should not be sent to Congress.
Nonetheless, Maguire refused to help the whistleblower contact Congress directly even though the law gives a whistleblower the right to do so and directs the Director of National Intelligence to facilitate the whistleblower’s communications with Congress.
So either Maguire was acting entirely on his own, which seems unlikely. Or someone in the chain of command ordered Maguire to bury the complaint.
Who might that have been?
We don’t yet know precisely when President Trump found out about the existence of the complaint. He almost certainly knew about the complaint by the time he dictated the famous “no quid pro quo” phone text to Ambassador Sondland on September 9, because that’s the day that Inspector General Michael Atkinson sent his letter informing Congress that a complaint existed and that it was being buried by the administration.
Whistleblower by Nancy Ohanian
But it’s very possible that Trump learned about the existence of the complaint much earlier. Senator Ron Johnson, one of Trump’s biggest supporters, has provided written evidence about a curious conversation he had with President Trump on August 31, during which Trump denied that congressionally-authorized military aid was being held up to pressure Ukraine and also denied knowing who Ambassador Gordon Sondland was. Since that’s patently absurd-- we know conclusively that Trump knew exactly who Sondland was-- it is difficult to interpret this as anything other than Trump’s efforts to cover his tracks.
One possibility is that Trump learned about the whistleblower complaint directly from the Director of National Security, Joseph Maquire. When Maguire testified before the House Intelligence Committee on September 26, he was asked by Rep. Jim Himes, “Did you or your office ever speak to the president of the United States about this complaint?”
Watch Maguire’s sputtering, play-for-time non-answer. No really, it’s right here. Go watch. Now ask yourself what the odds are that the real, truthful answer to Himes’ question is “no.”
Regardless of whether or not it was Maguire, at some point Trump did find out about the complaint. What did he do then? We won’t know until the House completes its investigation, but I would bet the farm that his response was not, “Why are you telling me this? This complaint is about me. I have a conflict of interest! I can’t discuss this with you.”
As the target of the whistleblower complaint, it is axiomatic that President Trump should not have been allowed to interfere with the processing of the complaint in any way. Arguably, he should not even have been told of its existence. Preventing powerful wrongdoers from suppressing complaints of wrongdoing is the entire reason that whistleblower acts exist.
And yet, various members of the Trump administration-- possibly including Donald Trump himself-- found out about this complaint early in the process and went all out-to ensure that it never saw the light of day.
Trying to interfere with the justice system in a foreign country is bad enough. Interfering with ours is the very definition of impeachable.
Labels: cover-ups, impeaching Trump, Randy Rainbow, whistle blowers
5 Comments:
After years of this Orangeman in our face, is anyone surprised at the lengths of obstruction this administration is guilty of?
Donald Trump is a TRAITOR (yes, Nunez, he IS a Russian stooge, as your party has now also become). Trump has clearly committed BRIBERY and TREASON, the two very specific crimes described in the Constitution along with HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, which he has certainly also committed.
It is so amazing looking back hundreds of years how brilliant and prescient the Founding Fathers were. I guess these crimes have been prevalent by despots throughout history, likely since the Year One, so in a sense it is actually virtually a no brainer. That's why knowledge of history is so important if we are ever to get beyond this. The rationale behind the Republicans' hatred of education is obvious. Interviews with average citizens prove this point - way too many people are way too ignorant and dumb and thereby complacent about our democracy itself. This does not bode well for our future or that of the planet.
Yes, Hone, the founders were pretty sharp. But they failed to anticipate political parties and they utterly failed to project how greed and obscene wealth could collaborate with parties to corrupt, absolutely, their entire legacy. They also presumed and educated and informed electorate would 'get it right' more often than not.
For their vision to be effective, it takes voters that are not dumber than shit electing people dedicated to those principles to enforce that vision.
This is what has been utterly lacking since the early '80s.
from the piece: "Interfering with our (justice system) is the very definition of impeachable." just hilarious.
If this is so, then every single president after Carter should have been impeached. Certainly obamanation was second worst here having refused to put a single banker or torturer in prison. bush did prosecute corporate fraud but also allowed totally fake prosecutions in the pursuit of voter suppression and electoral fraud. Nobody after Carter has enforced Sherman et al either.
The axiom of democracy should include this warning: when voters are dumber than shit and/or pure evil, the resulting democracy cannot ever be any good.
You have to be of a certain age to remember this, but it wasn't the crime of the break-in that made the republicans in '74 decide to tell Nixon that his position was untenable. It was the cover-up.
Until incontrovertible proof (via the tapes and John Dean) of the cover-up existed, the party was behind their leader.
If torture and trillions in finance fraud are, de-facto, legal, then covering up this shit is probably now part of the job description.
7:05
You might want to read Washington's Farewell Address in which George Washington points out the dangers inherent in every one of the items you raise in your first paragraph. Just be aware that the word "factions" represents what we now know as political parties as well as what we now know as lobbyists and commercial organizations like the very corrupt US Chamber of Commerce and the NRA.
No charge since this is a course every free college should offer.
9:22, right you are. It's unfortunate that Washington figured this out too late to put it in the constitution.
Also, this being such a maleducated populace, referring people to read something someone said over 200 years ago, to say nothing of Eisenhower's dire warning about the CMIC in his own farewell, would make no impression on 98% of us/US.
most people just want to vote against those they've been taught to hate. the enemy of my enemy is my friend... you see.
Post a Comment
<< Home