advertisement

SSN on Facebook SSN on Twitter SSN on YouTube RSS Feed

58 Comments
Columns

Why Dems Drooling over a 'Whistleblower' Impeachment Will Fail Again

September 25, 2019 - 9:00am

Throughout the weekend, D.C. was in a severe lather over the latest outrage/scandal/impeachable offense involving the president. In fact it continues to gather steam well into this week.

Reports are claiming the White House, and President Trump himself, had attempted to leverage the new president of Ukraine into providing opposition research into Joe Biden. While Trump and the administration have admitted to speaking with the Ukrainian president, the flashpoint to all of this is a supposed whistleblower claiming foreign aid to the Ukraine has been held back as a quid pro quo arrangement.

In predictable fashion the Democrats have been in full-bore outrage over another chance to claim scandalous behavior is afoot, and a passel of Florida politicians have joined in the chorus. Have a look at Kevin Derby's story on this page. 

What is amusing is that the outrage is not at all rooted in anything approaching factual reasoning, but that is not impeding theses Democrats' desire to join the torch-and-pitchfork crowd in their party.

In July national Dems brought up an impeachment resolution (honestly, I forget what the reason was THIS time -- I think Trump was mean to some freshmen House members, or such). That was easily tamped down, but now a number of the Florida contingent who voted “no” this summer are now seemingly intent on getting in on this latest impeachment impetus. 

“If true, this is a flagrant, corrupt abuse of power," said Debbie Wasserman Schultz. “If the president criminally blocks this whistleblower's complaint from coming before Congress, it will likely exceed any tolerable executive conduct our Constitution could withstand." She was not alone. "If the president continues to stonewall Congress,” said Donna Shalala, “it would demonstrate a new level of contempt for the laws of our country and require Congress to pursue all remedies at its disposal." 

Chiming in is Rep. Kathy Castor. "Trump has violated his oath of office,” declared the Democrat from Tampa. “He operates for himself, in his personal interest — and not in the interest of the American people. The impeachment inquiry should be put on the fast track and all of the facts made plain."

That's a great idea, Kathy -- relying on facts. Note the use by Wasserman of the words “if” and “likely” -- terms you don't invoke when you actually possess proof. Yet, as Castor wants facts, the interesting thing here is that this hyperbolic response to the latest tempest-in-a-crockpot is being done while ignoring numerous key details that are already made plain. We can start with the fact that the White House did not initiate this round of discussions with Ukraine.

Incidentally, this morning the list of Florida congressional Democrats had grown to include, among others, Alcee Hastings, Charlie Crist, Lois Frankel, Ted Deutch and newcomer Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. Stephanie Murphy has said she backs a special committee to look into the matter, stopping shy of calling for impeachment.

This all began with the State Department asking for a meeting, on behalf of the Ukranian leadership. Eventually stemming from that meeting, which involved Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, was talk involving the past actions and words of Joe Biden, regarding a prosecutor in that country who had been working a case involving Joe’s son, Hunter Biden. Much of this is mundane political gears turning, but then came the loud announcement that a whistleblower was coming forward with details that President Trump had threatened to withhold foreign aid money for the Ukraine unless the leadership helped him obtain oppo-research on the man he regards as his biggest challenge in next year’s election.

As a result, the Democrats have been in hair-set-on-fire mode, screaming about impropriety and how impeachment hearings need to be undertaken immediately. All of this is based on the testimony supposedly delivered by a lone, unnamed and unknown source. As Congress has called for documents from the presidential phone calls be turned over, the administration has been reluctant. Oh-oh! Violation of whistleblower laws, claim Dems drooling for impeachment. The whistleblower laws are designed to both protect anyone who comes forward and to provoke an investigation into their claims.

And here is where an already fragile set of accusations begins to crumble like a rose parade float on Feb. 1. 

During the CyberWars podcast on Sunday, I sat in and discussed why the claims by Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee are meaningless. The whistleblower law states the information concerning claims is to be turned over to the Office of Director of National Intelligence, but only in matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the DNI. This being a matter involving the executive branch -- a call involving the president speaking to a foreign leader -- means it is not under the purview of the ODNI. So any claim of the administration blocking the turning-over of transcripts is made either from the position of ignorance, or of partisan accusation. 

But there is one other reason the whistleblower law would not pertain here. As reported by CNN, amid its hysterical headlines and insinuations, the whistleblower had no way of knowing about his/her own accusations. "The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications,” reported CNN, deep in its accusatory piece. Then, about three-fourths of the way into its lengthy piece, was this revealing detail:

"The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration’s determination that the complaint didn’t fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said."

Put another way, this individual does not qualify as a whistleblower, therefore any requirements invoked by whistleblower-law are voided. This means the Democrats are screeching for impeachment over the testimony of a lone individual with no way of knowing what took place on the call they are commenting on. Wasserman-Schultz, Shalala and Castor are hinging their political hopes not on an informed whistleblower, but on a gossip.

In the end, this will simply become yet another example of their party shrieking about the president with claims that are baseless. All they end up doing is appealing to their extremist wing while accomplishing little else on behalf of the state or the nation.

Brad Slager, a Fort Lauderdale freelance writer, wrote this story exclusively for Sunshine State News. He writes on politics and the industry and his stories appear in such publications as RedState and The Federalist.

Comments

The people that attack President Trump are fascists.

People 'attack Trump" because he's a racist, a draft-dodger, a pathological liar, a serial cheater and adulterer, a con man, and a fraudster ... and ... an obstructor of justice ... and an abuser of power. You got it perfectly bassackward, Daniel!

You're getting your stories mixed up. Biden was the only one withholding aid unless the prosecutor was fired concerning the investigation over Biden's son's activities. A president never has to turn over communications with foreign leaders. Your premise is severely flawed.

There is no mix up. The investigation the Ukrainians are pursuing involves Biden’s $1 billion quid pro quo. And I stated how the call with a foreign leader is not in the jurisdiction of ODNI.

Shame on the Democrat party and their ilk. Biden and his son should be convicted of high treason.

That is the general consensus.

Geez! Do you even know what "high treason" means! Apparently not.

TRUMP agreed to turn over redacted phone records. The truth is that dems would put a periscope up trumps a— every second of every day! This might be a novel idea, but perhaps the dems could legislate on illegal immigrants and war in drugs?! This will cost the dems in 2020 - mark this post and pass the popcorn!

Well , at least if the Democrats nominate Biden , we will all be treated to endless cross accusations about whether Biden’s or Trump’s involvement with Ukrainian matters was worse ? Funny how once there was mention of Biden’s son ( family ) , the D left wing was unleashed into a feeding frenzy ..... but if there is nothing there , they will all go home still starving for Trump’s demise ... again !

The spectacle of an impeachment is truly undesirable. I've watched it unfold twice in my lifetime and it is very *** the nation. That said, in the instances of both Nixon and Clinton, I wanted the truth and then whatever consequences were appropriate to win out...not a partisan but a truth-based process. Patriotic Republicans and Democrats should want to know the truth in this instance as well. Of course, an impeachment (including a Senate trial) is largely political by nature but I do hope truth, whatever it is, comes out, is placed in context and appropriate action or inaction is taken. How about we all seek truth instead of spin from the politicians, partisans, pundits and ourselves? This is serious national business.

Nixon was not impeached.

Most Americans bundle the House passage of Articles of Impeachment with the Senate trial. However, they are truly not the same thing. The gentleman who also commented is correct in that the House did indeed vote out Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon but Nixon resigned and avoided a Senate trial. The entire process is painful for the nation but it is part of our Constitutional process and important to the checks and balances of our system of government and our separation of powers.

The House did vote articles of impeachment, and when Republicans finally abandoned ship, Nixon resigned in disgrace. He resigned to avoid a trial in the senate because GOP leaders came to him and said they could no longer cover for this unindicted co-conspirator burglar president. That said, Nixon was brilliant, SUPPORTED UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, SIGNED THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, OPENED TRADE WITH CHINA. Since the entire Republican party is now wedged into Trump's back pocket, there are no Republicans aside from Justin Amash who are willing to tell this guy its almost over. Blackmail and extortion are not kosher. And you have to admit, Trump isn't fit to shine Nixon's dirty shoes. He sounded pretty ragged today.

here goes the unemployed blogger again, claiming to know all the facts...too funny.

Do you mean unemployed like Hillary Clinton?

By Forbes' last count, Hillary Clinton is worth more than $50 million in her own right and Bill Clinton is worth nearly $200 million in his own right ... SO ... I don't think being "unemployed" is much of a problem for Ms. Clinton.

All that money on just federal politician jobs. Corruption at its finest.

If this is truly nothing and the whistleblower is working entirely off of gossip, then why the refusal to turn over the complaint and any transcripts of the call, as well as direct testimony over why exactly the military aid package was withheld? If nothing exists, be totally transparent as the law directs for a complaint that is deemed credible by the IG and accepted. The other thing as we are talking about facts, is this is only an impeachment inquiry to get at the facts. That's all it is at this point. If the facts were turned over as they should have been under the law, the inquiry might not have had to take place. The problem here is when will it end, over 200 documented contacts by the campaign, during the campaign, with our most hated adversary, obstruction, lies, veiled threats, and now this. When will it end? Only, and only when those that think they are above the law are held accountable. No one is above the law!

Because it sets bad precedent to have conversations with political leaders made to become available for political hit jobs. Going forward leaders will be reticent to speak to our Presidents.

Precedent has no bearing on constitutional law, except as it relates to findings of a court of law...

In case you were not aware, what is alleged is a crime, and it could very well rise to the level of treason. To withhold aid at the bequest of having a foreign power investigate a political rival or any public citizen is against the law. You can have conversations all you want with foreign powers that involve sensitive issues, as long as "quid pro quo" is not a possibility and as long as it has nothing to do with adversarial politics. That is the law.

There was no quid pro quo. The aid in question was delivered. The Ukraine leadership said they were never pressured. The supposed whistleblower had no direct knowledge of the phone call. This is all baseless.

I'd say I was never pressured too as long as I got $200 million for free. man, get your head out of your ass dufus...

Really, show your facts and cite your source on those new facts you have. The Aid was only delivered after the whistleblower complaint as cover once he was caught. Show your dates. Then allow the Office of the IG to release all of the documents, not the WH doctored DoJ "interpretation". If there was nothing to the case, the IG's office would not have accepted the claim and called it credible...

Joe Biden and his son are guilty of high treason.

Joe Biden cant speak well enough to defend himself, so allow me. If you're right, lets economize and throw Trump and his brats into the same cell. And as soon as he brings peace to the middle east, throw in the slumlord son in law, too!

A date with the gallows would be too good for them.

You must have gone to the same school that Jeannie Byrd went to! Small world, ain't it?

Pages

Add new comment

columns
advertisement

Chatterbox

advertisement
Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.

advertisement