Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,282
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 339:
Line 339: + + + + + + + + +
→2019
:*[[Shokin]] was fired because of efforts to investigate Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden.
:*[[Shokin]] was fired because of efforts to investigate Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden.
:*Shokin told the ''Washington Post'', "the activities of Burisma, the involvement of his son, Hunter Biden, and the [prosecutor general’s office] investigators on his tail, are the only, I emphasize, the only motives for organizing my resignation.”
:*Shokin told the ''Washington Post'', "the activities of Burisma, the involvement of his son, Hunter Biden, and the [prosecutor general’s office] investigators on his tail, are the only, I emphasize, the only motives for organizing my resignation.”
*'''23 September.''' '''CRS report facilitated a false impression that ultimately provided a false impetus for the current impeachment inquiry.'''<ref>[https://www.scribd.com/document/427976745/R45345 On September 23, a short time before the whistleblower complaint was legally transmitted from the executive branch to the legislative branch (and the public at large), the Congressional Research Service made an extensive update to their publication on "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections.”]</ref>
:*The updated CRS analysis inexplicably claimed that the statute was “not specific on who has the authority for determining whether a complaint, aside from its credibility, constitutes a matter of ‘urgent concern.’”
:*Contrary to the CRS assertion, the statute is explicit on this point, as Congress has defined it in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(G):<ref>https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/beebe2.jpg</ref>
:*Two Other Places the Report Misrepresents the Statutes.
:*It should concern every American that the timing and substance of the updated CRS analysis advances a particular [[partisan]] narrative at the expense of a clear application of the law. The idea that the IC IG can forward a report to Congress about the president and color a complaint about public policy matters as an “urgent concern” to trigger congressional oversight is not supported by the underlying statutes at all.
:*the timing of the updated report’s release raises additional questions about whether certain congressional staff or members were illegally coordinating with the whistleblower during this IC IG’s review process.
:*[[Michael E. DeVine]], listed author of the CRS report, did not respond to the reporter for questions.
:*Congressional staff commented “It’s a big deal,” and anticipated there would be “subpoenas and discovery of CRS staff emails, communications, etc.”
*'''25 September.''' Ken Vogel of ''[[NYT]]'': The Ukrainians weren't made aware that the assistance was being delayed/reviewed until more than one month after the call.<ref>https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1176882766597767168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw</ref>
*'''25 September.''' Ken Vogel of ''[[NYT]]'': The Ukrainians weren't made aware that the assistance was being delayed/reviewed until more than one month after the call.<ref>https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1176882766597767168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw</ref>