I try not to cover purely political stories on this blog, but I do believe we’re watching history unfold here. Twenty minutes ago, the President posted this to his Twitter:
If you’re not following, the context is this: when the President phones a foreign leader, there are usually many others on the call to document and make permanent record of the interaction, as well as to inform policy decisions in the State Department and CIA. In July, Trump called the president of Ukraine and asked him to investigate presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son. Some of the people on the call understood the implication to be that Trump wanted Ukraine to dig up dirt on his competition for the 2020 election. The U.S. then delayed foreign aid that Congress had earmarked for the Ukraine. A CIA employee who learned of the call through his work with the people on the call created a whistleblower report and submitted it to the Intelligence Community Inspector General.
None of the above is disputed. It is not fake news. Trump’s position is not that the above did not happen, but that his request to Ukraine was simply an ask to deal with domestic corruption issues, and that it was not tied to foreign aid in any “quid pro quo” arrangement.
Notwithstanding the fact that it was the literal job of the conversation listeners to listen to his conversation and report details to others in intelligence and foreign policy positions, Trump has now called one or more of these listeners a “spy.” In the tweet above, he said they should face “Big Consequences.” In a conversation a few days ago, he noted that we should go back to treating spies like “we used to do,” implying that he wants whomever outed him here to be executed.
One who reports information to their own government does not qualify as a “spy” under any meaningful definition of the word. And, whistleblowers, in fact, are protected by federal law: 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) protects the jobs of any federal employees who disclose what they think are illegal activities by other federal employees, so long as they do so through the proper channels (as this whistleblower indisputably did). Even if the whistleblower was mistaken about Trump’s intent, he did nothing illegal by reporting what he had heard to the IC IG.
What is not protected by federal law are death threats. Especially when directed at whistleblowers. Especially when directed at someone scheduled to testify before Congress. The tweet above is probably sufficient for a felony charge, and by itself, this tweet, from 20 minutes ago, should result in the President’s impeachment. No matter whether Trump did or did not intend a quid pro quo arrangement, he is not allowed to threaten U.S. citizens for disagreeing with him and asking higher-ups in the government to investigate. If you are a Trump supporter, now is the time to stand up and say that you diverge from the President on this one — if you enjoy having a country ruled by law rather than a dictator.
Professional Troublemaker ® 
September 29, 2019 at 9:16 pm
Totally agree. If no one can come forward and whistleblow on corrupt Government Officials who Violate the Constitution, then what we have as Government are Gangsters. Now we can’t have Gangsters in Government can we?
September 29, 2019 at 10:36 pm
How can it be spying if the information is false?
If an American were to sell fake “secret” documents to the Russians what could they be charged with? (Russia might charge them with fraud but they’re not there.)
September 29, 2019 at 10:42 pm
Not to put too fine a point on it, but didn’t the U.S. delay foreign aid that Congress had earmarked for the Ukraine BEFORE the phone call? I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like that sequence could be significant.
September 29, 2019 at 11:05 pm
If that’s the case (I don’t know exactly when the aid was expected), is that significant? He could have delayed the aid for a few weeks to give the Ukrainians some time to think, and then made the call. It might actually be worse, putting it that way…
September 30, 2019 at 6:27 am
Hi Corbett. For once I do not agree completely with you.
“If you are a Trump supporter, now is the time to stand up and say that you diverge from the President on this one”
I think that the more people have invested themselves in him, the harder it will be for them to acknowledge what is happening. This quote in a completely different story came my way today: “He wouldn’t, but I believed him. I needed to. Recognizing one lie would mean recognizing all his lies. If that happened I would have nothing left.” Some days ago I tried to write this on my own blog, @ https://henningjust.wordpress.com/2019/09/26/another-sort-of-political-post/ , that is a variant of the sunk cost fallacy.
It’s a lot easier for people that never liked him to renounce him.
September 30, 2019 at 6:43 am
Bravo, Jon! But as for this statement:
“If you are a Trump supporter, now is the time to stand up and say that you diverge from the President on this one”
Dream on. It’ll never happen. These people are impervious. They are cultists.
September 30, 2019 at 11:42 am
I’m having a hard time believing you aren’t taking a political position. Therefore, please comment on the hearsay allegation. Please consider the possibility that: documenting the conversation, relaying it through a third party to a member of Congress weeks before presenting it officially (and conveniently immediately after the rules are rewritten to permit such hearsay “evidence”) to be exploited by a Congressman who deliberately misquotes the information into the House record isn’t the least troubling.
The standard of evidence continues to erode in favor of the “resistance.” I, myself, now in possession of second and third hand testimony bolstered by “credible” media reports am myself in a position to allege my own “whistleblower” case.
September 30, 2019 at 11:48 am
1. Impeachment is not like criminal procedure; it’s political. Different rules.
2. Read Ken White’s twitter thread on hearsay. https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1178313211424100352 I think you’ll find it is more complicated than just that.
September 30, 2019 at 6:28 pm
It also makes me wonder, what about all the things Obama did, with Ukraine even? I didn’t hear the Dems calling for impeachment on those. If the Repubs had, they would have been run out of D. C..
I read a article that said there is a treaty between the USA and Ukraine that makes cooperation between the two Govts on legal investigations and discussing them a legal matter. I also read that the DOJ is investigating Biden, possibly the whole family, and that is what Trump was requesting is cooperation between the Ukraine and the DOJ. From what I read and understood, the treaty requires that request.
I’m not big on Trump but he is certainly less corrupt than Hillary or Obama was. I wish people would pick one standard and apply it to both parties. I’m sick of one set of rules for Dems and another set of Repubs. I’ve seen Repubs recently caught doing things they shouldn’t and I have no problem having the law books thrown at them, that’s not a threat by the way. I saw just today where one is pleading guilty to something. He deserves whatever he gets and I’m glad to be rid of him.
Oh, death threats. Didn’t spies in the past have a trial? Isn’t that the way the law works? If a “spy” today is uncovered, shouldn’t he get the same as they did before? A trial and if guilty a sentence to serve? Since when is saying a person should get due process a death threat? If another Ted Bundy comes along and I say that guy should get the same as the serial killers in the past, is that a death threat or am I saying that Justice should be had like it was in the past? Calling that a death threat is really telling on how biased a person is on this topic.
The article is nothing but political. It is nothing else. I also have to say it isn’t based on actual facts only hearsay and personal opinions. Coming from a lawyer, that’s sad.
I also read a article where Ken Star, someone who has experience on this sort of thing, says this is dead. To quote him, “This is, given what we know, and I think what we can reasonably expect, utterly doomed to fail”
September 30, 2019 at 7:54 pm
You’ve fallen for the lies spewed by Faux Noise. Trump is **far** more corrupt than Hillary or Obama. As for spies–they report to a foreign power. Since the report went to the US that means Trump’s government is a foreign power. Trump is the one that should get the firing squad.
September 30, 2019 at 8:18 pm
I don’t watch “Faux Noise”. Your comment was wrong from the start and went downhill from there. I also don’t watch CNN, MSNBC either. What I posted is what I read in articles from people who actually know something.
Be careful, saying that about Trump could be consider a death threat, at least according to some including the writer of this article/blog it would appear.
December 12, 2019 at 6:47 pm
“I’m not big on Trump but he is certainly less corrupt than Hillary or Obama was. I wish people would pick one standard and apply it to both parties.”
Yes, thank you.
December 10, 2019 at 11:45 pm
What color is the sky in your world?
October 1, 2019 at 11:39 pm
The biggest problem is Trump can not keep his big mouth shut. Even at its worse, the greatest negatives in the whole story is really on Bidden and not really that bad on Trump. I expect this will end Bidden’s Presidential ambitions, which I see as a good thing as it allows younger and better candidates to have a chance. Trump has also effectively used this impeachment scare to sucker even more millions out of his supporters, so he really can not complain that it hurt him. Now the question I have problems with is should Trump have the right to face his accuser? In the interest of justice, that is the right all of us have, and so I have mixed feelings on this. But really, the call was recorded and documented, so the testimony of the whisleblower is not really needed. The whistleblower just brought our attention to the fact the call was made. The whistleblower is not really an accuser. Congress can now look at the actual call and decide if there was anything illegal about the call. If legal, than the charge is dismissed and the President comes out as a big winner. But the words that will decide his fate are the recorded President’s words, not the whisleblowers’.
November 16, 2019 at 4:05 am
The spy worked for the Obama admin and they have been tasked with seeking defamtory information to run to the press with. It is a crime to share privileged information and factually speaking under multiple national security statues an imprisonable offense, whislteblowing has a specific structure and bar, this is why snowden is still hiding in Russia, you must prove factually harm exists. Not just how you feel about policy. In the tweets, there is no threat, a threat contains a time and place and course of action. Rhetoric not matter how you feel does not convert into criminal conduct becuase you desire it to be so. I thought you fought for civil liberties? Speech is one of those if you happened to forget.
Currently there exists no security in the US govt, all our military and policy is exposed to foreign enemies becuase the socialist left desires to take down Trump at any cost.
December 10, 2019 at 11:44 pm
You are making an assumption that the president made a death threat when no such words were said. You can’t charge someone for making a vague comment. You are a lawyer, you should know better. You’re doing great things by taking up violations to freedom, don’t let you dislike for Trump to ruin that.
December 10, 2019 at 11:55 pm
The problem with Trump supporters is that they are unwilling to connect the dots, even when the connection is obvious. When someone one day says that we should treat spies like we used to, when we know that we used to execute spies, and when the next day the person calls another a spy, it is not “an assumption” that the person is suggesting the other be executed.
Regardless of whether Trump’s statement could result in criminal charges, it is conduct that is beneath his office. This man should not be president, and you should stop enabling him.
December 25, 2019 at 10:57 am
It was my understanding that the whistleblower first related the classified information to people outside classified circles whom has not supposed to relate it to… and only then the information got to IG. Which means that by no means the actions of this whistleblower were lawful. I not sure whether these actions can be legally classified as “spying”, but in a layman’s world it looks like spying.
December 25, 2019 at 2:21 pm
> It was my understanding that the whistleblower first related the classified information to people outside classified circles…
How, exactly, did you come to this understanding? Because my understanding is that: 1) the only people the whistleblower spoke with were their superiors, the IG, and Congress, and 2) nothing that happened in that call met the criteria for classification anyway, as evidence by the fact that Trump released it unredacted when he thought it served him.
December 25, 2019 at 11:11 am
I side with Clair Cook here.