17 Burst results for "United States Department Of Justice"

"united states department justice" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW

Newsradio 700 WLW

07:51 min | 5 months ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW

"My bill coming in the great American work in this weather glorious Friday afternoon, the tri state the river continues to subside just a bit. Hopefully, by Saturday. By tomorrow, things are gonna be much better. Whether it's almost frightened, Sonny. Now things were happening in the city. That's ah, very interesting. White Cincinnati police sergeant is suing the city. Cincinnati, accusing the department of hiring discrimination practices. A police sergeant is suing alleging discrimination. Against a white officer seeking a promotion marry John Cranley is fighting the potential change to that hiring of police, saying the chief Elliot Isaac may never have been hired in the first place is the chief if Desires of Chris Wiest, the eternal one of the attorneys for Eric Kohler, had one. Kohler's discrimination lawsuit claims he was passed over for the initial promotion. You know a federal consent decree from 1981 What 40 years ago that mandates 25% of all officers promoted in the department must be black and or female. According to CPD. Kohler ranked eighth among the candidates taking a promotional exam in March, But another officer was black, who ranked 12th got the promotion ahead of him. Joining him is one of officer Eric Kohler's attorneys, Chris Wiest. And Chris Waste. Welcome to the Bill Cunningham shown. Attorney waste. How are you doing? Well, Can you lay out this afternoon to the American people? Essentially what happened? TOC Sergeant Eric Kohler. So you understand what happened him. You gotta go back in time. And you know you You have to know that in the 19 eighties, the city of Cincinnati Entered into a couple different consent decrees that requires Basically minority and women quotas on promotions and hiring with city inside a police department and, you know, the wall allows for that to happen for a period of time to fix past discriminate discrimination but doesn't allow these things to continue forever. So when Sergeant cooler than Officer Kohler tested Last summer. I mean, there's a whole lot of things that the city does when they when they promote. They looked at a lot of different things, and they do written tests, and there's other stuff. Come up with what's known as an eligibility list, and they promote off the eligibility list. But what they do on that eligibility list is Yes if there's four white males to get promoted on that eligibility list. Um in a row. Then they take the next female or minority applicants. That's down on the list that could be you know dozens of spots down on the list. We'll move them up. And so, basically what happened? Sergeant Kohler was he got passed over based solely on the color of the skin. And he felt like the 40 year old consent decree had been there too long. It had been, of course, under the logs to old unconstitutional now. And so we found a loss. You know, it has a half to do away with the consent decree in the pleadings. I guess we learned that because the United States Department justice is involved. In the city. And I guess the city in the DOJ is known for, you know, 10 10 years or so that this thing's unconstitutional. They just haven't really done anything about it. And then because of Kohler's lawsuit, they just moved to reopen the consent decree. So you know here here we go again. We're stirring the pot belt. Well, if you're successful, the outcome would do away with the consent to create in the law today. Is that you can't do with the city does because it's unconstitutional and I could recall the arguments in the seventies and that was well. We need a temporary period in which because of past discrimination in which a person skin color counts on a test. And and that was never defined with specificity. It was never said to be 10 years or 20 years or 30 years, But recent U. S. Supreme Court decisions have said. It is certainly not 40 years, and so the idea that someone with black skin or who identifies is an African American with light skin, But if you identify as an African American, you qualify. That that person is advanced in the position irrespective of their objective qualifications. Is that true? That's absolutely correct. And there's a presumption that arises on these old consent decrees when you get about You know 15 to 20 years out that they start to become unconstitutional. Here were 40 years with cities since that, and the city that John Cranley and others have said That they want this thing to continue for. I guess the rest of the 20 21st century. They don't want to stop it at any point. Correct. That's right. And if you think about it, what they position is inherently racist and sexist, because at its core what they believe Is that women and minorities cannot compete on an even playing field with white males. And that to me is the ultimate racist and sexist position. So by claiming racism, they practice it. And so the paternalistic attitude is. Look we all know, wink wink nod nod. This is from their perspective. This is not what I believe This is what they what liberals believe what Democrats what they what they believe. Is that black males and black females inherently cannot compete with a white male. And because that's the case, Let's give them extra points or extra value because of the perceived color of their skin or their accepted gender. And so that is racism that the blacks I know people like God blesses so Leslie as a gains or John Borloo or bury Isaac and currently Christmas vermin. It's offensive to them for somebody to say, as a matter of law that because of the color of their skin They can't come compete with somebody who's white. That, by itself is racism, isn't it? It is and it's sexism. If we're talking about the women, yes. In fact, women do better on testing men. I would think you know what's interesting bill when we made this point in litigating this case, if you look at the command staff within the Cincinnati police Department, the police chief is black and the majority of the assistant chief are black Officers are women. And so you know any any sort of semblance that The books can't compete equally is just wrong as a matter of fact, But it's inherently racist and sexist. It's wrong. And so if you're a woman, I think women do better. Content. I think women do better in life than men. Women are just better people than men. And in all my classes and Xavier University later law school women were at the top of the class and in 1971. I'm sitting in a class at University of Toledo and my freshman year and we had 81. Freshman law school candidates to get our juris doctor degree and and of the 81 79 were men and two were women. Now after three years Which were the top two people and the law school class. Do you think I am guessing because it was certainly true of the University of Cincinnati in 2004 that the majority of the folks in the top 10 in law school class were women. And I think I'm correct case correct. In fact, one into where those two women and I'm thinking, Do we need protection for women who can't take a test? Do we need protection? From African Americans paternalistic plea that the liberals say cannot pass the test. Do we need that really in? The answer, of course, is no. And now I read some of the comments of John Cranley. He wants to make it a bigger issue, John Cranley, the mayor said. Quote when you think about the image of chief Isaac taking a knee last summer In honor of George Floyd. That was a very powerful moment in our city, help it and helped us get through a tough summer unquote..

John Cranley Chris Wiest John Borloo Elliot Isaac Eric Kohler 2004 1971 Saturday 25% 1981 15 Bill Cunningham 10 years George Floyd Friday afternoon 30 years 40 years March 20 years Xavier University
"united states department justice" Discussed on The Asset

The Asset

11:48 min | 1 year ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on The Asset

"Episode for impeaching in early September. A standoff started brewing between the White House in Congress on September Ninth Intelligence Communities Inspector General. A man named Michael Atkinson alerted the house. Intelligence Committee to the existence of a whistle blower complaint in this whistleblower complaint was apparently of an urgent concern about the president's behavior. You issued a subpoena on Friday for the acting director of intelligence alleging he's withholding a whistle blower disclosure possibly to protect president trump. That's a pretty significant allegation here. We're putting up a quote on the screen from you have. Have you gotten a response to this letter. We've gotten a response. And the director has said essentially that he is answering to higher authority And refusing to turn over the whistleblower complaint light. This is deeply troubling normally than intelligence committee whose job it is to oversee the US intelligence agencies would be able to review that whistleblower complaint themselves within ten days of it being filed. That is why you have a legislative branch to do oversight of the executive branch but this time there was a hold up the acting director of national intelligence a man named Joseph. Maguire had withheld the complaint from Congress for a full month with the whistleblower had filed the complaint all the way back on August twelfth. This was a big deal. Trump's first director of national intelligence had been former former Indiana congressman. Dan Coats he was one of the few administration officials who stood up to trump repeatedly confirming that Russia had hacked our elections in two thousand sixteen gene even as trump denied it but after months of reports that trump wanted him out. Coats had officially resigned August fifteenth. Just three he days after the whistleblower lodge their complaint not only that his second in command a career intelligence official had stepped down with him. It looked looked like trump was clearing the way to install a loyalist in charge of the US intelligence community just as he done with the Department of Justice the year earlier by by forcing out. Jeff sessions and replacing him with bill bar. His first choice was a man named John. Ratcliffe a Republican on the House Intel Committee who'd who'd made a name for himself attacking the Russia investigation including Moore's hearing on July twenty fourth example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department termine that an investigative person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined but in August just after this whistle blower had lodged complaint trump nominated radcliffe but his nomination went down in flames as it was revealed. He apparently lied about prosecuting terrorists when he was a US attorney but now it was starting to look like trump didn't even need to name a successor. And I was because Maguire was frozen. He was stuck between being a good soldier into his oath to the constitution. His duty to the country. But in the meantime Adam Schiff was having none of it the whistleblower had actually. We notified his committee of his complaint. So they knew it existed and Schiff wanted to see it in the very first episode of the asset podcast which we put Out All the way back. In April of Twenty nineteen we talked about the whirlwind of news in the first few weeks of twenty seventeen when the Russian scandal broke now more than two years later with the Russias scandal losing steam with reporters being moved onto other beats along came another whirlwind. September eighteenth This morning we're learning a phone call. Between President Trump and another world leader prompted a whistleblower complaint at the center of a growing scandal in Washington. The Washington Shing Tin Post. I reporting that an intelligence official was so bothered by a promise. President trump made to a foreign leader that he filed a formal complaint with the Inspector General. Admiral September nineteenth she and her colleagues report quote a whistle blower complaint about President trump made by an intelligence officials centers on Ukraine September twentieth. We know now that the president in July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son according to people people familiar with the matter. September twenty second president trump added new detail about his July phone. Call with Ukraine's president. I had was largely congratulatory including for the first time how Joe Biden and his son hunter played into that conversation and September. Twenty any third. I want to just go to the Washington Post reporting. The president trump told his acting chief of staff as I mentioned Mick Mulvaney to hold back almost four hundred million dollars in military aid for Ukraine. At least a week before a phone call in which trump is said to have pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate the son of a political opponent White House with still trying to stonewall but this time congress wasn't going to take it lying down and on September twenty four th the speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. He called the press conference. The actions of the trump presidency revealed dishonorable fact of the president's betrayal of his oath of office betrayal of our National Security Jordy and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. Therefore today I'm announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. And that's when the damn really started to break on the morning of September twenty fifth two months to the day after his now famous call with Ukrainian in President Zielinski trump announced he would be releasing the transcript of the call. Now why he actually did. This remains a big question. There are reports that they thought in the White House it was going to be exonerating but there were also rumors that people were threatening to resign. If trump didn't release the transcript of the call when news came that the call transcript was coming that it was going to be released at first. We didn't know what to expect even after all the reporting maybe it was a misdirection. Maybe was heavily edited. Maybe was the dreaded nothing Burger. No one knew that the White House would release a transcript though ultimately fuel president trump's impeachment and then trump released the transcript of the call. What stood out to me about the transcript is it? The president talks about two things explicitly. One is crowd strike. He seems I think that. The origins of the Muller probe began in Ukraine. And he wants the president's help getting to the bottom of that and then he does talk about Vice President Biden and I'm how he used his connections and Ukraine to drop a prosecution into his son and repeatedly halley. The president talks about the need for Rudy Giuliani. And the attorney attorney. General William Bar to get in touch with the president of Ukraine and his prosecutors there to try to get to the bottom of this to open investigations into crab strike. Think into the Biden's we broke it down in detail last episodes. If we haven't listened to that you can go back and here are full analysis but the basic fact is that even with those those mysterious dot dot dot the ones that suggests. The White House edited out the really damning stuff it amounted to a confession. It was a mob shakedown. It sounded like okay was from the Godfather and then the confessions kept coming in in that very day. On September twenty fifth trump was in New York at the UN and where he met with Zilenski in it was awkward. It was beautiful. It was just perfect conversation. In the next morning the White House just released the full whistleblower complaint in the complaint revealed that the administration took desperate measures to cover up the phone call that he had was Alinsky hiding hiding the records on a super top secret server that very very few people even in the White House could access. This server was being used as a cover up tool it wasn't to protect. US National Secrets it wasn't to protect US national security. It was to protect trump politically. Apparently there were other calls on that server to including ones with the Chinese President Xi Jinping in Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman the next day on on September twenty. Sixth there was a hearing with the acting. Deny McGuire there. He confirmed that Department of Justice was in hiding the whistleblower complaint that they didn't want him to make public office consulted with the United States Department. Justice Office of Legal Counsel and included. We included the inspector general in those consultations in other words. Bill Barr who trump mentioned on the call was Alinsky who is named in the whistleblower complaint who trump specifically appointed to protect him from investigations instigations. His fingerprints were all over the decision to keep the whistleblower complaint secret from Congress to protect the president that that wasn't all rudy. Giuliani had confirmed more than a week before that. He pressured Ukraine to investigate the Biden's in now he was looping the State Department on it to the whistle blower falsely alleges that I was operating on my own. Well I wasn't operating my own. I went to meet. This does Lewinsky's aid at the request of the State Department. Mick Mulvaney who's called the acting chief of staff when he should just be called the chief of staff because there's really no such thing as acting because because the president just gets to the point is chief of staff and WHO's also the head of the Office of Management and budget. It turned out that his office of Management and Budget Olympi- was actually behind freezing the military aid to Ukraine in Mulvaney decided to hold a White House press conference where he confirmed it explicitly also mentioned to me in past the the corruption related to the DNC server. Absolutely no question about that. But that's it and that's why we held up the money now. There was a report. Demand for an investigation. Investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he it was on the to withhold funding to the look back to what happened in two thousand sixteen certainly was was part of the things that he was worried about corruption with that nation. Then that is absolutely is a quid. Pro Quo it is. Funding will not flow. Hello unless the investigation is Democrat server as well we we. Do we do that all the time. Mulvaney had just come out. Confirm the crime. People were stunned. Reporters were in shock. If that wasn't enough the call the whistleblower complaint Giuliani admitting into it Mulvaney admitting to it trump then said it himself on the White House lawn in front of dozens of reporters and their cameras. Well I would think that if they were are honest about it that SORTA major investigation into the vice. Very simple answer. They should investigate the by pretty soon it. It became clear that this wasn't an unforced error. It was a strategy in fact it resembled the same strategy they had used in the Russia. Investigation deny committed claim. It was actually good accused the other side of doing the same thing and then move-on before the news cycle can catch up but this time things were different this time. Democrats weren't going to let this go quietly into the night we're going to let it play out in court or hold a hearing or just a man and more investigations. No they were going to impeach him over it in. That changed everything. I'm Max Bergmann. This is the asset.

Zielinski trump president White House Ukraine Congress Mick Mulvaney Joe Biden US Rudy Giuliani acting director Intelligence Committee official Department of Justice director Maguire Vice President House of Representatives acting chief Russia
"united states department justice" Discussed on AM 970 The Answer

AM 970 The Answer

05:56 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on AM 970 The Answer

"To the Continental Congress this is not surprising because as a nation we desire for good government therefore we must protect those who demonstrate courage to report alleged wrongdoing was on the battlefield or in the workplace indeed at the start of extremely the executive branch each year we are reminded the public service is a public trust. and as public service we have a solemn responsibility to do what's right which includes reporting concerns of waste fraud and abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of Congress under the intelligence community whistleblower protection act. I applaud all employees who come forward under this act. I am committed to ensuring that all whistle blower complaints I have the properly enter protecting the rights of whistle blowers in this case. it raised the matter with the intelligence community inspector general. inspector general is properly protecting the complainants identity and will not permit the complaint to be subject to any retaliation or adverse consequences for communicating the complaint to the inspector general. holding the check would be of the intelligence community and the workforce is my number one priority. throughout my career I relied on the men and women of the intelligence community to do their jobs so I could do mine and I can personally attest that their efforts save lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background and how we got to where we are today. on August twenty sixth inspector general for what to do I could play to made from an employee in the intelligence community. respected journal stated that the plate raised an urgent concern a legally defined term under whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at length at all letters to the committee of September sixteen or seventeen. before I turn to the discussion about whether the complete meet the definition of urgent concern I first want to talk about an even more fundamental issue. upon reviewing the complaint we were immediately struck by the fact that many of the allegations in the complaint are based on a conversation between the president and another former leader such calls are typically subject to executive privilege as a result we consulted with the White House counsel's office and we were advised that much of the information the complaint was in fact subject to executive privilege. revelation that I do not have the authority to waive because of that we were unable to immediately share the details of the complaint with this committee. continue to consult with the White House counsel's in an effort to do so. yesterday the president release the transcripts of the call in question and therefore we are now able to disclose the details of of complaint and the inspector general's letter transmitted to us as a result I have provided the house and Senate intelligence committees with the full unredacted complaint as well as the inspector general's letter. let me also discussed the issue of urgent concern. when transmitting a complaint to me the inspector general took the legal position that because the plate complaint alleges on matters of urgent concern. because she felt the allegations to be credible I was required under the intelligence community whistleblower protection act to for the complaint to our oversight committees within seven days of receiving it. as we have previously explained it all letters urging concern is a statutorily defined term. be an urgent concern the allegations lost in addition to being classified a shirt a flagrant serious problem abuse for violation of law and. relate to the funding administration or operation of an intelligence activities within the responsibility of the director of national intelligence however this complaint conduct this complete insurance conduct by someone outside the intelligence community unrelated to funding administration or operation of an intelligence activities under my supervision. because the allegation of the face did not appear to fall in the statutory framework my office consulted the United States department justice office of legal counsel and included we included the inspector general in those consultations. after reviewing the complaint and the inspector general's transmittal letter. the office of legal counsel determine that the compliance obligations do not meet the statutory requirement definition concert legal urgent concern and found that I was not legally required to transmit the material to our oversight committee under the whistleblower protection act. on a classified version of the office of legal counsel memo was publicly released as you know for those in the weeds and we're gonna get back to this testimony as Adam Schiff as Adam Schiff deserve a ship is about to question him could make a very interesting but you just heard require lay out his background how we came to where we are today the president tweeting furiously about an hour ago he said quote the Democrats are trying to destroy the Republican Party and all that it stands for schtick together he said play their game and fight hard Republicans our country is at stake our country is at stake truer words were never spoken they are on a sheet search and destroy mission we all know it and we better buckle in and get ready portions of our show brought to you by legacy box here on this breaking news addition of the Mike Gallagher show from Phoenix legacy box an amazing amazing company there you you've got a bunch of whole all home movies and pictures and all the audio recordings you.

Continental Congress executive Congress fraud seven days
"united states department justice" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

04:39 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"Let me also discuss the issue of urgent concern when transmitting a complaint to me the inspector general took the legal position that because the complaint alleges matters of urgent concern and because he found the allegations to be credible I was required under the intelligence community whistleblower or protection act to forward the complaint to our oversight committees within seven days of receiving as we have previously explained in our letters urgent concern uh-huh is a statutorily defined term to be an urgent concern. The allegations must in addition to being classified assert a flagrant serious problem abuse or violation of law and relate to the funding administration or operation. I should've challenge within the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence. However this complaint conduct this complete concerns conduct uh someone outside the intelligence community unrelated to funding administration or operation of an intelligence activity under my supervision because the allegation on the face did not appear to fall in the statutory framework my office consulted with the United States Department Justice Office of Legal Counsel and included we included the inspector general in those consultations after reviewing the complaint and the Inspector General's transmittal letter the office of Legal Counsel Determined that the complaints allegations do not meet the statutory requirement definition concerned legal urgent concern and found that I was not legally required to transmit the material to our oversight committee under the whistleblower protection at an classified version of that office of Legal Counsel memo was publicly released as you know for those of us in the executive branch office of Legal Counsel Opinions are binding on all of us in particular our the office of Legal Counsel Opinion States at the president is not a member of the intelligence community and the communication with the foreign leader involved no oh intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence well this opinion did not require transmission transmission of the complaint to the Committee's it did leave me with the discretion to forward the complaint to the committee however given the executive privilege issues? I discussed neither the Inspector General Neuro I were able to share the details of the complaint at the time when the Inspector General in for me that he still Dylan tended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint Mr Chairman. I supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed informed as possible of this process move forward. I want to raise a few other points about the situation. We find ourselves in I I I want to stress that I believe that the whistle blower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout I have every reason to believe that they have have done everything by the book and followed the law respecting the privileged nature of the information and patiently waiting while the executive privilege issues were resolved resolved wherever possible we have worked in partnership with the Inspector General on this matter while we have different opinions on the issue whether or not is urge concern. I strongly believe in the role of the Inspector General I greatly value the independence he brings to his dedication and his role and keeping me and the committee's informed of matters within the Intelligence Committee second although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint with the committee's until recently Salihi this does not mean that the complaint was ignored the Inspector General in consultation with my office referred this matter under to the Department of Justice for investigation. Finally I appreciate that in the past was a blow a complaints may have provided to Congress wish regardless of whether they were deemed credible or satisfied the urgent recur urgent concern requirement however I am not familiar with any prior instances where a whistleblower complaint touched on such complicated and sensitive issues including executive privilege. I believe that this matter is unprecedented. I also believe that I handle this matter in full compliance with the law at all times and I am committed to doing so sir..

Intelligence Committee executive United States Department Justi Legal Counsel Director of National Intellige Legal Counsel Opinion States Dylan Congress Chairman Department of Justice Salihi president seven days
"united states department justice" Discussed on NewsRadio KFBK

NewsRadio KFBK

14:55 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on NewsRadio KFBK

"It must be legal it must be moral and it must be ethical. no one could take in individuals take it away it can only be given away. if every action meets those criteria you will always be a person of integrity if I nearly four decades of public service my integrity has never been questioned until now. I'm here today to unequivocally state that is acting deny I will continue the same faithful and non partisan support and a matter that accused of the constitution and the laws of this great country as long as I serve in this position for whatever period of time that may be. I want to make it clear that I have held my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way in the matter that is before us today. I want to also state my support for whistle blower and the rights and the laws. whistle blowing has a long history in our country getting back to the Continental Congress this is not surprising because as a nation we desire for good government therefore we must protect those who demonstrate courage to report alleged wrongdoing what's on the battlefield or in the workplace indeed at the start of the street in the executive branch each year we are reminded the public service is a public trust. and as public service we have a solemn responsibility to do what's right which includes reporting concerns of waste fraud and abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of Congress a the the intelligence community was a blower protection act. I applaud all employees to come forward under this act. I am committed to ensuring that all whistle blower complaints I have the proper leave it to protecting the rights of whistle blowers in this case the complainant raised the matter with the intelligence community inspector general. inspector general is properly protecting the complainants identity and will not permit the complaint to be subject to any retaliation or adverse consequences for communicating the complaint to the inspector general. upholding the integrity of the intelligence community and the workforce is my number one priority. throughout my career I relied on the men and women of the intelligence community to do their jobs so I could do mine and I could personally attest that their efforts save lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background on how we got to where we are today. on August twenty sixth the inspector general forwarded to like to play to make for an employee in the intelligence community. inspector general stated that the complete raised an urgent concern a legally defined term on the whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at length at all letters to the committee on September sixteen and seventeen. before I turn to the discussion about whether the complaint is the definition of urgent concern our first one to talk about an even more fundamental issue. upon reviewing the complaint we were immediately struck by the fact that many of the allegations in the complaint are based on a conversation between the president and another former leader such calls are typically subject to executive privilege as a result we consulted with the White House counsel's office and we were advised that much of the information the complaint was in fact subject to executive privilege a privilege that I do not have the authority to waive the cost of that we were unable to immediately share the details of the complaint with this committee. continue to consult with the White House counsel's in an effort to do so. yesterday the president released the transcripts of the call in question and therefore we are now able to disclose the details of both complaint and the inspector general's letter transmitted to us as a result I have provided the house and Senate intelligence committees with the full unredacted complaint as well as the inspector general's letter. let me also discussed the issue of urgent concern. when transmitting a complaint to me the inspector general took the legal position that because the plate complaint alleges on matters of urgent concern. and because he felt the allegations to be credible I was required under the intelligence community whistleblower protection act to for the complaint or oversight committees within seven days of receiving it. as we have previously explained that our letters urging concern is a statutorily defined term. urgent concern the allegations watched in addition to being classified assert a flagrant serious problem abuse or violation of law an. relate to the funding administration or operation of an intelligence activities within the responsibility of the director of national intelligence however this complaint conduct this complete concerns conduct by someone outside the intelligence community on related to funding administration or operation of an intelligence activities under my supervision. because the allegation of the face did not appear to fall in the statutory framework. I office consulted the United States department justice office of legal counsel and included we included the inspector general in those consultations. after reviewing the complaint and the inspector general's transmittal letter. the office of legal counsel determined that the complaint allegations do not meet the statutory requirement definition concern legal of urgent concern and found that I was not legally required to transmit the material to our oversight committee under the whistleblower protection act. on a classified version of that office of legal counsel memo was publicly released as you know for those of us in the executive branch office of legal counsel opinions are binding on all of us. killer the office of legal counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the intelligence community and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting analyzing foreign intelligence. Willis OLC opinion did not require. version of the complaint to the committees it did leave me with the discretion to forward the complaint to the committee however given the executive privilege issues are discussed with the inspector general nor high were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. when the inspector general informed me that he still intended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint Mister chairman I supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed as possible of this process move forward. I want to raise a few of the points about the situation we find ourselves in first. I want to stress that I believe that the whistle blower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and follow the law. respecting the privilege nature of the information and patiently waiting while the executive privilege issues were resolved. wherever possible we have worked in partnership with the inspector general on this matter. well we have different opinions on the issue whether or not it's just urge concern I strongly believe in the role of the inspector general I greatly value the independence she brings to and his dedication and a role in keeping me and the committees informed of matters within the intelligence committee second although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint with the committees until recently this does not mean that the complaint was ignored. the inspector general in consultation with my office referred this matter to the department of justice for investigation. finally I appreciate that in the past was a blow complaints may have provided to the fungus regardless of whether they were deemed credible or satisfied the urgent recurrent Rick urgent concern requirement however I am not familiar with any prior instances where a whistle blower complaint touched on such complicated and sensitive issues including executive privilege I believe that this matter is unprecedented I also believe that I have with this matter in full compliance with the law at all times and I am committed to doing so Sir. I appreciate the committee providing me this opportunity to discuss this matter the ongoing commitment to work with the Congress on your important oversight role thank you very much Sir. are you are listening to the to Joseph McGuire he's the director of national intelligence he just finished some opening statements here in this first testimony that we're hearing concerning possible impeachment and impeachment inquiry that has been opened he is the national director of national intelligence he is a retired three star admiral and he recently came into this position just in the last month and he is use the first part of his opening statements to kind of set up his own credibility things that he had done within government and then he went on to talk about this whistle blower complaint and a he made the interesting on this the first time we're hearing this he made the interesting comments that he did not have the statutory framework in place to compel him to turn over this whistle blower complaint that plus executive privilege of those conditions that existed did not require him to turn over this whistle blower complaint which is why it took him some time they were complicated matters he said although he did say he respects the inspector general and respect that person's role in in working with the administration to try to figure out whether or not there was legal compulsion that to turn over this whistleblower complaint will now that was a blur complaint is out out redacted form has been released by Congress right before this testimony started we're gonna be listening in to questions from the committee now to the director of national intelligence Adam Schiff is currently speaking we heard from Adam Schiff at the very beginning we also heard from Devin newness both from a California we're going to go now to are are A. B. C. analyst on this and add to hear more about of what is going on right now I'm are you there. hello hello hi hi hi how you doing so what is happening right now we just heard the opening statements is kind of set things up nicely for the testimony today. yeah I would have you know it would appear in you know based are reading this this memorandum from the whistle blower that you know there's a lot more detail that clearly. was not in the memo the the White House released. right exactly in very interesting her getting those comments right now on that and and what did you think about of with the opening statements of the director of national intelligence on what he had to say about maybe there isn't the legal compulsion to hand this testimony over which is why it took so long for the administration to do so. well. my email obviously you get into a legal interpretations here of what is and what isn't which you know is in splitting hairs maybe that is true perhaps in reference to the criminal law but right you know we're really not talking about that here we're really talking about character behavior in interference abuse of power you know those things don't have a criminal definition to them so I get what he's I get what he's saying but it really doesn't you know I'm not sure that's really relevant to the to the case in hand right and we'll hear more about that as the testimony continues what I'd like to talk to you about Brad Garrett is a this new report that came out from the U. S. army they have been warning about the possibility of mass shootings around a movie the joker movie which is out tell me about how did they get on to this in cell movement and explain what that is for folks who are wondering about this new release. okay so the information that the army has released actually came from the FBI they apparently pulled off the dark web been said a a loosely formed a group called the they call themselves in the cells which stands for in voluntary celibacy had made comments of on the on the dark web that they might commit some sort of violent act or maybe even a mass shooting in or around the release of the movie the joker which I think is released on October fourth and so that was a concern and I I guess the FBI clearly thought it was credible enough that they needed to tell law enforcement end of the military that the this type of information is out there in just to to to to you know let people know and be aware if in fact they go to this movie yeah Brad Garrett this is Eileen we are learning that the U. S. arm army had reportedly warned servicemen about the possibility of mass shootings as you alluded to and even going as far as identifying escape routes in the events of shooting can you speak to that. yeah I mean think about it this way that it it sort of goes to how we train kids in school to to counter mass shootings where yes you you need to be is the aware of where you are and if you had to quickly leave whatever they're setting you might be in that you would have an option of of where to go the common in the army report about run hide fight is again what we teach kids you know that if if if a mass shooting or of a violent act is occurring if you can just get away from it if you can't then hide if you can't hide and you're confronted with a shooter then you're gonna have to fight him or her is this so and it is unprecedented that that the army would released this statement about a movie I mean has this ever happened before. well I've never heard it specifically in reference to a movie now the F. B. R. Y. with some regularity puts they put out bulletins that aren't just about obviously mass shootings or potential mass shootings but you know it's interesting that this information got to the public the setting..

executive legal counsel Congress president Continental Congress White House OLC United States department fraud Rick director department of justice Mister Senate chairman four decades seven days
"united states department justice" Discussed on KFI AM 640

KFI AM 640

09:07 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on KFI AM 640

"It must be legal it must be moral and it must be ethical. no one could take in individuals take it away it can only be given away. if every action meets those criteria you will always be a person of integrity am I nearly four decades of public service my integrity has never been questioned until now. I'm here today to unequivocally state that is acting deny I will continue the same faithful and non partisan support and a matter that accused to the constitution and the laws of this great country as long as I serve in this position for whatever period of time that may be. I want to make it clear that I have held my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way in the matter that is before us today. I want to also state my support for whistle blower and the rights and the laws. whistle blowing has a long history in our country dating back to the Continental Congress this is not surprising because as a nation we desire for good government therefore we must protect those who demonstrate courage to report alleged wrongdoing what's on the battlefield or in the workplace indeed at the start of the street in the executive branch each year we are reminded the public service is a public trust. and as public service we have a solemn responsibility to do what's right which includes reporting concerns of waste fraud and abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of Congress under the intelligence community whistleblower protection act. I applaud all employees to come forward under this act. I am committed to ensuring that all whistle blower complaints are handled appropriately and to protecting the rights of whistle blowers in this case the complainant raised the matter with the intelligence community inspector general. inspector general is properly protecting the complainants identity and will not permit the complaint to be subject to any retaliation or adverse consequences for communicating the complaint to the inspector general. holding the check ready of the intelligence community and the workforce is my number one priority. throughout my career I relied on the men and women of the intelligence community to do their jobs so I could do mine and I can personally attest that their efforts save lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background on how we got to where we are today. on August twenty sixth the inspector general for wanted to I could play to make for an employee in the intelligence community. inspector general stated that the complete raised an urgent concern a legally defined term under whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at length at all letters to the committee on September sixteen and seventeen. before I turn to the discussion about whether the complete meets the definition of urgent concern I first want to talk about an even more fundamental issue. upon reviewing the complaint we were immediately struck by the fact that many of the allegations in the complaint are based on a conversation between the president and another former leader such calls are typically subject to executive privilege as a result we consulted with the White House counsel's office and we're advised that much of the information the complaint was in fact subject to executive privilege. revelation that I do not have the authority to waive the cost of that we were unable to immediately share the details of the complaint with this committee. I continue to consult with the White House counsel's in an effort to do so. yesterday the president released the transcripts of the call in question and therefore we are now able to disclose the details of both complaint and the inspector general's letter transmitted to us as a result I have provided the house and Senate intelligence committees with the full unredacted complaint as well as the inspector general's letter. let me also discussed the issue of urgent concern. when transmitting a complaint to me the inspector general took the legal position that because the plate complaint alleges on matters of urgent concern and because she felt the allegations to be credible I was required under the intelligence community whistleblower protection act to for the complaint or oversight committees within seven days of receiving it. as we have previously explained that our letters urging concern is a statutorily defined term. to be an urgent concern the allegations must in addition to being classified assert a flagrant serious problem abuse or violation of law an. relate to the funding administration or operation of an intelligence activities within the responsibility of the director of national intelligence however this complaint conduct this complete concerns conduct by someone outside the intelligence community unrelated to funding administration or operation of an intelligence activities under my supervision. because the allegation on the face did not appear to fall in the statutory framework my office consulted the United States department justice office of legal counsel and included we included the inspector general in those consultations. after reviewing the complaint and the inspector general's transmittal letter. the office of legal counsel determined that the complaint allegations do not meet the statutory requirement definition concern legal urgent concern and found that I was not legally required to transmit the material to our oversight committee under the whistleblower protection act. on a classified version of that office of legal counsel memo was publicly released as you know for those of us in the executive branch office of legal counsel opinions are binding on all of us in particular the office of legal counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the intelligence community and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activities aimed at collecting analyzing foreign intelligence. Willis OLC opinion did not require. his vision of the complaint to the committees it did leave me with the discretion to forward the complaint to the committee however given the executive privilege issues I discuss either the inspector general nor I were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. when the inspector general informed me that he still intended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint Mister chairman I supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed as possible of this process move forward. I want to raise a few of the points about the situation we find ourselves in first. I want to stress that I believe that the whistle blower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and follow the law. respecting the privilege nature of the information and patiently waiting well the executive privilege issues were resolved. wherever possible we have worked in partnership with the inspector general on this matter. well we have different opinions on the issue whether or not it's just urge concern I strongly believe in the role of the inspector general I greatly value the independence she brings to and his dedication and a role in keeping me and the committees informed of matters within the intelligence committee second although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint with the committees until recently this does not mean that the complaint was ignored. the inspector general and consultation with my office referred this matter to the department of justice for investigation. finally I appreciate that the past was a blow complaints may have been provided to Congress regardless of whether they were deemed credible was satisfied the urgent recurrent Rick urgent concern requirement however I am not familiar with any prior instances where a whistle blower complaint touched on such complicated and sensitive issues including executive privilege I believe that this matter is unprecedented I also believe that I handle this matter in full compliance with the law at all times and I am committed to doing so Sir. I appreciate the committee providing me this opportunity to discuss this matter the ongoing commitment to work with the Congress on your report oversight role thank you very much Sir. a good director. would you agree that the whistle blower complaint alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States..

executive president legal counsel Congress White House director Continental Congress United States department of justice OLC United States department fraud Rick Mister Senate chairman four decades seven days
"united states department justice" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

08:07 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

"It must be legal it must be moral and it must be ethical you're listening to the IT director of national intelligence Joseph McGuire here on the Mike Gallagher should I worry were positive you're not going to miss a word because he is responding to an angry Adam Schiff who attacked Joe's of Maguire's integrity his professionalism and his responsibility as you just heard Bob weir lays out his his a lifetime of public service and honor sure beat having served this country with distinction so I suspect that Mister McGuire it as got plenty to say in response to what Schiff just said to him will play some of that for a little bit later as well but let's go back pick up right where we left off again Joseph Maguire the acting director of national intelligence on Capitol Hill in individuals take it away they can only be given away. every action meets those criteria you will always be a person of integrity am I nearly four decades of public service my integrity has never been questioned until now. I'm here today to unequivocally state that is acting deny I will continue the same faithful and non partisan support and a matter that accused of the constitution and the laws of this great country as long as I serve in this position for whatever period of time that may be. I want to make it clear that I have held my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way in the matter that is before us today. I want to also state my support for whistle blower and the rights and the laws for. whistle blowing has a long history in our country dating back to the Continental Congress this is not surprising because as a nation we desire for good government therefore we must protect those who demonstrate courage to report alleged wrongdoing what's on the battle field or in the workplace indeed at the start of extremely the executive branch each year we are reminded the public service is a public trust. and as public service we have a solemn responsibility to do what's right which includes reporting concerns of waste fraud and abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of Congress under the intelligence community was a blower protection act. I applaud all employees to come forward under this act. I am committed to ensuring that all whistle blower complaints are handled appropriately enter protecting the rights of whistle blowers in this case the complainant raised the matter with the intelligence community inspector general. inspector general is properly protecting the complainants identity and will not permit the complaint to be subject to any retaliation or adverse consequences for communicating the complaint to the inspector general. holding the check would be of the intelligence community and the workforce is my number one priority. throughout my career I relied on the men and women of the intelligence community to do their jobs so I could do mine and I can personally attest that their efforts save lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background on how we got to where we are today. on August twenty sixth the inspector general for what to do I could play to made from an employee in the intelligence community. inspector general stated that the plate raised an urgent concern a legally defined term on the whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at length at all letters to the committee of September sixteen and seventeen. before I turn to the discussion about whether the complete meet the definition of urgent concern our first one to talk about an even more fundamental issue. upon reviewing the complaint we were immediately struck by the fact that many of the allegations of the complaint or based on a conversation between the president and another former leader such calls are typically subject to executive privilege as a result we consulted with the White House counsel's office and we're advised that much of the information the complaint was in fact subject to executive privilege a privilege that I do not have the authority to waive the cost of that we were unable to immediately share the details of the complaint with this committee. continue to consult with the White House counsel's in an effort to do so. yesterday the president released the transcript of the call in question and therefore we are now able to disclose the details of of complaint and the inspector general's letter transmitted to us as a result I have provided the house and Senate intelligence committees with the full unredacted complaint as well as the inspector general's letter. let me also discussed the issue of urgent concern. when writing a complaint to me the inspector general took the legal position that because the plate complaint alleges on matters of urgent concern. and because she felt the allegations to be credible I was required on the the intelligence community whistleblower protection act to for the complaint or oversight committees within seven days of receiving it. as we have previously explained our letters urging concern is a statutorily defined term. to be an urgent concern the allegations watched in addition to being classified a shirt a flagrant serious problem abuse for violation of law. relate to the funding administration or operation of intelligence activities within the responsibility of the director of national intelligence however this complaint conduct this complete insurance conduct by someone outside the intelligence community unrelated to funding administration or operation of an intelligence activities under my supervision. because the allegation on the face did not appear to fall and the statutory framework my office consulted the United States department justice office of legal counsel and included we included the inspector general and those consultations. after reviewing the complaint and the inspector general's transmittal letter. the office of legal counsel determine that the compliance obligations do not meet the statutory requirement definition conservative legal urgent concern and found that I was not legally required to transmit the material to our oversight committee under the whistleblower protection act. on a classified version of the office of legal counsel memo was publicly released as you know for those in the weeds and we're gonna get back to this testimony as Adam Schiff as Adam Schiff deserve a ship is about to question him you could make a very interesting but you just heard McGuire lay out his background how we came to where we are today the president tweeting furiously about an hour ago you said quote the Democrats are trying to destroy the Republican Party and all that it stands for schtick together he said play their game and fight hard Republicans our country is at stake our country is at stake truer words were never spoken they are on a sheet search and destroy mission we all know it and we better buckle in and get ready portions of our show brought to you by legacy box here on this breaking news addition of the Mike Gallagher show from Phoenix legacy box an amazing amazing company there you you've got a bunch of whole all home movies and pictures in old audio recordings you probably thought you can never play it again never see it again who's the first person you shared your digitalized vision digitized videos with her I did it with friends and family because religion these memories makes you feel so grateful you know do a little legacy box an amazing company the world's largest most trusted digitizer of old home movies and photos they'll send you a big empty box with instructions you put in there your old vis VHS tapes audio cassettes reel to reels photos whatever you've got and they're going to send back.

Adam Schiff Joseph McGuire Joseph Maguire Mike Gallagher Bob weir acting director director Continental Congress executive fraud Joe Congress four decades seven days
"united states department justice" Discussed on News 96.5 WDBO

News 96.5 WDBO

08:23 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on News 96.5 WDBO

"It must be legal it must be moral and it must be a difficult. no one could take an individual's taken away it can only be given away if every option which those criteria you will always be a person of integrity am I nearly four decades of public service my integrity has never been questioned until now I'm here today to unequivocally state that is acting deny I will continue the same faithful and non partisan support and a matter that accused to the constitution and the laws of this great country as long as I serve in this position for whatever period of time that may be. I want to make it clear that I have held my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way in the matter that is before us today. I want to also state my support for whistle blower and the rights and the laws. whistle blowing has a long history in our country dating back to the Continental Congress this is not surprising because as a nation we desire for good government therefore we must protect those who demonstrate courage to report alleged wrongdoing what's on the battlefield or in the workplace indeed at the start of the street in the executive branch each year we are reminded the public service it's a public trust. and as public service we have a solemn responsibility to do what's right which includes reporting concerns of waste fraud and abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of Congress or the intelligence community was a blower protection act I applaud all employees to come forward under this act I am committed to ensuring that all whistle blower complaints are handled properly and to protecting the rights of whistle blowers in this case the complaint raised the matter with the intelligence community inspector general the inspector general is properly protecting the complainants identity and will not permit the complaint to be subject to any retaliation or adverse consequences for communicating the complaint did inspector general of holding the integrity of the intelligence community and the workforce is my number one priority. throughout my career I relied on the men and women the intelligence community to do their jobs so I could do mine and I could personally attest that their efforts save lives I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background on how we got to where we are today. on August twenty sixth the inspector general for would likely to make for an employee in the intelligence community the expected journal stated that the complete raised an urgent concern a legally defined term under whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at length and a letter to the committee on September sixteen and seventeen. before I turn to the discussion about whether the complete with the definition of urgent concern I first want to talk about it even more fundamental issue. upon reviewing the complaint we were immediately struck by the fact that many of the allegations in the complaint are based on a conversation between the president and another former leader such calls are typically subject to executive privilege as a result we consulted with the White House counsel's office and we're advised that much of the information the complaint was in fact subject to executive privilege a privilege that I do not have the authority to waive because of that we were unable to immediately share the details of the complaint with this committee but continue to consult with the White House counsel's in an effort to do so yesterday the president released the transcripts of the call in question and therefore we are now able to disclose the details of of complaint and the inspector general's letter transmitted to us as a result I have provided the house and Senate intelligence committees with the full unredacted complaint as well as the inspector general's letter. we also discussed the issue of urgent concern. when transmitting a complaint to me the inspector general took the legal position the because the plate complaint alleges on matters of urgent concern and because she found the allegations to be credible I was required under the intelligence community whistleblower protection act to for the complaint or oversight committees within seven days of receiving it. as we have previously explained a letters urging concern is a statutorily defined term to be an urgent concern the allegations watched in addition to being classified assert a flagrant serious problem abuse or violation of law an. relate to the funding administration or operation of an intelligent activity within the responsibility of the director of national intelligence however this complaint conduct this complete concerns conduct by someone outside the intelligence community on related to funding administration or operation of an intelligence activities under my supervision. because the obligation of the face did not appear to fall in the statutory framework my office consulted the United States department justice office of legal counsel and included we included the inspector general in those consultations. after reviewing the complaint and the inspector general's transmittal letter the office of legal counsel determine that the complaints are locations do not meet the statutory requirement definition concern legal urgent concern and found that I was not legally required to transmit the material to our oversight committee under the whistleblower protection act on a classified version of that office of legal counsel memo was publicly released as you know for those of us in the executive branch office of legal counsel opinions are binding on all of us. killer the office of legal counsel opinion stated the president is not a member of the intelligence community and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aim to collecting analyzing foreign intelligence Willis OLC opinion did not require transmission of the complaint to the committees it did leave me with the discretion to for the complaint to the committee however given the executive privilege issues are discussed with the inspector general nor I were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. when the inspector general informed me that he still intended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint Mister chairman I supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed as possible of this process move forward I want to raise a few of the points about the situation we find ourselves in first. I want to stress that I believe that the whistle blower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and follow the law. respecting the privilege nature of the information and patiently waiting well the executive privilege issues were resolved wherever possible we have worked in partnership with the inspector general on this matter. well we have different opinions on the issue whether or not it's just urge concern I strongly believe in the role of the inspector general I greatly value the independence she brings to and his dedication and a role in keeping me and the committees informed of matters within the intelligence committee second although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint with the committees until recently this does not mean the complaint was ignored the inspector general in consultation with my office referred this matter to the department of justice for investigation. finally I appreciate that the past was a blow complaints may have provided to the farmers regardless of whether they were deemed credible or satisfy the urgent recurrent Rick urgent concern requirement however I am not familiar with any prior instances where a whistle blower complaint touched on such complicated and sensitive issues including executive privilege I believe that this matter is unprecedented I also believe that I handle this matter in full compliance with the law at all times and I am committed to doing so Sir I appreciate the committee providing me this opportunity to discuss this matter the ongoing commitment to work with the Congress on your important oversight role thank you very much Sir. all right that's acting D. N. I. T. Joseph McGuire speaking there it's his testimony in for the house committee right now the house intelligence committee in DC were bringing you live coverage the next chance by the way for the payroll pay out is on our latest news and it's a thousand Bucks today we take a short break them bring the rest of Joseph require his testimony next let's say you just bought a house bad.

executive T. Joseph McGuire DC department of justice Congress Rick four decades seven days
"united states department justice" Discussed on KCRW

KCRW

12:18 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on KCRW

"It must be legal it must be moral and it must be ethical. no one could take in individuals take it away it can only be given away. if every action meets those criteria you will always be a person of integrity if I nearly four decades of public service my integrity has never been questioned until now. I'm here today to unequivocally state that is acting delight I will continue the same faithful and non partisan support and a matter that accused to the constitution and the laws of this great country as long as I serve in this position for whatever period of time that may be. I want to make it clear that I have held my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way in the matter that is before us today. I want to also state my support for whistle blower and the rights and the laws. whistle blowing has a long history in our country dating back to the Continental Congress this is not surprising because as a nation we desire for good government therefore we must protect those who demonstrate courage to report alleged wrongdoing was on the battlefield or in the workplace indeed at the start of that extremely the executive branch each year we are reminded the public service is a public trust. and as public service we have a solemn Regis is Joseph require acting director of national intelligence is testifying in for the house intelligence committee bringing such matters to the attention of Congress a the the intelligence community was a blower protection act. I applaud all employees who come forward under this act. I am committed to ensuring that all whistle blower complaints are handled appropriately enter protecting the rights of whistle blowers in this case the complainant raised the matter with the intelligence community inspector general. inspector general is properly protecting the complainants identity and will not permit the complaint to be subject to any retaliation or adverse consequences for communicating the complaint the the inspector general. upholding the integrity of the intelligence community and the workforce is my number one priority. throughout my career I relied on the men and women of the intelligence community to do their jobs so I could do mine and I can personally attest that their efforts save lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background on how we got to where we are today. on August twenty sixth the inspector general for wanted to I could play to me from an employee in the intelligence community. inspector general stated that the complete range of urgent concern a legally defined term under whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at length at all letters to the committee on September sixteen and seventeen. before I turn to the discussion about whether the complete meet the definition of urgent concern our first one to talk about an even more fundamental issue. upon reviewing the complaint we were immediately struck by the fact that many of the allegations of the complaint are based on a conversation between the president and another former leader such calls are typically subject to executive privilege as a result we consulted with the White House counsel's office and we were advised that much of the information the complaint was in fact subject to executive privilege a privilege that I do not have the authority to waive because of that we were unable to immediately share the details of the complaint with this committee. but continue to consult with the White House counsel's in an effort to do so. yesterday the president released the transcript of the call in question and therefore we are now able to disclose the details of both complaint and the inspector general's letter transmitted to us this is K. as result I have provided the house and Senate intelligence committees with the full unredacted complaint as well as the inspector general's letter. let me also discussed the issue of urgent concern. when transmitting a complaint to me the inspector general took the legal position that because the plate complaint alleges on matters of urgent concern. and because he found the allegations to be credible I was required on the the intelligence community whistleblower protection act to for the complaint or oversight committees within seven days of receiving it. as we have previously explained our letters urging concern is a statutorily defined term. to be an urgent concern the allegations must in addition to being classified assert a flagrant serious problem abuse for violation of law an. relate to the funding administration or operation of an intelligent activity within the responsibility of the director of national intelligence however this complaint conduct this complete concerts conduct by someone outside the intelligence community on related to funding administration or operation of an intelligence activities under my supervision. because the allegation on the face did not appear to fall in the statutory framework my office consulted the United States department justice office of legal counsel and included we included the inspector general in those consultations. after reviewing the complaint and the inspector general's transmittal letter. the office of legal counsel determined that the complaints obligations do not meet the statutory requirement definition concern legal urgent concern and found that I was not legally required to transmit the material to our oversight committee under the whistleblower protection act. on a classified version of that office of legal counsel memo was publicly released as you know for those of us in the executive branch office of legal counsel opinions are binding on all of us in particular the office of legal counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the intelligence community and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting analyzing foreign intelligence. Willis OLC opinion did not require transmission of the complaint to the committees it did leave me with the discretion to for the complaint to the committee however given the executive privilege issues are discussed with the inspector general nor I were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. when the inspector general inform me that he still intended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint Mister chairman I supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept us informed as possible of this process move forward. I want to raise a few of the points about the situation we find ourselves in first. I want to stress that I believe that the whistle blower any inspector general have acted in good faith throughout. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and follow the law. respecting the privilege nature of the information and patiently waiting while the executive privilege issues were resolved. wherever possible we have worked in partnership with the inspector general on this matter. well we have different opinions on the issue whether or not it's just urge concern I strongly believe in the role of the inspector general I greatly value the independence she brings to and his dedication and a role in keeping me and the committees informed of matters within the intelligence committee second although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint with the committees until recently this does not mean that the complaint was ignored. inspector general in consultation with my office referred this matter to the department of justice for investigation. finally I appreciate that in the past was a blow complaints may have provided to Congress regardless of whether they were deemed credible was satisfied the urgent recurrent Rick urgent concern requirement however I am not familiar with any prior instances where a whistle blower complaint touched on such complicated and sensitive issues including executive privilege I believe that this matter is unprecedented I also believe that I handle this matter in full compliance with the law at all times and I am committed to doing so Sir. I appreciate the committee providing me this opportunity to discuss this matter the ongoing commitment to work with the Congress on your report oversight role thank you very much Sir this is Casey you're listening to special coverage of acting director of national intelligence just requires testimony to the house intelligence committee from and agree that the whistle blower complaint alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States. now this is chairman Adam Schiff questioning acting director just wire the whistle blower complaint in involved that the allegation of that it is not for me the intelligence community to side of the president conducts because its foreign policy furries interaction with leaders of other countries. I'm not asking you to opine on how the present conduct foreign policy I'm asking you whether. as the statute requires this complaint involved. serious wrongdoing in this case by the president of the United States an allegation of serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States is that not the subject of this complaint. yes that is the subject of the allegations of the complaint and two things Mister chair and and let me ask you about that. the inspector general found that serious allegation misconduct by the president credible. did you also find that credible. I did not criticize the expected general's decision on whether it not was credible my question was whether it not we have weather and not it meets the urgent concern and the seven day time frame that would follow but so was notified my question right after lunch I have no no question in his judgment that he considers it a serious matter well sure that I don and and you would you would concur would you not director that. this complaint alleging service wrongdoing by the president was credible. it's not for me to judge Sir the what why don't it is wrong it is for you to judge apparently I mean I I agree it's not the judges shall provide it to Congress but but it did you did judge whether this complaint should be provided to Congress and we can we at least agree. that the inspector general made a sound conclusion that this was a blower complaint was credible. that is correct that is sick in the cover letter that's been provided to what the committee I believe that so also be public the decision and the recommendation by the inspector general that in fact the allegation was credible can we also agree that it was urgent that if the president United States was withholding military aid to an ally even as you receive the complaint. I was doing so for nefarious reason that is to exercise leverage or the presence of Ukraine to dig up manufacture dirt on his opponent can we agree that it was urgent while that aid was being withheld there's just there are two things I'm talking about the lady the common understanding of what urgent means because inspector general said this was urgent now in the statutory meaning this was urgent as everyone understands that term can we. agree. that it was urgent it was urgent and important but my job as a director of national intelligence which to comply with the whistleblower protection act and it got here to the definition of urgent concern which is a legal term and to hear to the meaning of the term shall yes Sir..

executive president acting director Congress United States chairman Continental Congress Mister Ukraine OLC Adam Schiff Regis department of justice Rick United States. Casey Joseph four decades
"united states department justice" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

WIBC 93.1FM

09:57 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

"It must be legal. it must be moral and it must be ethical. no one could take in individuals take it away they can only be given away. if every action reach those criteria you will always be a person of integrity am I nearly four decades of public service my integrity has never been questioned until now. I'm here today to unequivocally state that is acting deny I will continue the same faithful and non partisan support and a matter that accused to the constitution and the laws of this great country as long as I serve in this position for whatever period of time that may be. I want to make it clear that I have held my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way in the matter that is before us today. I want to also state my support for whistle blower and the rights and the laws. whistle blowing has a long history in our country dating back to the Continental Congress this is not surprising because as a nation we desire for good government therefore we must protect those who demonstrate courage to report alleged wrongdoing what's on the battlefield or in the workplace indeed at the start of the street in the executive branch each year we are reminded the public service is a public trust. and as public service we have a solemn responsibility to do what's right which includes reporting concerns of waste fraud and abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of Congress under the intelligence community was a blower protection act. I applaud all employees to come forward under this act. I am committed to ensuring that all whistle blower complaints are handled appropriately enter protecting the rights of whistle blowers in this case the complainant raised the matter with the intelligence community inspector general. inspector general is properly protecting the completeness identity and will not permit the complaint to be subject to any retaliation or adverse consequences for communicating the complaint to the inspector general. holding the integrity of the intelligence community and the workforce is my number one priority. throughout my career I relied on the men and women of the intelligence community to do their jobs so I could do mine and I could personally attest that their efforts save lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background on how we got to where we are today. on August twenty sixth the inspector general for wanted to I could play to made from an employee in the intelligence community. inspector general stated that the complete raised an urgent concern a legally defined term under whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at length at all letters to the committee on September sixteen and seventeen. before I turn to the discussion about whether the complete meet the definition of urgent concern our first one to talk about an even more fundamental issue. upon reviewing the complaint we were immediately struck by the fact that many of the allegations in the complaint are based on a conversation between the president and another former leader such calls are typically subject to executive privilege as a result we consulted with the White House counsel's office and we're advised that much of the information the complaint was in fact subject to executive privilege. of which I do not have the authority to waive the cost of that we were unable to immediately share the details of the complaint with this committee. continue to consult with the White House counsel's in an effort to do so. yesterday the president released the transcripts of the call in question and therefore we are now able to disclose the details of both complaint and the inspector general's letter transmitted to us as a result I have provided the house and Senate intelligence committees with the full unredacted complaint as well as the inspector general's letter. let me also discussed the issue of urgent concern. when transmitting a complaint to me the inspector general took the legal position that because the plant complaint alleges on matters of urgent concern. and because he felt the allegations to be credible I was required on the the intelligence community was a blower protection act to for the complaint or oversight committees within seven days of receiving it. as we have previously explained our letters urging concern is a statutorily defined term. urgent concern the allegations must in addition to being classified assert a flagrant serious problem abuse or violation of law an. relate to the funding administration or operation of intelligent activity within the responsibility of the director of national intelligence however this complaint conduct this complete concerns conduct by someone outside the intelligence community on related to funding administration or operation of an intelligence activity under my supervision. because the allegation on the face did not appear to fall in the statutory framework my office consulted the United States department justice office of legal counsel and included we included the inspector general in those consultations. after reviewing the complaint and the inspector general's transmittal letter. the office of legal counsel determined that the complaints obligations do not meet the statutory requirement definition concern legal urgent concern and found that I was not legally required to transmit the material to our oversight committee under the whistleblower protection act. on a classified version of that office of legal counsel memo was publicly released as you know for those of us in the executive branch office of legal counsel opinions are binding on all of us. killer the office of legal counsel opinion stated the president is not a member of the intelligence community and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting analyzing foreign intelligence. Willis OLC opinion did not require. its mission of the complaint to the committees it did leave me with the discretion to for the complaint to the committee however given the executive privilege issues I discussed with the inspector general nor high were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. when the inspector general informed me that he still intended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint Mister chairman I supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept us informed as possible of this process move forward. I want to raise a few of the points about the situation we find ourselves in first. I want to stress that I believe that the whistle blower any inspector general have acted in good faith throughout. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and follow the law. respecting the privilege nature of the information and patiently waiting well the executive privilege issues were resolved. wherever possible we have worked in partnership with the inspector general on this matter. well we have different opinions on the issue whether or not it's just urgent concern I strongly believe in the role of the inspector general I greatly value the independence he brings to and his dedication and a role in keeping me and the committees informed of matters within the intelligence committee second although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint with the committees until recently this does not mean the complaint was ignored. the inspector general in consultation with my office referred this matter to the department of justice for investigation. finally. she thought of the past was a blow complaints may have provided to Congress regardless of whether they would be incredible was satisfied the urgent recurrent Rick urgent concern requirement however I am not familiar with any prior instances where a whistle blower complaint touched on such complicated and sensitive issues including executive privilege I believe that this matter is unprecedented I also believe that I handle this matter in full compliance with the law at all times and I am committed to doing so Sir. I appreciate the committee providing me this opportunity to discuss this matter the ongoing commitment to work with the Congress on your important oversight role thank you very much Sir. all right so now the questioning will be can it's on. like Donkey Kong young so he says that the whistle blower and I. G. acted in good faith so we know that and that he feels as though he followed every rule of law from beginning to end he also feels as though this did not rise to the official definition of an urgent concern for people to joining us is just about choir so I mean that's an interesting stuff so far I am sure that the question and answer period will be far more interesting than the opening statement in much of which was spent on talking about how much integrity he had yeah. so I don't know that we'll get we'll be able to jump into that in progress in the next segment we've got to get to some other things but that is the gist of what has happened so far we may come in and out we'll see how yeah it looks like people are fighting yeah we'll see what happens you guys stay tuned. Nigel show three o'clock today is the president going to survive this or is our former midday guy going to be the commander in chief we'll talk this afternoon.

executive Congress Continental Congress Donkey Kong fraud president Nigel OLC department of justice Mister Rick official chairman four decades seven days
"united states department justice" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

09:56 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"It must be legal it must be moral and it must be ethical. no one could take in individuals take it away they can only be given away. if every option which those criteria you will always be a person of integrity if I nearly four decades of public service my integrity has never been questioned until now. I'm here today to unequivocally state that is acting deny I will continue the same faithful and non partisan support and a matter that accused to the constitution and the laws of this great country as long as I serve in this position for whatever period of time that may be. I want to make it clear that I have held my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way in the matter that is before us today. I want to also state my support for whistle blower and the rights and the laws. whistle blowing has a long history in our country dating back to the Continental Congress this is not surprising because as a nation we desire for good government therefore we must protect those who demonstrate courage report alleged wrongdoing was on the battlefield or in the workplace indeed at the start of the street in the executive branch each year we are reminded the public service is a public trust. and as public service we have a solemn responsibility to do what's right which includes reporting concerns of waste fraud and abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of Congress or the the intelligence community was a blower protection act. I applaud all employees to come forward under this act. I am committed to ensuring that all whistle blower complaints are handled appropriately enter protecting the rights of whistle blowers in this case the complainant raised the matter with the intelligence community inspector general. inspector general is properly protecting the complainants identity and will not permit the complaint to be subject to any retaliation bird first consequences for communicating the complaint it inspector general. of holding the check ready of the intelligence community and the workforce is my number one priority. throughout my career I relied on the men and women of the intelligence community to do their jobs so I could do mine and I could personally attest that their efforts save lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background on how we got to where we are today. on August twenty sixth the inspector general for wanted to I could play to me from an employee in the intelligence community. inspector general stated that the plate raised and urgent concern a legally defined term under whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at length at all letters to the committee on September sixteen and seventeen. before I turn to the discussion about whether the complete meets the definition of urgent concern our first one to talk about an even more fundamental issue. upon reviewing the complaint we were immediately struck by the fact that many of the allegations in the complaint are based on a conversation between the president and another former leader such calls are typically subject to executive privilege as a result we consulted with the White House counsel's office and we're advised that much of the information the complaint was in fact subject to executive privilege a privilege that I do not have the authority to waive because of that we were unable to immediately share the details of the complaint with this committee. continue to consult with the White House counsel's in an effort to do so. yesterday the president release the transcripts of the call in question and therefore we are now able to disclose the details of of complaint and the inspector general's letter transmitted to us as a result I have provided the house and Senate intelligence committees with the full unredacted complaint as well as the inspector general's letter. let me also discussed the issue of urgent concern. when transmitting a complaint to me the inspector general took the legal position that because the plate complaint alleges on matters of urgent concern. and because he found the allegations to be credible I was required on the the intelligence community whistleblower protection act to for the complaint or oversight committees within seven days of receiving it. as we have previously explained that our letters urging concern is a statutorily defined term. to be an urgent concern the allegations watched in addition to being classified assert a flagrant serious problem abuse for violation of law an. relate to the funding administration or operation of intelligent activity within the responsibility of the director of national intelligence however this complaint conduct this complete concerns conduct by someone outside the intelligence community on related to funding administration or operation of an intelligence activity under my supervision. because the allegation on the face did not appear to fall in the statutory framework my office consulted the United States department justice office of legal counsel and included we included the inspector general in those consultations. after reviewing the complaint and the inspector general's transmittal letter. the office of legal counsel determined that the complaints obligations do not meet the statutory requirement definition concern legal urgent concern and found that I was not legally required to transmit the material to our oversight committee under the whistleblower protection act. on a classified version of the office of legal counsel memo was publicly released as you know for those of us in the executive branch office of legal counsel opinions are binding on all of us. killer the office of legal counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the intelligence community and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting analyzing foreign intelligence Willis OLC opinion did not require transmission of the complaint to the committees it did leave me with the discretion to for the complaint to the committee however given the executive privilege issues are discussed with the inspector general nor high were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. when the inspector general informed me that he still intended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint Mister chairman I supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept us informed as possible of this process move forward. I want to raise a few of the points about the situation we find ourselves in first. I want to stress that I believe that the whistle blower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and follow the law. respecting the privilege nature of the information and patiently waiting well the executive privilege issues were resolved. wherever possible we have worked in partnership with the inspector general on this matter. well we have different opinions on the issue whether or not it's just urge concern I strongly believe in the role of the inspector general I greatly value the independence she brings to and his dedication and a role in keeping me and the committees informed of matters within the intelligence committee second although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint with the committees until recently this does not mean the complaint was ignored. inspector general in consultation with my office referred this matter to the department of justice for investigation. finally I appreciate that the past was a blow complaints may have provided to Congress regardless of whether they would be incredible was satisfied the urgent recurrent Rick urgent concern requirement however I am not familiar with any prior instances where a whistle blower complaint touched on such complicated and sensitive issues including executive privilege I believe that this matter is unprecedented I also believe but I handle this matter in full compliance with the law at all times and I am committed to doing so Sir. I appreciate the committee providing me this opportunity to discuss this matter the ongoing commitment to work with the Congress on your important oversight role thank you very much Sir vice imam acquire in testimony before chairmanship of the house and tell you to record it. German shift will begin the queue in a we welcome all your radio world was simply. and the nation let's listen to the chairman from California and I'm sure if. all of the whistle blower complaint to a an involved that the allegation of that but it is not for me in the intelligence community the side of the president conducts foreign policy furries interaction with leaders of other countries. I'm not asking you to opine on how the present conduct foreign policy I'm asking you whether. as the statute requires this complaint involved. serious wrongdoing in this case by the president of the United States an allegation of serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States is that not the subject of this complaint yes that is the subject of the allegations of the complaint and.

executive Congress president United States Continental Congress California chairman fraud Rick department of justice four decades seven days
"united states department justice" Discussed on 1A

1A

01:43 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on 1A

"Joshua. I'm really glad you asked the question because this is a cause of so much passion for a good reason a horrible injustice occurred with the death of eric garner and in a second injustice that the united states department justice for five years literally did not act. There's not precedent for that for decades and decades justice department step in there would be a trial there would be justice. It would be a process where you'd actually have the evidence air that never happened fair garner and the pain of it was the justice department telling this evening or don't act we're doing this and then they didn't the city of new york through our police department held a public doc trial a n._y._p._d. Judge said guilty should be terminated now what your listener put in that question is honestly honestly inaccurate and unfair and i wish people would try and get the facts because this is a passionate issue but we have to be factual state law says here in new york the police commissioner is the person who makes the file decision. He hasn't refused to make a decision. He is waiting for the formal opportunity to make a decision that can only happen when the judge allows allows the next step and that is literally going to happen in a matter of days during this month of august so this process that new york city has done is the first time there's actually really been a justice process. It's clearly been fair and impartial because the n._y._p._d. Itself found the officer involved guilty so i i understand outstanding painful that this process takes time but i keep saying to people look that there's finally been a trial and look that there's been impartiality because bluntly <hes> you you know a decade or two ago you would not have assumed that a major police department would necessarily be the place you would turn for justice compared to the united states department justice..

united states department new york Judge eric garner officer Joshua. five years
"united states department justice" Discussed on News Radio 920 AM

News Radio 920 AM

03:06 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on News Radio 920 AM

"Of you that do not we're asking a question you're gonna catch the answer your text answer six three five six six if you've never played before you got text berry B. A. R. R. Y. in that text message and if you are the thanks it's the first of July if you're the first correct answer Hey look at you well then you will get the fifty dollar gas card you are not the first Sir thank yeah just wait I mean do the thirtieth so on this day in eighteen seventy the United States department justice formally came into existence the DOJ will be the topic of today's trivia question and the question is what is the name of the building that serves as the headquarters of the department of justice what is the name of that building that serves as the headquarters for the DOJ text us at six three five six six and if you are the first correct answer you'll get the gas card Warren Buffett who I'm sure you guys can all relate to in terms of your Chandler nations but he is following through on his plan to give this money away he gave easy's announced another donation of three point six billion dollars worth of Berkshire stock primarily going to the gates foundation but going to five different foundations and this is all part of his pledge to give away pretty much all this money after death please eighty eight so you better get going because three point six release not gonna move the needle out point he gave himself a full ten years after he dies okay to get this all done so yeah a it's it's going to be moving along here but it's what it was he worth eighty seven eighty seven thirty eight billion dollars so so about the same as his his age easy when you know we all live in the same same house that you grew up there that you've lived in for the last forty years in Nebraska Hey your cost of living isn't that high why would anybody stay in the basket Hey right I'm sure there's lots of nice stuff in Nebraska okay like I said the same thing like few months ago Chris all right I yeah I have no doubt well I went to press I what is the what is there in Nebraska apparently a lot of things yeah because that I anger this person they even have an airport I can Google last Omaha has a I'm sure a lovely airport that you can fly is it it's a massive international destinations no because Bob it obviously isn't flying commercially so he just needs a little corn strip and I'm sure there's plenty of them Buffy does need to five one comes to him yeah pretty much she's got is you know he's got his giant for every year that everyone flies in so maybe that is the method to the madness if you live in them somewhere like Nebraska not as many people come that's true right if you're doing it and I have knocking down your door I mean if you're in Manhattan I mean the people walking over right right Nebraska is got a I was gonna put a little effort to get there yep and then please don't the person who emails out tax account not only me on you again so that the Cocker you are going to be so it was a man I love talking we're gonna take a quick break.

eighty seven eighty seven thir six billion dollars fifty dollar forty years ten years
"united states department justice" Discussed on News Radio 690 KTSM

News Radio 690 KTSM

06:07 min | 2 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on News Radio 690 KTSM

"Back in Chicago. We're going to now talk about the Miller report and the Bob Barr letter and Patrick cutter as a former member of the federal Justice department. You have offered opinions on Robert Muller and James call me on this program for the last couple of years. What's your take on? At least the version that we know of now from the attorney general. Questions. You have obviously have a lot of questions. I would assume. Yeah, we all do. I mean, everybody does. I think the bar letter was exactly what it promised to be. It was sort of key points. I don't think it was meant to be even a comprehensive summary. He was he was providing a quick response saying here's some key points that I took from the letter. I think the biggest news out of the bar letter. Was that bar made a decision that that that Muller had said, look, we think obstruction of Justice could go either way reasonable prosecutors could disagree about whether there's enough to go forward and bar said well in my role as attorney general that's my call and my call is it's not it's not enough to go forward against the sitting president. So that was the big news. I think the summary is exactly what it is. It's a summary but out of a three hundred and some page report. Obviously, there's a lot more interesting information. But. Bar. I thought I thought his summary was fine. Because it did what it was it purported to do Judy abuse satisfied with the bar letter. I was I was okay with the bar letter. I I was okay. Certainly with the with the finding on on collusion. I thought it could not be clear. Obviously, the obstruction is a different issue. I think trying to read the tea leaves of what that was all about. I think that they're, you know, you had nineteen prosecutors looking at this thing, I think some of them really wanted to charge the president with obstruction. I think others really did not want to. I don't think it was. Right. That Muller did not make the call. But he left it up to the attorney general and the attorney general's. Really be whiffed. Can I point out that that's that's simply not accurate? He he does not have the authority to make that call. Always. No. It was not was his job. Now made the call with collusion. Why didn't he make the explain explain something about the way the indictments happened in the United States Department Justice, the attorney general approves on documents everybody has flows from that the authority flows from him. Bob Muller did not have the authority to approve any indictment. The most he could have done was make a recommendation if I may make a recommendation of an indictment, but that's the most could have done, and that's still would have been Bob bars. Call so no matter what happened. Bob Barr would have made the call. All right. But if I could finish in in coming to the decision that he came to he didn't come to it by himself. He came to it with rod Rosenstein, who is I think we all know from the last two years of all the nonsense that's gone on. It's not exactly a fan of the president of the United States. So. If the two of them take a look at this. And they balked aside. You know, what there's no obstruction here. It all happened in public. There's no underlying crime. There's just no intent there's nothing here. Now. I know you're laughing you think that's funny? It's not it's not what they sat other important line in the other important line in the letter, which I found very important is that it did not make mileage not make his judgment, whatever it was on the basis of the constitutional issues took a look at the facts and said, you know, it's cost call I'm not gonna make a recommendation, I'm gonna leave that to the attorney general, and the deputy attorney general who was his supervisor knew all along what he was doing. Chris rebelling I wanna get your take on this. Would you advise the president to stop saying that he has been exonerated because the letter from Bob Barr clearly states that they did not exonerate the president on the issue of obstruction of Justice. Honestly, I wouldn't I wouldn't bother the president one way or the other on that issue. And as he wouldn't listen because. I refer to as the derivative non-issue the real issue here is that. In my humble opinion. Now that we've gone through this horrid two year national nightmare for no good reason. We're going to have to sort out how we got here. And I believe that that is as important, or in fact, because we're talking now about potential abuse of prosecutorial discretion of the FIS of process of the the in fact Rosensteins decision at the time of commes firing. We're talking about a series of things that go back into two thousand and sixteen and Carter page popadopoulos and even possibly before. So we've got a lot of potential very serious, very salient issues, and those must be in my opinion, completely disclosed to the people. But are are are those type of things that you would put high on a list of? The politically important things that need to be done. No, no. Here's why let me just finish. If the Republicans are making the point that there's too many democratic committees that are wasting time going over well fine tooth comb for their own political purposes could the Democrats or or could quit an independent say enough with what happened in the campaign. We don't wanna know that enough what happened to the FBI. That's the Republicans trying to get the Democrats eat dirt in my opinion. What we are talking about..

president attorney Bob Barr Robert Muller Bob Muller federal Justice department Chicago United States Department Justi Bob bars FBI United States Miller rod Rosenstein Judy Patrick cutter James deputy attorney general Chris Rosensteins
"united states department justice" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

05:57 min | 3 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Is that he was the very doctor who delivered me on August. Twentieth. Nineteen Forty-six I'm seventy two now was the sixties. I was in college. Am I sure who did it? Oh, yes. One hundred percents and then. And she just goes on and on about what exactly happened here. And it's pretty terrible. I don't know. What supposed it says Christine. I know the truth as you do this. Logic is just as applicable to crystal Mangum who was the Duke lacrosse rape accuser. Who was lying or I'm a sofa wits the Columbia University rape accuser who was lying if the standard is something bad happened to me. So you're telling the truth, we have no system of due process. Presumption of innocence Justice. I mean, it's just an insane. Claim other insane claims seventeen hundred law professors have signed a letter that they sent to the New York Times and then sent on to the United States Senate on October fourth, and they talk about judicial temperament so case number. So there are several cases now being brought against Cavanaugh as not on the original Gatien's, but based on ancillary allegations case number one is something bad happened to me. So I believe for terrible case illogical makes no sense case. Number two Brett cavenaugh got mad. He got angry accused him of raping people. And then he got angry. And that means that he's not fit for the core. And you used partisanship in order to destroy this man's life. And then you're mad that he called out your partisanship. He's a partisan issue and sit on the court. You know, the reason no one cares. What a bunch of professors think because everyone knows the law. Professors are Democrats. I went to Harvard Law School. You know, how many Republicans were on staff at Harvard Law School as far as I know one the number of actual Republicans or conservatives in the halls of law school, academia, are nil. So basically, we have a bunch of partisan Democrats signing letters saying they don't like Brad Kavanagh because he got mad long letter says we are professors who teach research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. The question at issue is painful for anyone but judge cabinet exhibited exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. So when the notorious G, Ruth, Bader Ginsburg rips on Trump and says he shouldn't be president. That's not partisanship. She deserves to sit on the court when judge Cavanaugh gets angry that people are calling him a gang rapist on open television. Then that's obviously reason that he shouldn't be on the court case number two is. Brett Cavanaugh got mad. Oh, no. He got mad. And that means that he shouldn't be on the court. That means the Democrats have fallen back on their final case. Okay. So their final case. But one that they are they're finally falling back on at the latest. Is that judge Cavanaugh committed perjury. So they are suggesting that in his testimony judge Cavanaugh committed a bunch of lies. You lied a bunch of times. So first of all let us define what perjury is in the elements of the law. It is a false statement that is materials to the proceedings that is the definition of perjury. Okay. This is the the United States Department Justice department of Justice standard for perjury section seventeen forty eight elements of perjury materiality. The false statement must be material to the proceedings. A false statement is material. If it has a natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing the decision of the decision making body to which it was dressed testimony not have actually influenced misled or impeded the proceedings so if you lie to impede grand juries line of inquiry, then that would be a violation. Of perjury charges. If you're President Clinton, and you suggest you did not in fact, have sex with that woman that is legitimate perjury. But that is not the same thing, as you know, you're asked to question about whether it's note on a particular day, you know, it's not easy it rained. And it has no actual material impact on the course of the investigation. That's perfect. Okay. That's not how it works. So what are the lies the breath Cavanaugh, supposedly told first of all it is important to note that all of his testimony was given it in the context of him being accused of a gang rape by a bunch of Democrats, and then they were digging through his yearbook. So every claim that has been made about his lies has been that supposedly he downplayed his drinking or lies about his high school yearbook or lies about his high school yearbook. Now, I'm not gonna defend lying. I'm not going to pretend that if Brett Cavanaugh lied about things, I think that makes him squeaky clean. Let's go through a list of the supposed lies that break cabin. That's all this is from Boing Boing Boing Boing is a far left site. And so this means they're going to give about as comprehensive of you while it's it's actually from media matters, which is a comprehensive us. You can come up with of Brad Kavanagh? Lies. So what are they supposed lies having said he did not travel in the same social circles as Ford, but he did. And then they said, well, he traveled in the same social circles. Well, what's the evidence that some of the people she says, we're at a party with her? We're on his calendar. That's not the same social circles that six degrees of Kevin bacon. That's that's that's like saying that you know, I'd travel in the same social circle, and therefore his friends are in my social circle. That's not the same thing. At all. Also, they say that he lied when he attempted to fabricate now by suggesting he did not drink on weekdays. That's not true. He said he rarely drank on weekdays and his own calendar. And in fact, she referred openly in his testimony to his calendar said on this day. I probably drank. How do I know? I probably drinks. It says so on my calendar Cavanaugh said he had no connections, Yale University prior to attending undergrad and law school there. But he was the legacy admitting that is not true. He's not a legacy admitting. His grandfather went to Yale in one thousand nine hundred eight not to Yale Law School in jail. That's that's not. That's not actually a thing. Where else did he lie supposedly he lied about blacking out from drinking, but live out that there's no evidence that he actually did blackout from drinking? Now, the Democrats kept using blackout from drinking because what they're they were attempting to establish is that he actually tried to rape Christine blazey Ford. And just didn't remember the incident. That's what they're attempting to say. But there's no actual evidence of that. So there's no lie there either. Now, what you could say is that he was playing his his drinking in the most favourable possible light. I think that's fair. But that's not the same thing as as perjuring yourself as lying openly. We'll go through a couple more of these supposedly is the break Cavanaugh told rich Lowry has a good rebuttal to this over political as well. But first, let's talk about your sleep quality..

Brett Cavanaugh perjury rape Brad Kavanagh Christine blazey Ford Harvard Law School Yale University crystal Mangum New York Times Yale Law School Brett cavenaugh Boing United States Department Justi Columbia University United States Senate President Clinton Kevin bacon president Ford
"united states department justice" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

03:27 min | 3 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"Uh-huh. So when the notorious r. g. Ruth Bader Ginsburg rips on Trump and says, he shouldn't be president. That's not partisanship. She deserves to sit on the court when judge cavenaugh gets angry that people are calling him a gang rapist on open television. Then that's obviously reason that he shouldn't be on the court case. Number two is that Brett. Cavanaugh got mad Ono he got mad, and that means that he shouldn't be on the court. That's that's again a pretty astonishing claim. They got angry there for shouldn't be on the court. That one is nonsense. So that means the Democrats have fallen back on their final case. Okay. So they're final case, the one that they are, they're finally falling back on at the latest is that judge cavenaugh committed perjury. So they are suggesting that in his testimony, judge cavenaugh committed a bunch of lies. He lied a bunch of time. So first of all, let us define what perjury is in the elements of the law. It is a false statement that is material to the proceedings. That is the definition of perjury, okay. This is the the United States Department Justice department of Justice, standard for perjury section, seventeen forty, eight elements of perjury materiality. The false statement must be material to the proceedings. A false statement is material. If it has a natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing the decision of the decision making body to which it was dressed. The testimony not have actually influenced misled or impeded the. Proceedings. So if you lie to impede grand juries line of inquiry, then that would be a violation of perjury charges. If you're President Clinton and you suggest you did not, in fact have sex with that woman that is legitimate perjury, but that is not the same thing. As you know, you're asked a question about whether it snowed on a particular day, you know, it's Nobis, it rained and that has no actual material impact on the course of the investigation. That's per okay. That's not how it works. So what are the lies? The Brad Kavanagh supposedly told, first of all, it is important to note that all of his testimony was given it in the context of him being accused of a gang rape by a bunch of Democrats, and then they were digging through his yearbook. So every claim that has been made about his lies has been that supposedly, he downplayed his drinking or lies about his high school yearbook or lies about his high school yearbook. Now I'm not gonna defend lying. I'm not gonna pretend that if Brett cavenaugh lied about things, I think that makes him squeaky clean. But let's go through list of the supposed lies that Brad Cavanaugh told this from Boing, Boing. Okay, so blowing is a far left site. And so this means they're going to. Give about as comprehensive of you while it's actually for media matters, which is a comprehensive us. You can come up with of Brett Kavanagh's wise. So what are these supposed lies? Cavanaugh said he did not travel in the same social circles as Ford, but he did. And then they said, well, he traveled in the same social circles. Well, what's the evidence that some of the people she says, we're at a party with her were on his calendar. That's not the same social circles that six degrees of Kevin bacon. Right? That's. That's. That's like saying that, you know, I travel in the same social circle Estonia and therefore send his friends are in my social circle. That's not the same thing at all. Also, they say that he lied when he attempted to fabricate alibi suggesting he did not drink on weekdays. That's not true. He said he rarely drank on weekdays and his own calendar. And in fact, he referred openly in his testimony to his calendar. He said on this day, I probably drank how do I probably drink? It says. So on my calendar Cavanaugh said he had no connection to Yale University prior to attending undergrad in law school there, but whose legacy admitting. That is not true. He's not a legacy admitting. His grandfather went to Yale in one thousand nine hundred eight, not to yell law school in jail as and that's that's not. That's not actually a thing. Where else did he lie?.

"united states department justice" Discussed on Progressive Talk 1350 AM

Progressive Talk 1350 AM

01:31 min | 4 years ago

"united states department justice" Discussed on Progressive Talk 1350 AM

"To be hard for god i've seen these cases were people say they forgot things like dating arrested for marijuana when they were in high school or default hero student loans when you say you for god there you try to aspera lewis oh god terrible to talk to the russians so that the government of the united states wouldn't know about it i don't know who's got a believer that is a former us prosecutor in the department of justice his name as paul butler and yes not only did jared kushner attempt to set up a secret channel to russia that would be immune and impervious from united states government knowledge he then did not disclose some of these meetings with the russians on his various government forms and so merit raises the question what is he trying too hard what is it that bo senior aide to the president the president's son in law didn't want the government no no he has plausible deniability if he says while i was concern that the obama administration would find out that's why williams be private would adverse true why not admit that during your security clearance when you look like you're trying to hide something that's what raises the suspicion or prosecutors and not just really prosecutor but one of the best robert muller who were the be all over this that paul butler he's a former prosecutor in the united states department justice.

marijuana united states prosecutor paul butler president obama administration williams robert muller jared kushner russia