• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question, could the president order the whistle blower to be arrested to stop him?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I wonder if the president could order the whistle blower to be arrested and jailed to keep him from testifying if the president claims executive privilege over the info included in the complaint? I mean the president has claimed executive privilege to stop a lot of his people from talking to the House committees, but those individuals seemed to want the intervention by the president. The whistle blower must not as he made the complaint. What power does the president have to stop him from testifying if he decides to do so?
 
independentusa said:
I wonder if the president could order the whistle blower to be arrested and jailed to keep him from testifying if the president claims executive privilege over the info included in the complaint? I mean the president has claimed executive privilege to stop a lot of his people from talking to the House committees, but those individuals seemed to want the intervention by the president. The whistle blower must not as he made the complaint. What power does the president have to stop him from testifying if he decides to do so?
Click to expand...

Don't give Trump any ideas. If there's a chance for him to be more authoritarian he'll do it.
 
I'd be worried if I were the whistleblower. The foreign leader is probably Putin, and we all know how he operates. Let's hope that they are keeping the person safe.
 
Helix said:
I'd be worried if I were the whistleblower. The foreign leader is probably Putin, and we all know how he operates. Let's hope that they are keeping the person safe.
Click to expand...

Radium pellets in an umbrella gun.
 
Good grief.

All we know is that a complaint was lodged and that the DNI disagrees with the IG's assessment. That really isn't anything new. Nobody complains when the DoJ doesn't take an IG's recommendation to prosecute Comey or McCabe but this is all of a sudden some end of the world scenario.
 
Lutherf said:
Good grief.
All we know is that a complaint was lodged and that the DNI disagrees with the IG's assessment. That really isn't anything new. Nobody complains when the DoJ doesn't take an IG's recommendation to prosecute Comey or McCabe but this is all of a sudden some end of the world scenario.
Click to expand...

The IG recommended prosecution of Comey? Can you quote that from the IG?

I found this:
Horowitz, however, did not make any recommendations as to whether Comey should be prosecuted, undercutting Republicans who want him to face punishment for his actions. The Justice Department has also declined to prosecute him.
Click to expand...
Five takeaways from Justice IG report on Comey | TheHill
 
Last edited:
ICE could "accidentally deport" him to somewhere he's likely to get mugged and killed the moment he tries asking for directions. El Salvador or the like...
 
Mach said:
The IG recommended prosecution of Comey? Can you quote that from the IG?

I found this:

Five takeaways from Justice IG report on Comey | TheHill
Click to expand...

Recommended or referred. It's a matter of semantics.

James Comey won't be prosecuted over handling of FBI memos, despite referral - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)The Justice Department inspector general's office referred former FBI Director James Comey for potential prosecution over his handling of memos that the FBI later determined contained classified information, a person familiar with the matter confirmed Thursday.
Click to expand...
 
Lutherf said:
Good grief.

All we know is that a complaint was lodged and that the DNI disagrees with the IG's assessment. That really isn't anything new. Nobody complains when the DoJ doesn't take an IG's recommendation to prosecute Comey or McCabe but this is all of a sudden some end of the world scenario.
Click to expand...

There is a whistleblower law. The whistleblower has to raise his issue with the IG and the IG determines if it's serious enough to bring to Congress. The IG determined that it was serious enough. But then the White House stepped in and is illegally blocking the process.

THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

This White House is just a bunch of criminals but that's fine with you. "Law and Order" LOL
 
Lutherf said:
Good grief.

All we know is that a complaint was lodged and that the DNI disagrees with the IG's assessment. That really isn't anything new. Nobody complains when the DoJ doesn't take an IG's recommendation to prosecute Comey or McCabe but this is all of a sudden some end of the world scenario.
Click to expand...

I just checked on McCabe too. IG, similar to Comey, also did not "recommend prosecution" there.
In McCabes case, the IG did refer it to the DOJ for criminal *investigation*. Which they followed !

Where did you get your information?
 
Lutherf said:
Good grief.

All we know is that a complaint was lodged and that the DNI disagrees with the IG's assessment. That really isn't anything new. Nobody complains when the DoJ doesn't take an IG's recommendation to prosecute Comey or McCabe but this is all of a sudden some end of the world scenario.
Click to expand...
Except...The DNI does not have an option in this case. It’s not a matter up for his discretion.
 
Lutherf said:
Recommended or referred. It's a matter of semantics.
James Comey won't be prosecuted over handling of FBI memos, despite referral - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

It's not semantics lutherf, it's two errors, and neither now support your claim.

Worse, the operative word isn't "recommended or referred", it's "investigate vs prosecute"! They recommended criminal investigation...they don't recommend prosecution!


They did not reject the IG's recommendation, they ACCEPTED it. That's not semantics, that would make your claim false (in addition to being in error on what they recommended).

- Justice believed they didn't have enough evidence to successfully prosecute Comey, so they declined to prosecute (has nothing to do with the IG at this point, they decline as a matter of DOJ policy, they are not declining anything from the IG).
- Justice believed after conducting a criminal investigation, that McCabe *should be* prosecuted.

In both cases, Justice accepted the IGs referral, contrary to your claim. Facts matter.
 
Last edited:
I have to wonder if this “chili” will stick to the wall. Democrats can screw anything up; see Lewandowski hearing.



I wonder if Trump even wants to be POTUS anymore?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
There is a whistleblower law. The whistleblower has to raise his issue with the IG and the IG determines if it's serious enough to bring to Congress. The IG determined that it was serious enough. But then the White House stepped in and is illegally blocking the process.

THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

This White House is just a bunch of criminals but that's fine with you. "Law and Order" LOL
Click to expand...

If, as the office of the DNi, has said, "it involves “confidential” and “potentially privileged communications” and the director lacks authority to send the complaint to the intelligence committees.".
Would it still be illegal?
 
Mach said:
It's not semantics lutherf, it's two errors, and neither now support your claim.

Worse, the operative word isn't "recommended or referred", it's "investigate vs prosecute"! They recommended criminal investigation...they don't recommend prosecution!


They did not reject the IG's recommendation, they ACCEPTED it. That's not semantics, that would make your claim false (in addition to being in error on what they recommended).

- Justice believed they didn't have enough evidence to successfully prosecute Comey, so they declined to prosecute (has nothing to do with the IG at this point, they decline as a matter of DOJ policy, they are not declining anything from the IG).
- Justice believed after conducting a criminal investigation, that McCabe *should be* prosecuted.

In both cases, Justice accepted the IGs referral, contrary to your claim. Facts matter.
Click to expand...

Luther's right.
The IG sends a referral for possible prosecution.
It's like a recommendation or suggestion since the IG can't.
But a referral can be thought of as a recommendation.

"Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s team referred Comey for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws, but Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors working for Attorney General William Barr reportedly have decided to decline prosecution — a decision that’s likely to upset Comey's conservative critics."
James Comey's next reckoning is imminent — this time for leaking | TheHill
 
Mach said:
It's not semantics lutherf, it's two errors, and neither now support your claim.

Worse, the operative word isn't "recommended or referred", it's "investigate vs prosecute"! They recommended criminal investigation...they don't recommend prosecution!


They did not reject the IG's recommendation, they ACCEPTED it. That's not semantics, that would make your claim false (in addition to being in error on what they recommended).

- Justice believed they didn't have enough evidence to successfully prosecute Comey, so they declined to prosecute (has nothing to do with the IG at this point, they decline as a matter of DOJ policy, they are not declining anything from the IG).
- Justice believed after conducting a criminal investigation, that McCabe *should be* prosecuted.

In both cases, Justice accepted the IGs referral, contrary to your claim. Facts matter.
Click to expand...

It's the IG. They already investigated. That's what the IG does.
 
bubbabgone said:
If, as the office of the DNi, has said, "it involves “confidential” and “potentially privileged communications” and the director lacks authority to send the complaint to the intelligence committees.".
Would it still be illegal?
Click to expand...

There is a legal process for whistleblowers. The process was followed. The law says that the IG should report this to Congress.

The White House is just labeling everything confidential and privileged. But the IG has already said that the issue that was brought up was "credible and serious." You can't just cover that up with a claim of executive privilege.

Imagine this: A White House employee overhears Trump giving nuclear codes to Putin. How is this handled in our system if the employee can't report this information? We have a system of checks and balances. We have laws. What the White House is doing is abusing a breaking the law to coverup misbehavior.
 
bubbabgone said:
Luther's right.
The IG sends a referral for possible prosecution.
It's like a recommendation or suggestion since the IG can't.
But a referral can be thought of as a recommendation.

"Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s team referred Comey for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws, but Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors working for Attorney General William Barr reportedly have decided to decline prosecution — a decision that’s likely to upset Comey's conservative critics."
James Comey's next reckoning is imminent — this time for leaking | TheHill
Click to expand...

Now you and Lutherf are wrong, twice over.

Justice *accepted* the IG referral for criminal investigation. They did not reject it, as Lutherf claims. That's the end of that discussion.

As to semantics between investigation/prosecute, that was also answered.

The referral was for criminal investigation, not prosecution. IG doesn't make prosection determimations, that's justice. IG can refer what belireves are crimes to justice, for investigations. The Hill got it wrong, so did you.
“We are required by the [Inspector General] Act to send information that we’ve identified that could plausibly be criminal to the Department of Justice,” Mr. Horowitz said.
Click to expand...
From Horowitz, not a reporter's words.

So no bubbagone, we're not seeing another case of executive not listening to the IG. They listened both times.
AND, they refer from criminal investigation, DOJ gets to decide whether prosecution is warranted.
 
Mach said:
It's not semantics lutherf, it's two errors, and neither now support your claim.

Worse, the operative word isn't "recommended or referred", it's "investigate vs prosecute"! They recommended criminal investigation...they don't recommend prosecution!


They did not reject the IG's recommendation, they ACCEPTED it. That's not semantics, that would make your claim false (in addition to being in error on what they recommended).

- Justice believed they didn't have enough evidence to successfully prosecute Comey, so they declined to prosecute (has nothing to do with the IG at this point, they decline as a matter of DOJ policy, they are not declining anything from the IG).
- Justice believed after conducting a criminal investigation, that McCabe *should be* prosecuted.

In both cases, Justice accepted the IGs referral, contrary to your claim. Facts matter.
Click to expand...

He's trying to distract from the OP.
 
independentusa said:
I wonder if the president could order the whistle blower to be arrested and jailed to keep him from testifying if the president claims executive privilege over the info included in the complaint? I mean the president has claimed executive privilege to stop a lot of his people from talking to the House committees, but those individuals seemed to want the intervention by the president. The whistle blower must not as he made the complaint. What power does the president have to stop him from testifying if he decides to do so?
Click to expand...

Federal law now protects whistleblowers in many instances from retaliation. If Trump had this person arrested, there could be no clearer sign that Trump is an autocrat just doing whatever the hell he pleases and to hell with rule of law and the constitution.

This will end up being a simple matter of William Barr making the final decision that there will be nothing to investigate or prosecute.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
There is a legal process for whistleblowers. The process was followed. The law says that the IG should report this to Congress.

The White House is just labeling everything confidential and privileged. But the IG has already said that the issue that was brought up was "credible and serious." You can't just cover that up with a claim of executive privilege.

Imagine this: A White House employee overhears Trump giving nuclear codes to Putin. How is this handled in our system if the employee can't report this information? We have a system of checks and balances. We have laws. What the White House is doing is abusing a breaking the law to coverup misbehavior.
Click to expand...

Of course it can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom