Whistleblower

[BotanyBoy]

A foreign government spending money in efforts to influence American voters is a textbook case of "interfering in an election", your pathetic insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.

No, it's not, you're factually incorrect Rob. Again.

Learn to English buddy....your command of the language is right up there with your US history and basic civics, total dog shit.

Of course it says interference right there in the statement.

It says interference won't be tolerated. It doesn't say Russia interfered in the election.

It says Russia attempted to influence US democratic processes, an accurate use of words.

Influence democratic processes =/= interfering with election.

Trying to conflate the two is both dishonest and divisive.

 

[Aglaopheme]

No, it's not, you're factually incorrect Rob. Again.

Learn to English buddy....your command of the language is right up there with your US history and basic civics, total dog shit.



It says interference won't be tolerated. It doesn't say Russia interfered in the election.

It says Russia attempted to influence US democratic processes, an accurate use of words.

Influence democratic processes =/= interfering with election.

Trying to conflate the two is both dishonest and divisive.

Okie dokie. I hope that makes you feel better.

By the way a foreign company buying political ads on social media that favor one campaign over another is also an illegal FEC violation as an in kind donation from a foreign government.

 

[doowdniw]

There is no such thing as "rules of evidence" for any investigation. You gather evidence where and how you find it. You take secondhand information with a grain of salt and follow it up to where it leads.

There is no such thing as an "impeachment investigation" or an "impeachment inquiry," for that matter. It is not an impeachment process of any description until the full house votes to have one. Once they draft articles of impeachment, the process of bringing those articles forward and any debate and testimony they decide to hold is entirely for the house to devise. They can do anything from a kangaroo court to a serious attempt to flesh out the issues that will be brought forward at the trial in the Senate if it gets that far. Stunts like Schiff's nonsense would likely prejudice the Senate whose members consider themselves more deliberative and statesmanlike.

In the Senate there is no chance that playing fast and loose with the traditions of our criminal jurisprudence system such as Mueller's nonsense about ". .but not exonerated, either" or the Kavenaugh circus where he was required to prove he didn't do something no one remembers anything verifiable such as time and place would be met with anything but scorn in the Senate.

This particular Senate will not remove, regardless. Dems are just continuing the campaign started on election night to delegitimize Trump's presidency.

Not a chance in hell the Dems get away with sham process with anonymous "sources," even in the house.

Don't articles of impeachment originate in the Judiciary Committee? I thought that was who passed them on to the full House, but I could be wrong.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Okie dokie. I hope that makes you feel better.

Being accurate with words? No feelings, they are whatever they are.

Your well wishes are quite pleasant and appreciated as such though

By the way a foreign company buying political ads on social media that favor one campaign over another is also an illegal FEC violation as an in kind donation from a foreign government.

When congress grows a spine, starts doing their job and writes some appropriate legislation to actually classify and or appropriately regulate social media as it's own class of media.... I might consider that to have some meaning.

Currently however the regulation of social media right now is such a biased and inconsistent clusterfuck right now that means very little to me.

 

[doowdniw]

So nothing, huh? Let me let you off the hook. . .

You used to have much better sources for your talking points. You apparently don't know that the herd has already moved on past, "This was totally a crime!!" to "We don't need a crime, we don't have to have a crime, we don't have to show you any stinking crime!"

Pretty interesting that the New York Times has decided not to put this particular article behind their pay wall. It's almost like they have an agenda or something.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/trump-impeachment.html

Catch up, "sporto," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. I wouldn't think that you're even old enough for a Breakfast Club reference and that's probably right because you don't seem to know how to use it.

Who are you talking to? And who is '"sporto"'?

 

[Aglaopheme]

This is the new normal.

Where did our quadruple downers go?

https://www.mediaite.com/online/the...ower-bombshell/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Call it a fake news story fit for the Trump era.

Sean Davis, an editor at conservative website The Federalist, published a story on Friday claiming that before the whistleblower complaint against Trump was made, “the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.”

The Federalist story was quickly debunked. In fact, it had been debunked even before it was published. Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Sanchez explained to Federalist editors Davis and Mollie Hemingway that their theories about the process – which they had been expressing on Twitter – were based on a profound misunderstanding of the law.

Finally, on Monday night the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) released a statement confirming what fact checks of the Federalist theory said all along: no requirement for a whistleblower to provide first-hand knowledge was eliminated, because such a requirement never existed.

As Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has made clear and the Daily Beast explained: “There’s a reason the form has allowed secondhand reports all along. The requirement for firsthand whistleblowing only is completely made up.”

Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway have doubled down on the air at Fox News and online on Twitter and the website, insisting that the ICIG statement — which was issued to clean up the mess created by their botched report, which it clearly undermines — actually vindicates their claims.

 

[Aglaopheme]

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics...ted-urgent-ukraine-briefing/story?id=65991911

The State Department’s inspector general is expected to brief staffers from several House and Senate committees on Wednesday afternoon about documents obtained from the department’s Office of the Legal Adviser concerning documents related to the State Department and Ukraine, sources familiar with the planned briefing told ABC News.

Details of the briefing, expected to be conducted by Steve Linick, the inspector general at State, remain unknown. Linick is expected to meet with congressional staff in a secure location on Capitol Hill.

 

[Aglaopheme]

What’s in the box, dick? Anyone else believe that the WH will not destroy records?

Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson held a hearing today on whether to intervene immediately in the Trump administration's record-keeping practices, especially regarding calls/mtgs between Trump and foreign leaders

“DOJ couldn't yet say in court that the WH would preserve all records related to Trump's calls with foreign leaders--yet they added that they don't believe there's a risk the WH would destroy records.

Judge told them to say for sure by tomorrow.“

https://twitter.com/kpolantz/status/1179125295816818688?s=21

 

[icanhelp1]

This is the new normal.

Where did our quadruple downers go?

https://www.mediaite.com/online/the...ower-bombshell/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I read the update. It makes you wonder that if blatant improprieties were being committed during such a phone conversation then why didn't the people who originally heard it come forward instead of giving it to a second party? Doesn't make sense, at least for now.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I read the update. It makes you wonder that if blatant improprieties were being committed during such a phone conversation then why didn't the people who originally heard it come forward instead of giving it to a second party? Doesn't make sense, at least for now.

I understand your questioning it. It makes sense if people, like Pompeo, are trying to shield Trump. I think it will make more sense soon.

 

[jaF0]

I read the update. It makes you wonder that if blatant improprieties were being committed during such a phone conversation then why didn't the people who originally heard it come forward instead of giving it to a second party? Doesn't make sense, at least for now.

Because they're complicit.

We're talking Barr, Pompeo and Giuliani among others. The bottom of the scuzzball barrel.

 

[icanhelp1]

I understand your questioning it. It makes sense if people, like Pompeo, are trying to shield Trump. I think it will make more sense soon.

Again, why not walk right out of the white and into the ICIG's office. What's Pompeo got to do with it?

 

[adrina]

Again, why not walk right out of the white and into the ICIG's office. What's Pompeo got to do with it?

Why would Pompeo lie about knowing about a conversation he listened in on?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Again, why not walk right out of the white and into the ICIG's office. What's Pompeo got to do with it?

Pompeo was on one of the calls. The one the WH released the summary of.

I think yours is a very good question. Stay tuned.

 

[zipman]

I read the update. It makes you wonder that if blatant improprieties were being committed during such a phone conversation then why didn't the people who originally heard it come forward instead of giving it to a second party? Doesn't make sense, at least for now.

Fear. Maybe they couldn't afford to lose their job or maybe they were afraid of something more sinister happening to them. I mean, Trump pretty much said they were spies and then reminded people that we used to execute spies.

 

[zipman]

Pompeo was on one of the calls. The one the WH released the summary of.

I think yours is a very good question. Stay tuned.

I think the shit is going to hit the fan tomorrow.

It will be interesting to see when Republicans start deserting Trump. Grassley saying the inquiry should move forward was a tiny start.

That's what they are all afraid of and why the GOP went after that congressman for saying the inquiry was right. They are afraid of hitting the tipping point.

 

[coati]

Fear. Maybe they couldn't afford to lose their job or maybe they were afraid of something more sinister happening to them. I mean, Trump pretty much said they were spies and then reminded people that we used to execute spies.

There is a long list of people who left the Trump administration because they thought he was a fucking idiot and could no longer moderate his bizarre behavior.

So, yeah, when you are in the middle of that insanity, and your boss is stirring up his base to lynch "spies", you cover your tracks.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I think the shit is going to hit the fan tomorrow.

It will be interesting to see when Republicans start deserting Trump. Grassley saying the inquiry should move forward was a tiny start.

That's what they are all afraid of and why the GOP went after that congressman for saying the inquiry was right. They are afraid of hitting the tipping point.

I agree. I think once a single Republican crosses that line many more will follow rather quickly.

Kudos to the the acting SDIG.

 

[Aglaopheme]

There is a long list of people who left the Trump administration because they thought he was a fucking idiot and could no longer moderate his bizarre behavior.

So, yeah, when you are in the middle of that insanity, and your boss is stirring up his base to lynch "spies", you cover your tracks.

I’m surprised more of them are not speaking out, yet. That’ll come.

 

[zipman]

I’m surprised more of them are not speaking out, yet. That’ll come.

I agree with both of you. Trump did everything he could do downgrade the State Department and I wouldn't be surprised if more people take advantage of the whistleblower rules to verify the complaints lodged against him.

Pompeo is just a stooge and the people in the State Department generally have worked their whole life there under multiple administrations. They were completely sidelined while Jared did an end run around them.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

When they see his poll numbers tanking -OR- when some huge smoking gun gets out even they can't rationalize.

Either one is entirely possible

I think the shit is going to hit the fan tomorrow.

It will be interesting to see when Republicans start deserting Trump. Grassley saying the inquiry should move forward was a tiny start.

That's what they are all afraid of and why the GOP went after that congressman for saying the inquiry was right. They are afraid of hitting the tipping point.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Soon Faux News, Limbaugh and Breitbart will have nothing left to cover.

Poll: Only 4 in 10 Republicans think Trump mentioned Biden on Ukraine call even though he acknowledged doing so


https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3829338002?__twitter_impression=true

 

[KeithD]

Soon Faux News, Limbaugh and Breitbart will have nothing left to cover.

Poll: Only 4 in 10 Republicans think Trump mentioned Biden on Ukraine call even though he acknowledged doing so


https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3829338002?__twitter_impression=true

Those are six of ten Republicans who didn't read either the call transcript or the whistleblower charge. With luck those are six of ten Republicans who will be out of a political job in the next election--and maybe on a boat to some other country.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Another good read

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dail...cndid=26099613&esrc=&mbid=&utm_term=TNY_Daily

 

[icanhelp1]

Fear. Maybe they couldn't afford to lose their job or maybe they were afraid of something more sinister happening to them. I mean, Trump pretty much said they were spies and then reminded people that we used to execute spies.

Why should they fear that. The whistle blower act would protect them.
If it’s safe for a second party then why not the person who has first hand knowledge. I’m talking about ancillary staff and not cabinet members. Pretty cowardly to pawn that responsibility off to a second party. Smells of Party politics and a few Trump haters. Obama would have gone insane with rage and on several occasions prosecuted leakers.