Buried Whistleblower Report Apparently Involves President Trump's Conversations With A Foreign Leader
from the all-very-above-board-and-not-worrying-at-all dept
At the very last minute of last week -- prime government news-dumping time -- Rep. Adam Schiff announced the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was (perhaps unlawfully) refusing to turn over a whistleblower report to House Intelligence Community.
That the ODNI would blow off its oversight isn't unusual. The Intelligence Community has long treated its obligations as mere suggestions, leaving it to whistleblowers and leakers to expose wrongdoing. What was a bit more unusual were the allegations being buried: what was forwarded to the ODNI by the IC Inspector General suggested the Trump Administration itself was involved.
The Committee can only conclude, based on this remarkable confluence of factors, that the serious misconduct at issue involves the President of the United States and/or other senior White House or Administration officials. This raises grave concerns that your office, together with the Department of Justice and possibly the White House, are engaged in an unlawful effort to protect the President and conceal from the Committee information related to his possible “serious or flagrant” misconduct, abuse of power, or violation of law.
Whatever is contained in the unseen report, the ODNI definitely does not want to talk about. Not even behind closed doors with the House Intelligence Committee. The New York Times reports the head of the ODNI has blown off Rep. Schiff's demands.
The acting director of national intelligence will not testify before Congress this week or immediately hand over a whistle-blower complaint to lawmakers, escalating a standoff between Capitol Hill and leaders of the intelligence agencies.
What little information has surfaced is still pretty much detail-free, but the ODNI's general counsel sent a letter to Schiff that adds a bit more to the theory these still-buried allegations involve top-level White House officials.
The complaint involves conduct by someone “outside the intelligence community” and does not involve intelligence activity under the supervision of Mr. Maguire, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jason Klitenic, wrote in a letter on Tuesday to Mr. Schiff that was obtained by The New York Times.
It is definitely someone outside of the intelligence community. The Washington Post blows the lid off the report the ODNI doesn't want to hand over to Congress. It indeed goes all the way to the top.
The whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves President Trump’s communications with a foreign leader, according to two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
Trump’s interaction with the foreign leader included a “promise” that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community, said the former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
One of the officials said the communication was a phone call. Given the time frame, it appears to be one of several phone calls to world leaders Trump made in the preceding weeks, including a July 31 call to Vladimir Putin and communications with Kim Jong Un during the summer. Given the troubling things Trump has said publicly about these two, it doesn't stretch the imagination much to assume he's said some legitimately worrying things to them behind the scenes.
This would fit into the DNI's claims the whistleblower report can't be handed to the House Oversight Committee because it contains "confidential and potentially privileged communications." However, it does appear Rep. Schiff and the Committee will at least finally be hearing something about the buried report. The Washington Post report says acting ODNI Joseph Maguire -- along with IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson -- will be testifying at a closed Congressional hearing about the whistleblower complaint, contrary to the earlier New York Times reporting.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean the public will hear much about the details. Whatever Trump said to whatever foreign leader will remain under wraps, even if the alleged "promise" has the potential to affect all of us.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: adam schiff, donald trump, inspector general, national security, odni, whistleblower, whistleblower protections, whistleblowing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well that's reassuring
Given what he says in public on a regular basis, for something to be so concerning that you'd have a whistleblower (foolishly) running to ODNI, who in turn considered it a valid and pressing issue, what he said in that phone call has got to be seriously damning.
The whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves President Trump’s communications with a foreign leader, according to two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
Can you honestly call it a 'showdown' if both sides know that only one of them has the guts to pull the metaphorical trigger? I mean at this point were I working in US intel I wouldn't worry one bit about congress, as the most they'll do is wag their fingers and make angry but ultimately empty threats unless they get their way. Sure one of the intel agencies might have to send someone to get whined at for a few hours, but that's the extent of what congress will do to a government agency/group that stands up to them, so why worry about them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well that's reassuring
At this point who wouldn't believe Cadet Bonespurs may have made a "really great deal" with his good friends Russia or North Korea?
He's constantly going on about how great those dictators are. Almost like he doesn't like democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
You can tell a lot about a person by who their friends are and who they show admiration towards, and if someone were to, purely hypothetically, show admiration towards brutal dictators, well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
Yeah, Obama really did suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
This would have been an appropriate comment had Trump not taken it as a challenge to dig even deeper like a frantic gopher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
That's what Trump does, though. Take the sharpie controversy. Anyone else would go "yeah, I had some old info about which states Dorian was headed to, sorry about any confusion". It would be a minor meaningless blip that would be unnoticed in day to day business.
Instead, we have a multi-week temper tantrum involving attempts to further mislead the public after mistakes were recognised, science agencies being told to lie to the public if it's politically convenient and then being told to retroactively fake evidence to support the fake narrative.
Trump doesn't just dig in, he destroys the building's foundations if it stops his feelings from getting hurt. But, yeah, Obama knew some people too so it's totally them same things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
I assume that he is incapable of admitting that he was wrong. Is this a defined mental condition? Because there are many out there in society that share that same affliction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
We can call this "The Covfefe Effect".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
"Yeah, Obama really did suck."
Obama practised realpolitik which indeed does suck, but at least he had the good grace not to go on national television lauding the merits of known mass murderers.
Trump, otoh, goes to north korea and publicly makes best buddies with a guy who gets a lot of his jollies out of keeping a significant proportion of his population in torture farms and still sponsors the narrative that americans capture and eat korean citizens alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
I remember some silliness about no meeting without preconditions.
Oh yeah - that was some other president, not donny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
Trump, otoh, goes to north korea and publicly makes best buddies with a guy who gets a lot of his jollies out of keeping a significant proportion of his population in torture farms and still sponsors the narrative that americans capture and eat korean citizens alive.
Trump's North Korea strategy seems to be crushing on Kim like a giddy anime schoolgirl... while also doing all he can to piss off the one country that has been keeping North Korea under control. Not to say China isn't a massive sack of shit in a lot of places, but Trump trying to engage China in an erection-comparing contest has to be one of the dumber things he's tried to pull off.
Then again, it's clear Kim has Donny wrapped around his finger, considering that he quickly revived the exact same nuke testing facility he claimed to destroy for Donnykins...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
Right, who had 'But Obama!' on their bingo card?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
At this point, I see no reason to limit the possible countries to Russia and North Korea. I'd add Afghanistan, KSA and Israel to the list, based on events during that period and beyond.
All three countries have taken actions that make more sense with hidden promises from Trump in the intervening weeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
If you investigate the timing it is likely Ukraine.
This started in late July / early August with the G7 meeting where he asked for them to ignore the invasion of Crimea and include Russia again, followed by cutting off military aid to Ukraine. Pure speculation that any discussions with the newly elected President of Ukraine would probably include an offer to restore the aid if he did something for Trump (or even the US; I think either is likely).
Or not. I'd ask for popcorn, sit back and watch, but I've got this bad feeling in my stomach about this administration...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged words!
NOT ACTIONS, mere words.
Like the utterly baseless Trump-Russia allegations, AND the utterly baseless Kavanaugh allegations -- with rehash already debunked -- this is so far NOTHING. Not even "nothing but", just NOTHING.
Come back when you have more than rumor of how someone took Trump's remarks.
Next STORY, please.
UK readers might see that "Mornington Crescent" is APT name for this mysterious NOTHING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged words!
Oh, by the way, obvious to me: that this is from the Deep State suggests that it's TOTAL FAKE. The "intelligence community" clearly hates Trump.
My bet is they've concocted yet another "allegation" and this time are playing up the drama before hand, simply blaming the delay of releasing NOTHING as way to smear Trump.
Regardless of all else, Trump has at least kept the US from attacking Iran over NOTHING and setting of MAJOR conflagrations worldwide.
Count your blessing, kids, civilizatin can always go to hell overnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged wor
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged
I smell deep bullshit when I encounter the phrase "deep state".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes all
For sane people, that' translates, "Derp State".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OH MY Troll
Just remember "Deep State" rhymes with "Pizza Gate." It's all about the massive child slave ring run out of that pizza joint, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OH MY TROLL
Blue Balls - if that is really your name - you seem to be under the impression that posting two or three time sin a row will get you REALLY important message across.
You are in violation of Cabbage Law and common decency. You have no right to post without downvotes.
Unless you want to post at your super-cool site with no moderation and real freepeachs. Still waiting for the link to that, BTW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OH MY TROLL
Oh common, the IC IG just classified it as credible and urgent because he's incompetent and biased against trump and never should be in that role.. Trump works in mysterious ways and we may never know the grand plan that required trump to appoint this particular biased incompetent individual to that role, but he obviously needs to be replaced by a d-list celebrity asap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OH MY TROLL
Stop feeding the troll. Just flag and move on. I know it's hard to resist rebutting such stupidity but if we all just pretend he doesn't exist he might go away. At least his existence would be reduced to a couple gray entries in the thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OH MY TROLL
Who is worse? The troll or the troll-hunter? I think the troll-hunters are the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OH MY TROLL
You can tell what kind of person someone is by who he or she blames.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OH MY TROLL
NO, Troll Hunter was actually a good movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OH MY TROLL
Coming from a Troll that’s pretty rich bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OH MY TROLL
"Who is worse? The troll or the troll-hunter? I think the troll-hunters are the worst."
Why do i get the same vibes out of that message as I did when I read that in japan the #MeToo movement resulted in the victims being the subject of the public outrage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged words!
Like the utterly baseless Trump-Russia allegations, AND the utterly baseless Kavanaugh allegations -- with rehash already debunked -- this is so far NOTHING. Not even "nothing but", just NOTHING.
I'm withholding my "it's nothing" judgement until everything's been investigated 7 times, like Benghazi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged wor
Exactly.
Numerous Benghazi investigation return no arrests or convictions, or indictable evidence of any actual wrongdoing = "Lock her up!"
A single Mueller investigation returns 34 indictments, numerous convictions, makes an overall profit, and which Mueller himself is very careful to state this it does not exonerate anybody, only that there's not enough concrete evidence to indict under existing definitions of collusion = "they found nothing, leave him alone!"
It must be weird being so detached from reality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged
They exist in a deep state of denial in which the depths yet to be plumbed have no bottom. Trump could invite Taleban leaders to Camp David near the eve of the 9/11 anniversary and his zealot supporters would say he's doing it for peace, so that's okay.
Wait... at least one of them said that to me.
Per Rick Wilson, there is no bottom. Yuck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged
None of the indictments were for anything related to the original investigation.
Or did you miss that part?
I mean, tax evasion, money laundering, lying under oath, all serious crimes, yes...
But NONE of them were related to the ORIGINAL reason the investigation happened for.
And despite this, DESPITE this... Not ONE piece of evidence came out that linked Trump to Russia in regards to meddling with the election.
Not ONE vote was changed. Not ONE American worked with Russia willingly. And Russia spent less than 1% of the money Hillary did on Facebook ads.
You guys talk about being detached from reality, you must be looking in the mirror every time you think about this, because you've all lost the plot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes all
"None of the indictments were for anything related to the original investigation."
Oh dear, you really do need to read up on the factual information rather than the fictionalised Cliffs Notes you subscribe to...
There were 34 indictments. Of these, 26 were Russian nationals, and have largely been outside of US jurisdiction, so the investigation was ongoing. Of the US nationals involved, both Rick Gates and Paul Manafort pleased guilty to conspiracy related to the original charges.
You are either misinformed or lying.
"Not ONE piece of evidence came out that linked Trump to Russia in regards to meddling with the election"
Again, a lie. There is plenty of proof, just not enough for a smoking gun under the legal definition of "collusion" as understood by Mueller.
"Not ONE vote was changed"
You're not that naive. You just hope beyond hope that even though the only reason Trump won was because the electoral college rejected millions of popular votes for Hillary that at least the mere thousands that swung the election were genuine.
"You guys talk about being detached from reality"
Yes, because folks like you have invented a parallel universe that's not supported by documented evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged wor
Will Trey Gowdy be in charge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged wor
Only seven (7) times?
{eye-roll}... Amateur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this really news?
The president had a conversation with world leaders.(Not shocking)
Someone overheard part of that conversation.(Still not shocking - it's Trump FFS)
That someone then filed a report with ODNI accusing Trump of.. something. (Noone knows what...)
Tim doesn't like this.
News at 11...
Why should I care? There's a formula to writing a decent news or opinion piece.... Timmyboy, you're falling flat with my interest.
Where's the hook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The President of the United States is accused, apparently credibly, of doing something worth reporting through official whistleblower channels. That someone would feel the need to do so should make you care about what the president did to warrant that report. Whether it is “nothing” shouldn’t matter until after the substance of the complaint is revealed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The President of the United States is accused, apparently credibly, of doing something worth reporting through official whistleblower channels.
More than that, it wasn't just considered worth reporting but was considered a valid concern by the agency it was reported to, and was treated as sensitive enough that they are only willing to discuss it in a close-door meeting.
How it's been treated is evidence enough that whatever it is is of notable concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: zero credibility
"accused, apparently credibly, of doing something worth reporting"
... accused of what, specifically ??
You have no facts whatsoever to judge the "credibility" of this anonymous allegation against Trump (neither does the news media).
Therefore, you and the media have no credibility in validating anything about this issue.
Anonymous, unsubstantiated allegations of serious (unidentified) misbehavior sounds a lot like a political smear. Trump has been bombarded with such empty smears for years by his political opponents.
Trump, as President, can speak to anyone in the world as he pleases. A President also has final Federal authority to judge what is classified or unclassified.
A President also directly commands all Federal intelligence agencies and personnel; Congress has a dramatically smaller oversight role.
Those subordinate intelligence agencies (and ODNI) have no authority to monitor or judge a President's actions.
Serious, honest 'whistleblowing' requires facts -- and such whistleblowers are free to go directly to Congress/media with those facts ... not thru vague anonymous back-channels with vague anonymous accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: zero credibility
Do you have access to the complaint?
From your comments it appears to be the case - no?
Otherwise how would you know any of that which you stated as fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: zero credibility
You're talking about the anonymously given info about the original complaint, right? Because the original complaint was a formal complaint given to the inspector general for the intelligence community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
... how do you know there was any formal complaint at all?
so far we're just hearing anonymous hearsay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
You haven't actually researched the situation and read the documents where the ODNI reported it as such?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
" ... how do you know there was any formal complaint at all?
so far we're just hearing anonymous hearsay"
We?
Please speak for yourself and leave me out of your silly imagination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's what we'd all like to know and what people are trying to find out.
The allegation is not necessarily anonymous. It was filed through the OFFICIAL whistleblower channels set up by Congress. It's likely somebody in the chain knows who filed it and was able to find it credible enough to not just dump it in the trash.
Not true. It's been validated by official government channels. We just don't know what it's about.
Along with every single other politician in the entire history of the world. Your point?
No he can't, actually.
Also not true. Generally, yes, but he can be overridden by Congress or the agencies they grant such power to. I guarantee you that he doesn't sit in his office with a stamp and stamp every single piece of government documentation as either classified or unclassified.
And they can still override the president if they suspect misconduct. The president is not above the law.
Yes, they do. Their mandate is to protect America, if the president is doing things that threaten America, it is their job to report it, despite directly reporting to the president. The president is not above the law.
As they did in this instance, since they filed an official report with the official whistleblowers' channels in the government.
None of which happened here. There's actually official reports and documentation filed. Do try reading the article first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Congress has no power over the power of classification. That is entirely an executive branch power, a program created by executive order under the power of the executive to protect national security. The executive grants the power to classify material to agencies, not Congress. The power is limited by the Judiciary, not congress.
More telling is the assumption that it was declassification that was the misconduct, rather than say a promise to utilize surveillance powers to investigate US citizens of interest to a foreign government in violation of the law. The AC is already narrowing the window on what The accusation is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Woops. I messed up on that one. Thanks for the clarification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: zero credibility
The man in the IC who did see it and whose job it is to review the complaint to determine things like credibility and urgency of whistleblower complaints officially determined that the complaint was both “credible” and “urgent”. As such, unless you have specific evidence that it is not credible, the rest of us are going to proceed under the assumption that the complaint is, in fact, apparently credible until we receive credible information that proves otherwise.
And by the way, there’s a difference between something is apparently credible and saying that it is, in fact, credible. Essentially, neither side of the conflict between Congress and the DNI disputes the credibility of the complaint as asserted by an official who saw the complaint. So, from what we do know, the complaint is apparently credible. We don’t know if it’s credible, but the people who do know say that it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
"The man in the IC who did see it ... officially determined that the complaint was both “credible” and “urgent”. "
[
... you have no factual proof of that statement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
That blue text in the article? Those are called 'links', might want to give those a gander before making claims like that that merely expose a hefty dose of willful blindness on your part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
links?
just quote here the relevant text of your "links", so we all can see your definitive facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
Ah what the hell, I suppose I've got a few minutes to waste on someone playing dumb and/or who refused to actually read the articles...
“A month ago, a whistleblower within the intelligence community lawfully filed a complaint regarding a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law, or deficiency within the responsibility or authority of the Director of National Intelligence. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community found that complaint not only credible, but urgent. More than ten days since the Director was obligated to transmit the complaint to the intelligence committees, the Committee has still not received the disclosure from the Director, in violation of the law.
On September 9, 2019, the IC IG transmitted a letter to the Committee notifying it of the existence of a whistleblower complaint. The following day, on September 10, 2019, Chairman Schiff requested the full and unredacted whistleblower complaint, the IC IG determination related to the complaint, and all records pertaining to the ODNI’s involvement in this matter, including any and all correspondence with other Executive Branch actors including the White House.
On September 13, 2019, the Committee received a letter from the ODNI declining the Chairman’s request and stating that the DNI, contrary to an unambiguous statutory command, is withholding the complaint from the Committee because, in part, it involves confidentially and potentially privileged communications by persons outside the Intelligence Community.
The Washington Post report says acting ODNI Joseph Maguire -- along with IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson -- will be testifying at a closed Congressional hearing about the whistleblower complaint, contrary to the earlier New York Times reporting.
The tl;dr version if reading all that terribly dry text is too much hassle would be that if the complaint didn't exist, wasn't real, and didn't contain sensitive information then the back and forth would have been very different between the two groups. Had the complaint been found groundless simply saying that would have been enough to end the thing, that ODNI instead stonewalled their (theoretical) oversight and refused to hand it over contrary to what the law apparently says, making pretty clear they do not want what's in that complaint to be known.
I look forward to yet another attempt to claim that none of that's real/counts for whatever reason you can pull from your backside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
It's the "Mueller's report exonerated Trump" argument all over again with these chucklenuts. The same report which they shat in their pants over and had to be brought into the light kicking and screaming. And yet somehow, despite all the huff and puff about how the report proved their party's innocence they still can't explain why after two years of supposed skulduggery on the side of their enemies, Manafort is in jail instead of Clinton and Trump can't build the fucking wall without impoverishing his own armed forces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
"And yet somehow, despite all the huff and puff about how the report proved their party's innocence..."
It didn't, actually. The Mueller report was shock full of what mueller himself wrote down as "serious concerns".
The "summary" of the report was presented by one of Trump's own people who somehow failed to present any of the dozens of concerns mentioned and instead presented the view that the report "exonerated this administration". Which was the complete opposite of what the report actually did.
But yes, the chucklenuts supporting trump are more or less the same as the ones who blindly believed it when GWB did his "Mission accomplished" stunt. Trump could actually rape and kill someone in public and most of them would just react with "But what about Clinton" in blind denial of factual reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
Wait...stop...don’t go away mad. Just go away bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
From the previous article on this topic, which was the first link in this article:
Pretty straightforward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: zero credibility
If this is an empty smear then what do you have to be worried about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
Yeah - and what's up with the coverup as you claim none is needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: zero credibility
s/b reply to op
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: zero degrees in St petersburg
Howdy Ivan. Welcome to Murica.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this really news?
Playing dumb, or just dumb?
Or is there even a difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this really news?
The reason for the whistleblower was important enough to be considered "urgent and a matter of "urgent concern". That's a legal threshold that requires notification of congressional oversight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this really news?
considered "urgent concern"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this really an ignorant motherfucker
“Why should I care?”
You shouldn’t. After all you promised to leave forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In your cheek, clearly
The magic code strikes again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In your cheek, clearly
Bah, this was meant as reply to the 'Why should I care?' AC above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if he's swapping Maine for Greenland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More likely promised to invest heavily to build resorts in exchange for some kind of tax haven or political favors. There's a good chance it amounts to abuse of his office for personal gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
THIS!!! I would be surprised if the Donald didn't do everything he could while in office to enrich his personal business affairs by using his leverage as POTUS.
To me, it's as if that is the only reason he wanted to become president, because he saw his buddy Putin doing the kind of things that only a russian dictator would do in order to get... er... steal.. more money and was jealous that he couldn't do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder if he's swapping Maine for Greenland.
More likely he tried to sell Puerto Rico in exchange for getting yet another lawsuit tossed out of the Russian courts.
"I really hate those foreigners in Puerto Rico. Lets say you can have them all, and I can build Trump Tower Moscow. Deal?"
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/trump-foreign-business-interests/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think it's pretty much documented that he doesn't realise he's the president of Puerto Rico so it's unlikely he'd have tried selling it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm going with stopping the pee-pee tape from being released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whistle Blower
More likely that Adam Schiff is blowing gas from his posterior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whistle Blower
Kind of like what you just spewed out here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whistle Blower
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Considering everyone else involved seems to be corroborating things, Schiff is likely trying to work with what he's got. Meanwhile, there does appear to be time-sensitive misconduct in the White House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whistle Blower
This is a good take on the situation as it currently stands.
Make no mistake about it: just because I find the Trump administration to be entirely corrupt and incompetent does not mean I trust a single word spoken by the top Democrats, either.
But the only thing Schiff could be possibly blowing out of proportion for party politics is whether the ODNI is wrong to keep the complaint sealed. Every other allegation was reported by someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whistle Blower
Adam Schiff is the whistle blower?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whistle Blower
Howdy Ivan!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this the typical response to a whistle blowing event ... sweep it under the rug?
No wonder Snowden took a different route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
conduct by someone “outside the intelligence community”
So ODNI might be technically in the right to withhold this info, but that raises the question: if someone in an intelligence department stumbles upon some wronging by a President (any President, not just Trump) how is that intelligence person supposed to report that info?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would fit into the DNI's claims the whistleblower report can't be handed to the House Oversight Committee because it contains "confidential and potentially privileged communications."
I'm kind of curious... does the US intelligence apparatus spend much time working with "non-confidential" and "non-privileged" information?
Because from where I'm standing, the raison d'être of intelligence agencies is to intercept and interpret "privileged" and "confidential" information. Or are we expected to believe that foreign governments, terrorist groups, et al. primarily make plans detrimental to the safety and prosperity of the United States in open chatrooms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they were to ignore the the stuff published in various newspapers or magazines, then they would be seriously derelict in their duties.
Do you really think that everything bad that happens in the world exists in a privileged and/or confidential fashion, or shall we say vacuum? Or might there be some edge considerations that may or may not be dealt with in a privileged or confidential fashion? Then comes the question, who makes that decision, or better yet, how does one control that so no one else finds out, especially when it's already out there?
While I think that various government individuals make the decision that things should be confidential far to often, and for far too long, and often for all the wrong reasons (butt hurt and other forms of embarrassment as examples) there are still some thing that should be held close, for some reasonable amount of time. Part of that question is how long, and sometimes the answer is days, and sometimes the answer is weeks, and sometimes the answer is years, and sometimes the answer is decades. It should never be longer than that, and should often be shorter than what the original classifiers suggests.
In the mean time, the question is how to deal with things that they wish to be privileged or confidential that get out anyway, for whatever reason. Then there is the question of whether the determination for information to be privileged or confidential is the correct determination? Then there is the question of whether that determination is or is not in the interest of the public. The determination is more often than not that it isn't, and for whatever excuse, that is the way they often determine.
What if it isn't, regardless of excuse? When does the determination of privilege or confidentiality become criminal? Then, given the way secrecy is dealt with these days, how do we know when we do actually need to know? And, what do we do then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until This Website Covers Google Getting Owned on CSPAN....
I'm just going to assume all these stories are fake and ignore them. Techdirt can't keep ignoring Google dirt that has actual evidence, and a papertrail, and ignore them getting called to the mat on CSPAN and me care about anything else political they report on. You are sad shills until that time. Until we see you go after Google when there's evidence the way you go after bullshit fantasies when there isn't, nobody can trust this category of reporting from Techdirt. And I'm sorry. You did this to yourselves by continuously giving Google a free pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you run TD THEN you get to dictate what they cover
Bottom of the page, 'Submit a Story', though based upon recent examples showing how dastardly Google is have been epic faceplants you'll excuse me if I don't expect whatever you're obsessing about to be any more credible.
If, on the other hand, you consider whatever it is to be so very important then by all means, write up an article or two covering it, host it on your own gorram site, and stop whining that TD isn't as fixated on the company as you apparently are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until This Website Covers Google Getting Owned on CSPAN....
That is one of the dumbest fucking things I have ever heard from somebody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until This Website Covers zof Getting Owned on Techdirt....
Why you still here bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess what?
Nobody cares!
🎉
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until This Website Covers Google Getting Owned on CSPAN....
You think you're being clever. All you're doing is make people wonder what kind of an idiot spends his time reading and commenting on a site that he claims has nothing that interests him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until This Website Covers Google Getting Owned on CSPAN....
Is that a promise bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until This Website Covers Google Getting Owned on CSPAN....
I'm just going to assume all these stories are fake and ignore them.
ig·nore
/iɡˈnôr/
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
And yet, here you are. Ignoring just like I'd think you would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until This Website Covers Google Getting Owned on CSPAN....
They’ve attacked Google before, even if not for the things you may want them to.
They are under no obligation to report on the things you want reported on.
CSPAN reports on literally everything going on in Congressional chambers that isn’t behind closed doors. Unless some other source is also reporting on that, why would you expect Techdirt to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Until This Website Covers Google Getting Owned on CSPAN.
BTW, do remember the last time you demanded Techdirt cover a story you thought was damning for Google? You know, the papers from Project Veritas?
Here are two lessons you should have learned from that time:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't cry
If Trump were the first sitting president to go to prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look guys, if it's the phone call Trump had with Australia where he proclaimed it was the worst phone call in the day, we already know about it. You can't bury that anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is some mighty fine xenophobic innuendo there, Tim Cushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So Trump IS an alien then?!
Or perhaps you don't know what xenophobic means...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: quarter star
Well you sort of tried bro...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trump U student didn't pass English.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, kids! You TRUMP-eted this, but it's about BIDEN!
Overview of what is known on Friday -- totally stomps on Masnick's hopes:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-whistleblower-drama-puts-biden-hot-seat-over-ukr aine
Here's the corrupt politician at center of the actual investigation:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-pr obe-is-revived
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/whistle-blower-s-complaint-is-said-to-involve-mul tiple-acts-by-trump/ar-AAHxDU9?li=AA30Nm
Before got round to this, new headline on ZeroHedge:
A Smug Trump Derides MSM Over Biden-Ukraine Whistleblower Story: 'You're Gonna Look Really Bad When It Falls'
Trump is LAUGHING, kids! -- SO, HA, HA! Another one Techdirt jumped into wrongly but eagerly, and day later I already have the LAST LAUGH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, kids! You TRUMP-eted this, but it's about BIDEN!
If Trump is so concerned about CORRUPTION interfering with US operations, why does he still refuse to acknowledge Russia's PROVEN interference in our elections? I'd love it if Trump got serious about corruption, but it seems, in this case, he's only concerned about the "corruption" of a potential political opponent. Rather self-serving right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, kids! You TRUMP-eted this, but it's about BIDEN!
Corruption is donny's mo, if it is stopped he would shrivel into a little ball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, kids! You TRUMP-eted this, but it's about BIDEN!
Still haven't worked out why ZH is considered a source of fiction, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nonsense, it meets the only qualification that matters to Blue, it agrees with them, and that's good enough for them to consider it a credible source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, kids! You TRUMP-eted this, but it's about BIDEN!
Hey, kids! You TRUMP-eted this, but it's about BIDEN!
I guess he can lock him up once he's done locking Hillary up. Any day now, I expect.
It'll be the day after Mexico sends a check for your wall, you easily-fooled pile of pig shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump's plan
My theory is that this is all part of Trump's plan to get the media to focus on Biden's corrupt actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It sounds like it's yet another case of prohection from Trump. Trump launders Russians' money, therefore his Democratic opponent obviously must therefore be guilty of such behavior as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]