DOJ And DNI's Attempt To Bury Whistleblower Report Yet Another Indication Of The Official Channels' Uselessness
from the when-in-doubt-leak-it-out dept
The official channels don't work. That's the message Snowden sent -- one that was countered by multiple high-level government officials who'd never had the whistle blown on them.
Government entities protect their own. Whistleblowers who attempt to bring things through the proper channels are deterred almost every step of the way. The few times they manage to get their reports to someone who might actually be able to do something about it -- like Congressional oversight or the various Inspector General offices -- those affected by the report will do everything they can to silence it.
The New York Times discusses what happened when the whistleblower report about President Trump's phone call to the president of Ukraine was routed through the official channels. The whistleblower (who the NYT questionably outed as a CIA officer) used a third party to bring the complaint to the CIA's counsel. The CIA's top lawyer needed to find out whether the allegations about the content of the phone call were accurate. So, she called the White House to get the transcript of the call.
You can see where this is going. The New York Times fills in the details, showing why doing things the way the government wants you to do them seldom results in blown whistles. (This is taken from the NYT's podcast transcript, which is why it doesn't read like a NYT article.)
[I]t turns out that the lawyers in the White House have apparently also heard rumblings about the July 25 call. They don’t know how serious it is, but there are a series of calls on the week of August 5 between the C.I.A.‘s lawyers and the White House lawyers. And they’re trying to figure out what’s going on. And very quickly, they learn that a number of people within the White House have concerns about this July 25 call.
The White House took it seriously as well. Seriously enough to start trying to track down the whistleblower. The whistleblower decided to take his complaint directly to the Intelligence Community's Inspector General since it appeared the White House was more interested in silencing the whistleblower than addressing the complaint.
The IG's office started questioning people, alerting even more members of the administration about the severity of the complaint. And once the CIA's counsel arrived at the conclusion that this was a serious allegation, the CIA's legal office informed the Director of National Intelligence. The DNI then decided to contact the DOJ, since the normal process involves bringing it directly to the President -- something that's not really an option when the complaint involves the president.
[B]ecause the Department of Justice has gotten a heads up about this through the C.I.A. complaint, when this official more formal, supposedly independent whistle-blower complaint arrives, the people inside the Department of Justice, they know what they’re going to do. And what they’re going to do is basically say, there’s nothing to see here, this ends here.
If the CIA officer had solely utilized the proper channels, the CIA's office would have brought it to the administration's attention and the administration would have buried it. Utilizing the Inspector General helped prevent this burial from happening, but even the DNI's office stood in the way of the report being brought to Congress, at least temporarily.
Nothing about this works well, if at all, if there's enough people in power interested in making a report disappear. This one managed to make its way to the public due to actions taken by the House Oversight Committee. Without the public being informed a whistleblower report containing serious allegations was being hidden from it by the DNI, the DNI and DOJ would have swept it under the rug. And then the administration would have gone after the whistleblower, much like Trump has threatened to do already.
Just because this report ultimately ended up being made public does not mean the official channels work. That the House Intelligence Committee decided to do something rather than nothing when approached by the IC Inspector General is an anomaly, not the usual course of action. If the entity committing the alleged misconduct has enough power, the whole thing can be made to go away, along with the whistleblower and their career. And, in this case, there's still the question of whether it would have been done at all (Rep. Adam Schiff's decision to call public attention to the report) if it wasn't politically expedient. Stopped clocks are right twice a day. The official channels for whistleblowing need to be right a lot more often before they'll even approach that rhetorical low bar.
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: cia, inspector general, intelligence community, leaks, oversight, proper channels, whistleblowers
Reader Comments
The First Word
“And yet, when it comes to the questionable (at best) act described by the whistleblower — Trump soliciting foreign interference in the American political process — not only did the White House corroborate that with the official rough transcript, Trump himself did the same damn thing on camera for the world to see when he asked for China to investigate the Bidens.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Or could it be that The Whistleblower has zero credibility and was fed the entire thing by DNC operatives
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: credibility
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Agreed, Zero credibility. Plus all the other things that occurred, changing the form to allow for hearsay, communicating with Schiff, the release of the transcript showing that the whole complaint was fabricated... etc. etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The official rough transcript of the July 25th call between Trump and the president of Ukraine — the one released by the White House — says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And yet, when it comes to the questionable (at best) act described by the whistleblower — Trump soliciting foreign interference in the American political process — not only did the White House corroborate that with the official rough transcript, Trump himself did the same damn thing on camera for the world to see when he asked for China to investigate the Bidens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You mean the whistle blower complaint... that was written before trump released his transcript and the complaint is corroborated by the transcript that Trump released?
Are you implying Trump is actually a DNC sleeper agent out to sabotage his own administration?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Government entities protect their own."
well, Duh.
"Government entities" include all Federal agencies and Congress, plus all state/local governments. Same is also true in private businesses and organizations.
Criticizing your boss is very unwelcome behavior anywhere.
'WhistleBlowing' is always risky and always meets resistance by higher management.
The biased focus here is of course on Trump, but all modern Presidents are angered by insider leaks. Obama was much worse on pursuing leakers and extended that vigorously to private journalists who dared to publish inside information critical of his actions.
The "Inspector General" system in Federal agencies is not a neutral referee. An Inspector General always works for and reports to the top executive in that organization ... and ultimately does the bidding of that top executive.
Any boat-rocker IG's are soon replaced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trump doesn’t need to be a DNC sleeper agent to do that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That evidence is not reliable, as it was from a known habitual liar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You got it
That's why President is so mad at shifty Schiff. If the voters hadn't maliciously stolen Trump's 2016 election victory from America by treasonously electing a Democratic majority to the House, we would not be talking about impeachment. Or the whistleblower.
Voters really are spies utilizing the fake press for snooping on their government. In former times people had less qualms about giving them what they deserve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Could it be that we as a species have finally attained peak bullshit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Democrat collusion
The so called "whistleblower" is a registered Democrat, who is working on a Democrat 2020 presidential campaign, and worked as a CIA agent with Joe Biden a few years ago. Why are you now suddenly trusting a CIA agent with a political motive?!?!??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Democrat collusion
I see the right-wing talking points are out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The call was perfect, so the transcript says whatever Trump thinks it says. By the way, why would you repeatedly classify a call as "perfect" rather than "innocuous" when accused of illegal manipulation of a foreign country? That rather points to the call achieving a particular intent rather than it not having such an intent.
The problem is that the law does not just prohibit blackmailing foreign countries into meddling with elections, it prohibits soliciting foreign countries for meddling with elections. Trump was using the wrong standard for sleaziness, a business standard rather than a presidential one.
Which means that Trump employed the wrong metric of "perfection" here. He probably was surprised that the call transcripts were shuffled to the top secret server by his staff in order to hide them from oversight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Democrat collusion
Because Trump himself corroborated the information from the whistle-blower on national TV.
Do keep up, you only look silly otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Democrat collusion
But it's okay to investigate corruption. Obama did it to Paul Manafort during the 2016 election when he asked Ukraine to investigate. You wouldn't want Manafort's wrongdoings to have gone un-scrutinized, would you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It’s one thing to investigate corruption.
But when the president of the United States solicits foreign interference in American elections by way of asking two separate foreign governments (first Ukraine, then China) to investigate a direct political rival from an opposing political party under the guise of investigating “corruption”…well, that’s why impeachment hearings are happening right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Better question: For what reason would he and his administration have hidden the transcript of the call if the call itself was innocuous?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
I see that you are intent on proving that you are silly.
A simple question: What is the timeline for the corruption investigation into Manafort?
If you manage to answer that question you will realize how silly your "rhetorical" question is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You are failing to confuse things. The whistleblower complaint said damning things. The call transcript said the same damning things which is the reason it was released. Now all that remains is to disqualify the whistleblower complaint and make people realize that it is a fabrication by a partisan Democrat liberal pinky communist fairy, and the call transcript saying exactly the same thing is similarly disqualified.
The Democrats will say "but, but, but the transcript says the same things!" "Exactly! That's why it is not be trusted either."
Basically publishing the smoking gun right away makes sure that once the White House and Alternate Fact Press are done smearing the whistleblower, the Democrats will look silly when they try validating the whistleblower with the call transcript. Because the transcript has been there in the open all the time and did not manage to control the discourse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That explaination only works if the following statement isn’t true:
The transcript spells out that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to interfere with an American election by way of investigating Joe Biden, Trump’s direct political rival from an opposing party, despite no evidence that Biden or his son have even been implicated in actual corruption — and Trump all but directly corroborated the transcript (and thus the whistleblower’s accusations) when he later asked, on camera, for China to do the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If Trump were serious about investigating corruption and nepotism, it would seem a bit presbyopic to look outside of his own family and inner circle. He could start by publishing his tax returns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
" By the way, why would you repeatedly classify a call as "perfect""
Because Trump is a narcissist and a salesman. Everything has to be the best thing in some way, or the worst. Since he's relating to something he himself did, negative terms are out of the question, so the call has to be the best, most perfect, most brilliant phone call ever. He cannot speak in any other way.
He's also not used to his words actually coming back to bite him (as evidenced by how many times he outright contradicts himself depending on who he's talking to at what time), so he won't have been choosing his words as carefully as most would in similar situations. Hopefully his luck changes here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
It appears to be January through March 2016, much closer to the Nov. 2016 election than the current Ukraine situation.
It seems that some people are willing to trust CIA agents as long as they say bad things about a politician that they don't like. Remember, the original complaint was that Trump threatened Ukraine by withholding military aid until Biden was investigated. This lie was obvious to all of us who do not trust CIA agents as a matter of principle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yep. If that were in any way problematic, he would not be doing it in the open, and releasing the transcript to boot. So the only way this can be considered problematic is because a lying Democratic improper whistleblower pretends it is.
You don't need to defend a lie if you can instead ridicule the truth until nobody wants to hear it any more.
You need to understand that or you'll never get a job at Fox News.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Democrat collusion
Of course you have corroborating evidence on support of your claims.
Your comment addresses the uselessness of official channels how? Maybe by pointing out how the deep state is controlling everything from the basement of a pizza parlor somewhere
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, let’s look at the timeline on that:
Seems as if the administration was waiting for something from Ukraine — like, say, the promise of an investigation into Joe Biden and his son — before releasing that aid.
Incidentally, from that same article:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
"It appears to be January through March 2016"
The investigation? I'd check your sources again if I were you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
True. Trump is a known habitual liar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's perfect, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Democrat collusion
All the argumentum ad hominem is pretty sad. It doesn't matter if the whistleblower is the lovechild of Loki and Satan, address the goddamn facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Only a scumbag cop (please include FBI here), POS Gov't attorney or a DNC flunkie would believe the fake reasoning behind making this a "soliciting foreign interference in the American political process" instead of seeing it as some guy wanting to know about the providence of the bullshit hit job that came from Ukrainian sources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Maybe because they heard some CIA/NSA/FBI rat was working for the DNC again and they wanted to get on top of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
HAhahahaahah!
"actual corruption"!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Democrat collusion
I am glad to see that you consider trusting CIA agents as a left-wing thing now.
Never trust a lefty (in name only).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So - are you the guy that gets to decide what is a rat-fucking CIA plant and what is a "guise"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get some new material people...
Be nice if they would actually get some new ones, not the same pathetic ones that have been trotted out and shot down before.
It wouldn't matter if the original(as there are two by now I believe) whistleblower hated Trump with a burning passion and would love nothing more than to see him removed from office and thrown in a cell so long as the concerns they raised were still valid, and as increasing evidence including Trump's own words, on national television no less, make clear, they very much were and are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Again: If the call was innocuous — i.e., it wouldn’t be some form of dirt that people could use against Trump — for what reason would he and his administration go through such great lengths to hide the transcript of that call?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you can show us the proof that either Joe or Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt acts in Ukraine or the United States — acts that would, say, rise to the level of prosecutable felonies — now would be the time to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If a CIA agent came forward with a claim of wrongdoing by a Democratic president, would you still call them a “rat-fucking…plant”, or would you accept what they said without question because it happened to be about a Democrat instead of a Republican?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As always, depends on where you're standing
The 'official' channels work great when it comes to squashing any attempts to air the government's dirty laundry, and as that's pretty clearly the entire point of the 'official channels' I'd say they work great, even if occasionally something manages to slip through and make it to the public's eye(hey, no system's perfect).
It's only when you attempt to look at them through the lens of addressing, rather than burying concerns and wrongdoing that they look bad, and looking at it through that lens while it may be slightly better dressed up these days it's still about as obvious as an uncovered spike trap with a 'File complaint here' note impaled on one of the spikes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That’s the problem with everyone trying to discredit the whistleblower by making them sound like basically the worst human being who ever lived: It’s all they’ve got. The White House corroborated the whistleblower’s account of the call. Trump himself openly called for China’s interference with the 2020 election on camera for the world to see and hear (I really can’t stress that enough). At least one other whistleblower has corroborated the initial whistleblower’s report. And who knows what other facts will come from all the hearings being held in Congress on the matter. In trying to discredit the messenger, they’re accidentally proving that these facts are facts because they can’t argue against that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Need I remind you that Trump also asked China to investigate the Bidens, and that he did it on camera? Also, he once said he would accept electoral assistance from a foreign government if it were offered to him: “I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, ‘We have information on your opponent'? Oh, I think I’d want to hear it.” (That’s illegal under federal election laws, by the by.) If you think Trump isn’t trying to solicit foreign interference for the sake of winning in 2020, you’re not listening to him practically daring anyone to stop him from doing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Illogical assertions and silly conclusions
So, if the investigation into Manafort started months before Trump hired him to work on his campaign it would seem your question has zero relevance to the discussion at hand.
And people are willing to trust a CIA agent in this instance because Trump confirmed everything he reported on national TV plus the released transcripts also confirms it.
Or are you implying that everyone lied about it? Because for your statement to make logical sense that has to be true. Which is just silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Interesting how you keep attacking the messenger but have nothing to argue against the facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I mean isn't it obvious? Clearly if you knew you were innocent you'd fight like mad to hide and/or discredit the evidence that showed your innocence, leaving only conjecture and potentially incriminating scraps, that's just common sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
“Trump didn’t do it, but if he said he did it, he was totally lying about it. FOUR-DIMENSIONAL CHECKMATE, FUCKER!”
The sad thing is, someone out there legitimately believes this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If they didn't do this, the poor kangaroos in court would starve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It is not illegal under federal election laws to ask a foreign country to do its job and investigate corruption involving American politicians and their offspring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Your a cop, right? Using that cop-logic on all of us?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Gee, I think someone in law enforcement made that phone call to ask for the proof and, here you are, complaining about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Political expedience to the rescue
Exactly right. In 2013, would any member of Congress have been willing to go up against the Obama administration to unearth a complaint on FISA warrant violations--never exactly a political hot topic--by some Ed Snowden?
Trusting in “official channels”, it seems, means trusting in political expedience. And thus reform is critically needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Democrat collusion
Yeah, Trump corroborated that he asked for information on crimes committed by people during the last election. That is what all victims of crimes should be abe to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Democrat collusion
The "goddamn facts" are that an anonymous CIA agent made some
-- stop right there --
We can't trust ANYTHING someone in the CIA reports and ESPECIALLY someone anonymously reporting. What the "goddamn" is wrong with you? Have you not learned ANYTHING from the last 75 years
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Democrat collusion
Wow, you know who the whistleblower is? You realize that you could do a lot more with that information than just ranting about bullshit in an online comments section, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I would call every CIA agent that worked in the World a rat-fucking plant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
We don't have the facts. We have anonymous sources with narrative driving leaks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
These right wing nut jobs have become too predictable. They're just boring now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Political expedience to the rescue
Motivations aside, however corruption comes to light it is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
Not sure what you are going on about, but Donald confessed on national television. He thinks he is above the law and I am out of popcorn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Democrat collusion
That poster don't know shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Just curious- what did you get caught doing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is illegal, however, to solicit foreign interference in election matters. Trump asking Ukraine (and China) to investigate Joe Biden (and his son) during the Democratic primaries as a way of possibly digging up dirt that could be used to smear Biden and cost him the nomination — and, thus, influence the potential outcome of the 2020 election — is that kind of solicitation. That Trump withheld $400mil in federal financial aid to Ukraine until two months after the phone call in which he asked for that “favor” is damning enough. That he later asked China to do what he wants Ukraine to do, and did so on camera, kinda digs his own grave on the matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The best you can come up with is a weak straw-man attack? Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Innocent men try to prove their innocence. Guilty men try to hide their guilt.
What does hiding a transcript of what Trump and his administration essentially characterize as innocuous say about that call and what Trump said on it? Because if the call was truly innocuous, if there was nothing worth hiding about the call, the White House would’ve released it well before they were pressured into doing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
Please explain how Biden's son receiving money illegally (allegedly) or Biden having it covered up (again, allegedly) would make Trump a victim of those crimes? I await your pretzel-logic response.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What solid proof is there right now, besides conjecture and insinuation, that either Joe Biden, his son Hunter, or both of them committed a direct, overt act of corruption in Ukraine?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ah, so you’re one of those conspiracy theory nutters. Tell me: If someone assaults you in the street, would you call the authorities — rat-fucking plants that you say they all are — or would you find your assailaint and take care of them with a “Second Amendment remedy”?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The White House released the transcript of the call where Trump asked for a “favor” from Ukraine that specifically mentions the Bidens — a call which happened during a period of time where Trump was withholding millions of dollars in aid from Ukraine. Trump later asked China to investigate the Bidens despite no evidence of them ever having committed an act of corruption in China (or Ukraine, for that matter). The leaks are coming from the official sources, and unless Trump and his cronies (including Giuliani) shut their mouths, the leaks will keep coming.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
“Trump would never have needed to worry about being the victim of the Ukraine scandal if Ukraine had done what the fuck Trump told them to do in the first place and investigated those cat-fucking Bidens for being filthy, corrupt, treasonous, CIA-loving capitalists.” — seedeevee, probably
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here’s a fun question: Other than conjecture about the identity of the whistleblower, how do you know — with the certainty of God — that they work for the CIA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
So what crime did Biden perpetrate on Trump, please elaborate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lack of Self Awareness
The lack of self awareness is stunning.
You think that a CIA operative trying a slo-mo coup is a whistleblower?
The "rules" changed to admit 2nd or 3rd hand accounts unlike ever before ever?
If John Kiriakou, a real whistleblower, says this person ain't a whistelblower? That's good enough for me.
Why isn't it on your radar? Are you willfully ignorant or just ignorant? I can't tell.
Help me understand how you wrote this brain fart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The real whistleblower is the White House. They released the transcript, after all. Trump himself asked China to do what he wanted Ukraine to do — and he did it on camera, to boot. Like, how do you not get that basically everything the whistleblower said was corroborated by the White House itself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"We can go deeper" - Trump
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Because Trump is a narcissist and a salesman. "
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but aren't all Politicians?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crap.. spilled popcorn all over my desk trying to wipe the spittle off my screen from all the angry lefties. If Trump wins again, and Vegas thinks he will, I'll need to install windshield wipers on my laptop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I think you will have to learn the goose step and purchase some jack boots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Decades ago, back when Trump was bankrupting far smaller ventures than the U.S.A., he already was a narcissist megalomaniac to a degree that the Pulitzer winning editorial cartoon "Doonesbury" poked fun at his antics.
There really is no point in comparing Trump to politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Uh, that's why there is a need for investigations. Evidence does not just fall from the trees, it has to be planted. There was actually plenty of time to do so before the next presidential election and now everything is awfully rushed and spread thin and in danger of evaporating before it is most effective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, the sad thing is that election-winning majorities legitimately believe this once it has been made palatable by Fox News et al.
"Someone out there" my foot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Way ahead of you, it sounds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
He's got to be used to it by now. It's like a daily occurrence. He just doesn't notice and/or care about the contradictions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Two questions, then.
What specific acts of corruption are being (or should be) investigated?
If there were even a slight amount of evidence that could justify a proper investigation, I could understand that. But I haven’t seen any of that. All I’ve seen is conjecture and accusations from people with a nakedly political interest in taking down the Bidens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. Presidential material, even.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You don't pay attention. I repeat: Evidence does not just fall from the trees, it has to be planted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
Then why is he covered in it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The only anger in these comments is coming from the far right. Everyone else is trying to understand how the angry posters can be so dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
... seriously people, it might as well be labled 'Trap' in neon.
Nope, gonna have to stop you right there, as you(and several others) are right on the edge of falling into the trap, if not already in it.
It does not matter in the slightest what political party the whistleblower belongs to, nor their motivation. It does not matter if they revealed it with only the best intentions of if they only wanted to see Trump impeached and removed from office. Allowing the focus to be shifted to that is playing right into the hands of those that would instead you rather look away from the only thing that actually matters:
Is what they revealed credible, and is it serious enough to be worth further investigation/potential punishment?
Who they are does not matter. What their political alignment is does not matter. What their motive is does not matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not there is sufficient evidence for their concerns to be seen as valid, and whether or not what they were concerned about is serious enough to look into further, and given the response to their concerns and further developments since then I'd say both questions have easily been answered with a solid 'Yes'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So I can declare that I'm running for president, and any crimes I've done are off limits to prosecutors because it would influence the outcome of the election?
Are you serious?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Is that why, when asked, Obama refused to release his college transcripts, or the financials around his college education?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Great whataboutism there!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Are you serious?
Do you not understand what is happening and that it has nothing to do with your imagined scenario?
A president withholding aid, aid that was approved by congress, to a foreign government for political favors is nothing like your silly little "I'm running for president" bit.
Maybe you should read the Constitution!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Exactly right. That so much time is being spent to try to shift the focus to the whistleblower rather than refuting what they brought forth would seem to be a pretty strong indicator that even those desperate to defend Trump on this know they cannot do that honestly as the facts are against them, and therefore shifted to dishonest means such as attacking the messenger.
As 'defenses' go it's a very telling one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We get it, you hate lefties. Why is Trump the hill you have to die on? Because Hilary was almost a thing you have to engage in a race to the absolute fucking bottom?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Wurlitzer Plays On
The official channels don't work. That's the message Snowden sent -- one that was countered by multiple high-level government officials who'd never had the whistle blown on them.
Please do not conflate this CIA mandarin with Snowden.
Snowden actually put his life on the line and now lives in exile in Russia when he informed the world of the US's total surveillance state that was/is vacuuming up every last bit/byte transmitted on planet Earth.
The CIA mandarin was not privy to the Trump/Zelensky phone call he/she was only able to provide a 2nd hand 3rd person account of what some one else said occurred.
The transcripts of the conversation between Trump and Zelensky are in the public domain. They do not contain any form of a quid pro quo.
Psyop/psywar tactics have been used by CIA overseas for decades when attempting to discredit/humiliate foreign leaders/governments marked for overthrow.
It is no coincidence that the stenographers in western mass media have been reading from the same script these past 4 years in regard to the mass Trump psychosis that plainly has afflicted a great many persons.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from Consortium News a report titled:
The Legacy of Reagan’s Civilian ‘Psyops’ by Robert Parry
Essentially, psyops play on the cultural weaknesses of a target population so they could be more easily controlled or defeated, but the Reagan administration was taking the concept outside the traditional bounds of warfare and applying psyops to any time when the U.S. government could claim some threat to America.
This disclosure – bolstered by other documents released earlier this year by archivists at the Reagan library in Simi Valley, California – is relevant to today’s frenzy over alleged “fake news” and accusations of “Russian disinformation” by reminding everyone that the U.S. government was active in those same areas.
The U.S. government’s use of disinformation and propaganda is, of course, nothing new. For instance, during the 1950s and 1960s, the USIA regularly published articles in friendly newspapers and magazines that appeared under fake names such as Guy Sims Fitch.
However, in the 1970s, the bloody Vietnam War and the Pentagon Papers’ revelations about U.S. government deceptions to justify that war created a crisis for American propagandists, their loss of credibility with the American people. Some of the traditional sources of U.S. disinformation, such as the CIA, also fell into profound disrepute.
During the first Cold War, the CIA and the U.S. Information Agency refined the art of “information warfare,” including pioneering some of its current features like having ostensibly “independent” entities and cut-outs present U.S. propaganda to a cynical public that would reject much of what it hears from government but may trust “citizen journalists” and “bloggers.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/13/the-legacy-of-reagans-civilian-psyops/
Italici zed/bold text was excerpted from cia.gov a review of a book titled:
The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America
Once upon a time, the Central Intelligence Agency ran a world-wide covert action campaign to counter such nonsense in societies in which communism might take hold. Almost every CIA station had case officers dedicated to working with labor unions, intellectuals, youth and student organizations, journalists, veterans, women’s groups, and more. The Agency dealt directly with foreign representatives of these groups, but it also subsidized their activities indirectly by laundering funds through allied organizations based in the United States. In short, the Agency’s covert political action depended on the anti-communist zeal of private American citizens, only a few of whom knew that the overseas works of their ostensibly independent organizations were financed by the CIA until the campaign’s cover was disastrously blown in 1967.
Why is this important? Because scholars and graduate students will someday follow Wilford’s lead. His judicious approach should set the standard for their studies. Second, it matters because some quarters inside and outside government argue today that America needs to replicate the successes of the CIA’s covert political action campaign for the Global War on Terror. The Mighty Wurlitzer might not convince them that that’s a bad idea, but Wilford’s observations should give them pause to consider the risks and unintended consequences of projects that they are unlikely to be be able to control completely.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-st udies/studies/vol52no2/intelligence-in-recent-public-literature-1.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
So we can never look to the past and past actions by anyone to inform how we view current events?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTR, what would the college transcripts show, anyway? There is nothing that could plausibly be within them that would suggest anything that would make Obama seem guilty of anything.
Also, the point is that even if it was wrong for Obama doesn’t change how we should view Trump’s actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The Inspector General—a Trump appointee—looked into the whistleblower’s complaint and deemed it credible before we learned about its existence.
The whistleblower also had a memo detailing his discovery at the moment he heard about the phone call.
There is a second whistleblower with a firsthand account of what was in the complaint.
Whether you think the whistleblower as a source is credible or not, the relevant information they provided in the complaint has been corroborated enough to be credible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you unaware that we have the transcript released by Trump himself, along with admissions by Trump and Giuliani? Those aren’t anonymous sources, they were done quite publicly, and since they’re actually quite damning for Trump and Giuliani, I wouldn’t say they’re “narrative-driving leaks”. Honestly, the whistleblower complaint has become almost superfluous as far as evidence goes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
Based on your information, the investigation into Paul Manafort began before he joined the Trump campaign team. Therefore, at the time,the investigation was not into anyone associated with any candidate. (Also, Obama wasn’t running for President that year, so it wasn’t for his personal gain.)
Meanwhile, this is an investigation into Biden and his son while the former is running for President.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
And what about the transcript Trump released that confirms what the whistleblower claimed? Also, the Inspector General, who is not anonymous, is a Trump appointee, and is not a member of the CIA, investigated the complaint and deemed it credible.
Plus, when has the CIA ever lied to make the government look worse?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not to justify your whataboutism, but what, exactly, would releasing that information prove, and how would the information have disqualified him for office when Trump hiding his taxes didn’t disqualify him?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
…the whistleblower is a Marvel supervillain?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ... seriously people, it might as well be labled 'Trap' in n
No difference if you care for the U.S. But at any rate, you are wrong that it doesn't matter. If the whistleblower's intention was to deal a blow to our Fox-anointed saviour, it is our God-given duty to sucker-punch that baleful whistleblowing pig, and the way to do that is by reelecting Trump. And one cannot do that if he is removed from office and precluded from serving himself further.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I didn't say it would disqualify him for office. I'm making a parallel between the two actions. When Trump does it, it's because he's hiding something that shows he's guilty, when Obama does it, it's no big deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"Maybe because they heard some CIA/NSA/FBI rat was working for the DNC again and they wanted to get on top of it."
Or maybe you're full of shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow - ok then.
WhataboutWhatAboutism ....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus, who the hell cares. It was a deflection at the time and remains so today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"When Trump does it, it's because he's hiding something that shows he's guilty, when Obama does it, it's no big deal."
As if they both are of the same severity or even happened at the same time. Keep digging tho, I am interested in how long it will take to get to China.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not all politicians are dictator wannabes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Government entities protect their own."
"Criticizing your boss is very unwelcome behavior anywhere."
Not a very good boss then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Ah. I see. Looking at all this through Trump-coloured glasses. Bit of a fan, are we? Surprised some totally irrelevant comment about piracy and/or copyright wasn't woven in there somewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Ah, but the corroboration is matching the whistleblower's account well enough that you can smear it by association.
That won't convince anybody with half a brain and a minimal grasp of logic, but it only needs to convince U.S. voters. If enough voters are convinced according to polls, such that the GOP thinks it is better served for the next election by sticking with Trump, the impeachment will not make it through the trial stage in the Senate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
No, it's likely because he was tiring of idiotic games from people desperate to smear him, that detail was not demanded of other presidents and the transcripts would have meant exactly nothing in relation to his election.
Funny you should mention financials, though. There is a president who refuses to release his tax records even though those may be directly relevant to how he ran for office. I'm sure you're demanding the same transparency of Trump, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not all of them. Salesmen perhaps, but that's an unfortunate side effect of the money hungry and media addicted US political process. But, not all are narcissists, and most at least try to pretend that it's not all about them in their own heads. Trump doesn't give the impression that he ever understands that he's meant to be a public servant, not God emperor
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"So I can declare that I'm running for president, and any crimes I've done are off limits to prosecutors because it would influence the outcome of the election?"
Apparently Donald thinks that he is above the law, is he serious?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am the chosen one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To him, contradictions are evidence of a hoax.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ... seriously people, it might as well be labled 'Trap'
I do not want to hear Trump is in jail,
I want to see Trump in jail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But her emails
Benghazi
IRS
pizza joint
it never ends
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Obama “hid” college grades and financial information about his education because…well, it doesn’t really matter, because the information is immaterial to anything he did during both his initial campaign and his time in office. Trump hid, and continues to hide, his tax returns because they may contain potentially damning evidence of financial dealings with foreign countries that could call his loyalty to the country into question. (And they might reveal that he isn’t the ultra-rich bastard he claims to be.) If you still see no difference between the two, that is your problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If people think that Obama "hid" the college stuff for any reason other than Republicans had already demonstrated they were acting with bad faith with the birth certificate stuff and it was irrelevant either way... They might actually be dumb enough to think that Trump has a reason to refuse to release his tax info that's not shady.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well, it would explain why he is trying to get Superman impeached.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Our resident direct line from the Kremlin might be being less than honest?
Perish the thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lack of Self Awareness
The irony of you making that accusation is so delicious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
We don't have to trust what someone putatively from the CIA said when we have the transcripts. No one trusts the CIA.
I've learned more from that last 75, nay, 250-ish years than you apparently have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's all well and good, but we have a treaty with Ukraine on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. So Trump asking them for assistance in a criminal probe, whether he's running against that person or not, is perfectly legal, especially when you have the person of interest saying on video that they withheld aid until the prosecutor investigating his son was fired.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
If you're running for president you're immune from investigation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
and if Trump had used the mutual legal assistance to investigate a potential criminal matter, it would have been proper (or as proper as Trump will ever get). However, that is not what he did and instead he removed the ambassador that wanted things done via proper channels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Here's the thing. The oligarch behind Burisma might have thought that by bringing Hunter Biden on that it would garner favor from Joe Biden; after all, it's not a stretch to think other rich and powerful people are corrupt like you. However, that doesn't mean that Joe Biden was influenced in any way by his son's connection. Given the amount of time Biden has been in politics, he probably knew better than to caught up in such obvious corruption. I'm not saying Biden isn't possibly corrupt, I'm just saying that if he is, it's going to take some deeper digging to find.
Similarly, Russians could have been seeking connections and potential favor with people in Trump's circle (they did) without making any meaningful arrangements or without any of their targets knowing they were compromised. Because Trump is inexperienced and willfully ignorant and chooses to surround himself with questionable people, it's reasonable to investigate to ensure foreign powers like Russia haven't compromised the president.
And stop the bullshit claims that the impeachment is over a single phone call. There were months of unethical and illegal actions directed by the president which laid out the quid pro quo before Trump would even agree to have that phone conversation. Ukraine needs all the support it can get to ward off Russia, so they aren't going to dare cross Trump. They have already felt the pain of Trump's power by his illegal usurpation of Congressional power of the purse, and God knows what evidence Trump will demand they produce and under what kind of threat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Please, for the love of all things American, read the fucking Constitution so you don't sound like such a fucking idiot!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And if you're too fucking lazy to read the entire constitution, try this section.
He was withholding federal aid to a foreign nation, approved by congress, in exchange for a political favor. To say anything different is to be a self proclaimed fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there were anything wrong with self-proclaiming yourself as a fucking idiot, the last election would have ended differently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Problem Of Course Is That Transcript
See, nobody expected him to just declassify and release it. And when anybody sane reads it, they don't see a crime. Worse, when one of the nutters tries to explain what the crime was, and you ask them if they've actually read the transcript, they invariable say no.
I'd suggest actually reading the thing. I'm tempted to post it word for word here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Real Problem Of Course Is That Transcript
Go ahead. I'm pretty sure that when Greenwald released the files that Snowden found on the NSA's LOVEINT operations you thought that there was no crime, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Real Problem Of Course Is That Transcript
As one might expect by now, Zof the Liar's claims are at the antipode of reality.
And similar to the "1000 pages" lie about Google.
Back on Earth Prime, even Trump's own summary of the not-a-transcript says he engaged in the illegal quid-pro-quo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Real Problem Of Course Is That Transcript
"And when anybody sane reads it, they don't see a crime."
Ah, that's your new gambit now? People reading the evidence and recognising the obvious criminal activity within are simply not sane? Handy, far better than trying to defend the guy's actions.
"I'm tempted to post it word for word here."
Go ahead, the rest of us will happily point out the things you are deliberately ignoring, as well as the corroborating evidence that's come to light since it was released.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Real Problem Of Course Is That Transcript
According to Trump supporter Lindsey Graham, directly quoted from him:
So your crazy idea about there being no crime committed is moot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Where is this video? Please link or it's a BS assertion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
No need for pretzel logic: There's a reason why court cases initiated by the government are labeled "United States v. __" or "The State of _ v. ___ ." Biden and his son committed a crime against all of us, Trump (and you) included. You might not like that Biden and his son are criminals, but investigating their actions is not beyond the pale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Again, investigating crimes is not interference. If Hunter Biden and his father illegally profited from Joe's position as vice president, why would you want to look the other way (other than for purely partisan reasons).
If nothing is shady about it, then Biden should welcome the investigation. Hopefully they will go as deeply into the Bidens' actions as they did with Trump.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's a bit embellished but there is a video where Biden says on video that he threatened not to unlock withheld U.S. aids unless the prosecutor tasked with investigating several companies for corruption including Burisma where Biden's son happened to have become a board member after the events to be investigated got fired, because he was not investigating the companies for corruption at all and dragging his feet.
So there is indeed a video where Biden boasts strongarming Ukraine into firing a prosecutor tasked with investigating the company that had hired his son as a board member.
Now several Trump associates repeatedly travelled into Ukraine to get a backstory "that sounds horrible" to be put together and funnel money into the pockets of people who were able to "make it thus" in a manner suitable for election time.
They weren't quite finished with the backstory when this blew up, so the Trump team has to make do with the current state for smearing Biden since it is becoming tricky to continue. Just now Giuliani's Ukraine-incentivizing team has been arrested while trying to flee the U.S.
What's speaking against successful impeachment process completion is that Pence seems to be far more stuck in Trump's quagmire than Ford was with Nixon, so removing Trump from office would put the Republicans into a significantly worse election position than after the Nixon scandal, and even then Ford did not make the race against Carter.
And make no mistake: for the bulk of the current Republican Party, nothing counts but staying in power. That was what got Trump the nomination in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
What is this crime that was committed? Was it committed in the US or in Ukraine?
Regardless, you still don't get it because you keep fixating on the Bidens. Trump withheld congressionaly approved aid to a foreign country for a political favor in return. It matters not if the Bidens are the most corrupt family in the world, what Trump did is wrong.
As has been pointed out here several times, maybe you should spend some time reading the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Cool story bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So fantasies and whataboutobama is all you got? Pretty or for the course actually.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The weather in St Petersburg
Hey Ivan it’s time to retire this account. Cover was blown ages ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Trump-Ruskie
Whataboutobamas coming out in full force.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
“Biden and his son committed a crime against all of us, Trump (and you) included.”
Wow bro since you obviously have more proof of those crimes than Trump did you should turn it over to a Federal prosecutor.
Or shut the fuck up cause you’re obviously talking out your ass about things you don’t know anything about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
“Again, investigating crimes is not interference.”
No one said it was. It the strings attached to the investigation that is illegal.
But you knew that already didn’t you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
I'm a libertarian, so my trust in the government is very, very limited. So I try to look at every situation with logic, and try to figure out the most likely motivation of the different actors.
Sure, it could be a partisan attack. However, there is no indication that the evidence supporting the whistleblower has been manufactured or tainted by partisan operatives.
The CIA specialty is keeping secrets, so for a member to bring a matter to the public's attention is kinda a big deal. Because the CIA has missions all over the world, with a significant amount of resources devoted to watching and countering the Russians, another motivation could be out of concern for operations in Ukraine that would be harmed if the aid they need to keep the Russians at Bay is delayed too long. Russia is already sitting right outside their capital's door in territory they illegally annexed. If Russia detected a weakness and invaded, CIA operatives would be captured. Hearing the president make a clearly politically motivated demand of a nation that needs the US, combined with the surrounding circumstances of an arbitrary hold placed on aid that Congress has appropriated and has met the conditions to be released, that puts dedicated missions at risk is a much more likely motivation. The CIA being motivated out of concern for themselves and their secret missions seems like a stronger motivation than just partisan drive; who knows what their afraid could be revealed by operatives caught by Russia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lack of Self Awareness
“Are you willfully ignorant or just ignorant? I can't tell.”
We can tell about you bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Real Problem Of Course Is The zof clogging the toilet
I’d say your a Russkie plant. But they don’t hire idiots like you. That just makes you a useful idiot then bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why do I get the feeling that's an old quote, one he would never be willing to utter these days...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
Nothing. No evidence of wrongdoing has been found.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Additionally, Pence does not have a separate quagmire that could lead to him being removed and replaced by someone acceptable before Trump would leave office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"We get it, you hate lefties. Why is Trump the hill you have to die on?"
I don't hate lefties, quite the contrary. They are far more entertaining up on their high horses throwing mud than the back peddling righties.
Put Trump in jail, don't put him in jail.. it's all the same to me. The lefties have been trying to get dirt on him since long before he took office. It was only a matter of time before that idiot did something illegally stupid.
The fun really doesn't start until the left decides which socialist they they are going to field. The fail is going to be mind shattering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
If Trump wasn’t personally involved in the investigation, then there might be a colorable argument that the investigation might be proper, assuming we ignore all the evidence we already have that exonerates Biden. Furthermore, had the investigation been pursued through the proper channels, rather than through a private lawyer and withholding aid and firing anyone who didn’t immediately do what he wanted the way he wanted, then the conversation may be somewhat different. And maybe if the investigation was based on something credible and evidence-based, rather than another already-refuted conspiracy theory, the investigation might no be as shady. Finally, had the investigation begun well before Biden announced his candidacy, that might’ve changed things.
You may note that, even if all the conditions are met—and there are a lot of them—I did a lot of hedging there. That’s because, if you’re a President—especially one running for reelection—you have to be very careful about any investigations into your political adversaries—especially ones running against you, and especially when involving foreign countries.
At any rate, for the investigation of Biden’s son to have had a chance of not being a violation of the law, or at least not provoke a counter-investigation, the conditions would have to be very different from what they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Here’s the problem: that has already been investigated, and there’s nothing to it.
When Biden pressured Ukraine to fire that prosecutor tasked with investigating corruption, including that of the oligarch associated with Hunter, the prosecutor wasn’t actually investigating them like he was supposed to be doing, which was why just about everyone wanted him gone.
If the only or primary thing that Biden wanted was for his son not to be a target of a corruption investigation in Ukraine, then the best thing for him to have done would’ve been nothing, as the prosecutor showed no signs of actually investigating anyone for corruption. So, in a way, by pressuring Ukraine to fire somebody for not investigating corruption, he was acting against his son’s interests.
And yes, investigating crimes can be interference. It potentially smears the candidate’s reputation. Remember why everyone was up-in-arms about Comey publicly reinvestigating Clinton in 2016? The Justice Department is supposed to be careful about investigations close to an election into any of the candidates to avoid an appearance of corruption or partisanship. That’s why they were careful about investigating Trump and didn’t use any heavyhanded tactics during the 2016 election. And that was largely a domestic investigation.
This isn’t calling for blanket immunity for candidates. Rather, the investigation into Biden could have waited for the end of the election, much like the investigation into Trump—for the most part—waited until the end of the 2016 election. And with the investigation into Trump, the allegations involved potentially ongoing actions, directly involved that election, and were time-sensitive. Meanwhile, the allegations against Biden are about supposed misconduct that happened several years ago, is not ongoing, and does not involve the current election. There is no excuse for why that investigation has to happen now, while the election is ongoing, rather than years ago or after the election is over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
You kinda made my point: why attack the whistleblower’s credibility when we have the transcripts? The transcripts pretty much confirm what the whistleblower said, anyways.
As for the CIA, I don’t trust them or their members when they’re acting as part of the CIA in support of or at least not against the current U.S. government. A whistleblower from within the CIA is a different matter, no longer being presumed untrustworthy without further evidence. Can you name one time the CIA has previously spoken out in a manner that intentionally makes the current U.S. government look bad and has proven to be deceitful in the process?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"the allegations against Biden are about supposed misconduct that happened several years ago, is not ongoing, and does not involve the current election"
Except, of course, that the only reason Trump is talking about it is because Biden is a front-runner for the next election. If Biden wasn't running, Trump would never mention it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ... seriously people, it might as well be labled 'Trap'
So in other words, even if the allegations are 100% true and even if you think that Trump did something illegal, none of that matters if the guy who made the allegations did so solely out of personal dislike for Trump. In that case, you’d still want to spite the whistleblower by re-electing a criminal back into that office.
I sincerely hope that either you’re a troll or I’m severely misunderstanding what you’re saying here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Real Problem Of Course Is That Transcript
True. No one thought he’d be that stupid. Not to mention the fact that Trump has been obsessed with not leaking information to the public (foreign powers, on the other hand…). But then, I suppose after Trump’s son released those emails that made him look guilty, I guess I should have seen this coming.
Really? You must be talking/listening to a much different group of people than me. Most of the Trump defenders I’ve seen either admit that they haven’t read the transcript or demonstrate that they clearly haven’t. Meanwhile, the ones who say there was a crime actually use quotes from the transcript to make their point, and encourage others to read it like they have.
I can say that I’ve read the transcript, and I see a crime, or at least an impeachable offense (which isn’t the same thing). When the Ukrainian President talks about how much his country needs U.S. aid (and BTW, I don’t believe this was mentioned in the transcript, but Trump was at the time withholding aid to Ukraine), Trump responds by saying, “I’d like you to do us a favor though.” He then asks Ukraine for help in investigating Biden and his son.
That’s a sitting U.S. President running for re-election asking a foreign country for help in investigating a political opponent during an election in exchange for aid they desperately need. That is an abuse of power and a solicitation of electoral interference by a foreign power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Real Problem Of Course Is That Transcript
Here it is for anyone who wants to read it. Not that there are any surprises if you've been following the news.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The fun really doesn't start until the left decides which socialist they they are going to field. The fail is going to be mind shattering."
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It means exactly what I think it means. If Warren wins, and I find it incredibly ironic that she was a righty not to long ago, she's going to lower a tax boom on the middle class the likes of which has never been seen before. She can't do what she wants to do without it. She can't get the money from the rich and she knows it.The rich are just going to do what they did in New York, pack up their shit and leave.... The top 1% pay 46% of the taxes in New York, the rich are leaving in droves. I would fucking leave too. The last vestige for revenue will be the middle class. Why do you think she's dodged the question with CNN, ABC, Politico, MSNBC, just about every major network? The lefties can't push their socialistic agenda without bombing the middle class with new taxes, and they can't win without the middle class. .. This election is going to be a hell of a show.. get out yer popiecorn!
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cuomos-budget-rich-high-taxes/
https://www. stockinvestor.com/39518/supply-side-tax-cut-fever-rich-leaving-new-york-california/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's a hint: don't get your political information from sources with a vested interest in lying to you (such as, say, blogs targeting wealthy investors). If you're going to do that, DEFINITELY don't use something like investors.com, which is best known for hilarious claims like this:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/hawking_british_and_alive/
(For anyone not clicking through to the link, during the healthcare debate at the beginning of Obama's first term tried convincing its readers that Stephen Hawking would be dead if he were British and had healthcare under the NHS. Either the author was too ignorant to understand that he was both British and an NHS success story, or he was hoping his readers were)
If that's what you call a news source, I'll safely assume that whatever you claim is the opposite of what will happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I assume this is going to be the talking point for the stupid, so I might as well get ahead here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Political_affiliation
She was a Republican voter over 20 years ago but switched when she realised it wasn't the party she'd originally joined. Which makes it even sillier that they're trying to paint her as some kind of hardcore Marxist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for that.
"According to Warren, she left the Republican Party because it is no longer "principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets" and is instead tilting the playing field in favor of large financial institutions and against middle-class American families."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's far more enlightening that the poster basically admitted that his only skin in the game is to watch the world burn while hoarding his money.
The rant about rich paying taxes is also a fucking joke. "Oh no, if the government tries to provide proper medical, educational, infrastructural support for more people I might not get my thirty-seventh diamond-studded swimming pool!" Then they wonder why the wealthy have such shitty reputations when they've already made it clear since Day One that money is all they care about and they've rented their planet on an extended contract as their playground...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fun part is that people who talk like this guy generally aren't rich themselves. They've just been fooled into thinking that one day they will be that rich, so support the rich robbing from them now like a Futurama joke:
I've had many conversations like this before. They'll oppose the estate tax as if it affects them directly, unaware that they're millions short of where it would begin. They'll oppose paying taxes for healthcare, unaware that not only do they already pay more per capita than most countries for socialised medicine, the extra tax they fear is way less than they already pay to private companies working overtime to deny cover.
But, they insist on getting their information from sources known to outright lie to their readers to push their agenda, so unless they willingly expose themselves to truthful sources it's hard to get them to accept reality. That's what's sad, they actively working to undermine themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"I didn't say it would disqualify him for office."
And there's the first divergence. What Trump did could, indeed, disqualify him from office.
"I'm making a parallel between the two actions."
You're making a parallel between something which appears for all purposes to be legally approved and something else which to all appearances is quite clearly illegal?
"When Trump does it, it's because he's hiding something that shows he's guilty, when Obama does it, it's no big deal."
If Obama actually invited other countries to tamper with elections and/or blackmailed them to get dirt on his political opponents then yes, it WOULD be a big deal.
Very few dems actually believed Obama could walk on water or would have given him a pass on outright illegal behavior.
But Trump could club an infant on the white house lawn in front of camera and I bet a lot of republicans would still show up and try to exonerate him, probably with a whataboutism on the level of "what about when Obama bungled his address about the special olympics!?!".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mild necro-posting, but the difference to many is that Trump doesn’t hide his boarishness, so when he acts like a boar no one is surprised. President Obama presented himself as a better person, so when he acted like Trump does now it’s a cause to wonder why he’s doing so in that particular instance.
What some Trump opponents seem to miss is that many (and I think, most) Trump proponents realize just what a mess he is, and we’re willing to support him despite that, rather than that they think he acts appropriately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Boorishness, not boarishness.
boor: an unrefined, ill-mannered person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What impresses (i.e. baffles) me is how they think keeping the rich happy via giving them what they want is suddenly going to make the rich any less douchebaggy. Apparently if the rich are taxed the rich will just fuck off and the middle class will pay more taxes, and that's bad. So... what's the alternative? The rich aren't taxed, and threaten to leave if they are taxed, so everything gets passed onto the middle class... and this is somehow different enough for people to give a shit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It just means they bought into this crap in the Reagan era, and are too slow to realise it will never actually happen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
[ link to this | view in thread ]