JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[seacoaster]

Maybe we are all being played and this is just a ploy to openly close the loop on Trumps insinuation/proof that he was 'wire tapped' back in 2015/16, yet proving our intel-community is '"on top of things"?

That would be something

You gotta get off instagram, man.

[a fan]

Attaboy Phil, give 'em hell. Keep it up & CNN won't renew you contract.

Phil did write a book (about what the CIA did in the wake of 9-11).
He's a straight shooter & not afraid to admit mistakes in policy decisions.

So you agree with Phil? The whistleblower should have quit their job and gone straight to the press?

Phil is clearly not a fan of the whistleblower law. He advised, instead, to break the law and write a book.

You like this path? This is a 180 from your position on leaking.

[old salt]

Attaboy Phil, give 'em hell. Keep it up & CNN won't renew you contract.

Phil did write a book (about what the CIA did in the wake of 9-11).
He's a straight shooter & not afraid to admit mistakes in policy decisions.

So you agree with Phil? The whistleblower should have quit their job and gone straight to the press?

Phil is clearly not a fan of the whistleblower law. He advised, instead, to break the law and write a book.

You like this path? This is a 180 from your position on leaking.

I don't know yet. We don't know the details.

If the whistleblower heard something he thinks is unlawful, he can go to the FBI & still have his identity protected.
If not -- it's a policy difference.

According to the WP, the whistleblower wanted his ID protected & didn't want his complaint, or even the fact that one had been filed, to become public.

I bet Trump offered Putin a discount at Turnberry for transiting Russian flight crews stopping over at Prestwick.

[foreverlax]

He was clear in what was up his a$$.

They both agreed on the two questions unanswered - what was said?

and

why did the IG say what he said?

[old salt]

Attaboy Phil, give 'em hell. Keep it up & CNN won't renew you contract.

Phil did write a book (about what the CIA did in the wake of 9-11).
He's a straight shooter & not afraid to admit mistakes in policy decisions.

The WP IC leak squad was on MSNBC with informed "speculation" --
Trump phonecon to Putin, mentioned restoring full diplomatic relations.
The whistleblower though this would remain unleaked.
Did not want it to go public & didn't want it to impact his career.

Nice work Schiff. You just burned your whistleblower.

Typical; blame it on Schiff and lose -- again and again and again -- the focused issue of the DNI exercising his discretion not to follow the mandate of a properly passed law by the Congress, pursuant to its powers under the Constitution. Maybe you ought to go back to the oath you took when you joined your branch of the armed services. 10 USC Section 502:

(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:

I, (Old Salt/{deleted}/GuyWhoSupportsRepublicansNoMatterWhat), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

What happened to you?

I saw from the inside how partisans in Congress & their allies in the media can fabricate & distort, enough to be skeptical until all the facts are out & verified. You think the DNI did not consult his counsel & DoJ ?

[a fan]

I don't know yet. We don't know the details.

Yes we do. Here they are:

The inspector general investigated the complaint and deemed it credible, forwarding it to the acting director as required, according to a letter from the inspector general released by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

Once the director receives the report, the law states he or she "shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees."

The date of that letter, attached, is Sep 9th.

They have, therefore, broken the law. Period. The content of the material, outside of the IG "deeming the complaint credible", is 100% irrelevant to the rules.

You have been on us about law surrounding the leaking of classified info for years now. You told us there were legal paths.

This whistleblower took this path. That path failed, and the Trump admin. broke the law.


You either take this stuff seriously (your comment about Turnberry), or you don't have a leg to stand on. You cannot champion the Trump Intel agencies to break the law, and at the same time get angry at leakers and demand punishment.


So which lane do you choose? Follow the law, or not? There isn't a third option.













https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... blower.pdf

[DocBarrister]

Attaboy Phil, give 'em hell. Keep it up & CNN won't renew you contract.

Phil did write a book (about what the CIA did in the wake of 9-11).
He's a straight shooter & not afraid to admit mistakes in policy decisions.

So you agree with Phil? The whistleblower should have quit their job and gone straight to the press?

Phil is clearly not a fan of the whistleblower law. He advised, instead, to break the law and write a book.

You like this path? This is a 180 from your position on leaking.

I don't know yet. We don't know the details.

If the whistleblower heard something he thinks is unlawful, he can go to the FBI & still have his identity protected.
If not -- it's a policy difference.

According to the WP, the whistleblower wanted his ID protected & didn't want his complaint, or even the fact that one had been filed, to become public.

I bet Trump offered Putin a discount at Turnberry for transiting Russian flight crews stopping over at Prestwick.

It’s not a policy difference. By statutory definition, an “urgent concern” as determined by the Intelligence Community Inspector General cannot be a policy difference. It is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive Order ....”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/r ... m-congress

The fact that you seem unconcerned by what Trump may have done is truly astounding.

DocBarrister

[youthathletics]

Attaboy Phil, give 'em hell. Keep it up & CNN won't renew you contract.

Phil did write a book (about what the CIA did in the wake of 9-11).
He's a straight shooter & not afraid to admit mistakes in policy decisions.

So you agree with Phil? The whistleblower should have quit their job and gone straight to the press?

Phil is clearly not a fan of the whistleblower law. He advised, instead, to break the law and write a book.

You like this path? This is a 180 from your position on leaking.

I don't know yet. We don't know the details.

If the whistleblower heard something he thinks is unlawful, he can go to the FBI & still have his identity protected.
If not -- it's a policy difference.

According to the WP, the whistleblower wanted his ID protected & didn't want his complaint, or even the fact that one had been filed, to become public.

I bet Trump offered Putin a discount at Turnberry for transiting Russian flight crews stopping over at Prestwick.

It’s not a policy difference. By statutory definition, an “urgent concern” as determined by the Intelligence Community Inspector General cannot be a policy difference. It is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive Order ....”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/r ... m-congress

The fact that you seem unconcerned by what Trump may have done is truly astounding.

DocBarrister

He should have hired Christopher Steele to write a dossier on it, then the left could have had another few more years of investigations. #whackamole

[seacoaster]

Attaboy Phil, give 'em hell. Keep it up & CNN won't renew you contract.

Phil did write a book (about what the CIA did in the wake of 9-11).
He's a straight shooter & not afraid to admit mistakes in policy decisions.

So you agree with Phil? The whistleblower should have quit their job and gone straight to the press?

Phil is clearly not a fan of the whistleblower law. He advised, instead, to break the law and write a book.

You like this path? This is a 180 from your position on leaking.

I don't know yet. We don't know the details.

If the whistleblower heard something he thinks is unlawful, he can go to the FBI & still have his identity protected.
If not -- it's a policy difference.

According to the WP, the whistleblower wanted his ID protected & didn't want his complaint, or even the fact that one had been filed, to become public.

I bet Trump offered Putin a discount at Turnberry for transiting Russian flight crews stopping over at Prestwick.

It’s not a policy difference. By statutory definition, an “urgent concern” as determined by the Intelligence Community Inspector General cannot be a policy difference. It is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive Order ....”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/r ... m-congress

The fact that you seem unconcerned by what Trump may have done is truly astounding.

DocBarrister

I am astounded by it too; I just don't really know why. The arc or trajectory of all of your apologies, rationalizations and dissembling on behalf of Trump over the past few years logically leads to this: an IG who is appointed by a Republican President denominates a whistleblower complaint as an "urgent concern," and you're OK with the Executive Branch (the President, the ODNI, the DOJ, and Dog Boy Bill Barr) withholding it from Congress in violation of the law. Remember when the Constitution and the laws of the United States mattered to you all?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Attaboy Phil, give 'em hell. Keep it up & CNN won't renew you contract.

Phil did write a book (about what the CIA did in the wake of 9-11).
He's a straight shooter & not afraid to admit mistakes in policy decisions.

So you agree with Phil? The whistleblower should have quit their job and gone straight to the press?

Phil is clearly not a fan of the whistleblower law. He advised, instead, to break the law and write a book.

You like this path? This is a 180 from your position on leaking.

I don't know yet. We don't know the details.

If the whistleblower heard something he thinks is unlawful, he can go to the FBI & still have his identity protected.
If not -- it's a policy difference.

According to the WP, the whistleblower wanted his ID protected & didn't want his complaint, or even the fact that one had been filed, to become public.

I bet Trump offered Putin a discount at Turnberry for transiting Russian flight crews stopping over at Prestwick.

It’s not a policy difference. By statutory definition, an “urgent concern” as determined by the Intelligence Community Inspector General cannot be a policy difference. It is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive Order ....”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/r ... m-congress

The fact that you seem unconcerned by what Trump may have done is truly astounding.

DocBarrister

I am astounded by it too; I just don't really know why. The arc or trajectory of all of your apologies, rationalizations and dissembling on behalf of Trump over the past few years logically leads to this: an IG who is appointed by a Republican President denominates a whistleblower complaint as an "urgent concern," and you're OK with the Executive Branch (the President, the ODNI, the DOJ, and Dog Boy Bill Barr) withholding it from Congress in violation of the law. Remember when the Constitution and the laws of the United States mattered to you all?

It is exactly what it is. These dudes masks all slipped along time ago. It is the only logical conclusion.

[youthathletics]

In all seriousness....I simply cannot find anything on the net where the IG is required to notify congress. All I could find was the process by which a whistelblower follows, who they report to...which is either the IG, their immediate supervisor, or a special counsel. Nowhere did it say Congress shall then be notified.

Why is everyone so wound up?

[a fan]

I cited it at the start of this discussion. From the Whistleblower Act:


(B) Within the 60-calendar day period beginning on the day of
receipt from an employee of a complaint or information under
subparagraph (A), the Inspector General shall determine whether the
complaint or information appears credible. If the Inspector General
determines that the complaint or information appears credible, the
Inspector General within such period shall transmit the complaint or
information to the Director.
``(C) The Director shall, within 7 calendar days after receipt of
the transmittal from the Inspector General under subparagraph (B),
forward such transmittal to the intelligence committees together with
any comments the Director considers appropriate.

Director received the letter from the Inspector General on Sept. 7th, telling the Director the complaint is credible.

The Director broke the law. The ENTIRE reason for the specificity of the law is to keep the Director from playing political games. Which is exactly what he's doing.

The content of the whistleblowers' complaint, outside of it being validated by the IG as "credible", is entirely immaterial. The Director MUST give this information to the Intel committee. This law is written very specifically to keep the Director from doing exactly what he's doing.

If Old Salt means what he says about Comey and other leakers having legal paths to take instead of illegally leaking, he should be LIVID that the Director is breaking the law.

Comey is coming out smelling like a rose. Plain as day he was right to leak like a sieve. If I'm Comey's lawyer or any other Federal employee who's hit for leaking? I'm pointing to this flagrant breaking of the Whistleblower Act as the reason he rightly chose to leak.

Comey is now ethically 100% off the hook for leaking. Same goes for the rest of the Deep State. The legal path was plainly not an option, and they were right to leak.

[Trinity]

Bingo.

[youthathletics]

Thank you afan. I guess that is why Congress is fussy about demanding the whistleblowers report, even though it does not appear they are entitled to it....that is until it may require a special counsel. Seems like it’s kinda stuck in a legal technicality at this point I suppose.

[Trinity]

It’s probably Ukraine.

Trump “is attempting to force Zelensky to intervene in the U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of...Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his campaign; he is using U.S. military aid...in an attempt to extort it.”
Washington Post on September 5

And tonight

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Is Bribery is a separate charge from High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

[a fan]

Seems like it’s kinda stuck in a legal technicality at this point I suppose.

There is no technicality. The Director was and is in violation of law.

Not sure everyone knows how dangerous this is. You boys want our intel service in real rebellion against Trump, keep at it.

You want to create a Deep State? This is how you do it. You tell them that the law isn't important, and leaks to the press are your only out.

[RedFromMI]

Seems like it’s kinda stuck in a legal technicality at this point I suppose.

There is no technicality. The Director was and is in violation of law.

Not sure everyone knows how dangerous this is. You boys want our intel service in real rebellion against Trump, keep at it.

You want to create a Deep State? This is how you do it. You tell them that the law isn't important, and leaks to the press are your only out.

Agree here - the law is explicit that the IG makes the determination, and the only duty of the DNI is to take up to seven days to add his/her comments and then MUST pass the information on to the intelligence committees.

Given that it seems the actual report is likely having to do with Ukraine and most likely the attempt of Trump and his henchmen to pressure their government to "investigate" Hunter Biden with security money as the "hammer" makes this pretty bad for Trump.

Can we say blackmail?

[old salt]

Attaboy Phil, give 'em hell. Keep it up & CNN won't renew you contract.

Phil did write a book (about what the CIA did in the wake of 9-11).
He's a straight shooter & not afraid to admit mistakes in policy decisions.

So you agree with Phil? The whistleblower should have quit their job and gone straight to the press?

Phil is clearly not a fan of the whistleblower law. He advised, instead, to break the law and write a book.

You like this path? This is a 180 from your position on leaking.

I don't know yet. We don't know the details.

If the whistleblower heard something he thinks is unlawful, he can go to the FBI & still have his identity protected.
If not -- it's a policy difference.

According to the WP, the whistleblower wanted his ID protected & didn't want his complaint, or even the fact that one had been filed, to become public.

I bet Trump offered Putin a discount at Turnberry for transiting Russian flight crews stopping over at Prestwick.

It’s not a policy difference. By statutory definition, an “urgent concern” as determined by the Intelligence Community Inspector General cannot be a policy difference. It is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive Order ....”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/r ... m-congress

The fact that you seem unconcerned by what Trump may have done is truly astounding.

DocBarrister

I am astounded by it too; I just don't really know why. The arc or trajectory of all of your apologies, rationalizations and dissembling on behalf of Trump over the past few years logically leads to this: an IG who is appointed by a Republican President denominates a whistleblower complaint as an "urgent concern," and you're OK with the Executive Branch (the President, the ODNI, the DOJ, and Dog Boy Bill Barr) withholding it from Congress in violation of the law. Remember when the Constitution and the laws of the United States mattered to you all?

You are all just speculating.
Look at all the BS that has been thrown up against the wall by the resistance that has proven out to be bogus.
Remember when Schiff told you that he had solid evidence that Trump was compromised by Russia ?
It's deja vu all over again. I'm not jumping to conclusions until more information comes out.
You are confusing naivete with rectitude, trying to pass off your partisanship as self-righteousness.

[a fan]

Look at all the BS that has been thrown up against the wall by the resistance that has proven out to be bogus.
Remember when Schiff told you that he had solid evidence that Trump was compromised by Russia ?
It's deja vu all over again. I'm not jumping to conclusions until more information comes out.

Dude. This was an issue BEFORE we knew this had anything to do with Trump whatsoever. The subject matter is 100% immaterial. It could be a nothing burger. That's irrelevant. Breaking the whistleblower law is the problem here.

You're trying to tell us that "it depends on what the whistleblowing is about". Doesn't matter. The law is the law.


You now have no ethical leg to stand on. Leaking is ok now. You get that, don't you?

[old salt]

In all seriousness....I simply cannot find anything on the net where the IG is required to notify congress. All I could find was the process by which a whistelblower follows, who they report to...which is either the IG, their immediate supervisor, or a special counsel. Nowhere did it say Congress shall then be notified.

Why is everyone so wound up?

Why is everyone so wound up ? ...because Schiff threw in a piece of meat that attracted the attention of the TDS zombies.
They're in a feeding frenzy again, because everything else they try falls flat.