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

[foreverlax]

Should have followed the law as created by the Rs and Newt back in '98.

But the House Intelligence Committee deleted this provision from the bill following extensive hearings. The committee expressly rejected, in the committee report, the administration’s argument that the bill was unconstitutional without that provision:

"Like the Senate, the committee rejects the administration’s assertion that, as Commander in Chief, the President has ultimate and unimpeded constitutional authority over national security, or classified, information. Rather, national security is a constitutional responsibility shared by the executive and legislative branches that proceeds according to the principles and practices of comity. Nor does the Committee accept that the President, as Chief Executive, has a constitutional right to authorize all contact between executive branch employees and Congress…. The committee, in sum, finds no basis in the Constitution for a requirement that the President, either as Commander-in-Chief or as Chief Executive, approve any disclosure to Congress of information about wrongdoing within the executive branch."

[foreverlax]

Nice job Schiff -- you won the news cycle & burned the whistleblower.

What does "burned the whistleblower even mean? Got literally burned, got insulted in public or are you saying his identify was revealed.

Even though Trump doesn't know who it is, he knows he's a partisan...how does he know that?

His balls of crystal tell him so??

The initial reports on MSNBC & the WP were that the whistle blower did not want this to become public.
He wanted it to stay confidential & not put his career in jeopardy.
When Schiff ran to the cameras, any hope of that vanished.
The details leaked within 12 hours.

"leaked within 12 hours of what"....it was filed on 8/12 with IG, who sent it on to DNI on 8/26.

They had their 7 days and blew past it....doesn't seem that complicated.

(didn't want it to go public - where'd you get that factoid?)

Within 12 hrs of Schiff making it public.
NBC & WP reporters on MSNBC. Ken D & Carol Leoning (sp?) ...as I recall.

DETAILS?! There are very few details other then the obstruction of getting to the real bottom of the story.

Watch MSNBC (with WP reporters appearing).
They have the entire Ukrainian scenario all scripted out.
Impossible for the viewer to discern how much is conjecture & how much based on leaks.
Morning Joe bragged that he heard about Trump threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless the provided dirt on Biden.

BFD. Ever watch Hannity?

[Trinity]

The martial arts guy?

[old salt]

Within 12 hrs of Schiff making it public.
NBC & WP reporters on MSNBC. Ken D & Carol Leoning (sp?) ...as I recall.

Schiff went public AFTER the Director broke the law. As he should have. This isn't a game.

It's on the Director for making it public.

I'm holding out hope that you just don't get the timeline here.

A 7 day arbitrary limit is "the law" ?
You don't know if the DNI gave Schiff an interim response while he checked with DoJ, thereby complying with "the law".
Regarding breaking "the law" -- the DNI went to the DoJ for guidance on how to proceed.

[RedFromMI]

Nice job Schiff -- you won the news cycle & burned the whistleblower.

What does "burned the whistleblower even mean? Got literally burned, got insulted in public or are you saying his identify was revealed.

Even though Trump doesn't know who it is, he knows he's a partisan...how does he know that?

His balls of crystal tell him so??

The initial reports on MSNBC & the WP were that the whistle blower did not want this to become public.
He wanted it to stay confidential & not put his career in jeopardy.
When Schiff ran to the cameras, any hope of that vanished.
The details leaked within 12 hours.

"leaked within 12 hours of what"....it was filed on 8/12 with IG, who sent it on to DNI on 8/26.

They had their 7 days and blew past it....doesn't seem that complicated.

(didn't want it to go public - where'd you get that factoid?)

Within 12 hrs of Schiff making it public.
NBC & WP reporters on MSNBC. Ken D & Carol Leoning (sp?) ...as I recall.

DETAILS?! There are very few details other then the obstruction of getting to the real bottom of the story.

Watch MSNBC (with WP reporters appearing).
They have the entire Ukrainian scenario all scripted out.
Impossible for the viewer to discern how much is conjecture & how much based on leaks.
Morning Joe bragged that he heard about Trump threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless the provided dirt on Biden.

The attempts at getting Ukrainian help to dig up/manufacture dirt on Hunter Biden/Joe Biden by the Rudes has been going on and reported on for some months now... So less conjecture than you are implying. When the WaPo got two people from inside to give them info it was more of a confirmation of one possible avenue this could be...

And the behavior is quite consistent with Trump/Giuliani (/Roy Cohn, Trump’s Role model), so a pretty logical conclusion. Trump and his henchmen will continue to push the envelope until someone actually stands up and makes them stop. Basic rules of action is what can we get away with?

[a fan]

A 7 day arbitrary limit is "the law" ?
You don't know if the DNI gave Schiff an interim response while he checked with DoJ, thereby complying with "the law".
Regarding breaking "the law" -- the DNI went to the DoJ for guidance on how to proceed.

Doesn't matter. and it's not arbitrary. It's the freaking letter of the law. I already cited it for everyone twice. IT DOESN"T MATTER if the DNI gave Schiff an "interim response" or anything else you want to make up as if it matters.

This is the whole ball of wax,Old Salt. Either you follow the law, or you don't. The 7 day law is in there to keep the Director from burying the complaint. If that 7 day deadline isn't in there? They get to play the game YOU want to play. Lawyers, excuses, nonsense. Stonewall. Lie. Obfuscate. You know: the stuff that made you so mad when Hillary did it.

So I ask you one last time: Do the laws surrounding intel matter to you, or not?

They BROKE THE LAW. Period. No questions. No waffling: does that bother you or not?

If that makes you as mad as you should be, great. Thank you for being intellectually honest and consistent.

If you don't care, and want to add in a bunch of stuff that old salt made up "they're talking to lawyers and that's why they're delaying, and old salt thinks that's ok"....we're done, and all your complaints about following the laws surrounding intel becomes a punchline around here.

[old salt]

A 7 day arbitrary limit is "the law" ?
You don't know if the DNI gave Schiff an interim response while he checked with DoJ, thereby complying with "the law".
Regarding breaking "the law" -- the DNI went to the DoJ for guidance on how to proceed.

Doesn't matter. and it's not arbitrary. It's the freaking letter of the law. I already cited it for everyone twice. IT DOESN"T MATTER if the DNI gave Schiff an "interim response" or anything else you want to make up as if it matters.

This is the whole ball of wax,Old Salt. Either you follow the law, or you don't. The 7 day law is in there to keep the Director from burying the complaint. If that 7 day deadline isn't in there? They get to play the game YOU want to play. Lawyers, excuses, nonsense. Stonewall. Lie. Obfuscate. You know: the stuff that made you so made when Hillary did it.

So I ask you one last time: Do the laws surrounding intel matter to you, or not?

They BROKE THE LAW. Period. No questions. No waffling: does that bother you or not?

If that makes you as mad as you should be, great. Thank you for being intellectually honest and consistent.

If you don't care, and want to add in a bunch of stuff that old salt made up "they're talking to lawyers and that's why they're delaying, and old salt thinks that's ok"....we're done, and all your complaints about following the laws surrounding intel becomes a punchline around here.

DoJ interprets & enforces the law. Calm down.

[a fan]

DoJ interprets & enforces the law. Calm down.

And who appointed the head of the DoJ? Barr is Trump's toady. So Barr gets to decide whether or not the Director follows the Whistleblower law, and you're cheering this all on?

Years of BS from you about the importance following intel rules, and Trump's boys break these very laws, and all I get are excuses as to why that's fine.

Party over country. You've made yourself perfectly clear. I'm done listening to your nonstop whining about leaking.


If I were in Trumps' government, and saw that the broke---and are still breaking----the whistleblower law? Not only would I have the WaPo on speed dial....I'd start LOOKING for shenanigans from Trump's crew.

And you can bet there are people in our government who are thinking the same thing.

[seacoaster]

I love "calm down" and "relax;" they both have that veneer of condescension that glows for weeks. And even better is the notion that a deadline written into a federal statute is somehow "arbitrary" -- unless the President is a Democrat, I guess.

I wonder if the DNI had just shared the complaint with the HSCI, etc., and not made the IG out the whole business, made Schiff say "What the heck," if any of this would have happened. Another case of "only the best people" working the levers of government -- clown show?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... are-trump/

"All of this raises the question as to whether the multiple actions amounted to a “promise” by Trump to release aid in exchange for Ukraine’s help investigating Biden. Aside from possibly implicating bribery statutes, there could be no clearer example of a “High Crime & Misdemeanor” than in using government revenue to extort a foreign power to help you get reelected. Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe tells me that such an arrangement would probably meet the definition “within the meaning of the Constitution’s phrase ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ although it might well fail to meet the narrow definition of ‘bribery’ for purposes of criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 201.”

Please tell me to calm down and get over my TDS, or some other laughable comeback.

[old salt]

DoJ interprets & enforces the law. Calm down.

And who appointed the head of the DoJ? Barr is Trump's toady. So Barr gets to decide whether or not the Director follows the Whistleblower law, and you're cheering this all on?

Years of BS from you about the importance following intel rules, and Trump's boys break these very laws, and all I get are excuses as to why that's fine.

Party over country. You've made yourself perfectly clear. I'm done listening to your nonstop whining about leaking.

If I were in Trumps' government, and saw that the broke---and are still breaking----the whistleblower law? Not only would I have the WaPo on speed dial....I'd start LOOKING for shenanigans from Trump's crew.

And you can bet there are people in our government who are thinking the same thing.

Barr is the AG, confirmed by the Senate -- just like "tarmac hostage" Lynch, "wingman" Holder & all their predecessors.
Before resorting to personal attacks on fellow posters, consider some facts.
It's complicated. REALLY complicated. To get a feel for "the law", consider this Twitter thread from Jack Goldsmith, starting with #1.

https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/stat ... 5456478210

6/ This isn't a defense of Trump, it's a defense of the presidency. Imagine next POTUS is one you like. That POTUS cannot conduct foreign policy if his or her controversial secret foreign policy communications can be disclosed at the determination of an intelligence employee.
Jack Goldsmith
@jacklgoldsmith
·
Sep 19
7/ Putting it brutally, Article II gives the president the authority to do, and say, and pledge, awful things in the secret conduct of U.S. foreign policy. That is a very dangerous discretion, to be sure, but has long been thought worth it on balance.
Jack Goldsmith
@jacklgoldsmith
·
Sep 19
8/ Trump has been challenging this principle, in various guises, for almost three years. He has shown time and time again the extent to which our constitutional system assumes and relies on a president with a modicum of national fidelity, and decent judgment, and reasonableness.
Jack Goldsmith
@jacklgoldsmith
·
Sep 19
9/ So what is to be done? Imagine that Trump engaged in an act of national treachery: he casually blew a source for no good reason (or a venal one), or he betrayed the nation in a Manchurian Candidate sort of way.
Jack Goldsmith
@jacklgoldsmith
·
Sep 19
10/ I don’t think there is a legal avenue to correct such a betrayal of national trust by the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief. That is one of the accommodations the Constitution makes for the benefits of a vigorous presidency who can conduct foreign policy in secret.
Jack Goldsmith
@jacklgoldsmith
·
Sep 19
11/ I think the remedies are political and personally risky. If the IG or the USG employee believes the president has engaged in an act of national treachery, they can leak the information, which is a crime, and suffer the consequences.
Jack Goldsmith
@jacklgoldsmith
·
Sep 19
12/ I don't recommend that course of action. But I do think that unless what Trump did rises to the level of objective betrayal that such an act of disobedience would be warranted and justifiable and forgivable, then whatever Trump did should remain within the executive branch.
Jack Goldsmith
@jacklgoldsmith
·
Sep 19
13/ These are super-hard problems, but I fear that the attacks on presidential secrecy here are (in Jackson’s words) “confusing the issue of a power's validity with the cause it is invoked to promote, of confounding the permanent executive office with its temporary occupant.” END

[RedFromMI]

Not very complicated when the President does not have the interests of the United States, but himself and his re-election. That is what is different here if the press reports from WaPo and NYT are true...

[foreverlax]

Didn't realize it was the job of the DOJ/AG to interpret the law...thought that was the courts.

jack goldsmith opinion on the law is irrelevant. Law is law...your guys put it in and made it STRONGER!!

[Trinity]

Turn on your TV. The IC strikes back hard.

[Trinity]

Trump begged Ukraine for the Biden hit job. Eight times, he asked. WSJ. The IG knew it was wrong. Is instant Kompromat. How on earth does the DNI not find that an urgent concern? Bill Barr tried to hide this.

[RedFromMI]

Trump begged Ukraine for the Biden hit job. Eight times, he asked. WSJ. The IG knew it was wrong. Is instant Kompromat. How on earth does the DNI not find that an urgent concern? Bill Barr tried to hide this.

https://t.co/Di94fygXNh

Here is the link...

Even the WSJ getting in on this one.

Barr tried to hide it because he is one of those "the President can do anything and it is not illegal" types.

[Trinity]

Sounds a lot like soliciting a bribe. Waiting for Chris Wray to assign the Kavanaugh do-nothing team.

[tech37]

if the press reports from WaPo and NYT are true...

Thank you for adding this most important context...

[a fan]

Barr is the AG, confirmed by the Senate -- just like "tarmac hostage" Lynch, "wingman" Holder & all their predecessors.
Before resorting to personal attacks on fellow posters, consider some facts.
It's complicated. REALLY complicated. To get a feel for "the law", consider this Twitter thread from Jack Goldsmith, starting with #1.

I didn't attack YOU. I attacked your POSITIONS. I'll consider my words more carefully, though.

And you and JackGoldsmith are acting as though you know what the whistleblower complaint is. You have no clue what's in there, and more to the point, IT DOES NOT MATTER what the complaint is. The whistleblower law does not care. It has specific time constraints to reduce corruption in government by giving employees a lawful path to get their complaint to the proper parties, while maintaining the classified information that for the last three years was really important to you. Now you suddenly get a case of "it depends". No. It doesn't depend.

If you don't protect the whistleblower law, you are telling all Federal employees who are patriots that your only avenue is the press. This is the opposite outcome from what Old Salt wanted for the last three years.

[Trinity]

Trump can declassify anything. So play the tape.
Do not piss off Dan Coats.

[a fan]

BTW, it could be that this whistleblower complaint is a nothing sandwich. Old Salt you seem to be putting all your effort into the "validity" of the complaint. I don't care what the complaint is. I told you this was a serious problem BEFORE we knew it was about Trump. Go back and look. It's right there for you to read.

The only person who gets to make the judgement call on the seriousness of the allegation is the IG. He made that call, and said it was serious and credible. Once he did that, the Director was on the clock and had 7 days. These timelines were put in there for a reason...and you're seeing that reason up close and personal. Trump wants to put the story in a drawer.

Can you REALLY not see how much damage this does to our Federal workforce? You are telling them: the only way to tell the truth is to illegally leak to the WaPo.

Why would you do that if you believe in the rule of law and the importance of keeping classified intel, you know, classified?