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

[Farfromgeneva]

Hence why I put the link to We Didn’t Start the Fire by...Billy Joel.

But explain to me how it’s a distinction without a difference. I don’t get your point.

But again YOU did write “boomers pushing back” and there’s a huge difference if you google some basic population economics, maybe check out Malthus. Or intro to macroecon where they teach about the means of production like...labor, which is a function of population dirt, quality of population w respect to KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities).

[seacoaster]

Pretty good article on the WB law as it relates to intelligence and security issues, and the positions being staked out by the interested parties:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/us/w ... e=Homepage

"Whistle-blowing within the intelligence community presents a special set of tensions, both because the government wants to keep classified information secret and because presidents of both parties have tried to maintain control over decisions about disclosing internal information to lawmakers.

Congress, however, generally disagrees with the executive branch’s expansive theory of presidential control over information. The two branches worked out a compromise that Congress passed as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act in 1998 and amended in 2010 and 2014.

That law sets up a special process that allows intelligence employees or contractors to provide information to Congress in exchange for protecting them from retaliation or the threat of reprisal. Under that procedure, they submit the complaint for lawmakers to the intelligence community’s inspector general.

Under the law, the inspector general must decide within 14 days whether the information is credible. The inspector general must also determine whether the allegations amount to an “urgent concern,” meaning they relate to a “serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the director of national intelligence involving classified information.”

If the complaint meets that standard, the inspector general is supposed to forward it to the director of national intelligence. The law says that within seven days of receiving the complaint, the director in turn shall forward the material to the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees.

While the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael K. Atkinson, told Congress that he had determined that the complaint was credible and qualified as an “urgent concern,” Mr. Maguire has refused to transmit it to Congress.

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act says that if the inspector general rejects a complaint as not credible or not presenting an urgent concern, the official who filed it may still then provide the information to Congress. But in order to continue to be legally protected from reprisal, he or she must obey directions from the director of national intelligence on how to approach lawmakers in a way that secures classified information.

That raises another loophole: The whistle-blower first must obtain specific directions from the director of national intelligence before he or she can obey them. Here, Mr. Maguire is apparently refusing to provide any, according to a House Intelligence Committee official.

Mr. Maguire’s top lawyer, Jason Klitenic, has maintained that it is lawful for Mr. Maguire to withhold the complaint from Congress. Mr. Klitenic, who said he consulted the Justice Department, has made arguments in letters to Mr. Schiff both about how he interprets the statute and about constitutional law.

He disputed Mr. Atkinson’s determination that the complaint meets the legal standard of an “urgent concern,” stressing that it involves the activities of someone — apparently Mr. Trump — who is outside Mr. Maguire’s authority. But Mr. Atkinson has said that what matters is that the activity “relates to one of the most significant and important” of Mr. Maguire’s “responsibilities to the American people,” so it does fall within the legal standard.

Mr. Atkinson has also raised a broader concern with the Justice Department’s notion that the director of national intelligence can proclaim that a complaint, filed in the “urgent concern” process, falls outside its scope: It suggests that the current whistle-blower has no legal protections from reprisal, and could deter future whistle-blower complaints, as well.

Mr. Klitenic also suggested that Trump administration lawyers think the Constitution gives the president a legal right to order Mr. Maguire to defy a congressional subpoena for the whistle-blower complaint. The complaint pertained to “confidential and potentially privileged matters relating to the interests of other stakeholders within the executive branch,” Mr. Klitenic wrote.

In support of that notion, Mr. Klitenic pointed to claims by two Democratic presidents, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, when they signed the present system into law in 1998 and 2010. They asserted a constitutional right for presidents to control the disclosure of information to Congress related to their constitutional duties.

Lawyers for Congress and lawyers for the executive branch have long disagreed over where to draw the line between lawmakers’ power to obtain information and the president’s power to keep information secret.

There is little Supreme Court precedent because the two branches have generally resolved prior disputes through negotiation and accommodation. But Mr. Trump vowed to fight “all” congressional oversight subpoenas after Democrats took over the House this year, leading to a series of lawsuits. This issue may be fated to become another."

[a fan]

Mr. Atkinson has also raised a broader concern with the Justice Department’s notion that the director of national intelligence can proclaim that a complaint, filed in the “urgent concern” process, falls outside its scope: It suggests that the current whistle-blower has no legal protections from reprisal, and could deter future whistle-blower complaints, as well.

And promote nonstop leaking to the WaPo.

Oh well. Guess keeping classified intel classified just ain't all that important, and it's more important to protect politicians from embarrassing or illegal behavior.

Learn something new every day.

[old salt]

Mr. Atkinson has also raised a broader concern with the Justice Department’s notion that the director of national intelligence can proclaim that a complaint, filed in the “urgent concern” process, falls outside its scope: It suggests that the current whistle-blower has no legal protections from reprisal, and could deter future whistle-blower complaints, as well.

And promote nonstop leaking to the WaPo.

Oh well. Guess keeping classified intel classified just ain't all that important, and it's more important to protect politicians from embarrassing or illegal behavior.

Learn something new every day.

There's a way for a IC WB to get a complaint to Congress without leaking it to the media & without his ID being unmasked.
I've explained it. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
Given the flood of subsequent leaks to the WP/NYT/WSJ, it's obvious this WB is part of an orchestrated campaign of leaks.

[seacoaster]

“Given the flood of subsequent leaks to the WP/NYT/WSJ, it's obvious this WB is part of an orchestrated campaign of leaks.”

As you would say, you don’t know this. The complaint may be the work of the most ardent patriot since George Marshall. Or not. We’ll see, but you’ve tipped your hand.

[a fan]

There's a way for a IC WB to get a complaint to Congress without leaking it to the media & without his ID being unmasked.
I've explained it. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

Happy to acknowledge your made up new path for a whistleblower. So you think a WB should follow the "Old Salt" method, and ignore the lawful, detailed law that is designed for this exact, precise situation? That's your position?

Dude. Come on. You're trolling.

Does your path protect the whistleblower from retaliation? Nope. Does your path protect the intel from leaks? Nope.

If the WB followed your made up path, you'd be on here saying "why didn't they follow the lawful Whistleblower Act?"

Why are you so freaking stubborn about this? It's not that hard to simply say: "Yep, the DNI screwed up. This is bad for the intel, bad for the whistleblower, and bad for future whistleblowers"

That's it. Agree to that? We're all set. I have no quarrel with Trump on this issue, if that helps. The DNI is a big boy.

Given the flood of subsequent leaks to the WP/NYT/WSJ, it's obvious this WB is part of an orchestrated campaign of leaks.

Tin foil hat nonsense. Riddle me this: why would the WB do that? So go to all the trouble of telling the Trump admin who he/she is in writing with the idea of leaking the information at a later date in coordination with your magic Deep State, thereby negating whistleblower protection?

"Orchestrated campaign". FFS. You're better than this.

If that was the intent, the WB would simply arrange an interview with Rachel Maddow on live TV and be done with it.

Doesn't matter what you say. Tap dance, sing a song, whatever you want. You have declared leaking ok. Don't care if you're too stubborn to admit it or not. Your logic fails no matter what nonsense you try and throw my way.

You have told every intel holder in our Government that has an IQ above room temperature that using the Whistleblower act is not just stupid-----it's dangerous.

But yep. Keep complaining about leaking. By all means. No one here is buying. And they are rightfully laughing at your feigned concern over leaking.

[a fan]

And I get that.....you likely didn't see the post where I told Old Salt that I caught Lawrence ODonnell (sp) and Maddow (because of the Missus) for an hour or two for the first time in I don't know how long, and it made me understand where Old Salt was coming from in his gripe about the Resistance and the Prestwick story. Those two are just waaaaaay over the top, and are more ridiculous than ever. Did see this and it warmed the cockles of my heart

But, again, that doesn't mean that this stuff Trump is doing is ok. It's a mistake to judge what Trump and Co. do by the reaction of the left. They can both be wankers, and send the whole country down the toilet. That's a bit "alarmist" for my taste but see your point of course.

I've gone from liberal, to libertarian (boy was I dumb back then), to fiscal conservative in my last 30 years. How about you? I supported Gore in 2000. 9/11 changed everything for me. That was a while ago... at this point, I'm a political hybrid (but pragmatist feels about right).

My dad HATES Al Gore. He crossed paths with him in the 1990's on some environmental issues. He's more phony than a $3 bill, according to my dad. Gore could give a fig about the environment, and many of his stolen "ideas" surrounding climate change would make things worse, not better...it's all about power.

[youthathletics]

And I get that.....you likely didn't see the post where I told Old Salt that I caught Lawrence ODonnell (sp) and Maddow (because of the Missus) for an hour or two for the first time in I don't know how long, and it made me understand where Old Salt was coming from in his gripe about the Resistance and the Prestwick story. Those two are just waaaaaay over the top, and are more ridiculous than ever. Did see this and it warmed the cockles of my heart

But, again, that doesn't mean that this stuff Trump is doing is ok. It's a mistake to judge what Trump and Co. do by the reaction of the left. They can both be wankers, and send the whole country down the toilet. That's a bit "alarmist" for my taste but see your point of course.

I've gone from liberal, to libertarian (boy was I dumb back then), to fiscal conservative in my last 30 years. How about you? I supported Gore in 2000. 9/11 changed everything for me. That was a while ago... at this point, I'm a political hybrid (but pragmatist feels about right).

My dad HATES Al Gore. He crossed paths with him in the 1990's on some environmental issues. He's more phony than a $3 bill, according to my dad. Gore could give a fig about the environment, and many of his stolen "ideas" surrounding climate change would make things worse, not better...it's all about power.

Sounds like a very wise dad, much like yourself.

[old salt]

“Given the flood of subsequent leaks to the WP/NYT/WSJ, it's obvious this WB is part of an orchestrated campaign of leaks.”

As you would say, you don’t know this. The complaint may be the work of the most ardent patriot since George Marshall. Or not. We’ll see, but you’ve tipped your hand.

Tipped my hand on what ? Where's the MSM getting this volume of information, all of a sudden, including about the whistleblower.

Be patient. The Rudy Dossier will lay it all out for you. ..

obtw -- when & where's the first place you read about the DNC envoy Chulupa lady ?
I pointed this out months ago.

[a fan]

Tipped my hand on what ? Where's the MSM getting this volume of information, all of a sudden, including about the whistleblower.

Trump administration. I pointed this out months ago.

[old salt]

There's a way for a IC WB to get a complaint to Congress without leaking it to the media & without his ID being unmasked.
I've explained it. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

Happy to acknowledge your made up new path for a whistleblower. So you think a WB should follow the "Old Salt" method, and ignore the lawful, detailed law that is designed for this exact, precise situation? That's your position?

Dude. Come on. You're trolling.

Does your path protect the whistleblower from retaliation? Nope. Does your path protect the intel from leaks? Nope.

If the WB followed your made up path, you'd be on here saying "why didn't they follow the lawful Whistleblower Act?"

Why are you so freaking stubborn about this? It's not that hard to simply say: "Yep, the DNI screwed up. This is bad for the intel, bad for the whistleblower, and bad for future whistleblowers"

That's it. Agree to that? We're all set. I have no quarrel with Trump on this issue, if that helps. The DNI is a big boy.

Given the flood of subsequent leaks to the WP/NYT/WSJ, it's obvious this WB is part of an orchestrated campaign of leaks.

Tin foil hat nonsense. Riddle me this: why would the WB do that? So go to all the trouble of telling the Trump admin who he/she is in writing with the idea of leaking the information at a later date in coordination with your magic Deep State, thereby negating whistleblower protection?

"Orchestrated campaign". FFS. You're better than this.

If that was the intent, the WB would simply arrange an interview with Rachel Maddow on live TV and be done with it.

Doesn't matter what you say. Tap dance, sing a song, whatever you want. You have declared leaking ok. Don't care if you're too stubborn to admit it or not. Your logic fails no matter what nonsense you try and throw my way.

You have told every intel holder in our Government that has an IQ above room temperature that using the Whistleblower act is not just stupid-----it's dangerous.

But yep. Keep complaining about leaking. By all means. No one here is buying. And they are rightfully laughing at your feigned concern over leaking.

The new Ukrainian President is coming to visit Trump next week, the Biden video clip demanding the firing of the prosecutor has been playing. Other than a May NYT report & a subsequent New Yorker aplologia, the MSM has ignored the Ukraine - Biden's family connection. This has all the earmarks of a preemptive attack. Discredit the story & turn it on Trump, in advance.

[old salt]

Tipped my hand on what ? Where's the MSM getting this volume of information, all of a sudden, including about the whistleblower.

Trump administration. I pointed this out months ago.

You think the Trump admin wanted this WB story out ? That's nuts.

I just refuse to buy the Resistance conspiracy theories & the MSM hype on face value. ...e.g. the Prestwick hit job.

[a fan]

The new Ukrainian President is coming to visit Trump next week, the Biden video clip demanding the firing of the prosecutor has been playing. Other than a May NYT report & a subsequent New Yorker aplologia, the MSM has ignored the Ukraine - Biden's family connection. This has all the earmarks of a preemptive attack. Discredit the story & turn it on Trump, in advance.

You know, for a tin foil hat guy, you sure are bad at this.

Is Biden, Biden's son Hunter, and the relationship with the Ukraine all over the news this week because of this whistleblower story, or not?

It's EVERYWHERE, and Biden is dropping in the polls as it is. He's viewed as part of the Clinton corporate corruption cabal (tm) by the left, and rightly so.

And you think Biden and your Deep State did this ON PURPOSE, and is "an attack on Trump?" And it was all "orchestrated" by the law abiding Whistleblower.

Come on man. Pull it together. Use your head. That makes zero sense.

[a fan]

ou think the Trump admin wanted this WB story out ? That's nuts.

Yep.

Biden and his son Hunter (why do I even know his son's name?) is all over the news. If you're going to use a tin foil hat, at least make sure it's pointed correctly at the satellites!

[a fan]

Seems like FoxNews can connect the dots, too.....

Headline: Biden's campaign likely coming to an end -- thanks to Clinton-linked Ukraine bombshell, Nunes says





https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens ... nunes-says

[a fan]

I just refuse to buy the Resistance conspiracy theories & the MSM hype on face value. ...e.g. the Prestwick hit job.

And I don't blame you for that. But don't turn around and posit FoxNation conspiracy theories in their place!

[ggait]

From Mitt Romney today:

If the President asked or pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate his political rival, either directly or through his personal attorney, it would be troubling in the extreme. Critical for the facts to come out.

Uh-oh. Sounds like a very sternly worded letter could be coming next!

Newsflash for Mitt -- Trump and Rudi have already admitted they did this. What facts do you need to wait for before going 100% into pearl clutching mode?

[old salt]

I just refuse to buy the Resistance conspiracy theories & the MSM hype on face value. ...e.g. the Prestwick hit job.

And I don't blame you for that. But don't turn around and posit FoxNation conspiracy theories in their place!

Doggone it, plz stop giving FNC credit for my independent research. I warned you about --

-- the (un)civil war within the IC as soon as Flynn joined the Trump campaign
-- the emerging DeepState coup, during the campaign, when Dr Farkas rallied the leakers on MSNBC,
& then all the Russia kompromat conspiracy theories started leaking.
-- Azra Turk, Josef Mifsud & the mysterious DNC Chalupa lady.

& other stuff, well before FNC had a scent.

[old salt]

From Mitt Romney today:

If the President asked or pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate his political rival, either directly or through his personal attorney, it would be troubling in the extreme. Critical for the facts to come out.

Uh-oh. Sounds like a very sternly worded letter could be coming next!

Newsflash for Mitt -- Trump and Rudi have already admitted they did this. What facts do you need to wait for before going 100% into pearl clutching mode?

There's Mitt, Snowe, Sasse, & Burr. Only need 16 more (R) Senators to impeach.

[a fan]

Ok, ok, old salt.

No matter who came up with it first, it's unsubstantiated nonsense, and almost all of it can be easily explained by Trump or Trump's toadies doing the leaking. And if I were you, I would find it....how do I put this nicely?....."upsetting" if I had the exact same tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that Sean Hannity held.

Have any of these leaks damaged Trump in any way? Nope. Base is happy. Pelosi and McConnell all too happy to sign massive spending bills.

And remember when you claimed that Trump was radioactive with Russia, but when Mueller cleared him, Trump could unleash his Russia-master-plan?