Page 58 of 346
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:50 pm
by ggait
Do you guys read?
You are quoting a NY Times article that says Schiff was aware of the WB in advance. Here's what the NYT article actually says:
"Mr. Schiff’s aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer’s accusations. They referred the C.I.A. officer to an inspector general and advised him to seek legal counsel. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver."
FYI, the WB first went to the CIA GC. The CIA GC then referred it to the WH counsel office. WB then approached Schiff's staff sensing (correctly) that the report was not getting a fair review. Based on the advice of Schiff's staff, the WB went to the ICIG. And the ICIG found the report credible and has said the WB followed the law. Sheesh.
And of course the Very Stable Genius says Schiff wrote the WB report...
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:50 pm
by youthathletics
Trinity wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:37 pm
Trump doesn’t sound like he’s winning today. Is there a room he won’t whine in? Republican lies about Schiff and Deep Whistle don’t last as long as a fart in an elevator.
That's because the fart stays on the level in which the fart was expelled. It does not follow you, BUT you can trace its path....and he who smelt it, dealt it.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:52 pm
by Trinity
An entire press conference today, the President lying his face off. No problem. Schiff is the guy working with the enemy.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:52 pm
by youthathletics
ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:50 pm
Do you guys read?
You are quoting a NY Times article that says Schiff was aware of the WB in advance. Here's what the NYT article actually says:
"Mr. Schiff’s aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer’s accusations. They referred the C.I.A. officer to an inspector general and advised him to seek legal counsel. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver."
FYI, the WB first went to the CIA GC. The CIA GC then referred it to the WH counsel office. WB then approached Schiff's staff sensing (correctly) that the report was not getting a fair review. Based on the advice of Schiff's staff, the WB went to the ICIG. And the ICIG found the report credible and has said the WB followed the law.
Full stop.
Sheesh.
Just playing the same games that Schiff did when he was grandstanding and pretending to quote what Trump said. Turnabout is fair play in politics....you should know that.
Sheesh is right.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:54 pm
by Trinity
Is there anyone Trump can’t partner with?
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:47 pm
by CU88
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:33 pm
Surprise -- Schiff had foreknowledge of the WB's complaint before the complaint was even drafted.
So?
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:48 pm
by Trinity
The WH knew in August. Whistle blower was blocked. Now Barr is angry. Pompeo is caught lying for Rudy. Pence aides leak Trump “used” Pence in Ukrainium One. To the lifeboats, boys!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:14 pm
by ggait
Correct. The WB told the CIA and the CIA then told the WH.
That spooked the WB, who then later (and wisely) went to Schiff's staffers. The WB works at the CIA for god's sake. He's smart enough to know when he's being set up and to take cover under the WB law.
The WB's mistake was going to the internal CIA folks in the first place -- who then leaked and outed him to the WH.
Got to the IG and invoke WB status first. Or, tbh, just go to the press instead if you want a fair hearing.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:11 pm
by holmes435
ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:14 pm
Correct. The WB told the CIA and the CIA then told the WH.
That spooked the WB, who then later (and wisely) went to Schiff's staffers. The WB works at the CIA for god's sake. He's smart enough to know when he's being set up and to take cover under the WB law.
The WB's mistake was going to the internal CIA folks in the first place -- who then leaked and outed him to the WH.
Got to the IG and invoke WB status first. Or, tbh, just go to the press instead if you want a fair hearing.
Huh, who would have though that the Deep State was actually working for Trump this whole time?
This country has a strange love-hate relationship with whistleblowers. We want honesty and accountability and ethical behavior, but we don't like snitches.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:21 pm
by Trinity
State Department officials were told this spring that Marie Yovanovitch’s removal was a priority for Trump. Pompeo supported the move. Yovanovitch was told by State Dept officials that they couldn’t shield her from attacks by Trump and his allies. WSJ.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:44 pm
by youthathletics
ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:14 pm
Correct. The WB told the CIA and the CIA then told the WH.
That spooked the WB, who then later (and wisely) went to Schiff's staffers. The WB works at the CIA for god's sake. He's smart enough to know when he's being set up and to take cover under the WB law.
The WB's mistake was going to the internal CIA folks in the first place -- who then leaked and outed him to the WH.
Got to the IG and invoke WB status first. Or, tbh, just go to the press instead if you want a fair hearing.
That is not the WB's first mistake.
The OIG recommends going to supervisor first.
Where can I report wrongdoing?
Federal civilian employees have many options to disclose wrongdoing. They can:
tell a supervisor or someone higher up in management,
report the issue to their agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG),
file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel External link (OSC).
Does all the trip-ups from the WB not show kind of oddity in and of itself? in police work, they call that "a clue". Probably why it was messed up....b/c a knucklehead like Schiff and Brennan found a pawn, who did not follow instruction. They probably then went back to Schiff's staffers to get directions 'again'....oh wait, according to Schiff "we" did not speak to the WB before it all came out.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:59 pm
by foreverlax
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:44 pm
ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:14 pm
Correct. The WB told the CIA and the CIA then told the WH.
That spooked the WB, who then later (and wisely) went to Schiff's staffers. The WB works at the CIA for god's sake. He's smart enough to know when he's being set up and to take cover under the WB law.
The WB's mistake was going to the internal CIA folks in the first place -- who then leaked and outed him to the WH.
Got to the IG and invoke WB status first. Or, tbh, just go to the press instead if you want a fair hearing.
That is not the WB's first mistake.
The OIG recommends going to supervisor first.
Where can I report wrongdoing?
Federal civilian employees have many options to disclose wrongdoing. They can:
tell a supervisor or someone higher up in management,
report the issue to their agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG),
file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel External link (OSC).
Does all the trip-ups from the WB not show kind of oddity in and of itself? in police work, they call that "a clue". Probably why it was messed up....b/c a knucklehead like Schiff and Brennan found a pawn, who did not follow instruction. They probably then went back to Schiff's staffers to get directions 'again'....oh wait, according to Schiff "we" did not speak to the WB before it all came out.
And how does any of that change the memorandum of the conversation where Trump ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?
Trump said what he said and it sure looks and smells like it should be impeachable.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:23 pm
by CU88
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:44 pm
ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:14 pm
Correct. The WB told the CIA and the CIA then told the WH.
That spooked the WB, who then later (and wisely) went to Schiff's staffers. The WB works at the CIA for god's sake. He's smart enough to know when he's being set up and to take cover under the WB law.
The WB's mistake was going to the internal CIA folks in the first place -- who then leaked and outed him to the WH.
Got to the IG and invoke WB status first. Or, tbh, just go to the press instead if you want a fair hearing.
That is not the WB's first mistake.
The OIG recommends going to supervisor first.
Where can I report wrongdoing?
Federal civilian employees have many options to disclose wrongdoing. They can:
tell a supervisor or someone higher up in management,
report the issue to their agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG),
file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel External link (OSC).
Does all the trip-ups from the WB not show kind of oddity in and of itself? in police work, they call that "a clue". Probably why it was messed up....b/c a knucklehead like Schiff and Brennan found a pawn, who did not follow instruction. They probably then went back to Schiff's staffers to get directions 'again'....oh wait, according to Schiff "we" did not speak to the WB before it all came out.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... t3qLBrVZg4
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:08 pm
by youthathletics
My post was a comment/reply to ggait on the WB procedure and how they did not follow it. It took me 30 seconds to google it and arrive it the gov’t site.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:18 pm
by DocBarrister
holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:11 pm
ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:14 pm
Correct. The WB told the CIA and the CIA then told the WH.
That spooked the WB, who then later (and wisely) went to Schiff's staffers. The WB works at the CIA for god's sake. He's smart enough to know when he's being set up and to take cover under the WB law.
The WB's mistake was going to the internal CIA folks in the first place -- who then leaked and outed him to the WH.
Got to the IG and invoke WB status first. Or, tbh, just go to the press instead if you want a fair hearing.
Huh, who would have though that the Deep State was actually working for Trump this whole time?
This country has a strange love-hate relationship with whistleblowers. We want honesty and accountability and ethical behavior, but we don't like snitches.
I respect (and want protected) the whistleblowers who follow proper procedures (like the UkraineGate WB), or in earlier eras when such procedures were not in place, those whistleblowers who are true experts and release their materials (much of it their own work) responsibly to reputable news outlets like the NY Times and Washington Post (e.g., Daniel Ellsberg).
That is in stark contrast to an ignorant, marginally educated, narcissistic, self-righteous, moronic subcontractor and temporary employee (Edward Snowden) who makes a reckless decision to release highly classified documents about crucial intelligence programs and then promptly seeks refuge in an authoritarian state (Putin’s Russia).
Not every whistleblower is a true whistleblower.
DocBarrister
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:14 am
by MDlaxfan76
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:08 pm
My post was a comment/reply to ggait on the WB procedure and how they did not follow it. It took me 30 seconds to google it and arrive it the gov’t site.
The problem with your response is that the WB was directed, correctly, to go through the IG, especially given that the "supervisor" channel had already alerted the White House and the WB was now literally in danger for his life.
The Trumpist media flaks want to suggest that Shiff's staff somehow orchestrated the WB complaint (Trump wants us to believe that they wrote the complaint)...nope, they directed him/her to go to the IG.
Originally the Trumpist response was that the conversation was 'perfect', 'nothing to see here', now we have a huge amount of corroboration that Trump pressured Zelensky, the Ukrainians knew they were being pressured, and it was all about Trump's personal politics and desire to counter the "Russian interference in 2016" conclusion such that sanctions on Russia could be lifted.
And we've barely started to learn how deeply this goes.
And now we see Trump in July asking China to get involved... you know, the adversary that is so involved with cyber hacking and in a trade war that is 'easy to win'. And no denial...indeed the reverse, he says it now out loud, publicly..."absolute right'.
Nah, we don't need to worry about authoritarianism.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:18 am
by MDlaxfan76
foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:59 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:44 pm
ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:14 pm
Correct. The WB told the CIA and the CIA then told the WH.
That spooked the WB, who then later (and wisely) went to Schiff's staffers. The WB works at the CIA for god's sake. He's smart enough to know when he's being set up and to take cover under the WB law.
The WB's mistake was going to the internal CIA folks in the first place -- who then leaked and outed him to the WH.
Got to the IG and invoke WB status first. Or, tbh, just go to the press instead if you want a fair hearing.
That is not the WB's first mistake.
The OIG recommends going to supervisor first.
Where can I report wrongdoing?
Federal civilian employees have many options to disclose wrongdoing. They can:
tell a supervisor or someone higher up in management,
report the issue to their agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG),
file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel External link (OSC).
Does all the trip-ups from the WB not show kind of oddity in and of itself? in police work, they call that "a clue". Probably why it was messed up....b/c a knucklehead like Schiff and Brennan found a pawn, who did not follow instruction. They probably then went back to Schiff's staffers to get directions 'again'....oh wait, according to Schiff "we" did not speak to the WB before it all came out.
And how does any of that change the memorandum of the conversation where Trump ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?
Trump said what he said and it sure looks and smells like it should be impeachable.
The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it.
Very stark question: does he or does he not have the "absolute right" to do whatever he wants?
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:28 am
by 3rdPersonPlural
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:18 am
foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:59 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:44 pm
ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:14 pm
Correct. The WB told the CIA and the CIA then told the WH.
That spooked the WB, who then later (and wisely) went to Schiff's staffers. The WB works at the CIA for god's sake. He's smart enough to know when he's being set up and to take cover under the WB law.
The WB's mistake was going to the internal CIA folks in the first place -- who then leaked and outed him to the WH.
Got to the IG and invoke WB status first. Or, tbh, just go to the press instead if you want a fair hearing.
That is not the WB's first mistake.
The OIG recommends going to supervisor first.
Where can I report wrongdoing?
Federal civilian employees have many options to disclose wrongdoing. They can:
tell a supervisor or someone higher up in management,
report the issue to their agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG),
file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel External link (OSC).
Does all the trip-ups from the WB not show kind of oddity in and of itself? in police work, they call that "a clue". Probably why it was messed up....b/c a knucklehead like Schiff and Brennan found a pawn, who did not follow instruction. They probably then went back to Schiff's staffers to get directions 'again'....oh wait, according to Schiff "we" did not speak to the WB before it all came out.
And how does any of that change the memorandum of the conversation where Trump ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?
Trump said what he said and it sure looks and smells like it should be impeachable.
The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it.
Very stark question: does he or does he not have the "absolute right" to do whatever he wants?
As some Republican friends said at dinner the other night: yes, it's terrible and he broke the law, but AOC is a socialist and also somebody had to stand up to China. They've given up on denying the facts and simply say that their tribal imperative outweighs the law and morality.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:30 am
by youthathletics
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:18 am
foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:59 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:44 pm
ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:14 pm
Correct. The WB told the CIA and the CIA then told the WH.
That spooked the WB, who then later (and wisely) went to Schiff's staffers. The WB works at the CIA for god's sake. He's smart enough to know when he's being set up and to take cover under the WB law.
The WB's mistake was going to the internal CIA folks in the first place -- who then leaked and outed him to the WH.
Got to the IG and invoke WB status first. Or, tbh, just go to the press instead if you want a fair hearing.
That is not the WB's first mistake.
The OIG recommends going to supervisor first.
Where can I report wrongdoing?
Federal civilian employees have many options to disclose wrongdoing. They can:
tell a supervisor or someone higher up in management,
report the issue to their agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG),
file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel External link (OSC).
Does all the trip-ups from the WB not show kind of oddity in and of itself? in police work, they call that "a clue". Probably why it was messed up....b/c a knucklehead like Schiff and Brennan found a pawn, who did not follow instruction. They probably then went back to Schiff's staffers to get directions 'again'....oh wait, according to Schiff "we" did not speak to the WB before it all came out.
And how does any of that change the memorandum of the conversation where Trump ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?
[ IT does not change that aspect, actually it nullifies the WB IF the transcript and further findings show the transcritpt/memo is accurate]
Trump said what he said and it sure looks and smells like it should be impeachable.
[Arguable and not b/c I say so, otherwise there would be a vote if he did infarct clearly violate something.]
The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it.
[Speculation as usual, to fit a narrative. Nobody is saying he has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants.]
Very stark question: does he or does he not have the "absolute right" to do whatever he wants?
[Of course not silly, but he does have to be guilty of some statute violation before nailed to the cross. Enough of the guilty, until proven innocent.]
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:33 am
by foreverlax
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:18 am
foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:59 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:44 pm
ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:14 pm
Correct. The WB told the CIA and the CIA then told the WH.
That spooked the WB, who then later (and wisely) went to Schiff's staffers. The WB works at the CIA for god's sake. He's smart enough to know when he's being set up and to take cover under the WB law.
The WB's mistake was going to the internal CIA folks in the first place -- who then leaked and outed him to the WH.
Got to the IG and invoke WB status first. Or, tbh, just go to the press instead if you want a fair hearing.
That is not the WB's first mistake.
The OIG recommends going to supervisor first.
Where can I report wrongdoing?
Federal civilian employees have many options to disclose wrongdoing. They can:
tell a supervisor or someone higher up in management,
report the issue to their agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG),
file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel External link (OSC).
Does all the trip-ups from the WB not show kind of oddity in and of itself? in police work, they call that "a clue". Probably why it was messed up....b/c a knucklehead like Schiff and Brennan found a pawn, who did not follow instruction. They probably then went back to Schiff's staffers to get directions 'again'....oh wait, according to Schiff "we" did not speak to the WB before it all came out.
And how does any of that change the memorandum of the conversation where Trump ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?
Trump said what he said and it sure looks and smells like it should be impeachable.
The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it.
Very stark question: does he or does he not have the "absolute right" to do whatever he wants?
Trump would say, "Article 2"....
