Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:58 pm
How many whistleblowers has Nunes burned ?Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:58 pmNunes is supposedly a champion of whistle blowing or so it was claimed by Old Sycophants
I'm demanding that they follow the law. They had 7 days to turn it over the intel committee. They didn't.
Dude. It WASN"T accommodated. So OF COURSE it's leaking now. Trump Admin. had their chance to play by the rules, and chose not to. Intel committee was, by law, supposed to have that complaint, unredacted, in their hands by the 14th of September. That ship has sailed.
This is Schiff's fault? So the Director can break the law, not turn over the complaint, and you think a p*ssed off intel committee member is the problem?
Don’t know and don’t care.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:15 pmHow many whistleblowers has Nunes burned ?Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:58 pmNunes is supposedly a champion of whistle blowing or so it was claimed by Old Sycophants
Schiff is offering up this whistleblower.
His career (& life) will never be the same again.
Burned?? What is the guys name?old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:15 pmHow many whistleblowers has Nunes burned ?Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:58 pmNunes is supposedly a champion of whistle blowing or so it was claimed by Old Sycophants
Schiff is offering up this whistleblower.
His career (& life) will never be the same again.
It's been less than 24 hrs since Schiff ran to the cameras.foreverlax wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:27 pmBurned?? What is the guys name?old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:15 pmHow many whistleblowers has Nunes burned ?Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:58 pmNunes is supposedly a champion of whistle blowing or so it was claimed by Old Sycophants
Schiff is offering up this whistleblower.
His career (& life) will never be the same again.
Burned means outed, like Chaney and Scooter did.
Name the name or chose a different term.
What is your source about the back & forth between Schiff & the DNI, beyond the letters ?RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:03 pm OS needs a refresher of who is doing what. Whistleblower makes complaint to IG (Inspector General). IG reviews claim, and deems that it fits within a law passed just for this purpose. Procedure is to submit to the DNI, who by law is given 7 days to attach comments if he/she so desires, and then is to (shall in the law) submit to the congressional ICs. Acting DNI lets DOJ know and gets told by someone (Barr and or Trump) to not submit and comes up with an extrajudicial reason for doing so). So far Schiff does not know about this, except that the IG sends him (and presumably the Senate committee chair) a letter explaining what happened - the existence of the whistleblower, and a very general sense of the topic. Schiff has no choice but to publicize, as otherwise this stays buried.
Schiff is NOT responsible for the illegal actions of the administration. So to blame him for ANYTHING here is quite a bit of a stretch, to say the least. But given Trump's behavior in the past, it is NOT surprising that reporters who have been following stories like this are able to pounce on them.
If true, this behavior fits exactly the "high crimes and misdemeanors" referred to in the impeachment clause.
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:38 pmIt's been less than 24 hrs since Schiff ran to the cameras.BFD - it all could have been avoided. Like most of the crap DOPUS complains about.foreverlax wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:27 pmBurned?? What is the guys name?old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:15 pmHow many whistleblowers has Nunes burned ?Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:58 pmNunes is supposedly a champion of whistle blowing or so it was claimed by Old Sycophants
Schiff is offering up this whistleblower.
His career (& life) will never be the same again.
Burned means outed, like Chaney and Scooter did.
Name the name or chose a different term.
You think the whistleblower is not now known within the IC & Exec branch ? don't know, don't care...the WB made the call to blow the whistle, fully understanding the implications. We have no idea motivation, other then what the IG has indicated.
What are the odds his ID remains undisclosed ? Depends. If it's a nothing burger, it may. If they have to go to court, it's public record...unless he gets witness protection
Schiff wants a dog & pony tv hearing.Learned that from Trey, Jordan and the rest of the show boaters..on both sides.
This ain't DeepThroat meeting W&B in a parking garage.More balls of crystal - same as always, we don't know. I'll go with follow the law and process in place and let it play out.
It’s not illegal.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:14 pmWhat is your source about the back & forth between Schiff & the DNI, beyond the letters ?RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:03 pm OS needs a refresher of who is doing what. Whistleblower makes complaint to IG (Inspector General). IG reviews claim, and deems that it fits within a law passed just for this purpose. Procedure is to submit to the DNI, who by law is given 7 days to attach comments if he/she so desires, and then is to (shall in the law) submit to the congressional ICs. Acting DNI lets DOJ know and gets told by someone (Barr and or Trump) to not submit and comes up with an extrajudicial reason for doing so). So far Schiff does not know about this, except that the IG sends him (and presumably the Senate committee chair) a letter explaining what happened - the existence of the whistleblower, and a very general sense of the topic. Schiff has no choice but to publicize, as otherwise this stays buried.
Schiff is NOT responsible for the illegal actions of the administration. So to blame him for ANYTHING here is quite a bit of a stretch, to say the least. But given Trump's behavior in the past, it is NOT surprising that reporters who have been following stories like this are able to pounce on them.
If true, this behavior fits exactly the "high crimes and misdemeanors" referred to in the impeachment clause.
Run it up the impeachment flag pole & see who salutes.
After all -- that's the objective.
You have no defense for this attitude.
No wi-fi at the dog park. ...& I'm not going to be distracted from my first free weekend of Netflix (upgraded cable pkg @ lower fee).
Even if this is true, there is ZERO chance that Republican voters or their leaders in Congress will care one whit. No chance they'll care.seacoaster wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:25 pm The Neal and George Show; tonight's episode: Impeachment Much? (or what YA calls ordinary, everyday oppo-research (while using the official functions of the White House and faux diplomacy)):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
"Simply put, the framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust. Through the Constitution, the framers imposed upon the president the duty and obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and made him swear an oath that he would fulfill that duty of faithful execution. They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment
That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. A whistleblower in U.S. intelligence lodged a complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general so alarming that he labeled it of “urgent concern” and alerted the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Though the details remain secret, apparently this much can be gleaned: The complaint is against the president. It concerns a “promise” that the president made, in at least one phone call, to a foreign leader. And it involves Ukraine and possible interference with the next presidential election. The complaint is being brazenly suppressed by the Justice Department — in defiance of a whistleblower law that says, without exception, the complaint “shall” be turned over to Congress.
We also know this: As he admitted Thursday night on CNN, the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, has been trying to persuade the Ukrainian government to investigate, among other things, one of Trump’s potential Democratic opponents, former vice president Joe Biden, and Biden’s son Hunter about the latter’s involvement with a Ukrainian gas company.
Trump held up the delivery of $250 million in military assistance to Ukraine, which is under constant threat from neighboring Russia. He had a phone conversation on July 25 with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian government, the call included a discussion of Ukraine’s need to “complete investigation of corruption cases, which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA.”
So it appears that the president might have used his official powers — in particular, perhaps the threat of withholding a quarter-billion dollars in military aid — to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.
If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act.
It’s coming. Not sure when but it’s coming.a fan wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:37 pmEven if this is true, there is ZERO chance that Republican voters or their leaders in Congress will care one whit. No chance they'll care.seacoaster wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:25 pm The Neal and George Show; tonight's episode: Impeachment Much? (or what YA calls ordinary, everyday oppo-research (while using the official functions of the White House and faux diplomacy)):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
"Simply put, the framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust. Through the Constitution, the framers imposed upon the president the duty and obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and made him swear an oath that he would fulfill that duty of faithful execution. They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment
That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. A whistleblower in U.S. intelligence lodged a complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general so alarming that he labeled it of “urgent concern” and alerted the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Though the details remain secret, apparently this much can be gleaned: The complaint is against the president. It concerns a “promise” that the president made, in at least one phone call, to a foreign leader. And it involves Ukraine and possible interference with the next presidential election. The complaint is being brazenly suppressed by the Justice Department — in defiance of a whistleblower law that says, without exception, the complaint “shall” be turned over to Congress.
We also know this: As he admitted Thursday night on CNN, the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, has been trying to persuade the Ukrainian government to investigate, among other things, one of Trump’s potential Democratic opponents, former vice president Joe Biden, and Biden’s son Hunter about the latter’s involvement with a Ukrainian gas company.
Trump held up the delivery of $250 million in military assistance to Ukraine, which is under constant threat from neighboring Russia. He had a phone conversation on July 25 with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian government, the call included a discussion of Ukraine’s need to “complete investigation of corruption cases, which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA.”
So it appears that the president might have used his official powers — in particular, perhaps the threat of withholding a quarter-billion dollars in military aid — to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.
If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act.
Look at the reaction to Prestwick. They think it's funny to so much as mention the conflict. Trump has to shoot someone in full view of the public to get impeached. And even then, if the person that he killed was a liberal, neither Republican voters nor their leaders in Congress would care.
I thought conservatives would be livid over meeting with Russian spies. Nope. Waved through. Cheered on. And any protestations were mocked.
I'm counting the days before we get Trump's liberal counterpart with a Democratic Senate. Boy, will it be funny to watch him/her use emergency powers to totally dismantle our Military Industrial Complex, and shut every last overseas base. And then plow all that saved money into domestic socialism. Oh, and fire everyone in the upper management at the FBI and CIA, and replace them with Senate confirmed toadies.
So what? That's not illegal.
You actually believe Trump is a conservative??? What you been smoking?Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:00 pmIt’s coming. Not sure when but it’s coming.a fan wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:37 pmEven if this is true, there is ZERO chance that Republican voters or their leaders in Congress will care one whit. No chance they'll care.seacoaster wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:25 pm The Neal and George Show; tonight's episode: Impeachment Much? (or what YA calls ordinary, everyday oppo-research (while using the official functions of the White House and faux diplomacy)):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
"Simply put, the framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust. Through the Constitution, the framers imposed upon the president the duty and obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and made him swear an oath that he would fulfill that duty of faithful execution. They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment
That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. A whistleblower in U.S. intelligence lodged a complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general so alarming that he labeled it of “urgent concern” and alerted the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Though the details remain secret, apparently this much can be gleaned: The complaint is against the president. It concerns a “promise” that the president made, in at least one phone call, to a foreign leader. And it involves Ukraine and possible interference with the next presidential election. The complaint is being brazenly suppressed by the Justice Department — in defiance of a whistleblower law that says, without exception, the complaint “shall” be turned over to Congress.
We also know this: As he admitted Thursday night on CNN, the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, has been trying to persuade the Ukrainian government to investigate, among other things, one of Trump’s potential Democratic opponents, former vice president Joe Biden, and Biden’s son Hunter about the latter’s involvement with a Ukrainian gas company.
Trump held up the delivery of $250 million in military assistance to Ukraine, which is under constant threat from neighboring Russia. He had a phone conversation on July 25 with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian government, the call included a discussion of Ukraine’s need to “complete investigation of corruption cases, which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA.”
So it appears that the president might have used his official powers — in particular, perhaps the threat of withholding a quarter-billion dollars in military aid — to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.
If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act.
Look at the reaction to Prestwick. They think it's funny to so much as mention the conflict. Trump has to shoot someone in full view of the public to get impeached. And even then, if the person that he killed was a liberal, neither Republican voters nor their leaders in Congress would care.
I thought conservatives would be livid over meeting with Russian spies. Nope. Waved through. Cheered on. And any protestations were mocked.
I'm counting the days before we get Trump's liberal counterpart with a Democratic Senate. Boy, will it be funny to watch him/her use emergency powers to totally dismantle our Military Industrial Complex, and shut every last overseas base. And then plow all that saved money into domestic socialism. Oh, and fire everyone in the upper management at the FBI and CIA, and replace them with Senate confirmed toadies.
So what? That's not illegal.