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

[old salt]

Ignatius, in the Post:

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

"Trump’s closest advisers, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was ordered by Trump to suspend the aid to Ukraine, are also increasingly targets of internal finger-pointing. Mulvaney has agitated for foreign aid to be cut universally but has also stayed away from meetings with Giuliani and Trump, officials said. But the person who appears to have been more directly involved at nearly every stage of the entanglement with Ukraine is Giuliani.

“Rudy — he did all of this,” one U.S. official said. “This s---show that we’re in — it’s him injecting himself into the process.”

Attribution -- that's not Ignatius. That's Greg Miller & his WP IC leak squad. ...research for his next book.

Miller buried the lead :

“There were never any orders given, any formal guidance from the White House to any of the agencies,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter

[dislaxxic]

That "lead" describes the typical mob family approach to getting word out to capo's about who is to get whacked. Nice "get", Salty.

"Rudy Colludy"...i need a new laptop...coffee spewed across the keyboard...

Yep, Rudy Colludy is what happens when the "president" gets rid of all advisors and cabinet secretaries, except those that kiss his butt on demand.

..

[seacoaster]

Ignatius, in the Post:

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

"Trump’s closest advisers, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was ordered by Trump to suspend the aid to Ukraine, are also increasingly targets of internal finger-pointing. Mulvaney has agitated for foreign aid to be cut universally but has also stayed away from meetings with Giuliani and Trump, officials said. But the person who appears to have been more directly involved at nearly every stage of the entanglement with Ukraine is Giuliani.

“Rudy — he did all of this,” one U.S. official said. “This s---show that we’re in — it’s him injecting himself into the process.”

Attribution -- that's not Ignatius. That's Greg Miller & his WP IC leak squad. ...research for his next book.

Miller buried the lead :

“There were never any orders given, any formal guidance from the White House to any of the agencies,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter

Sorry, you mean the attribution to "one U.S. official" is a source of Miller's (who is a Post reporter)? And are you saying that the "U.S. official familiar with the matter" is the same source?

Either way, of course, this isn't Henry wondering who will rid him of this bothersome priest. This is John Gotti telling the State Department and the intelligence and defense establishments to go get some sandwiches and coffee while "Rudy" takes care of a few things.

[old salt]

Ignatius, in the Post:

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

"Trump’s closest advisers, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was ordered by Trump to suspend the aid to Ukraine, are also increasingly targets of internal finger-pointing. Mulvaney has agitated for foreign aid to be cut universally but has also stayed away from meetings with Giuliani and Trump, officials said. But the person who appears to have been more directly involved at nearly every stage of the entanglement with Ukraine is Giuliani.

“Rudy — he did all of this,” one U.S. official said. “This s---show that we’re in — it’s him injecting himself into the process.”

Attribution -- that's not Ignatius. That's Greg Miller & his WP IC leak squad. ...research for his next book.

Miller buried the lead :

“There were never any orders given, any formal guidance from the White House to any of the agencies,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter

Sorry, you mean the attribution to "one U.S. official" is a source of Miller's (who is a Post reporter)? And are you saying that the "U.S. official familiar with the matter" is the same source?

Either way, of course, this isn't Henry wondering who will rid him of this bothersome priest. This is John Gotti telling the State Department and the intelligence and defense establishments to go get some sandwiches and coffee while "Rudy" takes care of a few things.

I mean your attribution re. the article you linked.
Ignatius was not the author. It was Greg Miller + his team.

[seacoaster]

Ignatius, in the Post:

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

"Trump’s closest advisers, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was ordered by Trump to suspend the aid to Ukraine, are also increasingly targets of internal finger-pointing. Mulvaney has agitated for foreign aid to be cut universally but has also stayed away from meetings with Giuliani and Trump, officials said. But the person who appears to have been more directly involved at nearly every stage of the entanglement with Ukraine is Giuliani.

“Rudy — he did all of this,” one U.S. official said. “This s---show that we’re in — it’s him injecting himself into the process.”

Attribution -- that's not Ignatius. That's Greg Miller & his WP IC leak squad. ...research for his next book.

Miller buried the lead :

“There were never any orders given, any formal guidance from the White House to any of the agencies,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter

Sorry, you mean the attribution to "one U.S. official" is a source of Miller's (who is a Post reporter)? And are you saying that the "U.S. official familiar with the matter" is the same source?

Either way, of course, this isn't Henry wondering who will rid him of this bothersome priest. This is John Gotti telling the State Department and the intelligence and defense establishments to go get some sandwiches and coffee while "Rudy" takes care of a few things.

I mean your attribution re. the article you linked.
Ignatius was not the author. It was Greg Miller + his team.

Gosh, you're right. Sorry. Same hatchetman fake news organization though, right?

[old salt]

Ignatius, in the Post:

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

"Trump’s closest advisers, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was ordered by Trump to suspend the aid to Ukraine, are also increasingly targets of internal finger-pointing. Mulvaney has agitated for foreign aid to be cut universally but has also stayed away from meetings with Giuliani and Trump, officials said. But the person who appears to have been more directly involved at nearly every stage of the entanglement with Ukraine is Giuliani.

“Rudy — he did all of this,” one U.S. official said. “This s---show that we’re in — it’s him injecting himself into the process.”

Attribution -- that's not Ignatius. That's Greg Miller & his WP IC leak squad. ...research for his next book.

Miller buried the lead :

“There were never any orders given, any formal guidance from the White House to any of the agencies,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter

Sorry, you mean the attribution to "one U.S. official" is a source of Miller's (who is a Post reporter)? And are you saying that the "U.S. official familiar with the matter" is the same source?

Either way, of course, this isn't Henry wondering who will rid him of this bothersome priest. This is John Gotti telling the State Department and the intelligence and defense establishments to go get some sandwiches and coffee while "Rudy" takes care of a few things.

I mean your attribution re. the article you linked.
Ignatius was not the author. It was Greg Miller + his team.

Gosh, you're right. Sorry. Same hatchetman fake news organization though, right?

Actually no. I'm a WP subscriber.
I quote & link to Ignatius & Miller frequently.
I've referenced Miller's book several times.

[old salt]

Whistleblower complaint delivered to Congress.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-whis ... 019-09-25/

The complaint was submitted to the inspector general for the intelligence community, who found it to be of urgent concern. However, the Justice Department, which said that the complaint involved a possible campaign finance violation, reviewed the record of the call and determined that there had been no wrongdoing and concluded that "no further action was warranted,

[old salt]

Ignatius, in the Post:

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

"Trump’s closest advisers, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was ordered by Trump to suspend the aid to Ukraine, are also increasingly targets of internal finger-pointing. Mulvaney has agitated for foreign aid to be cut universally but has also stayed away from meetings with Giuliani and Trump, officials said. But the person who appears to have been more directly involved at nearly every stage of the entanglement with Ukraine is Giuliani.

“Rudy — he did all of this,” one U.S. official said. “This s---show that we’re in — it’s him injecting himself into the process.”

Attribution -- that's not Ignatius. That's Greg Miller & his WP IC leak squad. ...research for his next book.

Miller buried the lead :

“There were never any orders given, any formal guidance from the White House to any of the agencies,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter

Sorry, you mean the attribution to "one U.S. official" is a source of Miller's (who is a Post reporter)? And are you saying that the "U.S. official familiar with the matter" is the same source?

Either way, of course, this isn't Henry wondering who will rid him of this bothersome priest. This is John Gotti telling the State Department and the intelligence and defense establishments to go get some sandwiches and coffee while "Rudy" takes care of a few things.

I mean your attribution re. the article you linked.
Ignatius was not the author. It was Greg Miller + his team.

Gosh, you're right. Sorry. Same hatchetman fake news organization though, right?

Actually no. I'm a WP subscriber.
I quote & link to Ignatius & Miller frequently.
I've referenced Miller's book several times.

.. ...Miller & his leak squad really buried the lead on this one :

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

In a statement, Maguire said that “at no time have I considered resigning my position since assuming this role on Aug. 16, 2019. I have never quit anything in my life, and I am not going to start now. I am committed to leading the Intelligence Community to address the diverse and complex threats facing our nation.”

[old salt]

Devlin Barrett of the WP, on PBS Newshour, explains how the WB's complaint was handled, & why :

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/justi ... stleblower

John Yang:
Whistle-blower complaints under the law are from the intelligence community, are supposed to go to Congress. How did this one end up at the Justice Department?

Devlin Barrett:
Well, it's a pretty complicated path, but essentially what happens is, once the complaint is made, folks in the intelligence community question whether this is a valid whistle-blower complaint, because the president, obviously, is not a member of the intelligence community.

He's not an employee of one of those agencies. So what happens is, they get legal advice from the Justice Department. And what the Justice Department says is that, no, this is not a valid legal complaint, because it doesn't — the whistle-blower rules don't really apply to conduct of the president.

But, interestingly, and in some ways more importantly, the Justice Department says, but there may be a criminal violation here, so we need to look at that, so we're — we, the Justice Department, are going to take a look at what happened here and see if there's reason to pursue a criminal investigation.

John Yang:
Criminal violation of what?

Devlin Barrett:
Campaign finance law.
The question that was immediately presented by the whistle-blower's complaint is, is the president seeking a thing of value from a foreign entity, which is a violation under campaign finance law?
And that question quickly turned into, could you characterize an investigation by a foreign government as a thing of value? And that's the question they were wrestling with.

John Yang:
And what was the timing of all this? When did it get to Justice, and when did the folks in Public Integrity clear — say there was no violation?

Devlin Barrett:
So it gets to the Justice Department in late August.
And, you know, different parts of the Justice Department get read in and get involved at different times. But, essentially, you're talking about the Public Integrity section with some input from the Criminal Division at the Justice Department and the National Security Division.
But, essentially, they look at this question. And, by last week, we're told — and that's important, because, obviously, a lot was happening on this issue publicly last week — but, last week, we're told the Justice Department decided there wasn't a criminal case to pursue here.

John Yang:
And what do we know about Attorney General Barr's role in all this? The Justice Department said in a statement that the president and the attorney general never discussed the Biden investigation. But what do we know about what role he played in this?

Devlin Barrett:
So, we're told by senior Justice Department officials that Barr was aware of the legal question that came in to the Justice Department early on in this process.
That is, is this a valid whistle-blower complaint? Can this be treated in the normal course of, you know, whistle-blower complaint handling?
So Barr was aware, roughly, that that was going on. However, they also say that Barr wasn't involved, once the question became a criminal question about campaign finance law, that Barr didn't participate in those discussions and he wasn't a part of that.

John Yang:
And are there any other questions of legal questions arising from this? Of course, we know impeachment is a political process.
But are there any other legal questions arising from all this?

Devlin Barrett:
Well, I think there's going to still be — obviously, there's a hearing tomorrow, and there will be a lot of, I think, tough back-and-forth about exactly that — individual officials, what opinions did they take on some of these issues?
But, as a legal matter, the Justice Department says this is, for them, case closed.
I don't know that, frankly, Democrats in the Congress are going to take that as an immediate answer. But the Justice Department views this as not a criminal issue for them to resolve.

[youthathletics]

...and that’s why I asked the question yesterday if the same path of the WB Act protocol is followed on a sitting POTUS.

[a fan]

Barrett is a journalist, not a lawyer. At no point does the WB say what he's claiming. The Dept. of Justice isn't even mentioned in the law.

What Barrett is saying is: you can't blow the whistle on a President, not without the Justice Dept guys---who the POTUS appointed---allowing them to do so. Which is obviously just stupid.

The one thing this whole Trump guy has shown is, is just how many problems we have with how our laws are written. They're designed to protect our leaders and their secrets, rather than protect the people they serve.

Scary.

[youthathletics]

Agreed, but please do not limit it to just Trump.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Barrett is a journalist, not a lawyer. At no point does the WB say what he's claiming. The Dept. of Justice isn't even mentioned in the law.

What Barrett is saying is: you can't blow the whistle on a President, not without the Justice Dept guys---who the POTUS appointed---allowing them to do so. Which is obviously just stupid.

The one thing this whole Trump guy has shown is, is just how many problems we have with how our laws are written. They're designed to protect our leaders and their secrets, rather than protect the people they serve.

Scary.

+1

[a fan]

Agreed, but please do not limit it to just Trump.

I haven't. Pointed it out with Hillary and Obama.

And pointed out after Mueller that all these conflicts were still in place, and Congress had no intention of fixing the problem.

[old salt]

Barrett is a journalist, not a lawyer. At no point does the WB say what he's claiming. The Dept. of Justice isn't even mentioned in the law.

What Barrett is saying is: you can't blow the whistle on a President, not without the Justice Dept guys---who the POTUS appointed---allowing them to do so. Which is obviously just stupid.

The one thing this whole Trump guy has shown is, is just how many problems we have with how our laws are written. They're designed to protect our leaders and their secrets, rather than protect the people they serve.

Scary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellige ... ection_Act

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998,[1] amending the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, sets forth a procedure for employees and contractors of specified federal intelligence agencies to report complaints or information to Congress about serious problems involving intelligence activities.

Under the ICWPA, an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the complaint or information to their agency’s inspector general or the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). Within a 14-day period, the IG must determine "whether the complaint or information appears credible," and upon finding the information to be credible, thereafter transfer the information to the head of the agency. The law then requires the DNI (or the relevant agency head) to forward the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees, along with any comments he wishes to make about the complaint, within seven days. If the IG does not deem the complaint or information to be credible or does not transmit the information to the head of the agency, the employee may provide the information directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the employee must first inform the IG of his or her intention to contact the intelligence committees directly and must follow the procedures specified in the Act.

I've also heard it reported that the WB is not currently an employee or contractor of one of the intel agencies covered by the ICWPA, (or possibly, was not acting in that capacity, having just learned of it via hearsay), thus no 7 day reporting period to Congress.

Scary ? It's not like the complaint was buried. The ODNI referred it to DoJ, where It was investigated by DoJ criminal prosecutors.
If the WB is not satisfied with the ODNI's resolution, they can take it directly to one of the Congressional intel committees.

The WB's ID has still not been unmasked.
The Acting DNI will explain it tomorrow.

[MDlaxfan76]

Barrett is a journalist, not a lawyer. At no point does the WB say what he's claiming. The Dept. of Justice isn't even mentioned in the law.

What Barrett is saying is: you can't blow the whistle on a President, not without the Justice Dept guys---who the POTUS appointed---allowing them to do so. Which is obviously just stupid.

The one thing this whole Trump guy has shown is, is just how many problems we have with how our laws are written. They're designed to protect our leaders and their secrets, rather than protect the people they serve.

Scary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellige ... ection_Act

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998,[1] amending the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, sets forth a procedure for employees and contractors of specified federal intelligence agencies to report complaints or information to Congress about serious problems involving intelligence activities.

Under the ICWPA, an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the complaint or information to their agency’s inspector general or the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). Within a 14-day period, the IG must determine "whether the complaint or information appears credible," and upon finding the information to be credible, thereafter transfer the information to the head of the agency. The law then requires the DNI (or the relevant agency head) to forward the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees, along with any comments he wishes to make about the complaint, within seven days. If the IG does not deem the complaint or information to be credible or does not transmit the information to the head of the agency, the employee may provide the information directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the employee must first inform the IG of his or her intention to contact the intelligence committees directly and must follow the procedures specified in the Act.

I've also heard it reported that the WB is not currently an employee or contractor of one of the intel agencies covered by the ICWPA, (or possibly, was not acting in that capacity, having just learned of it via hearsay), thus no 7 day reporting period to Congress.

Scary ? It's not like the complaint was buried. The ODNI referred it to DoJ, where It was investigated by DoJ criminal prosecutors.

The Acting DNI will explain it tomorrow.

Where you hearing that Salty?
Keep believing...

UPDATE: 10:54PM...whistleblower complaint just declassified...

[old salt]

Barrett is a journalist, not a lawyer. At no point does the WB say what he's claiming. The Dept. of Justice isn't even mentioned in the law.

What Barrett is saying is: you can't blow the whistle on a President, not without the Justice Dept guys---who the POTUS appointed---allowing them to do so. Which is obviously just stupid.

The one thing this whole Trump guy has shown is, is just how many problems we have with how our laws are written. They're designed to protect our leaders and their secrets, rather than protect the people they serve.

Scary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellige ... ection_Act

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998,[1] amending the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, sets forth a procedure for employees and contractors of specified federal intelligence agencies to report complaints or information to Congress about serious problems involving intelligence activities.

Under the ICWPA, an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the complaint or information to their agency’s inspector general or the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). Within a 14-day period, the IG must determine "whether the complaint or information appears credible," and upon finding the information to be credible, thereafter transfer the information to the head of the agency. The law then requires the DNI (or the relevant agency head) to forward the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees, along with any comments he wishes to make about the complaint, within seven days. If the IG does not deem the complaint or information to be credible or does not transmit the information to the head of the agency, the employee may provide the information directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the employee must first inform the IG of his or her intention to contact the intelligence committees directly and must follow the procedures specified in the Act.

I've also heard it reported that the WB is not currently an employee or contractor of one of the intel agencies covered by the ICWPA, (or possibly, was not acting in that capacity, having just learned of it via hearsay), thus no 7 day reporting period to Congress.

Scary ? It's not like the complaint was buried. The ODNI referred it to DoJ, where It was investigated by DoJ criminal prosecutors.

The Acting DNI will explain it tomorrow.

Where you hearing that Salty?
Keep believing...

UPDATE: 10:54PM...whistleblower complaint just declassified...

On the road -- NPR or CSPAN radio.

[MDlaxfan76]

Barrett is a journalist, not a lawyer. At no point does the WB say what he's claiming. The Dept. of Justice isn't even mentioned in the law.

What Barrett is saying is: you can't blow the whistle on a President, not without the Justice Dept guys---who the POTUS appointed---allowing them to do so. Which is obviously just stupid.

The one thing this whole Trump guy has shown is, is just how many problems we have with how our laws are written. They're designed to protect our leaders and their secrets, rather than protect the people they serve.

Scary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellige ... ection_Act

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998,[1] amending the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, sets forth a procedure for employees and contractors of specified federal intelligence agencies to report complaints or information to Congress about serious problems involving intelligence activities.

Under the ICWPA, an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the complaint or information to their agency’s inspector general or the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). Within a 14-day period, the IG must determine "whether the complaint or information appears credible," and upon finding the information to be credible, thereafter transfer the information to the head of the agency. The law then requires the DNI (or the relevant agency head) to forward the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees, along with any comments he wishes to make about the complaint, within seven days. If the IG does not deem the complaint or information to be credible or does not transmit the information to the head of the agency, the employee may provide the information directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the employee must first inform the IG of his or her intention to contact the intelligence committees directly and must follow the procedures specified in the Act.

I've also heard it reported that the WB is not currently an employee or contractor of one of the intel agencies covered by the ICWPA, (or possibly, was not acting in that capacity, having just learned of it via hearsay), thus no 7 day reporting period to Congress.

Scary ? It's not like the complaint was buried. The ODNI referred it to DoJ, where It was investigated by DoJ criminal prosecutors.

The Acting DNI will explain it tomorrow.

Where you hearing that Salty?
Keep believing...

UPDATE: 10:54PM...whistleblower complaint just declassified...

On the road -- NPR or CSPAN radio.

Sounds like we'll know more shortly, including directly from the whistleblower, as he's tentatively agreed to testify to Congress as soon as his lawyers receive classified clearance to be with him.

Apparently Trump first brought all this up with Zelensky back in April, again asking him to meet with Rudy about "corruption". What's being reported is that there were a whole slew of folks trying to keep Trump from going down this path, recognizing how inappropriate all of this was...and the whistleblower is naming names...

[a fan]

Scary ? It's not like the complaint was buried. The ODNI referred it to DoJ, where It was investigated by DoJ criminal prosecutors.
If the WB is not satisfied with the ODNI's resolution, they can take it directly to one of the Congressional intel committees.

The WB's ID has still not been unmasked.
The Acting DNI will explain it tomorrow.

Tell that to the next WB. This is NOT going the way the law reads.

You can't get a little bit pregnant.

And again---go back and look. I was po'ed BEFORE we knew this was about Trump. And again----Trump hasn't done anything wrong. It's all on the DNI....that's where my complaint lies.

This isn't a TDS thing. This law needs to be airtight, no shenanigans.

The law needs teeth. Jail time for the DNI failing to follow the law, and losing his job, forfeiting pension would be a fine start.

[MDlaxfan76]

Scary ? It's not like the complaint was buried. The ODNI referred it to DoJ, where It was investigated by DoJ criminal prosecutors.
If the WB is not satisfied with the ODNI's resolution, they can take it directly to one of the Congressional intel committees.

The WB's ID has still not been unmasked.
The Acting DNI will explain it tomorrow.

Tell that to the next WB. This is NOT going the way the law reads.

You can't get a little bit pregnant.

And again---go back and look. I was po'ed BEFORE we knew this was about Trump. And again----Trump hasn't done anything wrong. It's all on the DNI....that's where my complaint lies.

This isn't a TDS thing. This law needs to be airtight, no shenanigans.

The law needs teeth. Jail time for the DNI failing to follow the law, and losing his job, forfeiting pension would be a fine start.

I suspect we're going to hear from the DNI that he was told to hold it, either by the DOJ or White House directly. And that, too, will be an obstruction of justice. My guess is that this comes back to Barr. Again.

Brennan says the DNI is a straight shooter, though over his head...it's reported (though disputed) that he threatened to resign if he was told he couldn't speak candidly tomorrow...we'll see.