Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread***

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, dozer said:

Yep, but I’d put a little on the kid running Saudi Arabia.

Those are my top two, but I’m leaning towards Putin. Maybe sealing the deal for election interference in 2020. Saudi Arabia usually goes to Jared for their corruption.

Stone Cold Lock: Trump starts complaining about the deep state and people spying on him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, snitwitch said:

it was putin, mark it down

It’s either him or Rocket Man.  There’s apparently a fairly limited list of foreign leaders he spoke to in that period (CNN said 5) and 2 of the other 3 are the Qatari emir and the PM of the Netherlands.  One of the Dem Reps seemed to think it was about the European Joint Defense agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

It’s either him or Rocket Man.  There’s apparently a fairly limited list of foreign leaders he spoke to in that period (CNN said 5) and 2 of the other 3 are the Qatari emir and the PM of the Netherlands.  One of the Dem Reps seemed to think it was about the European Joint Defense agreement.

Those are his official calls. Who knows who he is calling when he thinks no one is listening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do we know about Atkinson?  He comes across heroic in that article.  (Even if he’s just doing his job.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lots of twitter speculation that trump may have told putin (or promised to tell him) the identity of that spy that was recently outed.

if something like that were true, it'd amount to straight up treason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, snitwitch said:

lots of twitter speculation that trump may have told putin (or promised to tell him) the identity of that spy that was recently outed.

if something like that were true, it'd amount to straight up treason. 

 A spy is the equivalent to a contractor in Trump's world.  #### ‘em.  

*not saying the report is true.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, snitwitch said:

lots of twitter speculation that trump may have told putin (or promised to tell him) the identity of that spy that was recently outed.

if something like that were true, it'd amount to straight up treason. 

Saw that too and they tied it the news story and the intentional outing of his identity to flush him out. It would make a lot of sense but I’d think there would be a better way to secure the spy than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Texas ever secede? Because it could be Jerry Jones. 

 

Just kidding, we all know it's Putin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call Mueller.  He’s obviously obstructing the collusion of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Call Mueller.  He’s obviously obstructing the collusion of justice.

It’s not a DOJ matter, that’s the point. This goes straight to Congress.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Federal agencies/departments with no permanent inspector general under Trump:

CIA DoD

Ex-Im Bank

EPA

OPM

FEC - note the FEC is currently not operating at all because a GOP seat has been vacated and remains unfilled.

DHS (has nominee)

DOI (has nominee)

Dept. of Education

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Government Publishing Office

CBS

And these guys.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It’s not a DOJ matter, that’s the point. This goes straight to Congress.

No.  It has currently followed the proper channel, but has stuck at Maguire as he seems to believe it’s not an “urgent concern”.  Sounds more like procedural squabbling than a national crisis.

Either way, they are working out a way to move forward.  That’s good.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jonessed said:

No.  It has currently followed the proper channel, but has stuck at Maguire as he seems to believe it’s not an “urgent concern”.  Seems more like procedural squabbling than a national crisis.

Either way, they are working out a way to move forward.  That’s good.

It's solely a decision for the IG.

Congress is entitled to the information about the underlying complaint, if they get it tomorrow when the IG testifies, yep, that works for me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jonessed said:

No.  It has currently followed the proper channel, but has stuck at Maguire as he seems to believe it’s not an “urgent concern”.  Sounds more like procedural squabbling than a national crisis.

Either way, they are working out a way to move forward.  That’s good.

Why does it matter what he believes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It's solely a decision for the IG.

Congress is entitled to the information about the underlying complaint, if they get it tomorrow when the IG testifies, yep, that works for me too.

Not necessarily.  It depends on why Maguire is holding it.  That doesn’t seem clear yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jonessed said:

Not necessarily.  It depends on why Maguire is holding it.  That doesn’t seem clear yet.

Quote

(F) An action taken by the Director or the Inspector General under this paragraph shall not be subject to judicial review.

The courts aren't even allowed to question the IG's decision on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jonessed said:

This is the Comey argument. 

There are rules, and those rules are created for normal times. Say the IC IG was acting improperly, ie corruptly, then yes I agree the ODNI would be within his rights to avoid the regulation. This is what happened with Comey. What happens when the president himself is violating the law and suppressing the normal exercise of normal procedure? Plan B and extraordinary steps are necessary.

If there were some possibility of the IG acting illegally or corruptly then there might be something there. But Maguire isn't even claiming that.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The courts aren't even allowed to question the IG's decision on this.

It’s a long article, but it explains the circumstances Maguire would be able to hold it, as well as those where he wouldn’t.  I would quote the specifics, but I think the entire context is important.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jonessed said:

It’s a long article, but it explains the circumstances Maguire would be able to hold it, as well as those where he wouldn’t.  I would quote the specifics, but I think the entire context is important.

It's a good article, I agree, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is the Comey argument. 

There are rules, and those rules are created for normal times. Say the IC IG was acting improperly, ie corruptly, then yes I agree the ODNI would be within his rights to avoid the regulation. This is what happened with Comey. What happens when the president himself is violating the law and suppressing the normal exercise of normal procedure? Plan B and extraordinary steps are necessary.

If there were some possibility of the IG acting illegally or corruptly then there might be something there. But Maguire isn't even claiming that.

We won’t know all that he’s claiming until tomorrow.  I’m not going to crystal ball with you.  I’ve spent enough time on this as it is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Don’t think I’m fully on board with that analysis, but that analysis doesn’t support that it matters whether Maguire thinks it’s urgent unless I’m confused on something  

 

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric Columbus

@EricColumbus

 

Key point: the Inspector General who is fighting the Acting DNI to transmit this info to Congress WAS APPOINTED BY TRUMP. If this alarms him, it’s bound to alarm us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jonessed said:

It’s a long article, but it explains the circumstances Maguire would be able to hold it, as well as those where he wouldn’t.  I would quote the specifics, but I think the entire context is important.

Probably, Trump did something glaringly dumb, corrupt, and dangerous to American interests. The contention from DNI is based on a DOJ assessment that broke protocol asserting that the President is immune from all judgment or consequences, which as we are seeing is dubious. As multiple high level officials seem to have resigned in relation or proximity to whatever Trump did, it’s likely objectively awful. And now the entire right, which skewered Obama for fancy mustard, will pretend it didn’t happen, is someone else’s fault, or was the product of 7D chess. 

I for one am tired of this.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asha Rangappa has good contextual overview 

https://twitter.com/asharangappa_/status/1174515385204445184?s=21

In short, DNI after improper consult with DOJ is claiming Executive Privilege, when it should surprise no one that President has limits in what he can negotiate. Fact Trump appointed IG, who is the check and balance, found the complaint credible and urgent, is the only filter needed to have Congress review - and suggests that what occurred was a gross abuse of power (i.e. impeachment worthy on its own).

So many Trump scandals, this is like tears in rain, but let’s not lose sight of how abnormal it is and that it merits oversight and consequences.

Edited by Mr. Ham
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will note to anyone who still defends Trump at this point, recent news:

CIA had an asset in the Kremlin that had to be removed because IC couldn’t trust Trump to responsibly shelter secrets

Trump revealed specs of secret spy satellites to score a jab on Twitter in August

Just yesterday, at the border, Trump started to babble about secret tech built into the border wall, and had to be shut down by a general

Watch the video: https://twitter.com/scottmstedman/status/1174450157925982208?s=21

This guy has so many layers of sycophants and opacity around him, we have no idea what he’s breaking day-to-day.

We do have evidence that Trump cannot be trusted with our nation’s secrets. 

Edited by Mr. Ham
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like an easy problem to solve.  Trump should just release the transcript/audio of the call.  Put it to bed once and for all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Seems like an easy problem to solve.  Trump should just release the transcript/audio of the call.  Put it to bed once and for all.

He declared it's all a lie which was - 750 at the book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now seeing chatter trump told this dude zelensky in the ukraine to reopen investigation into biden in exchange for improved US-Ukraine relations? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Seems like an easy problem to solve.  Trump should just release the transcript/audio of the call.  Put it to bed once and for all.

tack it on to the jfk files

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless somebody high up is willing to leak a recording to journalists, this story will have no legs IMO, for two reasons: first because it’s hard for the public to understand. Second because, as usual, the White House is refusing to offer anything to Congress, and as usual the Democrats are yelling and screaming and unable or unwilling to do anything besides yell and scream. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, snitwitch said:

now seeing chatter trump told this dude zelensky in the ukraine to reopen investigation into biden in exchange for improved US-Ukraine relations? 

If this is what happened, and the Republican Party doesn't sign on to impeachment, they can go ahead and write my name off from voting for any Republican candidate until I die.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, snitwitch said:

trying to hilary biden, because he got away with hilarying hilary in 2016

Some say calling a flea flicker for the 11th time in a row is stupid. However when it worked the first 10 times why not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Unless somebody high up is willing to leak a recording to journalists, this story will have no legs IMO, for two reasons: first because it’s hard for the public to understand. Second because, as usual, the White House is refusing to offer anything to Congress, and as usual the Democrats are yelling and screaming and unable or unwilling to do anything besides yell and scream. 

Lordy, I hope there are tapes. 

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don’t care. The GOP is only participating in Democracy at this point when it benefits them. An absolute disgrace.  The other team is too soft to do anything about it. Neat system. Neat “choice”. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

If this is what happened, and the Republican Party doesn't sign on to impeachment, they can go ahead and write my name off from voting for any Republican candidate until I die.

Seems to track. If true, Trump made the quid pro quo offer to release $250m in military aid he was blocking in exchange for investigation into Biden, providing election assistance. Then he released the $250m payment. So he would have bought an election interference ally with tax payer dollars. 

Edited by Mr. Ham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Tahitian Facemask said:

The GOP is only participating in Democracy at this point when it benefits them.

I don’t quite agree with this. I think that the GOP is participating in democracy a little too much. What I mean by this is that they’re terrified of the conservative base that supports Trump; that’s why they don’t defy him at all because they don’t want to be voted out of office. So they’re sacrificing all principles in order to maintain voter approval. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/us/politics/intelligence-whistle-blower-complaint-trump.html

Breaking. This is too rich! Allegations from whistleblower involve multiple instances, not just the reported quid-pro-quo with a world leader. 

Is it too soon to say that the Constitutional Republic is at stake here? If the Trump administration successfully keeps this information hidden from Congress, I think we can safely say that we have crossed the point of no return.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Workhorse said:

Is it too soon to say that the Constitutional Republic is at stake here? If the Trump administration successfully keeps this information hidden from Congress, I think we can safely say that we have crossed the point of no return.

Yes it is over folks.  Time to move to Canada. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Yes it is over folks.  Time to move to Canada. 

Any comments in the story being discussed and its potential implications?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Any comments in the story being discussed and its potential implications?

Absolutely.  New York Times is not worth buying a subscription to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

The country's No. 2 intelligence official, Sue Gordon, knew it was likely she would have to eventually step down from her post, but the timing of that decision became more urgent on Thursday after her boss -- outgoing spy chief Dan Coats -- interrupted a meeting she was holding on election security and asked his deputy to submit her letter of resignation, sources familiar with the events told CNN.

While details of the conversation between Gordon, an intelligence veteran of more than 30 years, and Coats remain unclear, sources say that the situation clearly abruptly changed after the meeting was interrupted.

Shortly after her encounter with Coats, Gordon submitted her letter of resignation to Vice President Mike Pence, though the document itself was addressed to Trump, according to officials, a highly unusual move that prompted some confusion among some West Wing officials who waited for the President's tweet confirming the news.

 

CNN

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Ham said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/us/politics/intelligence-whistle-blower-complaint-trump.html

Breaking. This is too rich! Allegations from whistleblower involve multiple instances, not just the reported quid-pro-quo with a world leader. 

For any who can't access this:

 

WASHINGTON — A potentially explosive complaint by a whistle-blower in the intelligence community said to involve President Trump was related to a series of actions that goes beyond any single discussion with a foreign leader, according to interviews on Thursday.

The complaint was related to multiple acts, Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for American spy agencies, told lawmakers during a private briefing, two officials familiar with it said. But he declined to discuss specifics, including whether the complaint involved the president, according to committee members.

Separately, a person familiar with the whistle-blower’s complaint said it involves in part a commitment that Mr. Trump made in a communication with another world leader. The Washington Post first reported the nature of that discussion. But no single communication was at the root of the complaint, another person familiar with it said.

The complaint cleared an initial hurdle when Mr. Atkinson deemed it credible and began to pursue an investigation. But it has prompted a standoff between lawmakers and the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who has refused to turn it over to Congress, as is generally required by law. It has become the latest in a series of fights over information between the Democratic-led House and the White House.

Democrats emerged from Mr. Atkinson’s briefing and renewed their accusation that the Trump administration was orchestrating a cover-up of an urgent and legitimate whistle-blower complaint that could affect national security.

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters after the briefing that he still did not know the contents of the complaint and had been unable to get an answer to whether the White House was involved in suppressing it.

“I don’t think this is a problem of the law,” he said. “I think the law is written very clearly. I think the law is just fine. The problem lies elsewhere. And we’re determined to do everything we can to determine what this urgent concern is, to make sure that the national security is protected and to make sure that this whistle-blower is protected.”

Mr. Schiff said he would explore potential recourse with the House’s general counsel to try to force the release of the complaint, including potentially suing for it in court.

Few details of the whistle-blower complaint are known, including the identity of the world leader involved in the single known communication. And it is not obvious how an exchange between Mr. Trump and a foreign leader could meet the legal standards for a whistle-blower complaint that the inspector general would deem an “urgent concern.”

Under the law, the complaint has to concern the existence of an intelligence activity that violates the law, rules or regulations, or otherwise amounts to mismanagement, waste, abuse, or a danger to public safety. But a conversation between two foreign leaders is not itself an intelligence activity.

And while Mr. Trump may have discussed intelligence activities with the foreign leader, he enjoys broad power as president to declassify intelligence secrets, order the intelligence community to act and otherwise direct the conduct of foreign policy as he sees fit, legal experts said.

Mr. Trump regularly speaks with foreign leaders and often takes a freewheeling approach. Some current and former officials said that what an intelligence official took to be a troubling commitment could have been an innocuous comment. But there has long been concern among some in the intelligence agencies that the information they share with the president is being politicized.

Andrew P. Bakaj, a former C.I.A. and Pentagon official whose legal practice specializes in whistle-blower and security clearance issues, confirmed that he is representing the official who filed the complaint. Mr. Bakaj declined to identify his client or to comment.

Mr. Trump denied wrongdoing on Thursday, explaining that he would not “say something inappropriate” on calls where aides and intelligence officials from both sides routinely listen in.

But Mr. Trump’s actions were startling enough to prompt the intelligence official to file a formal whistle-blower complaint on Aug. 12 to the inspector general for the intelligence agencies. Such a complaint is lodged through a formal process intended to protect the whistle-blower from retaliation.

Mr. Schiff has been locked in the standoff with Mr. Maguire over the complaint for nearly a week. He said Mr. Maguire told him that he had been instructed not to give the complaint to Congress, and that the complaint addressed privileged information — meaning the president or people close to him were involved.

Mr. Schiff has said that none of the previous directors of national intelligence, a position created in 2004, had ever refused to provide a whistle-blower complaint to Congress. The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena last week to compel Mr. Maguire to appear before the panel. He briefly refused but relented on Wednesday, and is now scheduled to appear before the committee in an open hearing next week.

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence panel, said on Thursday that he and the committee’s Republican chairman, Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, also expected both the inspector general and acting director to brief them early next week and “clear this issue up.”

Mr. Maguire and Mr. Atkinson are at odds over how the complaint should be handled. Mr. Atkinson has indicated the matter should be investigated, and alerted the House and Senate Intelligence committees, while Mr. Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, says the complaint does not fall within the agencies’ purview because it does not involve a member of the intelligence community — a network of 17 agencies that does not include the White House.

The inspector general of the intelligence community “determined that this complaint is both credible and urgent, and that it should be transmitted to Congress under the clear letter of the law,” Mr. Schiff, Democrat of California, said in a statement on Wednesday evening.

Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said the law is “very clear” that the whistle-blower complaint must be handed over to Congress.

“The Inspector General determines what level of concern it is,” said Mr. King, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Once the determination is made,” he added, the director of national intelligence “has a ministerial responsibility to share that with Congress. It is not discretionary.”

“This is based upon the principle of separation of powers and Congress’s oversight responsibility,” Mr. King said.

Mr. Maguire was named the acting director in August, after the president had announced that the previous director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, would be stepping down. Mr. Trump had planned to nominate Representative John Ratcliffe, Republican of Texas, a Trump loyalist without an extensive background in intelligence. But the president dropped the plan after lawmakers from both parties raised concerns about Mr. Ratcliffe’s qualifications and possible exaggerations on his resume.

The reports about the whistle-blower complaint touched off speculation about what Mr. Trump said and to whom.

In the weeks before the complaint was filed, Mr. Trump spoke with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan and the prime minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte.

And current and former intelligence officials have expressed surprise that during his first few months as president, Mr. Trump shared classified information provided by an ally, Israel, with the Russian foreign minister.

Such disclosures are not illegal, but Mr. Trump flouted intelligence-sharing decorum by sharing an ally’s intelligence without express permission.

Mr. King expressed some doubt about how serious the underlying complaint might be.

“I am a little concerned it is being overblown,” Mr. King said. “On the other hand, it may be significant. But we won’t know that for a few days.”

 

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.