Jump to content

What's going on with this DNI Whistleblower ?

triplehorn

By triplehorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dertyberd

Dertyberd 394

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

How far does this go ?  The WB report states that WH attys were involved in the process.  Sounds like an ongoing operation that spans no telling what.

 

So really, the Trump political folks aren't stupid.  Wrong and a danger to the country, but the classified server is great place to hide shit.  Do you really want to be the Congress to set the precedent of opening up the server for impeachment, which is inherently political? These WH fuckers are sick, but they have used their complete lack of shame and patriotism take advantage of the norms of the past 200+ years to "win" for their guy.   It's amazing who much our country has relied on the inherent honesty and nobility of servants who take their oath seriously to maintain what we've held dear since it's founding.  Crazy how fragile this whole place truly is and how quickly it can be destroyed by unscrupulous cunts who care nothing about the greater good and the future of a once great nation.  

Edited by Dertyberd
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Js1
Js1

I'm sure you took both sides of that debate. 

Crusher
Crusher

First off there was no extortion. That was not in the transcript. No quid pro quo. Why do you make up shit? Who do you think you are, Adam Schiff?  

Post Oak
Post Oak

I spent a lot of time thinking about this, unfortunately. You have to have so little self-respect that you are ok being lied to over and over.  You have to be ok with being told what to do.  You

Posted Images

Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15321

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Democrats not taking this opportunity to focus on the complaint itself, and instead focusing on why this dude took so long to get it to them, is a huge mistake.

I agreed with you right up until he got Maguire to repeatedly characterize the withholding of the complaint as "unprecedented."  It furthers the narrative of a cover up.  And a cover up is importantly because only a person with a guilty conscience covers something up.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
Posted
Just now, Ghost of LL said:

I agreed with you right up until he got Maguire to repeatedly characterize the withholding of the complaint as "unprecedented."  It furthers the narrative of a cover up.  And a cover up is importantly because only a person with a guilty conscience covers something up.

Correct. What they are doing is laying the groundwork for a clear violation of a statute. They even highlighted that the statute says "shall," which doesn't seem like much, but the difference between a "must" and "may" statute is huge. They're trying to get him to admit why he violated statute or perjure himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 20911

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I agreed with you right up until he got Maguire to repeatedly characterize the withholding of the complaint as "unprecedented."  It furthers the narrative of a cover up.  And a cover up is importantly because only a person with a guilty conscience covers something up.

You lawyers...always thinking and shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45324

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

For those keeping score at home, the legal opinion Maguire relied on was bullshit. 

 

. . . and its also ludicrous to assert that POTUS isn't part of the intelligence community.

Executive Privilege is a different argument which practically asserts that the President is above the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8656

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

. . . and its also ludicrous to assert that POTUS isn't part of the intelligence community.

Executive Privilege is a different argument which practically asserts that the President is above the law.

Yes. And executive privilege was never asserted. No doubt Barr personally directed the OLC to provide some legal fig leaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jester

Jester 382

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

So really, the Trump political folks aren't stupid.  Wrong and a danger to the country, but the classified server is great place to hide shit.  Do you really want to be the Congress to set the precedent of opening up the server for impeachment, which is inherently political? These WH fuckers are sick, but they have used their complete lack of shame and patriotism take advantage of the norms of the past 200+ years to "win" for their guy.   It's amazing who much our country has relied on the inherent honesty and nobility of servants who take their oath seriously to maintain what we've held dear since it's founding.  Crazy how fragile this whole place truly is and how quickly it can be destroyed by unscrupulous cunts who care nothing about the greater good and the future of a once great nation.  

If they are hiding items that are 'inherently political' on the classified server for no other reason than covering the President's crimes?  Absolutely.  Otherwise you create a shield for future administrations to get away with the same shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28685

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Turner just accused Schiff of making this all up.  Interesting.

That was related to his paraphrasing during his opening statement of the message Trump was sending during his call. He was right in how he was characterizing the implied message but I thought it was a bad idea to say it that way. Of course the Republicans are seizing on that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45324

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That was related to his paraphrasing during his opening statement of the message Trump was sending during his call. He was right in how he was characterizing the implied message but I thought it was a bad idea to say it that way. Of course the Republicans are seizing on that. 

Sarcasm doesn't work when the intended audience has, on average, a room temperature IQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Speier drew Maguire's attention to the WB reporting the flashing red light matter of politically sensitive/legally incriminating information being hidden BY THE WHITE HOUSE and yet he WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE FIRST about the report.  

 

Edited by triplehorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dertyberd

Dertyberd 394

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Jester said:

If they are hiding items that are 'inherently political' on the classified server for no other reason than covering the President's crimes?  Absolutely.  Otherwise you create a shield for future administrations to get away with the same shit.

I sure hope so, but it'll be damn hard to prove that.  I don't know the mechanisms of proving that, but I assume it would the courts.  Seems like that will take a long time when you have the power of Barr and the DOJ behind the stalling.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Dertyberd said:

I sure hope so, but it'll be damn hard to prove that.  I don't know the mechanisms of proving that, but I assume it would the courts.  Seems like that will take a long time when you have the power of Barr and the DOJ behind the stalling.  

Barr has to recuse yesterday.  Why not done ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dertyberd

Dertyberd 394

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

Barr has to recuse yesterday.  Why not done ?

That would be the actions of a guy who cares for his reputation, oath, and rule of law.  You're talking about Barr.  He's lived his life, he's made his money in the private sector.  He gives no fucks other than protecting the President.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3223

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Speier drew Maguire's attention to the WB reporting the flashing red light matter of politically sensitive/legally incriminating information being hidden BY THE WHITE HOUSE and yet he WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE FIRST about the report.  

 

Nice start by Swalwell to focus on this element ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keef

Keef 736

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

LOL dumbass just admitted that his earlier "I will not disclose executive conversations" was actually a "yes."

I actually lean towards that being intentional. Tons of people don’t like Trump, even within his administration, and this is a man who did just threaten to resign. It’s a way to say yes without saying yes. He could have just as easily said he couldn’t confirm or deny, but if there was such a conversation, it’d be covered by executive privilege and he couldn’t discuss. This is a sophisticated dude who was most definitely prepped for that exact question.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13384

Posted
Posted

by the way, I agree with Maguire that this whistleblower complaint is fairly unprecedented. Has there ever been a credible whistleblower, from within the Administration, that accused the President of an impeachable crime?  

If anything, it should create a scenario where its brought to the attention of the appropriate people ASAP.   The contents of the complaint could still be kept confidential while security and/or exec priv are worked out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...