What's going on with this DNI Whistleblower ?

[Pig Bellmont 8660]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I agree that their reasoning is utterly chickenshit.  I think that it's down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole, which is embarrassing coming from the highest-ranking US officials.  But after that, I share DDD's questions.

Let me get this straight. You and DDD have questions whether it’s legitimate for the attorney general to investigate any procedural or substantive abuses by the FBI or CIA in investigating foreign influence in the 2016 election and specifically how the Trump campaign welcomed and cooperated with that interference? 

I’m not going to make you read 2 years worth of news stories, but your questions are echoed only in places like Brietbart and Infowars. Here’s my advice: any position that requires you taking Papadopalous at his word - post prison - is probably not one you should support 

[elfenix 34156]

On 9/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, TexLonghorn said:

“the whistleblower is not white,” one 4chan commenter asserted Thursday, probably misreading a part of the complaint in which the whistleblower calls himself or herself a “non-White House official.” “see second set of bullet points on page 3. trump only has a handful of non white staff. I wonder who it might be.”

[Judge Roybeanbag 11770]

19 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I'm not concern trolling.  If you know anything about my posting history you wouldn't even make that suggestion.  I guess I just need more information than your ipse dixit that these specific instances are illegitimate.

If there is some legitimacy to the Australian and Italian incidents then let's not diminish the impact or importance of what clearly has been shown to be impeachable conduct.

Honestly all you need to do is step back, and look at the fact that the DOJ is defying subpoenas, not cooperating with the house investigation, but instead is now investigating the investigators, and the State Dept. has re-opened the investigation into Hillary's emails.  I am not making that up.  This should tell you all you need to know about the legitimacy of their new "investigations".

Witch hunt, indeed!

[Brisketexan 104197]

13 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Let me get this straight. You and DDD have questions whether it’s legitimate for the attorney general to investigate any procedural or substantive abuses by the FBI or CIA in investigating foreign influence in the 2016 election and specifically how the Trump campaign welcomed and cooperated with that interference? 

I’m not going to make you read 2 years worth of news stories, but your questions are echoed only in places like Brietbart and Infowars. Here’s my advice: any position that requires you taking Papadopalous at his word - post prison - is probably not one you should support 

Subject matter aside....yes?

Can the AG (that is, the DOJ) investigate potential procedural or substantive abuses by the FBI (which operates under the jurisdiction of the DOJ)?  I mean, that's a pretty solid "yes."  Regardless of the subject matter (whether the FBI was looking into the Trump campaign, or the Genovese crime family, or an illegal kickback scheme about the new Impossible Whopper), that should be a "yes."

I'm not taking Pops at his word.  I'm taking the evidence we have, like a letter from the Australian government, at face value.  I'm asking a legitimate question, and so is DDD.  Of course, we're both attorneys, so we do tend to think that way - what's the actual law, and how do the facts match up?

For example, the Ukraine issue is an easy one -- Trump specifically asked for campaign assistance in the form of a request to investigate his chief political rival.  That there was a quid pro quo isn't even necessary (although it adds a layer of illegality).

[Brisketexan 104197]

2 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Honestly all you need to do is step back, and look at the fact that the DOJ is defying subpoenas, not cooperating with the house investigation, but instead is now investigating the investigators, and the State Dept. has re-opened the investigation into Hillary's emails.  I am not making that up.  This should tell you all you need to know about the legitimacy of their new "investigations".

Witch hunt, indeed!

Oh, look -- do we absolutely believe the Barr DOJ is slimy as shit?  You bet.  But even a slimy party can act within the law in committing a specific act/series of acts.  That's all we're asking about, is this particular series of actions.

[Celery Man 20819]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

as someone who's been arrested for suspected rico violations, i can tell you, it is not as much fun as it seems.

probably why you hate giuliani

[Pig Bellmont 8660]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Subject matter aside....yes?

Can the AG (that is, the DOJ) investigate potential procedural or substantive abuses by the FBI (which operates under the jurisdiction of the DOJ)?  I mean, that's a pretty solid "yes."  Regardless of the subject matter (whether the FBI was looking into the Trump campaign, or the Genovese crime family, or an illegal kickback scheme about the new Impossible Whopper), that should be a "yes."

I'm not taking Pops at his word.  I'm taking the evidence we have, like a letter from the Australian government, at face value.  I'm asking a legitimate question, and so is DDD.  Of course, we're both attorneys, so we do tend to think that way - what's the actual law, and how do the facts match up?

For example, the Ukraine issue is an easy one -- Trump specifically asked for campaign assistance in the form of a request to investigate his chief political rival.  That there was a quid pro quo isn't even necessary (although it adds a layer of illegality).

I swear if one of you mentions “FISA abuse”, Anastasis is going to start posting and this whole thread is going to shit

[Judge Roybeanbag 11770]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, look -- do we absolutely believe the Barr DOJ is slimy as shit?  You bet.  But even a slimy party can act within the law in committing a specific act/series of acts.  That's all we're asking about, is this particular series of actions.

Sure, they can act "within the law", while on the other hand their boss is simultaneously applying a strong-arm in withholding support until the people "cooperate" with those acting within the law.  Also, Rudy. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Judge Roybeanbag

[Mdhorn 5858]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

It's the same as the name of Jacob Wohl's girlfriend.  She lives in Canada.  You wouldn't know her.

Odd.  Which hand is Canadian? 

[RomaVicta 29673]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Can the AG (that is, the DOJ) investigate potential procedural or substantive abuses by the FBI (which operates under the jurisdiction of the DOJ)?  I mean, that's a pretty solid "yes." 

Your parenthetical about the DOJ is the problem. My understanding is that this isn't a DOJ investigation as your parentheses indicate. Barr didn't send a team which would be normal. He went on his own to talk to leaders of these countries. He is acting as the president's lawyer/emissary more than an AG who has ordered an investigation based on some evidence of wrong doing.

The Attorney General does not normally do the leg work in an investigation. Further, Trump through Barr should not be involved directly with such an investigation. It is, IMHO, another abuse of power and kick to the nuts of Truth and Justice.

The mission to Australia, as I understand it, was likely to get Australia to step away from saying they are the ones who initially reported Russian involvement. Doing so would mean the constant lies about the dossier starting this whole mess would seem to be truthful. 

On the one hand, I do want the scope of this investigation to be more than the detail of the call to Zelensky of Ukraine. On the other hand, I do share your concern that journalists (mostly TV journalists) will leap upon every foreign contact with the assumption they are all underhanded.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

35 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

At this point I would welcome a military coup. 

Its certainly possible.  IIRC, once the President decides to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike, the chairman of the JCs authenticates his identity and away the nukes go.  Down the chain, its always a 2 man protocol, but at the top, its just 1 individual that sets it in motion.  At no point in the chain of command is anyone permitted to disobey his orders.  In fact, Harold Hering was not only removed from Minuteman duty, but also discharged from the Air Force for asking "How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"

However, with Trump, I assume they would disobey his orders unless there was an actual existential threat that had been thoroughly vetted.  We are essentially in a cold military coup already.  Perhaps we always were because I think the chain of command would unravel had any President given an insane strike order.  Its just that Trump seems infinitely more likely to do it than any President before him.  There are probably many Herings still in service.  They just keep their mouth shut.

Still, I think they hand the keys right to Congress, so it wouldn't be a military coup in the Latin American sense.

Edited October 1, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[Mdhorn 5858]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Your parenthetical about the DOJ is the problem. My understanding is that this isn't a DOJ investigation as your parentheses indicate. Barr didn't send a team which would be normal. He went on his own to talk to leaders of these countries. He is acting as the president's lawyer/emissary more than an AG who has ordered an investigation based on some evidence of wrong doing.

The Attorney General does not normally do the leg work in an investigation. Further, Trump through Barr should not be involved directly with such an investigation. It is, IMHO, another abuse of power and kick to the nuts of Truth and Justice.

The mission to Australia, as I understand it, was likely to get Australia to step away from saying they are the ones who initially reported Russian involvement. Doing so would mean the constant lies about the dossier starting this whole mess would seem to be truthful. 

On the one hand, I do want the scope of this investigation to be more than the detail of the call to Zelensky of Ukraine. On the other hand, I do share your concern that journalists (mostly TV journalists) will leap upon every foreign contact with the assumption they are all underhanded.

If there's a silver lining to all this, it's that the world can't just pin all of the current President and his handler's corruption on the US. 

[jimmyjazz 45340]

The thing that makes me question the legitimacy of these new investigations is this:  Trump "won".    He not only won the election, but the Mueller Report itself really didn't start any dominoes falling.  (I'm not talking about cases spun off to other jurisdictions.)

What would a Texas fan think if Tom Herman went to the B12 League Office and asked them to look into possible officiating errors in last week's game against Oklahoma State?  

I understand that Tom Herman is far more of an intellectual than Donald Trump, but come on.  These new investigations exist simply to cast more shade on the intelligence community while simultaneously deflecting from the real issues at hand; namely, Trump's long list of impeachable offenses.

[DixonHur 10951]

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Subject matter aside....yes?

Can the AG (that is, the DOJ) investigate potential procedural or substantive abuses by the FBI (which operates under the jurisdiction of the DOJ)?  I mean, that's a pretty solid "yes."  Regardless of the subject matter (whether the FBI was looking into the Trump campaign, or the Genovese crime family, or an illegal kickback scheme about the new Impossible Whopper), that should be a "yes."

I'm not taking Pops at his word.  I'm taking the evidence we have, like a letter from the Australian government, at face value.  I'm asking a legitimate question, and so is DDD.  Of course, we're both attorneys, so we do tend to think that way - what's the actual law, and how do the facts match up?

For example, the Ukraine issue is an easy one -- Trump specifically asked for campaign assistance in the form of a request to investigate his chief political rival.  That there was a quid pro quo isn't even necessary (although it adds a layer of illegality).

My issue with Barr doing this is that he already appointed an "independent" investigator, John Durham,  to look into the matter.  So it seems a bit fishy that Barr, and not Mr. Durham was the one leading the investigation.  

If he were really interested in the truth, Barr would have recused himself and let Durham follow the evidence wherever it led.  I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the legality, but it seems awfully unethical to me.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

 

Was he working to discredit the conclusions or looking for more information regarding the inception of the investigation?

I feel like the conclusion being drawn as to the motivation (to discredit intelligence conclusions) isn’t as clear as you are suggesting.

Understand, if you’ve read any of my posts, I’m not supporting Trump or any of his criminal enterprises. I’m simply trying to get my arms around these latest revelations, which seem at least facially justifiable.

Also it wouldn’t necessarily be an abuse of office if the effort was to dig into a justifiable investigation even if the outcome might have beneficial results to the GOP.

 

Hasn't Barr essentially hidden these trips from the press?  And gone by himself?  In past administrations when the AG met with foreign governments it would be with a delegation from Justice and the visit would be announced to the press (even if all the details of the conversations weren't).  The fact that this is essentially an under the radar visit, and without a delegation from Justice strongly suggests that the visit is not above board, leaving aside all the reasons to believe Barr is involved in all sorts of corruption.

[Brisketexan 104197]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

My issue with Barr doing this is that he already appointed an "independent" investigator, John Durham,  to look into the matter.  So it seems a bit fishy that Barr, and not Mr. Durham was the one leading the investigation.  

If he were really interested in the truth, Barr would have recused himself and let Durham follow the evidence wherever it led.  I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the legality, but it seems awfully unethical to me.

Fishy, not properly motivated, not ethical -- yeah, I can probably get on board with all of that.  it's shitty practice, and if I was AG, I wouldn't do it.

But that doesn't answer the question of legality.

Shit, we've established that this is admin is bad people who do bad things for bad reasons.  But we've also established that's not enough to get them the hell out of our government via impeachment or prosecution.  And that's what we're talking about here, thus DDD and me expressing some curiosity about that matter.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

[DDD Dad 14133]

16 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Hasn't Barr essentially hidden these trips from the press?  And gone by himself?  In past administrations when the AG met with foreign governments it would be with a delegation from Justice and the visit would be announced to the press (even if all the details of the conversations weren't).  The fact that this is essentially an under the radar visit, and without a delegation from Justice strongly suggests that the visit is not above board, leaving aside all the reasons to believe Barr is involved in all sorts of corruption.

1.  Yes, they were certainly under the radar.  Hell, the reports I saw last week were that he was on a family vacation in Italy, not an official visit for investigative purposes.

2. Yes, in the past at least as far as we know, when an AG met with foreign governments it would be with a delegation from Justice.  We don't know and to what extent prior AG's might have had "secret" visits.  That's kind of the rub with this.

3.  The fact that it is an under the radar visit certainly suggests a surreptitious and improper motivation, but is not, of itself, damning.  The stated rationale for the visit to Italy and the communications with the Australian ambassador at least FACIALLY have an arguable justifiable basis under DOJ prosecutorial discretion.  

None of this, however, is a fact that tends to establish that the true motivation for these actions was to discredit our intelligence agencies' conclusions regarding the source of 2016 election interference.

[Francisco 2.0 32289]

Hmmm.  Seems out of the ordinary.

 

 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32289]

Totally normal.

 

 

[Dahobbs 17314]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Totally normal.

 

 

Jesus christ. This is a fucking takeover of the country. We actually need a military coup, supported by Congress. It is our only chance. 

[Chuckie Finster 22556]

I might be off, but I'm pretty sure that Stedman dude is one of those twitter weirdos along the same lines as Seth Abramson, etc.  His info might be legit, but let's not all take his word just yet.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

21 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I might be off, but I'm pretty sure that Stedman dude is one of those twitter weirdos along the same lines as Seth Abramson, etc.  His info might be legit, but let's not all take his word just yet.

Negative.  Stedman is legit reporter I put on the same level with Natasha Bertrand.  He’s proven over time to be reliable and not just on Trump Russia stuff.  

Abramson if more of an information aggregator and analyst. 

However, the problem with Stedman is he’s just one source.  I usually wait for whatever he’s reporting to be corroborated before posting here.  His stuff almost always gets corroborated.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Negative.  Stedman is legit reporter I put on the same level with Natasha Bertrand.  He’s proven over time to be reliable and not just on Trump Russia stuff.  

Abramson if more of an information aggregator and analysts. 

y no blue check tho

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

y no blue check tho

No idea.  You have to want a blue check and Twitter is stingy AF about handing them out now.  I tried to get one a few weeks ago and they told me blue checks were not being given to anyone at that time. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

y no blue check tho

He's both a freelance journalist and young. He's been pretty reliable and broken some stories, specifically recently on Deripaska, McConnell and the KY aluminum plant going in to bribe Mitch. 

[GW Hayduke 1949]

A theory on why the White House is focused on investigating the investigators.

Russian sanctions.

If the investigation that established Russian election interference was discredited, trump would be justified in removing Russian sanctions.

Also related to relieving Russian sanctions, trump has pushed the Ukrainian President to work a deal with Russia. That deal would be about Crimea, which would then allow russia to get the Crimea sanctions lifted.

It is about Russia.

[Captainant 27225]

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

A theory on why the White House is focused on investigating the investigators.

Russian sanctions.

If the investigation that established Russian election interference was discredited, trump would be justified in removing Russian sanctions.

Also related to relieving Russian sanctions, trump has pushed the Ukrainian President to work a deal with Russia. That deal would be about Crimea, which would then allow russia to get the Crimea sanctions lifted.

It is about Russia.

You should really check out the podcast series The Asset. It's by the folks running the Moscow project, and they're doing an excellent job of connecting the dots using public and verifiable information. What you're arguing towards in the main thrust of their findings. 

It's all about the sanctions. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Just now, Captainant said:

It's all about the sanctions. 

It’s always been about the sanctions since the treason meeting in Trump Tower. 

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

47 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Totally normal.

 

 

Really not sure how anyone could half be paying attention and think Pompeo and other Trumpers are the good guys.

[Pasken 1309]

This is going to end with Trump living in exile in Russia.

[Celery Man 20819]

No idea.  You have to want a blue check and Twitter is stingy AF about handing them out now.  I tried to get one a few weeks ago and they told me blue checks were not being given to anyone at that time. 

OK Scott

[henrygandorf 29168]

10 minutes ago, Pasken said:

This is going to end with Trump living in exile in Russia.

i’d watch that reality show. 

[Jack Straw 2953]

2 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

At this point I would welcome a military coup. 

With Trump, Barr, and Giuliani being the first ones strung up from light poles in the street.  

[Chuckie Finster 22556]

Negative.  Stedman is legit reporter I put on the same level with Natasha Bertrand.  He’s proven over time to be reliable and not just on Trump Russia stuff.  
Abramson if more of an information aggregator and analyst. 
However, the problem with Stedman is he’s just one source.  I usually wait for whatever he’s reporting to be corroborated before posting here.  His stuff almost always gets corroborated.

Happy to be wrong. Must have him confused with someone else.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

He's also married to Oprah

[Bookman 4600]

Trump doesn't want to live in Russia. That's where he owes money.

[horn4life 3749]

In the end I think Trump being happy he was elected President, is going to be a lot like the way Ryan Reynolds felt happy about being cast as the lead in Green Lantern,.

[Pescado_Rojo 19298]

1 hour ago, Jack Straw said:

With Trump, Barr, and Giuliani being the first ones strung up from light poles in the street.  

Why no Moscow Mitch, tho? 

[triplehorn 2664]

Kyle Griffin:

Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings to the Deputy Secretary of State: "We are writing to you because Secretary Pompeo now appears to have an obvious conflict of interest ... If true, Secretary Pompeo is now a fact witness in the impeachment inquiry."

"Given the secretaries potential role, and reports of other State Department officials being involved in ... the committees may infer that he is trying to cover up illicit activity and misconduct, including by the president. This would be a blatant cover up and abuse of power."

The end the letter: "For all of these reasons, the Department must immediately halt all efforts to interfere with the testimony of State Department witnesses before Congress."

[atomheartbevo 89292]

1 hour ago, horn4life said:

In the end I think Trump being happy he was elected President, is going to be a lot like the way Ryan Reynolds felt happy about being cast as the lead in Green Lantern,.

[Tuco 5076]

So the State IG is asking to meet with the committees. That doesn’t sound good for Pompeo. This whole impeachment thing seems to be picking up steam.

[triplehorn 2664]

About that the IG meeting w House members:

 

[triplehorn 2664]

Some history re current State IG Steve Linick :

State Department watchdog details political retaliation against 'disloyal' staffers

Quote

Linick has been investigating allegations that Trump appointees had targeted career staffers for political retaliation since spring 2018. His other cases include ones involving the alleged actions of aides to former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. They include one case exposed by POLITICO in which a career staffer of Iranian descent was ousted from a top policy role.

Linick’s investigation grew to cover the international organizations bureau after a June 2018 report in Foreign Policy about Stull, whom career staffers accused of deeply hostile behavior, including compiling loyalty lists.

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by triplehorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

 

[Foosters 17687]

Oh fuck yeah of course the aggy fucked up

[triplehorn 2664]

It appears the questioning for the depositions of State Dept officials at the House Intel, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs committees will be conducted by staff attorneys instead of the Reps. 

Remember what it looked like when House staff counsel Barry Berke questioned Corey Lewandowski ?  More like that.  I'm sure he's a perfectly nice guy when you're giving straight answers.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

So Pompeo has to resign tomorrow right?  

[suddenly shaggy 929]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So Pompeo has to resign tomorrow right?  

[triplehorn 2664]

Re House staff counsels leading the questioning, even if some of the elected Reps are effective and qualified questioners, they are recognizable targets for Trump and others to antagonize on twitter.  Trump will not cease being insufferable on that.  Got to neutralize it as much as possible.  Having staff counsels on the lead diminishes the generic appearance of potential grandstanding and there is no oblique motivation to land blows for re-election purposes.  This is vitally serious.  Just take that stuff out of the arena and let the pros handle it with neutral discipline.