What's going on with this DNI Whistleblower ?

[atomheartbevo 89681]

36 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

Would be hilarious if it was Bolton or Ricky Bobby.  

[Message Board User 12395]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Would be hilarious if it was Bolton or Ricky Bobby.  

 

[triplehorn 2664]

potential avalanche incoming.  All those lying and dissembling trying to stay ahead of this are at risk of being overwhelmed. 

 

 

[Message Board User 12395]

 

[4th&Five 41558]

 

[triplehorn 2664]

Trump and Rudy's Ukraine scheme: it's worse than quid pro quo.  

The 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act prohibits the U.S. government from using covert actions — which include propaganda — to “influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

 

Quote

Each new revelation in the money-for-dirt scandal involving the White House and Ukraine appears to add another nail in the impeachment coffin. So far, however, the list of impeachable offenses has focused on whether President Donald Trump’s actions amounted to an illegal solicitation of foreign election interference, or more simply, a broader abuse of his power to secure a personal benefit.

While both of these are important (and impeachable), it’s critical that we not overlook the bigger purpose behind the president’s actions: The White House was attempting to employ an illegal, covert propaganda operation against the American public.

This is explicitly against the law. The 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act prohibits the U.S. government from using covert actions — which include propaganda — to “influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

As a former FBI counterintelligence agent, I know about propaganda operations because I investigated them. Most of my cases involved foreign “perception management” campaigns — covert activities designed to influence the attitudes and opinions of the American public toward particular issues that would benefit the intelligence service’s host country.

These activities pose a national security threat because, in an open society and a free marketplace of ideas, it is essential that people know the true source of information in order to assess credibility and critically evaluate its content — especially when they are exercising fundamental rights, like voting, based on it. Russia’s perception management campaign in the 2016 election is what led special counsel Robert Mueller to indict 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for spreading misinformation on social media while posing as American groups and citizens.

The Ukraine saga shows how these tactics have been adopted by the Trump administration. Initially, the partial transcript between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky released by the White House suggested that Trump’s main objective was to get Ukraine to open an investigation into alleged corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Ukrainian officials have confirmed there is no evidence of wrongdoing by either. But the goal, it seemed, was to use the law enforcement arm of a foreign country to go on a fishing expedition to dig up or manufacture the appearance of dirt, which could then potentially be used by Trump in his upcoming campaign. In other words, Trump appeared, based on his conversation with Zelensky, to be mainly interested in the fruits of a sham foreign investigation into the Bidens, which he could repurpose for his own benefit.

The administration’s focus wasn’t simply that Ukraine investigate Biden — it was that Ukraine publicly broadcast it would be conducting an investigation.

Last week, however, the House Intelligence Committee released a memo detailing behind-the-scenes text messages between State Department officials that tell a different story. In the texts, U.S. ambassadors Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland engage in an extended negotiation with Zelensky regarding the conditions of a potential visit to the White House.

The conditions do not merely involve a promise by Zelensky to open and pursue an investigation into the Bidens (which could be done quietly); rather, they convey to him that he must make a “public announcement” about these investigations in order to get a meeting with Trump. In other words, the administration’s focus wasn’t simply that Ukraine investigate Biden — it was that Ukraine publicly broadcast it would be conducting an investigation.

The focus on the messaging about the investigation, rather than on the substantive investigation per se, indicates that the Trump administration was interested in shaping public perception — specifically that of American voters. In fact, many of the texts between Volker and Sondland — in coordination with Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani — involve carefully tailoring Ukraine’s message to dovetail with Trump’s specific concerns: Investigating Burisma (the company affiliated with Hunter Biden) and “getting to the bottom of what happened” in the 2016 election by casting doubt on Russia’s role. The one-sided crafting of the announcement to be given by Ukraine is evidenced by Zelensky’s pushback, who on August 10 insisted on a date for a White House visit before committing to a statement announcing an investigation explicitly referencing these two points, according to the committee’s memo.

The most important feature of the back and forth between the State Department and Ukraine is their insistence that the public announcement comes from Ukraine alone. It’s not unusual for U.S. officials to be involved in crafting a statement with a foreign country, but typically they are publicly issued as joint statements. Here, however, nothing about the proposed statement, which was drafted and proposed by the State Department in coordination with Giuliani, indicated that the U.S. precipitated or participated in its creation in any way. In intelligence terms, this is called black propaganda.

Black propaganda attempts to conceal the true source of information so that the target (in this case, the American public) cannot accurately assess the credibility of the message or the motives of the source behind it. By having the information emanate from a separate and more credible outlet, the target audience is more likely to believe it.

A unilateral statement from Zelensky would manipulate the American public into believing that Ukraine had independently reached the conclusion that there was a basis to investigate the Bidens and the origins of the 2016 U.S. election interference. By cloaking his own role and motives behind the statement of a foreign country, Trump could corroborate his own claims and have “proof” that his views were not politically motivated, but instead grounded in real facts.

In short, the Trump administration was using a propaganda technique to covertly plant credible seeds of doubt about a political opponent and the Russia investigation in anticipation of the 2020 election so he could capitalize on it.

The good news is that propaganda is neutralized by one thing: exposure.

The whistleblower who brought to light the machinations of the White House and its State Department enablers not only started the ball rolling on impeachment, but stopped a covert psychological operation against the American public dead in its tracks.

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

4 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Trump and Rudy's Ukraine scheme: it's worse than quid pro quo.  

The 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act prohibits the U.S. government from using covert actions — which include propaganda — to “influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

 

 

That's a really good article explaining the WHY what Trump did is distinct and illegal.

1) The insistence Ukraine publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens and

2) the omission that it was done at the request by Trump

Edited October 8, 2019 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

That's a really good article explaining the WHY what Trump did is distinct and illegal.

1) The insistence Ukraine publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens and

2) the omission that it was done at the request by Trump

It's an angle that needs more attention 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

Fuckin' crooks.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Fuckin' crooks.

So what's the response? 

[SubliminalHorn 6799]

19 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

So what's the response? 

An article of impeachment 

[DDD Dad 14339]

Ah well nevertheless.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

25 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Fuckin' crooks.

This was the dude in the center of it all I feel like you typically spend more time getting your ducks in a row before you try to pose people this high up. This was the dude in the center of it all

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

Can an Administration refuse to have anyone testify? I understand that some questions can fall under exec privilege, but does every action or conversation within the Administration fall under that privilege? 
 

 

[Js1 85352]

33 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

An article of impeachment 

Seems they'd rather just throw obstruction on the impeachment pile rather than let him talk. 

And as we can see, their strategy is not working: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-majority-of-americans-say-they-endorse-opening-of-house-impeachment-inquiry-of-trump/2019/10/07/be9e0af6-e936-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html

58-38 in favor of impeachment -- 49% in favor of impeachment and support removal

57% approval of impeachment from independents, including 49% who support removal

[David Dennison 18863]

37 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

An article of impeachment 

Bingo.

[atomheartbevo 89681]

11 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Can an Administration refuse to have anyone testify? I understand that some questions can fall under exec privilege, but does every action or conversation within the Administration fall under that privilege? 
 

 

We are gonna find out.

[SubliminalHorn 6799]

17 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Can an Administration refuse to have anyone testify? I understand that some questions can fall under exec privilege, but does every action or conversation within the Administration fall under that privilege? 
 

 

I think the understanding is that congress has more powers under an impeachment investigation and SHOULD be able to compel testimony. But it will be up to the courts. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by SubliminalHorn

[kevwun 15790]

If the President can do whatever he wants, he's not a President.  He's an emperor.

[Celery Man 20962]

can the house please throw someone in jail

[David Dennison 18863]

1 minute ago, Celery Man said:

can the house please throw someone in jail

As a practical matter, probably not. 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

I think this is the play:

 

They know he's getting impeached no matter what.  It's just WHAT they want him impeached for.  They can obstruct on everything and get impeached for obstruction or they can cooperate and have everything come out and it could be much worse politically.

The Senate doesn't convict and they cry witch hunt the entire time, hoping that enough people buy it and vote for him in 2020.

Rather than have everything exposed, keep the public in the dark as much as possible.

[David Dennison 18863]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think this is the play:

They know he's getting impeached no matter what.  It's just WHAT they want him impeached for.  They can obstruct on everything and get impeached for obstruction or they can cooperate and have everything come out and it could be much worse politically.

The Senate doesn't convict and they cry witch hunt the entire time, hoping that enough people buy it and vote for him in 2020.

Rather than have everything exposed, keep the public in the dark as much as possible.

The trouble with this is the amount of information that's already been exposed and individuals who aren't willing to comply with executive branch orders not to testify. 

It also puts the Senate in play next year.

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

Not sure if anyone is watching these House Republicans whining, but boy are they pieces of shit.

[Goredho 17408]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Fuckin' crooks.

I don’t understand.  Why wouldn’t you want to have witnesses corroborating the fantastic most-appropriateness of the conversation?

[David Dennison 18863]

Have the Democrats had a press conference slamming the cover up yet?

That should have happened immediately.

[jimmyjazz 45962]

Congress has to start attacking these potential witnesses.  Issue a subpoena, and hold them in contempt when they refuse to testify.  At the very least that puts the onus on the DOJ to refuse to prosecute.

[Keef 770]

Apparently there are messages and emails on the ambassadors personal device that are being withheld by the administration as well. 

[sachick 1189]

45 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Can an Administration refuse to have anyone testify? I understand that some questions can fall under exec privilege, but does every action or conversation within the Administration fall under that privilege? 
 

 

They're sure as hell going to try to block everyone. Acting totally innocent.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

So, what happens to someone that lives in say, Georgia or North Dakota, that ignores a subpoena? Whatever happens to them isn't that what should happen here? If this is about laws, and there are a lot of people who whine about elites (like Epstein) who are above the law, then showcasing this as an example would seem to be important. Does it not work that way at the federal level?

The more they stall, the more it makes it appear as if they are hiding something. They are, but it isn't me one would have to convince if the system needs changing.

[Red Five 40859]

Apparently there are messages and emails on the ambassadors personal device that are being withheld by the administration as well. 

But his emails!

[jimmyjazz 45962]

Ignoring a Congressional subpoena is a misdemeanor that must be prosecuted by either the DOJ or the US Attorney  -- DC.  Neither would prosecute in this case.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

So that would be Jessie Liu? Doesn't she have a duty to prosecute? Her background is in litigation, investigation and compliance according to the website. Attorneys take an oath, too.

I get that politics is everything here, but I hate this game. And, the expense it costs to taxpayers to prosecute cannot be any worse than the delay we are experiencing now. I'm going to send her an email. If I get tossed in jail then it was nice to know you all.

[Celery Man 20962]

law and order admin

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Remember when Hillary ignored a congressional subpoena and didn’t publicly testify for 11 hours straight?

[jimmyjazz 45962]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

So that would be Jessie Liu? Doesn't she have a duty to prosecute?

She's a Trump appointee.  I'm pretty sure she would punt.

[David Dennison 18863]

23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Congress has to start attacking these potential witnesses.  Issue a subpoena, and hold them in contempt when they refuse to testify.  At the very least that puts the onus on the DOJ to refuse to prosecute.

Sadly, they are in recess, so any contempt vote won't happen until next week at the earliest.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Remember when Hillary ignored a congressional subpoena and didn’t publicly testify for 11 hours straight?

But she did testify and yes, the episode surrounding it was a circus. Is it the same thing going on here essentially?

[David Dennison 18863]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

But she did testify and yes, the episode surrounding it was a circus. Is it the same thing going on here essentially?

Not if Democrats hand off questioning to staff attorneys.

[TexEx15 17535]

 

[Js1 85352]

Just now, TexEx15 said:

 

LOL Kamala Harris is going to go in dry on Rudy.  He'll be arrested by the end of that testimony. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Not if Democrats hand off questioning to staff attorneys.

Thank you, I am attempting to keep up. The info overload is real, man.

[jimmyjazz 45962]

So it appears Lindsey is falling back in line after his brief deviation.  (Ahem.)

[Red Five 40859]

Team R sure is suddenly very interested in corruption. In Ukraine.

[Celery Man 20962]

he had a meeting with his discipline daddy

[kevwun 15790]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So it appears Lindsey is falling back in line after his brief deviation.  (Ahem.)

There was never any doubt.  He always crawls back to Trump.

Edited October 8, 2019 by kevwun

[triplehorn 2664]

Really good to see.  So much Trump shit-baggery is unraveling all because a whistleblower took the proper initiative.

 

 

[lemonlime 5503]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think this is the play:

 

They know he's getting impeached no matter what.  It's just WHAT they want him impeached for.  They can obstruct on everything and get impeached for obstruction or they can cooperate and have everything come out and it could be much worse politically.

The Senate doesn't convict and they cry witch hunt the entire time, hoping that enough people buy it and vote for him in 2020.

Rather than have everything exposed, keep the public in the dark as much as possible.

 

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The trouble with this is the amount of information that's already been exposed and individuals who aren't willing to comply with executive branch orders not to testify. 

It also puts the Senate in play next year.

Not with the simultaneous play of soliciting illegal election interference.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

1. You're engaged in corrupt profiteering from a seat on the board of a foreign company.

2 Get your VPOTUS dad and the EU and World Bank and IMF and Republicans in Congress to pressure this foreign government to fire its prosecutor for being lax on corruption.

3. ????

4. Moar profit!

[tantric superman 4667]

Part II of the Mueller Report chronicled textbook obstruction. 

Didn't move the needle.

Republicans are arguing that everything can be decided in an election that is going to be obstructed.

Yes.  Obstruction is damn smart strategy.