What's going on with this DNI Whistleblower ?

[David Dennison 18947]

36 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Not with the simultaneous play of soliciting illegal election interference.

It's enough to impeach.

The removal part is up to voters.

Unfortunately, voters are Americans, so the ability to think critically and recognize bullshit is suspect.

[TexEx15 17569]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

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

She ready.

[jimmyjazz 46137]

This is perhaps Harris' last opportunity to score points leading up to the primaries.  I expect she will let her nuts hang.  #vy

[Js1 85579]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is perhaps Harris' last opportunity to score points leading up to the primaries.  I expect she will let her nuts hang.  #vy

It's not fair really, letting her grill a man with the mind of a 7 year old and rotting teeth. 

[triplehorn 2664]

Now State Dept obstructing as well.  

 

 

[Chad Fuck 17779]

24 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It's not fair really, letting her grill a man with the mind of a 7 year old and rotting teeth. 

Sir, do you know what a toothbrush is?

I know you were married to your cousin.  Were your parents also cousins?

[atomheartbevo 89805]

57 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

She ready.

Graham knew this would happen.  

Although I don’t think Graham has the balls, at least not his own, it would be hilarious if this was his passive-aggressive way of getting back at Trump over the Kurds.   

[atomheartbevo 89805]

2 hours 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.

Subtly attack his manhood by questioning his courage.  Ask what he is hiding from his supporters, and why he doesn’t want his supporters to hear from these people.    It’s not going to peel anybody away from him, but it might lower some of that enthusiasm.  

Plus he’ll flip out on twitter again.   

[Chad Fuck 17779]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

Subtly attack his manhood by questioning his courage.  Ask what he is hiding from his supporters, and why he doesn’t want his supporters to hear from these people.    It’s not going to peel anybody away from him, but it might lower some of that enthusiasm.  

Plus he’ll flip out on twitter again.   

[Horn Dog 9933]

1 hour ago, TexEx15 said:

She ready.

Giuliani won't answer one question from Harris, and there will be no consequence since Lindsee is the chairwomen.  Giuliani could sit there and play solitaire during all the Dem's questioning time and only address the pubs softball "questions" and absolutely nothing would happen to him.  We now live in a world with no consequences.

[Chad Fuck 17779]

4 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Giuliani won't answer one question from Harris, and there will be no consequence since Lindsee is the chairwomen.  Giuliani could sit there and play solitaire during all the Dem's questioning time and only address the pubs softball "questions" and absolutely nothing would happen to him.  We now live in a world with no consequences.

This is 100% real talk right here.  Troof.

[BNB 100]

Sir, do you know what a toothbrush is?
I know you were married to your cousin.  Were your parents also cousins?

Now we are to the point of shaming old people for not keeping all their teeth?

https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/research/data-statistics/tooth-loss/seniors

[Chad Fuck 17779]

3 minutes ago, BNB said:

Now we are to the point of shaming old people for not keeping all their teeth?

https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/research/data-statistics/tooth-loss/seniors

Nah, just this one.  

If he didn't have that rack of yellowed fangs subject to Dental Hygiene by The Cryptkeeper, there'd be nothing to make fun of. 

[Goredho 17420]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

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.

Absolutely.  There have yet to be any ramifications for anything beyond the Rs losing the House in what may be our last reasonably free and fair election.  The republicans seem to be pretty much conceding the House's makeup (White voter minority by 2035, y'all) while neutering its power/authority by brazenly obstructing its ability to serve as a check on the executive branch.

And why fucking not?  Their power grab to this point has been pretty successful.  Their setbacks are almost wholly self-inflicted.  There certainly has not been an opposition serving to effectively thwart it.  I think this is what Impeachment is about for the Republicans.  Neutering the one piece of the government where popular vote matters.  If they are successful, the House will be that table in the other room at Thanksgiving where the children sit while the adults in the dining room have the meaningful discussions without distraction.

If impeachment fails, the 2020 election will be the last possible check on this conservative gambit we've been witnessing over the past few years. It will not be fair and free.  Expect massive interference and greater than 95% of people identifying as Republicans turning out punish the left for their failed "coup attempt."  Trump could easily win again and the GOP hold the Senate.  They either take the House (not likely), or it will have been rendered a House of cards that can only impotently object to what comes after.

And that's when the American apartheid will really begin in earnest.

Not exactly the world I thought my kid's would be coming of age in.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Goredho

[henrygandorf 29194]

ok, i'm a couple pages behind on this thread, but i was listening to some stuff a few days ago about the differences between subpoenas now that we're in official inquiry mode (vs before, when we weren't).  someone please correct me if i'm off here.

the two main differences, as i understand it:

1. refusing now can be considered an official "obstruction of congress" and added as an official article of impeachment (this falls under the "the cover-up is often worse than the crime" category).

2. refusing to testify, be deposed, produce documents, can be seen as "inference of guilt" (i think i remembered that phrase correctly).  which is to say, "hey, if you're refusing to answer the question, we can logically and legally assume that the answer is bad and incriminates you and the other people you're protecting."  same goes for documents, whatever.

to me, #2 seems pretty serious, if true, and for once, punish people for stonewalling - something the american people can actually understand.  also, trump telling someone not to appear, in the past, seemed like it could potentially hurt the person not appearing - contempt, jail, fine, disbarment, whatever.  but now can actually hurt trump/the administration.  in the past, normal logical people would say, "shit, if they're not producing documents, i bet they're bad" but that wasn't a legal argument.  now i believe it is.

any surly attys who can help me out with this?  i've been told i talk out of my ass on the second tuesday of every month.

[lemonlime 5503]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

be deposed, produce documents, can be seen as "inference of guilt" (i think i remembered that phrase correctly).  which is to say, "hey, if you're refusing to answer the question, we can logically and legally assume that the answer is bad and incriminates you and the other people you're protecting."  same goes for documents, whatever.

to me, #2 seems pretty serious, if true, and for once, punish people for stonewalling - something the american people can actually understand.  also, trump telling someone not to appear, in the past, seemed like it could potentially hurt the person not appearing - contempt, jail, fine, disbarment, whatever.  but now can actually hurt trump/the administration.  in the past, normal logical people would say, "shit, if they're not producing documents, i bet they're bad" but that wasn't a legal argument.  now i believe it is.

any surly attys who can help me out with this?  i've been told i talk out of my ass on the second tuesday of every month.

Yes, the jury gets an "adverse inference" charge in court--i.e. they should assume what the witness would testify to had the obstruction not taken place would be adverse to the party.  I believe Schiff stated this outright in his letter on the subpoenas that they would make the adverse inference.

That said, if/when there's a trial in the Senate, the GOP senators will completely ignore this while screaming about the unfairness of adverse inference charges, and none of this will matter.  I also have exactly zero faith in how Roberts would rule with respect to an adverse inference charge anyway.

[Pig Bellmont 8738]

I think it’s going to be very shitty for them to hide from testifying and turning over documents when a majority of voters already favor an impeachment inquiry. Looks guilty. By the time of trial in the Senate, the polls will likely show a majority of the country favors conviction and removal. Then all the senators go on record prior to 2020. There will be electoral consequences 

[lemonlime 5503]

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I think it’s going to be very shitty for them to hide from testifying and turning over documents when a majority of voters already favor an impeachment inquiry. Looks guilty. By the time of trial in the Senate, the polls will likely show a majority of the country favors conviction and removal. Then all the senators go on record prior to 2020. There will be electoral consequences 

They don't care how shitty they are.  These are the people who ignore kids in cages and letting the Kurds be slaughtered and leaving Iraqis who helped us as translators in return for protection behind to be killed.  They've already invented their own law on hearsay that half the country now believes.  And they're acting as if they will never have to face a free election again--most likely because they know they won't.

[henrygandorf 29194]

12 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Yes, the jury gets an "adverse inference" charge in court--i.e. they should assume what the witness would testify to had the obstruction not taken place would be adverse to the party.  I believe Schiff stated this outright in his letter on the subpoenas that they would make the adverse inference.

That said, if/when there's a trial in the Senate, the GOP senators will completely ignore this while screaming about the unfairness of adverse inference charges, and none of this will matter.  I also have exactly zero faith in how Roberts would rule with respect to an adverse inference charge anyway.

yeah, i'm not holding out hope that the "jury" (senate) would remove anyway, but i do like that there is at least some adverse effect of avoiding to appear.  otherwise you're taking away all the power of congress, and making trump a king (didn't we fight against that 250 years ago?).

the fact that trump has basically made it impossible to investigate him (stonewalls, lies about everything he's doing being above board, claims everyone coming after him is partisan, says they've been trying to remove him since before he was sworn in, etc etc etc), makes it all the more important that the dems establish a public narrative.  i know it's difficult and confusing, but they need to show me they've learned something since mueller.

impeaching nixon polled at 9% a year before he resigned.  this polling has already climbed ~20% in the past couple months.  they need to stay on message.  this is about 2020, not the senate.

[Pig Bellmont 8738]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, i'm not holding out hope that the "jury" (senate) would remove anyway, but i do like that there is at least some adverse effect of avoiding to appear.  otherwise you're taking away all the power of congress, and making trump a king (didn't we fight against that 250 years ago?).

the fact that trump has basically made it impossible to investigate him (stonewalls, lies about everything he's doing being above board, claims everyone coming after him is partisan, says they've been trying to remove him since before he was sworn in, etc etc etc), makes it all the more important that the dems establish a public narrative.  i know it's difficult and confusing, but they need to show me they've learned something since mueller.

impeaching nixon polled at 9% a year before he resigned.  this polling has already climbed ~20% in the past couple months.  they need to stay on message.  this is about 2020, not the senate.

So the trial results from the articles of impeachment. Politics and bad faith governing aside, how does the Senate *not* find that the President obstructed Congress? Factually, it’s not possible. The President directed subordinates not to give testimony or turn over documents. The end. 

I agree this is about 2020, but it will be impossible to protect the President and not signal you also are unfit for office. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

So the trial results from the articles of impeachment. Politics and bad faith governing aside, how does the Senate *not* find that the President obstructed Congress? Factually, it’s not possible. The President directed subordinates not to give testimony or turn over documents. The end. 

I agree this is about 2020, but it will be impossible to protect the President and not signal you also are unfit for office. 

i haven't gotten my leaked republican talking points yet, but i would assume the standard line would be "we feel that this act of impeachment is political by nature, and therefore we will vote on party lines not to remove at this time, and let the voters decide in 2020."

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i haven't gotten my leaked republican talking points yet, but i would assume the standard line would be "we feel that this act of impeachment is political by nature, and therefore we will vote on party lines not to remove at this time, and let the voters decide in 2020."

The republicans will argue that there is no obstruction because there shouldn't have been a partisan/witch hunt impeachment anyways just like they did with the Mueller report.  I have seen this movie already and know how it ends.

[Pig Bellmont 8738]

I mean, ok. But good luck with that in the face of polling that favors the impeachment inquiry. Not cooperating and then letting the admin off the hook would be devastating. 

[atomheartbevo 89805]

2018 should have woken the GOP up, but it doesn’t seem like it.  They are going to be stunned in November of next year.  

[tantric superman 4667]

47 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I think it’s going to be very shitty for them to hide from testifying and turning over documents when a majority of voters already favor an impeachment inquiry. Looks guilty. By the time of trial in the Senate, the polls will likely show a majority of the country favors conviction and removal. Then all the senators go on record prior to 2020. There will be electoral consequences 

Absolutely best possible outcome, methinks.

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

Nah, just this one.  

If he didn't have that rack of yellowed fangs subject to Dental Hygiene by The Cryptkeeper, there'd be nothing to make fun of. 

Kellyanne has never looked better. 

[triplehorn 2664]

Holy Shit . Trump talked directly with Sondland in a key interval during a text message exchange between Bill Taylor and Sondland.  There was back and forth in short intervals then a 5 hour break before Sondland replied to Taylor about there being "no quid pro quo" for withholding military assistance in exchange for Ukraine publicly announcing an investigation of Biden.

Here's exchange with the gap where Sondland spoke to Trump.  Realize also that by 9/9/19, the WH and DOJ already had a heads up about the Whistleblower report that was first initiated through the CIA before going to the DNI IG.

full text exchange is on page 9 of the full text document embedded: here

Edited October 8, 2019 by triplehorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Looks like a criminal conspiracy to defraud the voters of the United States 

[triplehorn 2664]

Similar reporting:

Sondland's refusal to testify today as part of the formal impeachment inquiry sure looks like conspiracy to obstruct Congress.

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by triplehorn

[sachick 1189]

58 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

So the trial results from the articles of impeachment. Politics and bad faith governing aside, how does the Senate *not* find that the President obstructed Congress? Factually, it’s not possible. The President directed subordinates not to give testimony or turn over documents. The end. 

I agree this is about 2020, but it will be impossible to protect the President and not signal you also are unfit for office. 

Any other president would have resigned or been impeached by now but we're in a world where Republican's don't give a fuck. They're too busy getting rich and doing whatever their orange god says. They'll go on record supporting all his crimes and the Republican party will be done in 2020.

[jimmyjazz 46137]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

impeaching nixon polled at 9% a year before he resigned.  this polling has already climbed ~20% in the past couple months.  they need to stay on message.  this is about 2020, not the senate.

Well, not quite accurate, but close.  I posted this a week or two ago -- it shows how public opinion can change dramatically over a short period of time.  I'm not saying 2019 is the same as 1974, but it's an interesting point, regardless:

[sachick 1189]

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Similar reporting:

Sondland's refusal to testify today as part of the formal impeachment inquiry today sure looks like conspiracy to obstruct Congress.

We'll never know what they talked about. They can say they were talking about golf and the timing was coincidental. I don't think we'll get anything damning from this unless someone recorded the call.

Edited October 8, 2019 by sachick

[Biff Tannen 45742]

4 minutes ago, sachick said:

Any other president would have resigned or been impeached by now but we're in a world where Republican's don't give a fuck. They're too busy getting rich and doing whatever their orange god says. They'll go on record supporting all his crimes and the Republican party will be done in 2020.

That last part may not be accurate.  The rest is correct.

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, not quite accurate, but close.  I posted this a week or two ago -- it shows how public opinion can change dramatically over a short period of time.  I'm not saying 2019 is the same as 1974, but it's an interesting point, regardless:

maybe i heard 19% (not 9%) i was half asleep.

but yeah, the point still stands.

all the hand-wringing about "only 32% even support impeachment, this is a losing proposition for the dems" can hopefully be put to rest.

the movement of the ind vote is huge.

[jimmyjazz 46137]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

maybe i heard 19% (not 9%) i was half asleep.

but yeah, the point still stands.

all the hand-wringing about "only 32% even support impeachment, this is a losing proposition for the dems" can hopefully be put to rest.

the movement of the ind vote is huge.

I'd like to see an overlay of current sentiment about Trump.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

21 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Holy Shit . Trump talked directly with Sondland in a key interval during a text message exchange between Bill Taylor and Sondland.  There was back and forth in short intervals then a 5 hour break before Sondland replied to Taylor about there being "no quid pro quo" for withholding military assistance in exchange for Ukraine publicly announcing an investigation of Biden.

Here's exchange with the gap where Sondland spoke to Trump.  Realize also that by 9/9/19, the WH and DOJ already had a heads up about the Whistleblower report that was first initiated through the CIA before going to the DNI IG.

full text exchange is on page 9 of the full text document embedded: here

Interesting that this info leaked hours after Trump tweeted out the Sondland text as a defense.   As if someone was waiting for Trump to use it publicly. 

[sachick 1189]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

maybe i heard 19% (not 9%) i was half asleep.

but yeah, the point still stands.

all the hand-wringing about "only 32% even support impeachment, this is a losing proposition for the dems" can hopefully be put to rest.

the movement of the ind vote is huge.

New poll says 58% support impeachment inquiry

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-approve-of-trump-impeachment-inquiry-new-poll-shows-2019-10-08

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

I'm pretty sure the Dems are trickling out info to force the Trump admin to continually change their story and have a daily dose of lies (what else is new?)

[triplehorn 2664]

2 minutes ago, sachick said:

We'll never know what they talked about. They can say they were talking about golf and the timing was coincidental. I don't think we'll get anything damning from this unless someone recorded the call.

They'll all have to lie.  This illegal failed operation was not clean.  The number of individuals facing legal exposure is increasing by the day.  Sondland's ass is now squarely in the sling. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Biff Tannen 45742]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

The president's own damn memo proved this too.

[Chad Fuck 17779]

27 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Similar reporting:

Sondland's refusal to testify today as part of the formal impeachment inquiry sure looks like conspiracy to obstruct Congress.

 

When the missing 18 minutes becomes the missing 5 hours.

[triplehorn 2664]

edit: what he said ^^^

Edited October 8, 2019 by triplehorn

[David Dennison 18947]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, not quite accurate, but close.  I posted this a week or two ago -- it shows how public opinion can change dramatically over a short period of time.  I'm not saying 2019 is the same as 1974, but it's an interesting point, regardless:

Wow. Removal didn't get to 50% until the end of July 1974?

The Donald might have a problem.

[henrygandorf 29194]

17 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

They'll all have to lie.  This illegal failed operation was not clean.  The number of individuals facing legal exposure is increasing by the day.  Sondland's ass is now squarely in the sling. 

and if/when sondland testifies, the penalty for lying will be severe.  i would think the penalty for avoiding would also be bad.  he doesn't owe his livelihood to trump.  he's a hotel guy and big money donor.  i can't imagine he would risk jailtime (or whatever else comes with it) to lie for trump.

not sure what trouble he's in now (can't be much), but i'm sure they'll put total immunity out there for all his info.

cue sondland sounding like a hostage coming out with a live statement about "the president never pressured me to text that everything was cool during our coincidentally timed phone call".

[henrygandorf 29194]

6 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

When the missing 18 minutes becomes the missing 5 hours.

-first whistle-blower complaint

-phone call transcript (missing 20+ minutes of info)

-locked in a secure server (not legal)

-other conversations also in secure server (definitely mentioning biden and political shit)

-text conversation mentioning quid pro quo

-second whistle-blower complaint

-interference during those 5 hours to coerce the text reply from sondland

-trump saying on camera that china should also investigate

 

ordinarily i would say this is too much to overcome in every direction.  nevertheless...

[jimmyjazz 46137]

Sondland bought his way into an ambassadorship.  He could be dirty but I don't think it's true just as a matter of course.  He might have just liked having his ego stroked.

Of course, his actions since appointment could be dirty, but he's almost surely at worst an accomplice.  If he's lived a relatively crime-free white collar life, I bet he eventually caves.

[Chad Fuck 17779]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sondland bought his way into an ambassadorship.  He could be dirty but I don't think it's true just as a matter of course.  He might have just liked having his ego stroked.

Of course, his actions since appointment could be dirty, but he's almost surely at worst an accomplice.  If he's lived a relatively crime-free white collar life, I bet he eventually caves.

Buying your way into an ambassadorship is not new.   Overall,  I think your logic here is sound.

[Brisketexan 105345]

36 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Similar reporting:

Sondland's refusal to testify today as part of the formal impeachment inquiry sure looks like conspiracy to obstruct Congress.

 

As an aside....the use of WhatsApp for official government communications is almost certainly a stand-alone violation of law.  It is a purposeful and intentional violation of the Federal Records Act, done for the express purpose of circumventing the Federal Records Act.

If a person is acting in his capacity as an official of our government, the messages are not theirs -- they are the government's.  Acting in a way to conceal them from the government, not preserve them, and even destroy them (not to mention using an unsecured third-party system to do so -- which may also violate numerous national security laws) is a crime.

Remember Hillary's email scandal?  I'm sure you've heard mention of it.  After all the hubbub, I remained concerned about, at the very least, one important fact: her communications as SOS were the property of the US government and the American people, and if she acted in a way to purposefully conceal or destroy any of those records, I don't care what the hell was on them, whether it was super juicy or not.  She hid and destroyed information that belonged to we the people, which is a crime.

And now, it's SOP for the Trump regime.  Countless people acting in an official capacity are using unsecure third-party apps to conceal their official communications, and to forever conceal and possibly delete/destroy them.

To put this in context, most states have open records laws.  Texas does.  And if Mayor Bubba wants to tell the City Manager to fire police chief Jones because police chief Jones is poking a little to closely at some of the Mayor's special deals, any and all written record of that OFFICIAL communication is subject to the Texas Public Information Act.  If the Mayor sent that as an email, we all know that it would be an official record.  Well, guess what?  The same is true if he sends it as a text....or a WhatsApp message.

Here, we have a criminal conspiracy, using off-books communication networks (which is itself a violation of at least two federal laws, concerning information preservation and information security), for the nefarious purpose of hiding evidence of their official actions.  THAT ALONE IS GROUNDS FOR PROSECUTION AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

[Chad Fuck 17779]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

As an aside....the use of WhatsApp for official government communications is almost certainly a stand-alone violation of law.  It is a purposeful and intentional violation of the Federal Records Act, done for the express purpose of circumventing the Federal Records Act.

If a person is acting in his capacity as an official of our government, the messages are not theirs -- they are the government's.  Acting in a way to conceal them from the government, not preserve them, and even destroy them (not to mention using an unsecured third-party system to do so -- which may also violate numerous national security laws) is a crime.

Remember Hillary's email scandal?  I'm sure you've heard mention of it.  After all the hubbub, I remained concerned about, at the very least, one important fact: her communications as SOS were the property of the US government and the American people, and if she acted in a way to purposefully conceal or destroy any of those records, I don't care what the hell was on them, whether it was super juicy or not.  She hid and destroyed information that belonged to we the people, which is a crime.

And now, it's SOP for the Trump regime.  Countless people acting in an official capacity are using unsecure third-party apps to conceal their official communications, and to forever conceal and possibly delete/destroy them.

To put this in context, most states have open records laws.  Texas does.  And if Mayor Bubba wants to tell the City Manager to fire police chief Jones because police chief Jones is poking a little to closely at some of the Mayor's special deals, any and all written record of that OFFICIAL communication is subject to the Texas Public Information Act.  If the Mayor sent that as an email, we all know that it would be an official record.  Well, guess what?  The same is true if he sends it as a text....or a WhatsApp message.

Here, we have a criminal conspiracy, using off-books communication networks (which is itself a violation of at least two federal laws, concerning information preservation and information security), for the nefarious purpose of hiding evidence of their official actions.  THAT ALONE IS GROUNDS FOR PROSECUTION AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

All of this.  1000%.