Jump to content

What's going on with this DNI Whistleblower ?

triplehorn

By triplehorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 minutes ago, Crusher said:

I don't hear one word about Joe Biden in this.  If this guy Serhiy Leshchenko is for real he would remember Joe Biden holding Ukraine hostage for $1 billion over the firing of one Ukrainian Prosecutor who just happened to be investigating Joe's son Hunter. 

Joe admits it.

 

Michael McFaul makes a point on this:

”It was not just Obama administration policy (not just "Biden policy") to push for this Ukrainian general prosecutor to go, but a shared view in many capitals, multilateral lending institutions, and pro-democratic Ukrainian civil society.”

Biden was just the US point man.  The blizzard of disinformation has arrived in this scandal.  

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

Crusher

Crusher 127

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

Michael McFaul makes a point on this:

”It was not just Obama administration policy (not just "Biden policy") to push for this Ukrainian general prosecutor to go, but a shared view in many capitals, multilateral lending institutions, and pro-democratic Ukrainian civil society.”

Biden was just the US point man.  The blizzard of disinformation has arrived in this scandal.  

I would say in their eagerness to get Trump the media has lifted the blizzard that hid Biden in the Ukraine and China in regards to Hunter. This guy was a Navy Lt who got dishonorably discharged from the Navy for cocaine use and all the sudden he is a global expert on energy and oil/gas who gets paid $83,000 a month from a Gas company that just happens to be being investigated by the Prosecutor the Daddy got fired.???

Then flies over to China on AF2 with the VP and gets $1.5 Billion for his new equity business that he has no experience in?

Give me a break. This shit is out. 

Edited by Crusher
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5900

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Crusher said:

I would say in their eagerness to get Trump the media has lifted the blizzard that hid Biden in the Ukraine and China in regards to Hunter. This guy was a Navy Lt who got dishonorably discharged from the Navy for cocaine use and all the sudden he is a global expert on energy and oil/gas who gets paid $83,000 a month?

Then flies over to China on AF2 with the VP and gets $1.5 Billion for his new equity business that he has no experience in?

Give me a break. This shit is out. 

Dude, nobody gives a fuck about protecting Biden. Nobody on this board cares if he gets fucked if he was breaking laws. Your but what abouts are a fucking joke. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crusher

Crusher 127

Posted
Posted

If the old fucker had sit it out and let the younger folks battle Trump, he would have been safe and his son would be rich well beyond his abilities. But no he had to step in. His own eagerness to show he could also be the leader not just the first VP to a half black man. 

  • Fuck You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19511

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Crusher said:

I would say in their eagerness to get Trump the media has lifted the blizzard that hid Biden in the Ukraine and China in regards to Hunter. This guy was a Navy Lt who got dishonorably discharged from the Navy for cocaine use and all the sudden he is a global expert on energy and oil/gas who gets paid $83,000 a month from a Gas company that just happens to be being investigated by the Prosecutor the Daddy got fired.???

Then flies over to China on AF2 with the VP and gets $1.5 Billion for his new equity business that he has no experience in?

Give me a break. This shit is out. 

Good luck with that.

You should probably read up on the prosecutor who got fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11959

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Dude, nobody gives a fuck about protecting Biden. Nobody on this board cares if he gets fucked if he was breaking laws. Your but what abouts are a fucking joke. 

I'd argue that many of us want him to be guilty so he drops out of the race.  I honestly believe he, like Hillary in '16, is the only one in the field that could lose to Trump.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Interesting take on the meaning of "privileged communications" being claimed wrt contents of the Whistleblower report :  not Executive Privilege, but rather attorney-client privilege, i.e. Rudy-Donald:

Quote

The Washington Post reported late Thursday that the whistleblower complaint being blocked from Congress by President Trump and the Department of Justice centers on conversations Trump had with Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky. The complaint, lodged by a whistleblower on August 12 just days before Dan Coats and Sue Gordon resigned top positions in the National Intelligence Agency, has garnered significant press attention over the last few days and promises a stunning showdown between Congress, the Executive Branch and the Intelligence Community. The Post and the New York Times previously reported the complaint involves “multiple acts” by President Trump and a “promise” he made to a foreign leader.

There was reason to believe that complaint involved Giuliani prior to this new reporting. According to letters exchanged between House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and the Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, the complaint “concerns conduct by someone outside of the Intelligence Community” and involves “confidential and potentially privileged communications.” That phraseology left legal heads scratching across the blogosphere and Twitter.

[Cont.]

ANALYSIS: IS TRUMP USING ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO BLOCK COMPLAINT IN UKRAINE WHISTLEBLOWER CASE?

 

Edited by triplehorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19511

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

I'd argue that many of us want him to be guilty so he drops out of the race.  I honestly believe he, like Hillary in '16, is the only one in the field that could lose to Trump.

Only if Democratic voters stay home. That's the only way Trump wins against anyone. It's the only way he won in 2016.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, horncyclist said:

Hasn't bit been eatablished that the wb complaint is about conversations with Ukraine's Pres?

What's been reported is that the whistleblower report involves multiple events, we don't know how many.  It's also described as a "tapestry" of actions and interactions, not a single event that could be distorted or shoehorned to fit into different contexts.  And specifically, the whistleblower report is said to involve Trump making a "promise" that was the impetus for the urgency in filing the report.  And to be clear, an independent IG already determined the report to be credible and urgent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28928

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, DixonHur said:

I'd argue that many of us want him to be guilty so he drops out of the race.  I honestly believe he, like Hillary in '16, is the only one in the field that could lose to Trump.

Or maybe he's the only who isn't a huge pussy that will wilt under the onslaught of Trump's bullying on the debate stage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11959

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Do you really think Elizabeth Warren is going to wilt under the onslaught of Trump's bullying on the debate stage?

Exactly...go watch her destroy Biden in her Senate bankruptcy hearing when she was still a prof at Harvard.  She's got serious debate chops.

Not that it matters.  Hillary destroyed Trump in the debates too, and still lost the election. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Author
  • Popular Post
Posted
2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Exactly...go watch her destroy Biden in her Senate bankruptcy hearing when she was still a prof at Harvard.  She's got serious debate chops.

Not that it matters.  Hillary destroyed Trump in the debates too, and still lost the election. 

More importantly for reaching our electorate, she’s a trained Special Ed teacher.  

  • Like 13
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18447

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Interesting take on the meaning of "privileged communications" being claimed wrt contents of the Whistleblower report :  not Executive Privilege, but rather attorney-client privilege, i.e. Rudy-Donald:

ANALYSIS: IS TRUMP USING ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO BLOCK COMPLAINT IN UKRAINE WHISTLEBLOWER CASE?

 

A statement by Trump to a foreign leader is not attorney-client privileged, whether or not Rudy was privy to the conversation.  Unless, of course, Rudy is also the Ukrainian dude’s lawyer and the communication related to a common legal interest.  But what kind of fucked up shit is going on where the US and Ukrainian presidents share a lawyer and claim common defense privilege?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think it's more of a matter of Rudy traveling to Ukraine/Madrid, acting on behalf of Trump as his personal atty, more or less as a cover to conceal communications.

 

"It is much more plausible that the privilege referred to is attorney-client privilege, not Executive privilege. Giuliani works as a private attorney for President Trump. In late July, he traveled overseas to Madrid for a secret meeting with a top aide to the new Ukrainian President. In the meeting, Giuliani pressured the aide to release information pertaining to Joe Biden, Democratic front-runner for the 2020 election.

[...]

In May 2019, Giuliani met with Ukrainian political consultant Andrii Telizhenko “as part of aggressive efforts aimed at gathering information to undermine Democrats in the United States” the Washington Post reported. Telizhenko is just one of many Ukrainian contacts that Giuliani has developed in recent years.

Pavel Fuks, a property developer in Ukraine and Russia who once partnered with Trump, recently declaredGiuliani a “lobbyist” for Kharkiv, Ukraine. In 2018, Fuks admits he hired Giuliani “under a one-year deal to help improve Kharkiv’s emergency services and bolster its image as a destination for investment.” Giuliani never registered as a foreign agent under FARA.

[...]

With this in mind, the declaration that the complaint “involves confidential and potentially privileged matters relating to the interests of other stakeholders in the Executive Branch” becomes significantly more understandable when applied to the Trump-Giuliani relationship. The contents of Giuliani’s trip representing Trump are not public, making them confidential in nature. Given his formal role as one of Trump’s private attorneys, conversations Giuliani had may potentially be privileged (or not, considering there is no legal matter ongoing with Trump in Ukraine and attorney-client privilege does not cover discussions by attorneys and clients to break the law).

Similarly, the phrase “interests of other stakeholders in the Executive Branch” makes far more sense when it is taken to refer to Trump in his personal capacity and not his formal capacity as President.

cont."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted

There won't be a debate. At least not with Trump. He can't talk in coherent sentences without a teleprompter in 100 font. He will find some reason to not debate. Probably involving fake news and lamestream media. Worrying about who can best field Trump's inanities on a hypothetical debate stage is the least of the issues facing the country or his opponent in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 41703

Posted
Posted

It doesn't matter. Hillary dunked on him and we got stuff like "Nuh uh, you're the puppet", and a bump in his poll numbers. Warren could stand there for 60 seconds eviscerating him and he'd come back with "oh yeah Pocahontas?" and the next day the media will be debating who won that exchange. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It doesn't matter. Hillary dunked on him and we got stuff like "Nuh uh, you're the puppet", and a bump in his poll numbers. Warren could stand there for 60 seconds eviscerating him and he'd come back with "oh yeah Pocahontas?" and the next day the media will be debating who won that exchange. 

Not about the debates.  I’m talking about Warren putting his shit on blast in some way every day in a general election.  She’s good at going after corrupt CEOs and billionaires. 

Her twitter game is also outstanding compared to Biden’s.  I know it’s ridiculous this matters, but it does, sadly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted

The idea that anyone's mind could possibly be made up during the debates depending on how, say, Warren deals with being called Pocahontas, in front of millions, as opposed to all the other crap that has happened in the past 3 years is absurd.  I'm trying to think of that mythical undecided voter who is somehow conscientious enough to watch hours of debate but hasn't yet decided how they're voting.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
softlynow

softlynow 1894

Posted
Posted

Why even bother with a debate? The media would wonder if Donny won if he said nothing and simply made jerk off gestures for an hour while Warren spoke.

A smart campaign can avoid a debate while making it seem Dotus is doing the dodging. Insist on things they could never agree to, while making a strong case that anything less is mere theater and the people deserve better. Sure the media will debate that endlessly, but that process shit is boring and won’t matter without the juicy sound bites they’d get from a debate. They’d have to cover other parts of the campaign. 

Hell, just insist he releases his tax returns first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28928

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

The idea that anyone's mind could possibly be made up during the debates depending on how, say, Warren deals with being called Pocahontas, in front of millions, as opposed to all the other crap that has happened in the past 3 years is absurd.  I'm trying to think of that mythical undecided voter who is somehow conscientious enough to watch hours of debate but hasn't yet decided how they're voting.

Right, because history has shown that the average American voter bases their choice on a candidate's position on the issues. They don't base their vote on more abstract assessments like "strength" and "toughness."

If you think everyone's mind is already made up then it really doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate, does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Right, because history has shown that the average American voter bases their choice on a candidate's position on the issues. They don't base their vote on more abstract assessments like "strength" and "toughness."

If you think everyone's mind is already made up then it really doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate, does it?

Not at all.  It's just that the debates barely matter, assuming there are even debates in 2020.  Trump hasn't been able to speak a coherent sentence in at least a year. Assuming there even are debates, how the dem nominee reacts to word salad mixed with idiotic insults is going to change no votes. 

I'm not naive enough to think issues matter.  But the people who think trump is a brilliant alpha male making libs cry, aren't going to change their minds at the debates.  Neither are the minds of people horrified by trump going to change from a debate.    Picking a nominee based on speculation on how they would debate someone with dementia is a fool's errand.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keef

Keef 873

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, triplehorn said:

I think it's more of a matter of Rudy traveling to Ukraine/Madrid, acting on behalf of Trump as his personal atty, more or less as a cover to conceal communications.

 

"It is much more plausible that the privilege referred to is attorney-client privilege, not Executive privilege. Giuliani works as a private attorney for President Trump. In late July, he traveled overseas to Madrid for a secret meeting with a top aide to the new Ukrainian President. In the meeting, Giuliani pressured the aide to release information pertaining to Joe Biden, Democratic front-runner for the 2020 election.

[...]

In May 2019, Giuliani met with Ukrainian political consultant Andrii Telizhenko “as part of aggressive efforts aimed at gathering information to undermine Democrats in the United States” the Washington Post reported. Telizhenko is just one of many Ukrainian contacts that Giuliani has developed in recent years.

Pavel Fuks, a property developer in Ukraine and Russia who once partnered with Trump, recently declaredGiuliani a “lobbyist” for Kharkiv, Ukraine. In 2018, Fuks admits he hired Giuliani “under a one-year deal to help improve Kharkiv’s emergency services and bolster its image as a destination for investment.” Giuliani never registered as a foreign agent under FARA.

[...]

With this in mind, the declaration that the complaint “involves confidential and potentially privileged matters relating to the interests of other stakeholders in the Executive Branch” becomes significantly more understandable when applied to the Trump-Giuliani relationship. The contents of Giuliani’s trip representing Trump are not public, making them confidential in nature. Given his formal role as one of Trump’s private attorneys, conversations Giuliani had may potentially be privileged (or not, considering there is no legal matter ongoing with Trump in Ukraine and attorney-client privilege does not cover discussions by attorneys and clients to break the law).

Similarly, the phrase “interests of other stakeholders in the Executive Branch” makes far more sense when it is taken to refer to Trump in his personal capacity and not his formal capacity as President.

cont."

Maybe Surly litigators can set me straight, but how could AC privilege be claimed with regards to communications made to (or in the presence of) third parties (e.g., the Ukrainians)? Doesn’t that destroy privilege? Not to mention the crime/fraud concerns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13725

Posted
Posted

The dem candidates should out a joint statement where they all pledge that their winner of the general election next year plans to punish any country that interferes with the 2020 election.  And that punishment could include removal of all military aid and support, and not assist in any defense whatsoever.  Let Ukraine fear that we will tell Russia that the Ukraine’s is theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seven

seven 1368

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The dem candidates should out a joint statement where they all pledge that their winner of the general election next year plans to punish any country that interferes with the 2020 election.  And that punishment could include removal of all military aid and support, and not assist in any defense whatsoever.  Let Ukraine fear that we will tell Russia that the Ukraine’s is theirs.

So it would be even more important for them to find dirt on Joe Biden? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3870

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, lemonlime said:

Not at all.  It's just that the debates barely matter, assuming there are even debates in 2020.  Trump hasn't been able to speak a coherent sentence in at least a year. Assuming there even are debates, how the dem nominee reacts to word salad mixed with idiotic insults is going to change no votes. 

I'm not naive enough to think issues matter.  But the people who think trump is a brilliant alpha male making libs cry, aren't going to change their minds at the debates.  Neither are the minds of people horrified by trump going to change from a debate.    Picking a nominee based on speculation on how they would debate someone with dementia is a fool's errand.

the debates are hugely important.  the post grab-em-by-the-pussy debate was the difference between trump winning and the other GOP leaders continuing to try to push him off the ticket.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28928

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, lemonlime said:

Not at all.  It's just that the debates barely matter, assuming there are even debates in 2020.  Trump hasn't been able to speak a coherent sentence in at least a year. Assuming there even are debates, how the dem nominee reacts to word salad mixed with idiotic insults is going to change no votes. 

I'm not naive enough to think issues matter.  But the people who think trump is a brilliant alpha male making libs cry, aren't going to change their minds at the debates.  Neither are the minds of people horrified by trump going to change from a debate.    Picking a nominee based on speculation on how they would debate someone with dementia is a fool's errand.

On the debate stage, on the campaign trail, in every form of public discourse, Biden is better suited to, metaphorically or literally, jam his finger into Trunp's chest and say "Go fuck yourself." As unfair as it is, men can get away with doing and saying things that women can't. Biden can call Trump a pussy. Warren can't. I think it might take someone who's willing and able to call Trump a pussy. Ideally, to his face. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13725

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

On the debate stage, on the campaign trail, in every form of public discourse, Biden is better suited to, metaphorically or literally, jam his finger into Trunp's chest and say "Go fuck yourself." As unfair as it is, men can get away with doing and saying things that women can't. Biden can call Trump a pussy. Warren can't. I think it might take someone who's willing and able to call Trump a pussy. Ideally, to his face. 

I would bet that you won't get that chance. Trump is ultimately a coward in real life, who can only act tough when not personally confronted. The odds of him showing up, at a debate next year, are low. He will say that the moderators are unfair, and will hold a rally instead.

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...