Democrats should be filing articles of impeachment for the DNI today. He's clearly violating the law in order to cover up something that may present a grave threat to national security. If Republicans in the Senate don't want to convict him let them explain why.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,407
- 136
Said by: Putins man in the white house:
The Bolded - Hahaha! I know!...He's serious!
He's dumb enough to not know that the question is whether he's dumb enough to incriminate himself on a monitored line. Note that we're talking about someone who just within the past day started yammering about secret security features of Teh Wall[tm] while one of his generals was all but elbowing him to zip it. And the same guy who tweets classified imagery. Get the Hook! Imagine all the classified info he will be babbling about when he's out of office. It may get someone killed.
The Bolded - Hahaha! I know!...He's serious!
He's dumb enough to not know that the question is whether he's dumb enough to incriminate himself on a monitored line. Note that we're talking about someone who just within the past day started yammering about secret security features of Teh Wall[tm] while one of his generals was all but elbowing him to zip it. And the same guy who tweets classified imagery. Get the Hook! Imagine all the classified info he will be babbling about when he's out of office. It may get someone killed.
Director of National Intelligence, he's the person tasked with coordinating the work of all US intelligence agencies. The position was created after 9/11 when we found out that intel agencies weren't necessarily talking to each other and those gaps might have contributed to us failing to stop the attack.
On a separate note I got to spend an afternoon in the DNI building once and the room from which they run everything or whatever is pretty freaking awesome. It's like something from the future.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,407
- 136
Good news is we think he isn’t intelligent enough to tell the difference between a heavily populated call and a sparsely populated call.
Sadly I think it's going to take someone breaking the law in order to effectively blow that whistle. Trump is proving that he and his sycophants can subvert all protections we have designed.
They really are geniuses at uncovering just how much of our legal system relies on the government acting in some semblance of good faith.
Like in this instance their argument is that there's a loophole in the whistleblower law that would let them imprison them if they came forward. Under the statute if a someone makes a complaint and the IG does NOT find it credible, the whistleblower is allowed under the law to take it to Congress and they are protected. The thing is in this case the IG DID find it credible. The people drafting the law never considered that the DNI would find credible evidence of a crime or constitutional violation and then purposefully decide not to do anything about it.
The early reports from reporters standing outside the briefing on the whistleblower is that the individuals coming out, R and D, are not saying anything other than "no comment". No grandstanding. No nothing.
Trump really puts people like Maguire between a rock & a hard place. If he doesn't do it the way Trump wants, he'll be fired & replaced by an incompetent Trump stooge like Ratcliffe. The job is too important to let that happen so he has to bend.
When it comes to Trumps base:
Trump is running a pigeon drop.
It's a classic con where the conman convinces his target that the two of them are working together to con somebody else. It works because it takes the things that would normally make the target suspicious and turns them into assets. The conman doesn't have to convince the target that he's trustworthy because the target wants him to be a con man.
Trump is running a pigeon drop.
It's a classic con where the conman convinces his target that the two of them are working together to con somebody else. It works because it takes the things that would normally make the target suspicious and turns them into assets. The conman doesn't have to convince the target that he's trustworthy because the target wants him to be a con man.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,407
- 136
I’ll admit, I really want to see the Sergeant at Arms be dispatched with his mace and *I think* his special coat to arrest someone.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,245
- 136
Disagree. Maquire should do what the law requires of him, then resign if necessary.
I was just putting myself in Maguire's shoes. Given that McConnell won't remove Trump from office resigning would just give Trump another opportunity to further damage the institutions of govt.
Hostages! is part of the way Trump gets over on the world.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,245
- 136
My view is that if Maquire can't bring himself to do what the law requires, then he's just another Trump toady, no better than Ratcliffe. We're at a point in history where the rubber is meeting the road. You're either an enabler of Trump's corruption or you did that right thing. Maguire has made a choice here and he'll have to live with the consequences of that choice.
HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 39,815
- 33,431
- 136
Anyone still wondering why Comey resorted to leaking his own notes vs the whistle-blower route?
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,407
- 136
From what I'm reading there seems to be a decent chance that this involves Trump telling the new president of Ukraine that in order to improve relations with the US Ukraine should start investigating Trump's domestic political enemies. (ie: Biden) Needless to say that would be astoundingly corrupt and should result in Trump's immediate removal from office as it is selling out US foreign policy for his own personal interests.
Then again this would be colluding with a foreign power to influence a US election, something we all know Trump would never do so it's probably all a hoax.
Then again this would be colluding with a foreign power to influence a US election, something we all know Trump would never do so it's probably all a hoax.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,245
- 136
Rep. Garamendi, who is on the Armed Service Committee, was on Maddow last night. He has a solid guess as to what Trump's inappropriate promise to Putin may have been. In September, Trump pulled $770,000,000 out of the European Deterrence Initiative, a program meant to increase our presence in eastern Europe as a bullwork against Russian encroachment into Ukraine. This was one of the projects he pulled money out of to build his wall.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,245
- 136
You have a link?
Edit: I found his here.
Zelensky defends relationship with US after Trump accused of pushing Ukraine to meddle in 2020 election
Ukraine’s new president insists that relations are ‘very good’ with the US and that there will be a meeting ‘soon’
www.independent.co.uk
UNCjigga
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,678
- 10,404
- 136
Ok, finally got an explanation as to why the IC IG wasn’t talking today. This is from a letter he sent Schiff earlier this week:
Basically, if DOJ and DNI have determined the whistleblower complaint is outside the scope of IC IG (because the President isn’t an actual member of any intelligence agency?) and doesn’t require disclosure to Congress (“privileged communication”) then the IG is bound by their decision.
Looks like the Administration is winning on this one so far...just another scandal Barr successfully covered up. Not sure the whistleblower will want to go public at great risk to themselves, but they’ve retained excellent counsel (former whistleblower who wrote the book on whistleblowing for the CIA.)
Basically, if DOJ and DNI have determined the whistleblower complaint is outside the scope of IC IG (because the President isn’t an actual member of any intelligence agency?) and doesn’t require disclosure to Congress (“privileged communication”) then the IG is bound by their decision.
Looks like the Administration is winning on this one so far...just another scandal Barr successfully covered up. Not sure the whistleblower will want to go public at great risk to themselves, but they’ve retained excellent counsel (former whistleblower who wrote the book on whistleblowing for the CIA.)
You have a link?
Edit: I found his here.
Zelensky defends relationship with US after Trump accused of pushing Ukraine to meddle in 2020 election
Ukraine’s new president insists that relations are ‘very good’ with the US and that there will be a meeting ‘soon’
Yes, apparently the House intel committee is looking at that phone call in particular as the possible source.
HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 39,815
- 33,431
- 136
One problem, the law states that determination is supposed to be made by Congress. It's not DNI's call.Ok, finally got an explanation as to why the IC IG wasn’t talking today. This is from a letter he sent Schiff earlier this week:
Basically, if DOJ and DNI have determined the whistleblower complaint is outside the scope of IC IG (because the President isn’t an actual member of any intelligence agency?) and doesn’t require disclosure to Congress (“privileged communication”) then the IG is bound by their decision.
Looks like the Administration is winning on this one so far...just another scandal Barr successfully covered up. Not sure the whistleblower will want to go public at great risk to themselves, but they’ve retained excellent counsel (former whistleblower who wrote the book on whistleblowing for the CIA.)
This has the full text of that letter from the IC IG to Schiff:
It is both damning and relatively illuminating.
It is both damning and relatively illuminating.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,245
- 136
Ok, finally got an explanation as to why the IC IG wasn’t talking today. This is from a letter he sent Schiff earlier this week:
Basically, if DOJ and DNI have determined the whistleblower complaint is outside the scope of IC IG (because the President isn’t an actual member of any intelligence agency?) and doesn’t require disclosure to Congress (“privileged communication”) then the IG is bound by their decision.
Looks like the Administration is winning on this one so far...just another scandal Barr successfully covered up. Not sure the whistleblower will want to go public at great risk to themselves, but they’ve retained excellent counsel (former whistleblower who wrote the book on whistleblowing for the CIA.)
It's a bullshit argument. The statute specifies that the IC IG will make a determination if the complaint constitutes an "urgent concern." The DNI does not make that decision. The statute says the DNI has to pass the complaint along if IC IG ruled it an "urgent concern." Period. They don't get to overrule the IC IG's determination that this complaint is an urgent concern, which is precisely what they are doing here by making this argument.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,245
- 136
If that turns out to be the case, holy crap. It's one thing for Trump to make an inappropriate "promise" to a foreign leader. It's within his powers to make stupid promises in foreign policy if he wants to. But if he made a promise in exchange for personal/political gain, that is pure corruption. It's precisely what I believe happened in relation to Putin in 2016. No wonder they are trying to keep this from public view.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter