• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump crosses the rubicon

Viper1j

Viper1j

Diamond Member
He just committed a federal crime. Will no one do anything about it?

www.thedailybeast.com

Trump Pushes Out Tweet Naming Alleged Whistleblower

Several people close to the president, such as Ivanka Trump and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, had privately cautioned him against it.
www.thedailybeast.com www.thedailybeast.com

Trump Pushes Out Tweet Naming Alleged Whistleblower

Several people close to the president, such as Ivanka Trump and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, had privately cautioned him against it.

1577426352794.png

On Thursday evening, Donald Trump pushed out on Twitter the name of the alleged whistleblower whose complaint led to the president’s impeachment.

Trump’s personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, retweeted a post by the re-election campaign’s official “war room” account that was aimed at the whistleblower’s attorney Mark Zaid. “It's pretty simple. The CIA ‘whistleblower’ is not a real whistleblower!” reads the tweet, which links to a Washington Examiner item. That piece, published Dec. 3, includes the alleged whistleblower’s name in the headline. The Daily Beast is declining to publish the name and has not independently verified the identity of the whistleblower.

As The Daily Beast reported last month, Trump had gossiped for weeks about this alleged whistleblower with various friends, media figures, and senior administration officials, and had asked some people if they thought it was a good idea for him to publicly announce or tweet the name. Several people close to the president, such as Ivanka Trump and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, had privately cautioned him against saying or posting the name in public, arguing it would be counterproductive and unnecessary.

Even Fox News host Sean Hannity, who had also gossiped in recent months with Trump about the alleged whistleblower, hadn’t pushed the president hard on this.

Multiple sources close to Trump had told The Daily Beast last month that they were genuinely shocked the president hadn’t already rage-tweeted the name or blurted it out to the cameras, given his massive fury at the individual. On Thursday night, President Trump’s restraint appeared to slip.

Zaid — who has worked with The Daily Beast on Freedom of Information Act requests — and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on this story.
 
How about impeachment article 3?

You going to have to explain to the trumphumpers here what rubicon means.

I personally thought he crossed it when he withheld documents and people from testifying, from/to Congress.
 
Last edited:
There's a movement to get him banned from Twitter. I'm guessing Twitter will ban their entire user base before they dump Trump.
 
There’s no federal law that prevents Trump from disclosing the whistleblower’s name. There are laws that prohibit retaliation against the person but it’s not even clear if they would apply to the president as no one envisioned a president so corrupt that they would do that when the laws were written.

It does seem like a good additional article of impeachment though.
 
fskimospy said:
There’s no federal law that prevents Trump from disclosing the whistleblower’s name. There are laws that prohibit retaliation against the person but it’s not even clear if they would apply to the president as no one envisioned a president so corrupt that they would do that when the laws were written.

It does seem like a good additional article of impeachment though.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend.

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement
 
Good luck with that. Eric Ciaramella has been public knowledge for a couple of months already. Even if there is a law against Trump outing him in other circumstances, that's going to be a very strong defence.

The most disturbing part of this entire saga is how big tech has been about ~90% effective in memory holing this piece of information. Thank God for the likes of DuckDuckGo.

But... it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where that 90% creeps up to near 100%.

And that's frightening as hell. It's actually dystopian. Much more significant than anything Trump or Biden have been accused of doing, but it's lost in the noise.

Tactically, I don't think this will amount to much. Maybe the smallest of wins for Trump, as the predictable autistic screeching on what is such a small potato further inoculates the general population from actual significant criticism of Trump.

But retweeting something with a link that contains a name is half-assed and indirect. It looks weak and sneaky. Trump would have done far better to shout the name from the rooftops and called out Google, Facebook, and Twitter for their blatant censorship while he was at it. His enemies would be incapable of ignoring it, and would work themselves into a frenzy. But shining a big flashlight on partisan big-tech censorship would likely be a very effective "red pill."
 
Last edited:
HurleyBird said:
Good luck with that. Eric Ciaramella has been public knowledge for a couple of months already. Even if there is a law against Trump outing him in other circumstances, that's going to be a very strong defence.

The most disturbing part of this entire saga is how big tech has been about ~90% effective in memory holing this piece of information. Thank God for the likes of DuckDuckGo.

But... it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where that 90% creeps up to near 100%.

And that's frightening as hell. It's actually dystopian. Much more significant than anything Trump or Biden have been accused of doing, but it's lost in the noise.

Tactically, I don't think this will amount to much. Maybe the smallest of wins for Trump, as the predictable autistic screeching on what is such a small potato further inoculates the general population from actual significant criticism of Trump.

But retweeting something with a link that contains a name is half-assed and indirect. It looks weak and sneaky. Trump would have done far better to shout the name from the rooftops and called out Google, Facebook, and Twitter for their blatant censorship while he was at it. His enemies would be incapable of ignoring it, and would work themselves into a frenzy. But shining a big flashlight on partisan big-tech censorship would likely be a very effective "red pill."
Click to expand...

google facebook and twitter are private companies. They can censor whatever they want.
 
Viper1j said:
Google is your friend.

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement
Click to expand...

Google is your friend. Show me what part of the law you think Trump would be breaking, specifically.
 
HurleyBird said:
Good luck with that. Eric Ciaramella has been public knowledge for a couple of months already. Even if there is a law against Trump outing him in other circumstances, that's going to be a very strong defence.

The most disturbing part of this entire saga is how big tech has been about ~90% effective in memory holing this piece of information. Thank God for the likes of DuckDuckGo.

But... it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where that 90% creeps up to near 100%.

And that's frightening as hell. It's actually dystopian. Much more significant than anything Trump or Biden have been accused of doing, but it's lost in the noise.

Tactically, I don't think this will amount to much. Maybe the smallest of wins for Trump, as the predictable autistic screeching on what is such a small potato further inoculates the general population from actual significant criticism of Trump.

But retweeting something with a link that contains a name is half-assed and indirect. It looks weak and sneaky. Trump would have done far better to shout the name from the rooftops and called out Google, Facebook, and Twitter for their blatant censorship while he was at it. His enemies would be incapable of ignoring it, and would work themselves into a frenzy. But shining a big flashlight on partisan big-tech censorship would likely be a very effective "red pill."
Click to expand...

Man, you’ve stepped your concern trolling up to 11.

As things stand now according to you people condemning Trump for publicizing someone’s name when other people who have testified against Trump are currently under federal protection due to death threats is ‘small potatoes’ and ‘autistic screeching’. The real dystopian nightmare isn’t the president of the United States using his position to broadcast the identity of federal employees opposed to him in order to intimidate other dissenters into silence by knowing their identities won’t be protected, it’s that private tech companies refused to be complicit.

Just wow. You seriously need to take a step back and figure out what led you to take such an insane position. Politics makes people crazy sometimes I guess.
 
HurleyBird said:
Good luck with that. Eric Ciaramella has been public knowledge for a couple of months already. Even if there is a law against Trump outing him in other circumstances, that's going to be a very strong defence.

The most disturbing part of this entire saga is how big tech has been about ~90% effective in memory holing this piece of information. Thank God for the likes of DuckDuckGo.

But... it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where that 90% creeps up to near 100%.

And that's frightening as hell. It's actually dystopian. Much more significant than anything Trump or Biden have been accused of doing, but it's lost in the noise.

Tactically, I don't think this will amount to much. Maybe the smallest of wins for Trump, as the predictable autistic screeching on what is such a small potato further inoculates the general population from actual significant criticism of Trump.

But retweeting something with a link that contains a name is half-assed and indirect. It looks weak and sneaky. Trump would have done far better to shout the name from the rooftops and called out Google, Facebook, and Twitter for their blatant censorship while he was at it. His enemies would be incapable of ignoring it, and would work themselves into a frenzy. But shining a big flashlight on partisan big-tech censorship would likely be a very effective "red pill."
Click to expand...


I don't get this argument. Without "big tech", i.e. in the days before the internet, assuming you are old enough to remember that ancient era, this information would not be easily available anyway. Where would people look for it? "Big print media" or "Big TV" would likely be relunctant to report it to an even greater extent than "big tech".

So how is it 'dystopian' and 'frightening' that the greater availability of information that has been fairly recently facilitated by the internet is not quite as unrestrained as it might otherwise be (compared to some hypothetical world where media was neither privately owned nor controlled by the state)?

I agree its uncomfortable that private corporations have so much control over platforms for speech, and perhaps there are specific issues where that can be improved (net neutrality and ISPs not censoring is clearly a good thing) but I also struggle to even come up with a hypothetical alternative where things could truly be otherwise. And I really don't see how an _increase_ in channels for conveying information can be described as 'dystopian'.
 
Trump also looks like a petty, vindictive, wanna-be despot in doing this. Naming the guy accomplishes nothing at all, other than using the implied threat of illegal retaliation by his supporters as a means of chilling free speech by any future whistleblower. Most of all it's consistent with Trump's incredibly fragile ego. Seems like it's all about personal psychological issues with him.

I think ultimately his obvious psychological weaknesses mean he'd never be the real-deal, even if the wider circumstances allowed it. He's not up there with the historical A-team of pyschopathic despots, he'd have ended up as one of Stalin's craven toadies, to be liquidated when convenient.
 
pmv said:
I don't get this argument. Without "big tech", i.e. in the days before the internet, assuming you are old enough to remember that ancient era, this information would not be easily available anyway. Where would people look for it? "Big print media" or "Big TV" would likely be relunctant to report it to an even greater extent than "big tech".

So how is it 'dystopian' and 'frightening' that the greater availability of information that has been fairly recently facilitated by the internet is not quite as unrestrained as it might otherwise be (compared to some hypothetical world where media was neither privately owned nor controlled by the state)?

I agree its uncomfortable that private corporations have so much control over platforms for speech, and perhaps there are specific issues where that can be improved (net neutrality and ISPs not censoring is clearly a good thing) but I also struggle to even come up with a hypothetical alternative where things could truly be otherwise. And I really don't see how an _increase_ in channels for conveying information can be described as 'dystopian'.
Click to expand...

Also important for the ‘dystopian’ narrative is that the information in question is the identity of someone attempting to reveal criminal activity at the highest levels of government.

Personally I would have thought that the president using his megaphone to retaliate against and vilify those willing to notify the public of his crimes would be the dystopian thing in this but apparently not.
 
fskimospy said:
Also important for the ‘dystopian’ narrative is that the information in question is the identity of someone attempting to reveal criminal activity at the highest levels of government.

Personally I would have thought that the president using his megaphone to retaliate against and vilify those willing to notify the public of his crimes would be the dystopian thing in this but apparently not.
Click to expand...
If it was a Democrat behaving this way it would be dystopian and a threat to democracy. Since it’s a Republican somehow “big tech” is at fault for making it harder to spread their propaganda and attack our democracy.
 
Last edited:
Its great!

1. He keeps setting himself up for 2nd round of impeachment. (The FIRST pres in history to get impeached twice), and
2. If the whistleblower is out out ... nothing should keep him from testifying. Call him in the Senate trial.

Sucks to be the wb, I get it, but silver linings and all.
 
brycejones said:
If it was a Democrat behaving this way it would have dystopian and and threat to democracy. Since it’s a Republican somehow “big tech” is at fault for making it harder to spread their propaganda and attack our democracy.
Click to expand...

Yea ... throw the book at Twitter while you are at it...
 
cytg111 said:
Its great!

1. He keeps setting himself up for 2nd round of impeachment. (The FIRST pres in history to get impeached twice), and
2. If the whistleblower is out out ... nothing should keep him from testifying. Call him in the Senate trial.

Sucks to be the wb, I get it, but silver linings and all.
Click to expand...

Everyone testifies both sides and let the cards fall. (dont see it happening)
 
HurleyBird said:
Good luck with that. Eric Ciaramella has been public knowledge for a couple of months already. Even if there is a law against Trump outing him in other circumstances, that's going to be a very strong defence.

The most disturbing part of this entire saga is how big tech has been about ~90% effective in memory holing this piece of information. Thank God for the likes of DuckDuckGo.

But... it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where that 90% creeps up to near 100%.

And that's frightening as hell. It's actually dystopian. Much more significant than anything Trump or Biden have been accused of doing, but it's lost in the noise.

Tactically, I don't think this will amount to much. Maybe the smallest of wins for Trump, as the predictable autistic screeching on what is such a small potato further inoculates the general population from actual significant criticism of Trump.

But retweeting something with a link that contains a name is half-assed and indirect. It looks weak and sneaky. Trump would have done far better to shout the name from the rooftops and called out Google, Facebook, and Twitter for their blatant censorship while he was at it. His enemies would be incapable of ignoring it, and would work themselves into a frenzy. But shining a big flashlight on partisan big-tech censorship would likely be a very effective "red pill."
Click to expand...

wait, what has Biden been accused of doing?
 
Remember how repugs lost control of their bodily functions when an ex-president had a chat with an AG in a parked plane?

Where is the outrage over a sitting president jeopardizing the life of a vetted whistle blower who is currently in the process of saving democracy?

Amazing what these people have become. There is nothing quite like traitors wrapping themselves in the flag while shitting on the Constitution to get you proud of being an American. 2020 really is the big game. If we stop being the USA and instead affirm we're actually a banana republic that uses foreign assistance to insure one party rule we will see even further division of this country, to Putin's delight.

We saw conservatives fail their test of principles in 2016, lets hope they've learned something even if they don't show it.
 
kage69 said:
Remember how repugs lost control of their bodily functions when an ex-president had a chat with an AG in a parked plane?

Where is the outrage over a sitting president jeopardizing the life of a vetted whistle blower who is currently in the process of saving democracy?

Amazing what these people have become. There is nothing quite like traitors wrapping themselves in the flag while shitting on the Constitution to get you proud of being an American. 2020 really is the big game. If we stop being the USA and instead affirm we're actually a banana republic that uses foreign assistance to insure one party rule we will see even further division of this country, to Putin's delight.

We saw conservatives fail their test of principles in 2016, lets hope they've learned something even if they don't show it.
Click to expand...

As opposed to being mistaken and having hopefully now learned something have you considered that maybe conservatives never gave a shit about those principles to begin with?

For the last four decades or so I can think of only one true guiding principle in modern American conservatism, and that’s decreasing the tax and regulatory burden on rich people. Everything else is negotiable.
 
fskimospy said:
Google is your friend. Show me what part of the law you think Trump would be breaking, specifically.
Click to expand...


“While not explicit in the statute, the obvious intent of the ICWPA was to create a channel through which intelligence employees could make disclosures of urgent concerns internally, securely, and anonymously (if they so choose),” McCullough wrote in an email. “That’s reinforced by the committee report’s recognition that whistleblowers could seek anonymous guidance from their home agency when making whistleblowing disclosures. The lack of whistleblowers’ right to enforce their confidentiality may be a loophole that Congress should correct.”

A House Democratic aide made similar points when we sought comment: “Congress has enacted laws that require agencies that are responsible for receiving whistleblower disclosures, including the inspector general for the intelligence community, have restrictions on revealing identities of whistleblowers. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has long recognized that right. Republican members are asking witnesses to reveal the identity of an anonymous whistleblower, which would violate the law by changing the working conditions for the whistleblower. Revealing the whistleblower’s identity would be an act of retaliation because it would cause a fundamental change in the individual’s working conditions.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top