The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[KLB]

In other news, there's kinda a big political deal related to a whistleblower and damaging information about both Biden and Trump.

Or we can keep talking about people who express opinions....

That's being argued about in another thread.

 

[T.Lex]

That's being argued about in another thread.

hahaha

Oh. Ok.

Where's the thread that I can get more coffee in?

 

[KLB]

hahaha

Oh. Ok.

Where's the thread that I can get more coffee in?

Gettin' old there T?

Here is the beginning of the Orange man bad discussion for that topic.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...debate-aka-trump-bash-fest-4.html#post8034002

 

[T.Lex]

Ah - no wonder I didn't see it!

Its an election cycle and Trump is the incumbent - it was always going to be a bash fest.

Substantively, the whistleblower thing paints both Biden and Trump poorly. But, politics is often petty, which fits in with Trump's natural inclinations.

 

[KLB]

Ah - no wonder I didn't see it!

Its an election cycle and Trump is the incumbent - it was always going to be a bash fest.

Substantively, the whistleblower thing paints both Biden and Trump poorly. But, politics is often petty, which fits in with Trump's natural inclinations.

Well, there is some doubt as to the veracity of the media reports, as with everything Trump.

 

[T.Lex]

Giuliani seemed pretty confident.

 

[KLB]

Giuliani seemed pretty confident.

Of?

The whistleblower apparently didn't even hear the conversation that was referenced.

 

[T.Lex]

Of?

The whistleblower apparently didn't even hear the conversation that was referenced.

Giuliani seemed familiar with it.

Interviewer: DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED?

Giuliani: YOU'RE ******* RIGHT I DID!



Regardless, there's a bit of petard hoisting going on. If there is a credible allegation that a national politician made calls to a foreign government to influence/disrupt an investigation into corruption, then that's something I think US officials absolutely should investigate. Much like a credible allegation of Russian election influencing.

As with most things Trumpian, the WAY he did it probably wasn't right - in any sense of the word - but that's an issue of character rather than substance.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wait. You tap dance?

I can learn

 

[Kutnupe14]

Giuliani seemed familiar with it.

Interviewer: DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED?

Giuliani: YOU'RE ******* RIGHT I DID!



Regardless, there's a bit of petard hoisting going on. If there is a credible allegation that a national politician made calls to a foreign government to influence/disrupt an investigation into corruption, then that's something I think US officials absolutely should investigate. Much like a credible allegation of Russian election influencing.

As with most things Trumpian, the WAY he did it probably wasn't right - in any sense of the word - but that's an issue of character rather than substance.

I think once again this administration has run afoul of the law because they complaint wasn't forwarded to congress. And if the government thought Biden and Co had done something corrupt, why is the president's personal lawyer going to the Ukraine, and not government agents?

 

[T.Lex]

I think once again this administration has run afoul of the law because they complaint wasn't forwarded to congress. And if the government thought Biden and Co had done something corrupt, why is the president's personal lawyer going to the Ukraine, and not government agents?

Well, if you hire an untrained rookie for a specialist role, there's going to be mistakes. All the more when the rookie has unfaltering belief of his own correctness.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, if you hire an untrained rookie for a specialist role, there's going to be mistakes. All the more when the rookie has unfaltering belief of his own correctness.

Well, concerning the complaint, It makes you wonder if the officials under this rookie defer law to the president. From my understanding from legal eagles, the "shall" means "you will do it" end of story. Once the complaint is made, it's forward to the IG who solely determines then if the complain is urgent and credible. He then forward it to the DNI, in a managerial role, to send (shall) to congress. He doesn't have the liberty to hold it at the president's discretion. How is that not obstruction?

 

[T.Lex]

Well, concerning the complaint, It makes you wonder if the officials under this rookie defer law to the president. From my understanding from legal eagles, the "shall" means "you will do it" end of story. Once the complaint is made, it's forward to the IG who solely determines then if the complain is urgent and credible. He then forward it to the DNI, in a managerial role, to send (shall) to congress. He doesn't have the liberty to hold it at the president's discretion. How is that not obstruction?

Not being familiar with that particular process, my first question would be whether there are any timelines in the law. 30 days? 6 months?

If there's no deadline, then it can be whenever.



"Its not that we didn't send it; we just haven't sent it YET."

 

[nonobaddog]

Huh? You said that's a "left" assertion. I just gave you an example where it's not left only.

Thanks. For some reason that post confused me. I'm just hoping my brain fart is temporary.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not being familiar with that particular process, my first question would be whether there are any timelines in the law. 30 days? 6 months?

If there's no deadline, then it can be whenever.



"Its not that we didn't send it; we just haven't sent it YET."

Under the law, the inspector general must decide within 14 days whether the information is credible. The inspector general must also determine whether the allegations amount to an “urgent concern,” meaning they relate to a “serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the director of national intelligence involving classified information.”
If the complaint meets that standard, the inspector general is supposed to forward it to the director of national intelligence. The law says that within seven days of receiving the complaint, the director in turn shall forward the material to the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/us/whistleblower-law-explained.html

 

[T.Lex]

Hmmm... looks like alot of discretionary language built into that.

And, not that it matters, but at a practical level that timeline is incredibly short to reach a credibility determination on a complicated matter.

 

[KLB]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...DID-NOT-actually-hear-Trump-Ukraine-call.html

 

[HoughMade]

Beto's rhetoric might be diabolically brilliant. He knows "they" can't actually just "take" the ARs. He just needs enough people to believe that he can do it.

Kinda like people believed "We'll build the wall and make Mexico pay for it."

And, for that matter, "If you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare."

To be fair, one of those statements was almost half right.

 

[T.Lex]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...DID-NOT-actually-hear-Trump-Ukraine-call.html

It doesn't really bother me if the whistleblower wasn't actually on the call. In any organization, people talk. Someone can have a reasonably good idea something happened without actually being present for it.

It does go to credibility, though.

And if the complainant said they were present for the call, but they weren't, then that totally destroys the credibility.

 

[T.Lex]

To be fair, one of those statements was almost half right.

And the other was about the wall.