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

[KLB]

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.

How can you make an accusation about illegalities when you have no first hand knowledge of the event?

Add an anonymous leak of the story, and it smells like a hit piece.

 

[nonobaddog]

Accusations do not need to have anything to do with facts or the truth anymore.

In government - if you haven't heard a good accusation by 10:00 am - start one.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How can you make an accusation about illegalities when you have no first hand knowledge of the event?

Add an anonymous leak of the story, and it smells like a hit piece.

The IG didn't see it that way. And once again he was Trump appointed. But to answer you question accusations of illegality are regularly investigation at all levels, where the complainant has no first hand knowledge of the event. That's damn near half of all police work.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The Intel Community’s inspector general, who was appointed by Trump, found the concern raised by the whistleblower to be “urgent” and “credible.” Today, Trump suggests the whistleblower is betraying the US

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176156564274712576

 

[Kutnupe14]

Accusations do not need to have anything to do with facts or the truth anymore.

In government - if you haven't heard a good accusation by 10:00 am - start one.

So the Trump appointed IG was duped by the whistleblower?

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Intel Community’s inspector general, who was appointed by Trump, found the concern raised by the whistleblower to be “urgent” and “credible.” Today, Trump suggests the whistleblower is betraying the US

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176156564274712576

For following the law, mind you. The president's comments makes Edward Snowden's actions seem like the smart thing to do if you wanted to bring attention to government bad actions.

 

[T.Lex]

How can you make an accusation about illegalities when you have no first hand knowledge of the event?

How do you know Trump was even elected without looking at every ballot cast?

 

[BugI02]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/soros_and_the_whistleblower_nonscandal.html
Soros and the ‘whistleblower’ non-scandal



This would be intriguing if true

It's an oldie (#5044) but a goodie. I think it explains things as nicely as any other theory I've heard

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's an oldie (#5044) but a goodie. I think it explains things as nicely as any other theory I've heard

Here's the issue, or at least part of it. Pro-Trump sources make it seem as if Biden, and solely Biden was behind the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor. That's simply untrue. While I can't say that personal interests did not help with Biden's "official" stance for wanting the prosecutor removed. Shokin was hardly a popular figure amongst our allies, and they lobbied to have him removed too.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

 

[BugI02]

Have you read the Biden quote from 2018? Biden himself is stoking the narrative that he was behind the firing.

Make of trying to pin it on Soros what you will, that might be a stretch but the man seems to have a finger in a lot of Democratic pies. What i find credible is just about anyone who wanted Biden sidelined could run this play with the same results. Even Biden isn't stupid enough to want this story resurrected and whoever is responsible isn't doing him any favors. If Trump is behind it, it is at least 3 1/2D chess

 

[Kutnupe14]

Have you read the Biden quote from 2018? Biden himself is stoking the narrative that he was behind the firing.

Make of trying to pin it on Soros what you will, that might be a stretch but the man seems to have a finger in a lot of Democratic pies. What i find credible is just about anyone who wanted Biden sidelined could run this play with the same results. Even Biden isn't stupid enough to want this story resurrected and whoever is responsible isn't doing him any favors. If Trump is behind it, it is at least 3 1/2D chess

Yeah, I have. He's a politician, it makes sense that he would want to take credit for it, especially everything was on the "up and up." Biden maybe gaffe prone, but he's hardly stupid enough to implicate himself in wrongdoing that he knowing knew was improper.

 

[T.Lex]

So the Trump appointed IG was duped by the whistleblower?

In terms of handing over the complaint to Congress, I think it is important to figure out why that might've happened.

Declining... or delaying... disclosing Biden's potential misdoings to Congress seems to me of greater benefit to Biden than anyone else. Except Trump.

That is, if it goes to Congress now, it'll get disclosed to several (most?) of Biden's Dem primary foes. Won't take long for it to get into the MSM after that.

But, if Trump could delay it until after Biden wins the primary, then he could use it himself in the general. Or not use it at all, depending on how Trump wanted to play it.

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, I have. He's a politician, it makes sense that he would want to take credit for it, especially everything was on the "up and up." Biden maybe gaffe prone, but he's hardly stupid enough to implicate himself in wrongdoing that he [STRIKE]knowing[/STRIKE] knew was improper.

Are you quite sure?

 

[nonobaddog]

Bill Weld wants to see Trump executed so he can run for President. He must think a lot like hildebeest.

 

[BugI02]

Bill Weld knows he can't beat Trump. What he doesn't know is he can't beat anyone else, either. If Trump stepped aside, Cruz or Walker or Paul - or even Rubio or Romney would still crush him. He should run as a Democrat on a 'Less Crazy' platform

 

[jamil]

I kinda think people are believing what they want to believe. I don’t think there’s anything to believe yet.

If Trump promised US resources in exchange for investigating Biden, that’s a scandal. If he just kept suggesting the guy to do it, that’s an average Democrat’s day of the week.

I can wait until those facts come out. But my standards are higher than some CIA analyst’s word for it, who had knowledge of the phone call and “hearing” about the rest outside of work, but not hearing the words first hand.

 

[KG1]

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?

The argument that is being made by the DNI and the DOJ in this case is if you read the code the "whistleblower's complaint" does not fall within the purview of the inspector general of the intelligence community's oversight because it does'nt specifically have have anything to do with potential wrongdoing within the intelligence community. Therefore the DNI would not be required by code to forward the IG's determination on this specific complaint to Congress.

Keep in mind that the code being cited specifically pertains to the IG of the Intelligence community's duties and what falls within their purview.

You can call it a chicken**** technicality by which to withhold a "whistleblower's complaint" pertaining to alleged misconduct by the POTUS from Congress but that's the legal grounds argument being made for not forwarding this specific complaint.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The argument that is being made by the DNI and the DOJ in this case is if you read the code the "whistleblower's complaint" does not fall within the purview of the inspector general of the intelligence community's oversight because it does'nt specifically have have anything to do with potential wrongdoing within the intelligence community. Therefore the DNI would not be required by code to forward the IG's determination on this specific complaint to Congress.

Keep in mind that the code being cited specifically pertains to the IG of the Intelligence community's duties and what falls within their purview.

You can call it a chicken**** technicality by which to withhold a "whistleblower's complaint" pertaining to alleged misconduct by the POTUS from Congress but that's the legal grounds argument being made for not forwarding this specific complaint.

The president isn't part of the intelligence community, and yet he can classify and declassify things on a whim, order investigations and clandestine ops? I'm not sure I buy that, as the president is essentially the head of pretty much everything that isn't judicial or legislative, correct?

 

[KG1]

The president isn't part of the intelligence community, and yet he can classify and declassify things on a whim, order investigations and clandestine ops? I'm not sure I buy that, as the president is essentially the head of pretty much everything that isn't judicial or legislative, correct?

Going along with that notion for argument's sake I guess the question would be was the specific complaint pertaining to any wrongdoing on the President's part concerning the operation's of the national intelligence community?

The argument being made was no it was not.

 

[jamil]

Some people heard some things.