|
Post by Sprockey on Sept 26, 2019 16:26:23 GMT -5
It's soul sucking đđ
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Sept 26, 2019 16:45:43 GMT -5
Trump yet again showing his insecurity by spending all of his time trying to convince people he didnât do anything wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Sept 27, 2019 11:39:08 GMT -5
The whistleblower complaint, annotatedI finally just got a chance to read (this annotated version) One criticism of the WB complaint is that it is second hand information and he/she did not witness anything directly. "I was not a direct witness to most of the events described."Is that a sticking point for you?
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Sept 27, 2019 11:42:05 GMT -5
Did you read the complaint? What things stuck out for you?
Do you see any blantant quid pro quo? Will it be hard to prove without?
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_darkblue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_darkblue.png)
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Sept 27, 2019 12:07:49 GMT -5
Like I said, I think the half a dozen WH officials who went to the whistleblower will need to go on the record. Firsthand knowledge would be more solid. However, the complaint is written in a thorough and competent way, with clear knowledge of government processes. The details that we can corroborate (e.g. the Ukraine phone call) add up. The whistleblower makes it clear when he does not know something. I think it is worthy of starting an investigation, especially when taken in conjunction with Trumpâs behaviour and constant lying. The House will need to get more than this if they want the impeachment to go anywhere, but thatâs what the investigation is for. The most damning thing to me is the allegation of moving the transcript of the call into a different system that is normally used for top secret info. That would mean they know he did something very wrong. Also it raises questions about what other information that we donât even know about has been stored in this way..
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Sept 27, 2019 12:11:44 GMT -5
The person says they were told, I think thatâs a bit different to an overhearing rumors. It also says it occurred over a four month period, people came to him and told him what was going on.
If the person was told due to their position in the hopes something would happen then I think the investigation will end up interviewing the people who actually heard directly but I am not sure how that works exactly if they are allowed to stay anonymous.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Sept 27, 2019 12:14:09 GMT -5
I am 100% for investigating all of the allegations.
I do still think that unless the case is ironclad that officially impeaching him may backfire and work to his benefit (being re-elected).
Also, there was still a part of me that hoped it wouldn't come to this and people could decide what they wanted in the next election.
The next year leading up to the election is going to be insane. I am not sure I have the stomach for it *sigh*
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_darkblue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_darkblue.png)
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Sept 27, 2019 12:16:06 GMT -5
Also, in terms of not witnessing things directly: I work at a school and we have very strict rules when it comes to child safeguarding. I am legally obliged to report concerning information, even if I did not witness it directly and even if I am repeating something from someone else. It helps the designated safeguarding person get a broader picture of whatever might be happening. It isnât automatically ânot credibleâ just because it is not direct knowledge. A lot of what goes into the credibility has to do with how it is reported: am I sticking to the facts, am I using neutral language, am I being clear about what I saw vs what was told to me secondhand, etc.
|
|
|
Post by villanelle on Sept 27, 2019 12:56:28 GMT -5
It would be a sticking point if he were to be impeached entirely on that. But as one piece on the puzzle, or as the piece that spurns more investigation, I think it's solid enough. It's not definitive, but it's credible.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Sept 27, 2019 20:23:31 GMT -5
The flood gates are opening everywhere. I can't even keep up. Trump told Russian officials in 2017 he wasnât concerned about Moscowâs interference in U.S. election www.washingtonpost.com/ ------------ **President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscowâs interference in the U.S. election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter. The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State.**
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Sept 27, 2019 20:26:02 GMT -5
White House restricted access to Trump's calls with Putin and Saudi crown prince Washington (CNN) - White House efforts to limit access to President Donald Trump's conversations with foreign leaders extended to phone calls with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. Those calls -- both with leaders who maintain controversial relationships with Trump -- were among the presidential conversations that aides took remarkable steps to keep from becoming public. www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/white-house-restricted-trump-calls-putin-saudi/index.html
|
|
|
Post by RichB on Sept 30, 2019 18:58:37 GMT -5
Like I said, I think the half a dozen WH officials who went to the whistleblower will need to go on the record. Firsthand knowledge would be more solid. However, the complaint is written in a thorough and competent way, with clear knowledge of government processes. The details that we can corroborate (e.g. the Ukraine phone call) add up. The whistleblower makes it clear when he does not know something. I think it is worthy of starting an investigation, especially when taken in conjunction with Trumpâs behaviour and constant lying. The House will need to get more than this if they want the impeachment to go anywhere, but thatâs what the investigation is for. The most damning thing to me is the allegation of moving the transcript of the call into a different system that is normally used for top secret info. That would mean they know he did something very wrong. Also it raises questions about what other information that we donât even know about has been stored in this way..
Regarding the bolded... 1) The Obama administration also stored transcripts this way. 2) The Trump administration may have started doing this more routinely after the details of other calls were leaked to the media.
thefederalist.com/2019/09/28/susan-rice-obama-put-call-transcripts-on-top-secret-server-too/
While Rice admitted that the Obama administration also used this server to protect sensitive presidential phone calls, she left open the question of whether the Trump administration used the server in this particular case to save the president from damaging, perhaps even impeachable, comments he made to Zelensky regarding investigations into political rival Joe Biden.
But reporting from ABC News shows that this practice of securing presidential phone transcripts has been in use in the White House since early 2017, after sensitive conversations with foreign leaders were leaked to the press.
From ABC News: âThe two calls in early 2017, with leaders from Australia and from Mexico, leaked early in Trumpâs administration, and sources said the procedure to store them quickly changed â many calls between the president and world leaders instead were stored in a secure server to avoid leaks. The sources who talked to ABC News did caution that itâs unclear if the calls being stored were done so for national security or for political concerns.â
One source cited by ABC News described the practice as âbasically standard operating procedure.â
|
|
|
Post by RichB on Sept 30, 2019 19:01:10 GMT -5
Also, in terms of not witnessing things directly: I work at a school and we have very strict rules when it comes to child safeguarding. I am legally obliged to report concerning information, even if I did not witness it directly and even if I am repeating something from someone else. It helps the designated safeguarding person get a broader picture of whatever might be happening. It isnât automatically ânot credibleâ just because it is not direct knowledge. A lot of what goes into the credibility has to do with how it is reported: am I sticking to the facts, am I using neutral language, am I being clear about what I saw vs what was told to me secondhand, etc.
If you get some second-hand information that turns out not to be exactly correct it won't lead to a Constitutional crisis.
Does it bother you at all that the rules for this "whistle-blowing" were just recently changed to allow for hearsay to be allowed?
|
|
|
Post by RichB on Sept 30, 2019 19:02:33 GMT -5
White House restricted access to Trump's calls with Putin and Saudi crown prince Washington (CNN) - White House efforts to limit access to President Donald Trump's conversations with foreign leaders extended to phone calls with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter.
Those calls -- both with leaders who maintain controversial relationships with Trump -- were among the presidential conversations that aides took remarkable steps to keep from becoming public. www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/white-house-restricted-trump-calls-putin-saudi/index.html
Do CNN and the NY Times ever actually quote anyone, ever, anymore? It's always "reliable sources" and "people familiar with the matter".
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Sept 30, 2019 19:11:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by justthinking on Sept 30, 2019 19:21:42 GMT -5
It was nice of trump to make it easier by confirming the whistleblower's statements. He could have been smart and stayed quiet, but then again being smart is beyond him.
|
|
mare
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_darkblue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_darkblue.png)
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by mare on Sept 30, 2019 20:28:59 GMT -5
Also, in terms of not witnessing things directly: I work at a school and we have very strict rules when it comes to child safeguarding. I am legally obliged to report concerning information, even if I did not witness it directly and even if I am repeating something from someone else. It helps the designated safeguarding person get a broader picture of whatever might be happening. It isnât automatically ânot credibleâ just because it is not direct knowledge. A lot of what goes into the credibility has to do with how it is reported: am I sticking to the facts, am I using neutral language, am I being clear about what I saw vs what was told to me secondhand, etc.
If you get some second-hand information that turns out not to be exactly correct it won't lead to a Constitutional crisis.
Does it bother you at all that the rules for this "whistle-blowing" were just recently changed to allow for hearsay to be allowed?
What is your source for this? I'm reading that Federalist claim is false.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Sept 30, 2019 20:50:19 GMT -5
If you get some second-hand information that turns out not to be exactly correct it won't lead to a Constitutional crisis.
Does it bother you at all that the rules for this "whistle-blowing" were just recently changed to allow for hearsay to be allowed?
What is your source for this? I'm reading that Federalist claim is false. I have also read that the Federalist claim wasn't true www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/donald-trump-inspector-general-whistleblower-complaint-conspiracy-fact-check/index.htmlThe IC IG released a statement today confirming the rules were not changed "In a statement issued late Monday afternoon, the inspector general of the intelligence community (ICIG) said that the form submitted by the whistleblower on August 12, 2019, was the same one the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018. The statement reiterated the fact that having firsthand knowledge of the event has never been required in order to submit a whistleblower complaint. "Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute." "In fact," the ICIG's statement continues, "by law the Complainant...need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law."
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Sept 30, 2019 21:35:27 GMT -5
Link to letter from IC IG
|
|
|
Post by stellarfeller on Sept 30, 2019 21:44:14 GMT -5
Re hearsay - does the name Linda Tripp ring a bell?
|
|