New report on whistle blower complaint

[Mr Person]

Trump's the guy who likes saying things like pleading the fifth if proof of guilt. Why would hiding behind a different mis-applied privilege matter?

And what the **** does a TRUMPIST thing he has to say about it? You lot would chant "lock her up!" at every rally even though the FBI never recommended charges in her circumstances (and nevermind your own failure to care about sloppiness with confidential/classified info: Team Trump using unsecured devices, Trump giving unqualified family members security clearances they should never have, Trump recklessly "declassifying" info by blurting it out obliviously, so on and so forth).

You have no credibility to talk about someone reacting to Trump's unusual paranoid behavior in regard to this whistleblower.

You have less than no credibility to talk about someone assuming guilt when you started from the assumption that it is "some single hit point you want to take out of context"

Basically, who do you people think you're fooling? You're not fooling anyone. You're virtue-signalling slavish loyalty to a corrupt scumbag to other people who have slavish loyalty to him, but you aren't convincing anyone new. Your answers are predictable. I know what the Trumpists will say after reading the OP of any thread. Every single time I scroll down, there it is. Hell, I can even post at the beginning of the thread what Trumpists will say and they show up to defiantly say it anyway.

[Loony CT idiocy by Lutherf excised]

More stupid conspiracy swill?

And from the people who had no problems with things like 7+ investigations that were openly designed to smear Hillary with an email server and about how Benghazi unfolded in name only? From people who lost their **** over Obama ordering mustard? Putting his feet on a desk one time?

:roll:

I think I do know who you are trying to fool: yourselves. After three years of endless lies in defense of Trump, you just cannot bring yourself to admit fault. So you dig and dig and dig, and then if he loses in Nov 2020, you'll pretend it never happened and refuse to talk about it. You'll just dodge every post about what you said in the past, as you dodge what was said about Obama/Hillary/etc.

Yet here you are thinking you are entitled to a presidents privileged conversations just because you want it.

^^
Cowardly dodge.
​

Actually, this is the Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson doing the thinking, and his thinking is that the House Intelligence Committee is entitled to it so that they can carry out one of their constitutional duties you hate so much, namely, oversight of the president.

I do hope the country can recover from the damage Trumpists have caused it. Or rather, not the country, but its democratic republic form.

For those of us not willing to destroy everything and **** everyone over, there is the added fear that after the craven displays from 2007 on to present, the Democrats really will start playing just as dirty as you've thus far dishonestly claim. And then the GOP will go even lower. And then it really will be downward spiral. I can only hope you don't cheer on so many disgusting corrupt moves that that occurs.

 

[Trump]

I have to admit that some of the bumper sticker things that Fox News has come up with over the years are brilliant. They con their viewers as badly as Donald Trump cons the voters. Your comment is a great example of that.

People that don't give Fox News credit for covering for republicans are really missing the boat. They are brilliant at it and their slogans and catch phrases work perfectly on the most gullible Americans. Heck, even the red hat is a brilliant marketing ploy for their marks.

Dems sure do watch a lot of Fox must be why the ratings are so high....remember how low information voters bought the "Hope and Change" slogan? best bait and switch of all time.

Obama promised to close GITMO and stop the wars....expanded the Wars and upped his drone attacks...hope you liked that change you silly Obama voters

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Yet here you are thinking you are entitled to a presidents privileged conversations just because you want it.

You're distorting the case and creating a straw man. He doesn't just want access to the president's privileged conversations. He wants access to a conversation that someone found so troubling that they reported their concern to the IG. The IG reviewed their claim and agreed that it was credible and serious. That's the conversation he's interested in.

The whistleblower law was created to fight government corruption and encourage government employees to report misconduct. Why do you support corruption? Don't you have enough self-awareness to realize that you're just defending government corruption?

 

[Condor060]

You're distorting the case and creating a straw man. He doesn't just want access to the president's privileged conversations. He wants access to a conversation that someone found so troubling that they reported their concern to the IG. The IG reviewed their claim and agreed that it was credible and serious. That's the conversation he's interested in.

The whistleblower law was created to fight government corruption and encourage government employees to report misconduct. Why do you support corruption? Don't you have enough self-awareness to realize that you're just defending government corruption?

People is government jobs do not have executive privilege and no whistle blower law supersedes presidential executive privilege. If you don't know this, you are making an argument way way out of your pay grade.

 

[Mr Person]

People is government jobs do not have executive privilege and no whistle blower law supersedes presidential executive privilege.

Case citation, Attorney Condor? What case held that in this specific circumstance, executive privilege allows the President to stonewall? Didn't work for Nixon in a related context.

Or are you just making up more stupid bull****? It sounds like that. You seem to do that a lot. In fact, you seem to do that any time you come up with something that might help Trump if true, but which is in fact total lying bull****.

Which is it? What case holds that Trump can refuse to turn anything over in this context under "executive privilege"? Make sure you've got a pinpoint cite and argument ready (note: this may require you to actually be able to understand a decision, and thus far you are zero for two when it comes to making correct statements of law to me)

You're distorting the case and creating a straw man. He doesn't just want access to the president's privileged conversations. He wants access to a conversation that someone found so troubling that they reported their concern to the IG. The IG reviewed their claim and agreed that it was credible and serious. That's the conversation he's interested in.

The whistleblower law was created to fight government corruption and encourage government employees to report misconduct. Why do you support corruption? Don't you have enough self-awareness to realize that you're just defending government corruption?

1. Because it's Trump.

2. Because people who actually care about America might be offended if he makes a big display of not caring.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Dems sure do watch a lot of Fox must be why the ratings are so high....remember how low information voters bought the "Hope and Change" slogan? best bait and switch of all time.

Obama promised to close GITMO and stop the wars....expanded the Wars and upped his drone attacks...hope you liked that change you silly Obama voters

And yet Trump republicans have fallen for a gigantic con from both Fox News and Donald Trump. You guys couldn't even see an actually crook coming. That's pathetic.

But it is kind of understandable. Fox News has been peddling the whole Hispanic thing for so long that people pretty much only care about that.

That's brilliant marketing by Fox News. Almost as good as the Red Hat thing.

 

[jnug]

It literally does not matter. This is too hot a story. The Press is going to keep digging. Congress is going to keep digging. Whatever this is will come out and at that point, the folly of having stonewalled it will be apparent.

The acting DNI should not have gone to Barr's DOJ for an opinion as anybody with a brain could have told him that opinion would have been to stonewall/refuse the Congressional inquiry.

If cooperating with the Congressional Inquiry they would at least have maintained some control in that the requested material would have been offered in Committee Executive session or more likely to the gang of 8. Now its going to be balls to the walls with investigators that can't be controlled and its just going to come out eventually. Smooth DonDon....real smooth. Having a bunch of hacks at your beck and call is sometimes not such a good thing.

Remember, somebody has already leaked the existence of the IG report. So anybody that thinks this is going to stay under wraps needs his head examined.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

People is government jobs do not have executive privilege and no whistle blower law supersedes presidential executive privilege. If you don't know this, you are making an argument way way out of your pay grade.

You do realize that is the Nixon defense, right? Nixon was corrupt and he used executive privilege to cover up his corruption. You're defending Nixon. You're defending corruption.

 

[Condor060]

Case citation, Attorney Condor? What case held that in this specific circumstance, executive privilege allows the President to stonewall? Didn't work for Nixon in a related context.

Or are you just making up more stupid bull****? It sounds like that. You seem to do that a lot. In fact, you seem to do that any time you come up with something that might help Trump if true, but which is in fact total lying bull****.

Which is it? What case holds that Trump can refuse to turn anything over in this context under "executive privilege"? Make sure you've got a pinpoint cite and argument ready (note: this may require you to actually be able to understand a decision, and thus far you are zero for two when it comes to making correct statements of law to me)

1. Because it's Trump.

2. Because people who actually care about America might be offended if he makes a big display of not caring.

Executive privilege is the power of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch of the United States Government to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of information or personnel relating to confidential communications that would impair governmental functions.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled this privilege may qualify as an element of the separation of powers doctrine, derived from the supremacy of the executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.

Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Your argument isn't with me.

 

[Condor060]

You do realize that is the Nixon defense, right? Nixon was corrupt and he used executive privilege to cover up his corruption. You're defending Nixon. You're defending corruption.

If you think that is the proper explanation of my statement, its you who has to live with it. I stated executive privilege supersede any whistle blower law and you have me defending Nixon and/or corruption?

Is this some new conversation technique?

You know your post is a lie, and Lee Harvey Oswald lied about his participation in the Kennedy assassination, so you support snipers who assassinate US presidents.

Don't you ever accuse anyone of straw man arguments. You wasted it all in this one post.

 

[Linc]

Just be thankful that he didn't say Obama, Clinton (either one), Comey, Strzok, or the Deep State had something to do with it. Although the day is still young.

Gabbard on MacCallum trashing trump right now.

 

[Mr Person]

Case citation, Attorney Condor? What case held that in this specific circumstance, executive privilege allows the President to stonewall? Didn't work for Nixon in a related context.

Or are you just making up more stupid bull****? It sounds like that. You seem to do that a lot. In fact, you seem to do that any time you come up with something that might help Trump if true, but which is in fact total lying bull****.

Which is it? What case holds that Trump can refuse to turn anything over in this context under "executive privilege"? Make sure you've got a pinpoint cite and argument ready (note: this may require you to actually be able to understand a decision, and thus far you are zero for two when it comes to making correct statements of law to me)

Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Your argument isn't with me.

As I thought. No case citations. A wiki link you didn't even read beyond a few sentences.

:lamo


Figures you'd be lying out your ass. You have no idea whether or not it applies in this circumstance, you don't have any case in mind because you don't know how to read a case, and your own damn link shows your feigned certainty to be stupid dishonsesty.

- "certain" subpoenas.
- "may" qualify
- Notes that only two cases ruled on this, both of which involved Nixon but at different levels (D.C. Circuit, not that you know what that is, and SCOTUS).

There is literally nothing in the law that backs up your position. You're just saying "executive privilege" because Trump said it, not because you had a single original thought of your own about it let alone one based on actual knowledge. And guess what: the part you didn't read noted that US v. Nixon reasoned in part that executive privilege is strongest where the concern is national security. Yet Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson thinks this needs to be turned over to the intelligence committee; meaning his opinion almost certainly hinges around thinking whatever Trump did potentially harms national security.

The bottom line here is that there is little law and certainly nothing remotely close to what would allow you to make absolute statements like you did, but you also didn't know that or didn't care about lying so you did it anyway. And as Trump says, people who behave like this have something to hide. (Like his tax returns and anything else he can hide)

Face it: you supported one of the most if not The Most corrupt president in U.S. history. And then you lied in his service. Better hope there really isn't a God.








Why do Trumpists always do this? Why do they always piss on the commandment against bearing false witness?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

If you think that is the proper explanation of my statement, its you who has to live with it. I stated executive privilege supersede any whistle blower law and you have me defending Nixon and/or corruption?

Is this some new conversation technique?

You know your post is a lie, and Lee Harvey Oswald lied about his participation in the Kennedy assassination, so you support snipers who assassinate US presidents.

Don't you ever accuse anyone of straw man arguments. You wasted it all in this one post.

Did Nixon invoke executive privilege to cover up his crimes?

The answer is Yes. That's a fact. I'm on sold ground.

But you're defending Trump's use of executive privilege without any knowledge of the validity of his claim. So, yes, you are supporting corruption. You're supporting the right of president to just claim executive privilege and avoid scrutiny.

 

[Athanasius68]

As I thought. No case citations. A wiki link you didn't even read beyond a few sentences.

:lamo


Figures you'd be lying out your ass. You have no idea whether or not it applies in this circumstance, you don't have any case in mind because you don't know how to read a case, and your own damn link shows your feigned certainty to be stupid dishonsesty.

- "certain" subpoenas.
- "may" qualify
- Notes that only two cases ruled on this, both of which involved Nixon but at different levels (D.C. Circuit, not that you know what that is, and SCOTUS).

There is literally nothing in the law that backs up your position. You're just saying "executive privilege" because Trump said it, not because you had a single original thought of your own about it let alone one based on actual knowledge. And guess what: the part you didn't read noted that US v. Nixon reasoned in part that executive privilege is strongest where the concern is national security. Yet Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson thinks this needs to be turned over to the intelligence committee; meaning his opinion almost certainly hinges around thinking whatever Trump did potentially harms national security.

The bottom line here is that there is little law and certainly nothing remotely close to what would allow you to make absolute statements like you did, but you also didn't know that or didn't care about lying so you did it anyway. And as Trump says, people who behave like this have something to hide. (Like his tax returns and anything else he can hide)

Face it: you supported one of the most if not The Most corrupt president in U.S. history. And then you lied in his service. Better hope there really isn't a God.








Why do Trumpists always do this? Why do they always piss on the commandment against bearing false witness?

It would hinge upon Mr. Atkinson following what he understands the law to say, and letting somebody else worry about whether he is correct in his understanding of the law, or worry if the law itself is constitutional.

 

[Mr Person]

It would hinge upon Mr. Atkinson following what he understands the law to say, and letting somebody else worry about whether he is correct in his understanding of the law, or worry if the law itself is constitutional.

If there was ever a display of throwing random **** against a wall and praying it is sticky, it's that remark.

 

[Athanasius68]

If there was ever a display of throwing random **** against a wall and praying it is sticky, it's that remark.

No. It's based upon recognizing that opposition to Trump causes otherwise sensible people to say deranged things.

 

[Mr Person]

No. It's based upon recognizing that opposition to Trump causes otherwise sensible people to say deranged things.

Another evasion.

Tell you what: you people tend to think getting the last (retarded, invariably) word in means you "win" so say something really killer in response to this. You think if you bravely said something defiant - anonymously on the internet - that that means you showed that librul.

:roll:



Not wasting more time on your dumb trollish crap.

 

[Condor060]

Did Nixon invoke executive privilege to cover up his crimes?

The answer is Yes. That's a fact. I'm on sold ground.

But you're defending Trump's use of executive privilege without any knowledge of the validity of his claim. So, yes, you are supporting corruption. You're supporting the right of president to just claim executive privilege and avoid scrutiny.

You have no clue what he is claiming executive privilege for. You don't know anything. You are just assuming its corruption. Funny how you jump to that right off the bat.

I support the presidential power of executive privilege. I haven't stated anything otherwise. If you want to assume Trump is covering up criminal behavior and you want to assume I am protecting criminal behavior, Assume away.

 

[jnug]

You have no clue what he is claiming executive privilege for. You don't know anything. You are just assuming its corruption. Funny how you jump to that right off the bat.

I support the presidential power of executive privilege. I haven't stated anything otherwise. If you want to assume Trump is covering up criminal behavior and you want to assume I am protecting criminal behavior, Assume away.

An executive privilege claim has not as yet been made.

 

[Irwin Corey]

well I sure as hell am not going to stop backing him based on an unfounded rumor and classified info we do not know what it is just yet. ESPECIALLY not after the last 2 years of DEM nothingburger.

And that's the point tRump is having his Acting Director of National Intelligence to block Congress from the information, which should have been release to them within 7 days. We should know "just yet" we should have know days ago.

 

[HumblePi]

After Trump revealed the location of a couple of nuke subs, nonchalantly, to Duterte, I don't trust this president with a telephone and no one listening.

Not only did he reveal the secret location of a couple of US nuclear submarines, he vowed to Kim Jong-un that the U.S. will not spy on N. Korea, "not under my auspices" were his words. Just a couple weeks ago he tweeted a sensitive surveillance image of Iran, showing the aftermath of an accident at an Iranian space facility.

Today, while touring the great new wall (replacement-not new) in California, Trump was boasting about the wall, how it's black and gets hot and how several mountain climbers tried but couldn't get over the wall, then went too far when he said:

Trump: "And one thing we haven't mentioned is they're wired so that we will know if someone is trying to break through and you might want to discuss that a little bit." (motioning to border security guard)

Border Security Guard: "Sir there may be some merit in not discussing that"

You see? He just cannot keep his mouth shut even when it involves national security and it's only because he has no filters and will do and say anything to make his base smile. I can easily see how Trump would reveal national secrets to Putin or Kim Jong-un just to impress them and have them both tell him how amazing he is.

 

[Trump]

the faux outrage over all things Trump is so amusing....kinda fun watching Corey on CNN ripping into McCabe for lying 3 times under oath and being an employee of CNN...can't make this up :lamo

 

[HumblePi]

the faux outrage over all things Trump is so amusing....kinda fun watching Corey on CNN ripping into McCabe for lying 3 times under oath and being an employee of CNN...can't make this up :lamo

You got that all wrong, any outrage you see coming from the left is 100% genuine. We understand this isn't a game, this isn't a television show, this is our country's future we're all concerned with. Unfortunately, the majority of Republicans have sold their souls to Trump and the devil that bred him for political gains and have ditched any constitutional or ethical fiber that the many Republicans used to have.

The 35 or so percent of Trump supporters who seem to be completely morally indifferent when it comes to Trump’s unprecedented ills, represent a sad chapter of our collective destination. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be any room for a reasonably balanced intellectual discourse in terms of ethics and universally accepted facts. Sadly, this terminal case of mass cognitive dissonance makes it impossible to reach a genuinely fair middle ground.

At this point, there’s no real reason to respond to comments from his supporters when it feels as though 98 percent of the time, they’ll be in full Trump soldier mode with vile comments, ad-hominem attacks, a barrage of alternative facts, false moral equivalence, false righteous projections, and self-fulfilling fallacious Trump excuses.

 

[Crosscheck]

Not only did he reveal the secret location of a couple of US nuclear submarines, he vowed to Kim Jong-un that the U.S. will not spy on N. Korea, "not under my auspices" were his words. Just a couple weeks ago he tweeted a sensitive surveillance image of Iran, showing the aftermath of an accident at an Iranian space facility.

Today, while touring the great new wall (replacement-not new) in California, Trump was boasting about the wall, how it's black and gets hot and how several mountain climbers tried but couldn't get over the wall, then went too far when he said:

Trump: "And one thing we haven't mentioned is they're wired so that we will know if someone is trying to break through and you might want to discuss that a little bit." (motioning to border security guard)

Border Security Guard: "Sir there may be some merit in not discussing that"

You see? He just cannot keep his mouth shut even when it involves national security and it's only because he has no filters and will do and say anything to make his base smile. I can easily see how Trump would reveal national secrets to Putin or Kim Jong-un just to impress them and have them both tell him how amazing he is.

Trump's mouth has always been his biggest weakness. Not knowing when to shut up. As the old saying goes "Loose lips sink ships".

 

[Trump]

You got that all wrong, any outrage you see coming from the left is 100% genuine. We understand this isn't a game, this isn't a television show, this is our country's future we're all concerned with. Unfortunately, the majority of Republicans have sold their souls to Trump and the devil that bred him for political gains and have ditched any constitutional or ethical fiber that the many Republicans used to have.

The 35 or so percent of Trump supporters who seem to be completely morally indifferent when it comes to Trump’s unprecedented ills, represent a sad chapter of our collective destination. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be any room for a reasonably balanced intellectual discourse in terms of ethics and universally accepted facts. Sadly, this terminal case of mass cognitive dissonance makes it impossible to reach a genuinely fair middle ground.

At this point, there’s no real reason to respond to comments from his supporters when it feels as though 98 percent of the time, they’ll be in full Trump soldier mode with vile comments, ad-hominem attacks, a barrage of alternative facts, false moral equivalence, false righteous projections, and self-fulfilling fallacious Trump excuses.

man if you folks are really 100% genuine in outrage...ya'll gonna be **** shocked when Durham Report drops.