ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 50
< 12 345612 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Whistleblower related to Trump “conversation” with foreign leader
Cosmos 08:38 PM 09-18-2019
Currently being reported as a promise Trump made to a foreigner leader that troubled the intelligence official.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence found this this credible and urgent.

https://news.yahoo.com/national-inte...000940869.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1W404L

Seems like congress will be briefed tomorrow, behind closed doors.
[Reply]
VAChief 09:14 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by Coyote:
So is the point that the IG report was not shared with Congress by the acting DNI (DNI bad) or is the point that the President said something that an intell person didn’t like on the phone?
I'm not sure why they would block it from being reviewed by a House Committee if it would only prove the "fake news" claim. Seems like a perfect opportunity to prove your daily bluster correct for a change. So that would be my first concern.

On the second question. No way to know if the conversation was concerning if there is nothing revealed to consider.
[Reply]
neech 09:15 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
The communication was a phone call, one former official said, according to the Post.

And how did this official become aware of this phone call?
Party line phone.


[Reply]
VAChief 09:16 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by neech:
Party line phone.

:-)
[Reply]
scho63 09:17 AM 09-19-2019
The ONLY reason this "new" fake story is being peddled is they are trying to create and obfuscate the coming disaster for them that is the FISA obuse and fake Russia Collusion story that is going to see McCabe and Comey at a minimum be indicted and I think they are going to take Strzok and Lisa Page as well.

FAKE FAKE FAKE and Trump has every right to make promises, just like Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter did.
[Reply]
patteeu 09:19 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP:

Of all the talking heads on cable news, this one is the one that drives me the craziest. Always annoying, usually wrong, shrill AF, and some of the most bizarre facial expressions you’ll find on a news channel. She’s terrible and she’s got stage 4 TDS.
[Reply]
Coyote 09:21 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by VAChief:
I'm not sure why they would block it from being reviewed by a House Committee if it would only prove the "fake news" claim. Seems like a perfect opportunity to prove your daily bluster correct for a change. So that would be my first concern.

On the second question. No way to know if the conversation was concerning if there is nothing revealed to consider.
Probably because the House Committee has shown it can’t or won’t keep its mouths shut under our current proicals.

So why don’t we just make all conversations of any President public and avoid any of this? Change the protocols.
[Reply]
patteeu 09:22 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by VAChief:
Seems odd if it is a nothing burger that the information would be blocked from going to the intelligence committee. Why have whistle blower protections (regardless of validity) if they can be squashed from seeing the light of day?
This is the President we’re talking about. The argument is that the whistleblower statute doesn’t apply to this case.
[Reply]
Pogue 09:23 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP:






These people wake up everyday angry that Trump was elected and look for or fabricate anything that will take him down.

It’s so obvious.
[Reply]
patteeu 09:26 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by VAChief:
I'm not sure why they would block it from being reviewed by a House Committee if it would only prove the "fake news" claim. Seems like a perfect opportunity to prove your daily bluster correct for a change. So that would be my first concern.

On the second question. No way to know if the conversation was concerning if there is nothing revealed to consider.
Come on. You can’t understand why the President doesn’t want House democrats second guessing him and politicizing sensitive communications with foreign leaders? No clue at all?
[Reply]
VAChief 09:32 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
This is the President we’re talking about. The argument is that the whistleblower statute doesn’t apply to this case.
Seems like a potentially dangerous argument. I guess we will see if that argument holds up. I agree every little thing related to the POTUS shouldn't be a discussion item for the general public to consider or even a House Committee.

You know if Trump could prove this was nothing he would want it plastered everywhere on FOX News. Just seems odd that he isn't going that route.
[Reply]
jettio 09:37 AM 09-19-2019
Covering up embarrassing stupid phone calls is the kind of thing that could be filed under the kind of shit that happens when you have a POTUS that wears a wig and can't get any pussy and lacks intellect and character.
[Reply]
VAChief 09:37 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Come on. You can’t understand why the President doesn’t want House democrats second guessing him and politicizing sensitive communications with foreign leaders? No clue at all?
Yes, this is Trump. You can't wonder why the "Grandmaster Flash" of POTUS' wouldn't want to share anything he could use to prove them wrong? I don't think I am the one with the misunderstanding here.
[Reply]
patteeu 09:37 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by VAChief:
Seems like a potentially dangerous argument. I guess we will see if that argument holds up. I agree every little thing related to the POTUS shouldn't be a discussion item for the general public to consider or even a House Committee.

You know if Trump could prove this was nothing he would want it plastered everywhere on FOX News. Just seems odd that he isn't going that route.
I’m not sure the argument is dangerous. I wrote it like that because I’m no expert on whistleblower law, but I think it’s likely that the argument is correct. It seems pretty extraordinary, if not unconstitutional, for the President to be subject to that kind of personal oversight. It also seems far less likely that a law was broken given that we’re talking about POTUS rather than an underling, and given the POTUS’ inherent constitutional powers and protections.
[Reply]
RodeoPants2 10:02 AM 09-19-2019
Is fake news the defense mechanism du jour?
[Reply]
Marcellus 10:04 AM 09-19-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
I’m not sure the argument is dangerous. I wrote it like that because I’m no expert on whistleblower law, but I think it’s likely that the argument is correct. It seems pretty extraordinary, if not unconstitutional, for the President to be subject to that kind of personal oversight. It also seems far less likely that a law was broken given that we’re talking about POTUS rather than an underling, and given the POTUS’ inherent constitutional powers and protections.
Yea I don't understand how its realistically possible Trump could make an illegal promise to a foreign leader to begin with.

On a side I note eventually we will have a scumbag Democrat as POTUS gain, seems Dems are setting a really shitty precedent for standards of treatment and scrutiny.
[Reply]
Page 2 of 50
< 12 345612 > Last »
Up