Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

This is extra text with a test link..

Register Now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

President Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by IrishGuy1979 View Post
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/tru...laint-n1056196



    So what did he say on the phone conversation to Vlad?
    We may not know for quite some time.

    One of the best summations I've come across of the issues at play.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...204445184.html

    One thing is clear, this story is getting more traction.

    Comment


    • One of the whistleblower issues is Trump attempting to get a foreign president to dig up dirt on Biden if they want to improve relations, read 'get military aid' for 'improve relations'.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9111106.html


      Seth Abramson.
      "It's collusion with a foreign power in the context of a presidential election, and using US foreign policy for personal gain. That's an Oath of Office violation, abuse of power and bribery. Impeachable."

      Comment


      • It's refreshing to read so thoughtful a piece.

        https://www.americamagazine.org/poli...take-age-trump
        This isn't a dress rehearsal. Enjoy yourself. There's no do-over.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bern View Post
          One of the whistleblower issues is Trump attempting to get a foreign president to dig up dirt on Biden if they want to improve relations, read 'get military aid' for 'improve relations'.

          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9111106.html


          Seth Abramson.
          "It's collusion with a foreign power in the context of a presidential election, and using US foreign policy for personal gain. That's an Oath of Office violation, abuse of power and bribery. Impeachable."
          If the CNI IG refused to share the whistleblower's complaint with the Congress because DOJ blocks it, can he or she not go public with their complaint?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bellyhungry View Post

            If the CNI IG refused to share the whistleblower's complaint with the Congress because DOJ blocks it, can he or she not go public with their complaint?
            Not legally if it's classified information. As much as we admire Daniel Ellsberg and some of what Snowdon revealed both were charged. Ellsberg likely would have been convicted if not for the illegal activities of Nixon. That hasn't changed other than a law which protects whistleblowers from retaliation. The whistleblower in this case has retained a former CIA lawyer who himself was involved in these cases in the past. I think a critical mass may lead to some leaks but anyone caught would likely be prosecuted.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bellyhungry View Post

              If the CNI IG refused to share the whistleblower's complaint with the Congress because DOJ blocks it, can he or she not go public with their complaint?
              Unfortunately, no. Although the Act grants some strong protections for whistleblowers, it does limit what actions the whistleblower can take.

              The whistleblower could even face serious charges if he/she went directly to Congress.
              https://www.torontogolfnuts.com/TGNFantasy

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pudubny View Post

                Not legally if it's classified information. As much as we admire Daniel Ellsberg and some of what Snowdon revealed both were charged. Ellsberg likely would have been convicted if not for the illegal activities of Nixon. That hasn't changed other than a law which protects whistleblowers from retaliation. The whistleblower in this case has retained a former CIA lawyer who himself was involved in these cases in the past. I think a critical mass may lead to some leaks but anyone caught would likely be prosecuted.
                Thanks. I guess the operative words here is 'classified information.'

                Agreed with you that the way to get it out is through 'leaks.'

                Originally posted by WWFS View Post

                Unfortunately, no. Although the Act grants some strong protections for whistleblowers, it does limit what actions the whistleblower can take.

                The whistleblower could even face serious charges if he/she went directly to Congress.
                Thank you.

                Plot certainly thickens.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bern View Post
                  One of the whistleblower issues is Trump attempting to get a foreign president to dig up dirt on Biden if they want to improve relations, read 'get military aid' for 'improve relations'.

                  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9111106.html


                  Seth Abramson.
                  "It's collusion with a foreign power in the context of a presidential election, and using US foreign policy for personal gain. That's an Oath of Office violation, abuse of power and bribery. Impeachable."
                  I think we will see a lot of speculation. Times reports multiple issues with the situation meaning it was more than one incident. If Trump is asking foreign powers to provide dirt on political opponents after the interview he gave last year and the criticism it received he really is a crackpot. His excuse was he would "listen" if foreign gov't offered dirt then maybe call the FBI. But to actually solicite would certainly be viewed differently by democrats. If he is enticing information with promises of foreign aid it's abuse of power but Trump supporters wouldn't believe it even if the actual recorded call was released. So I doubt it breaks the pattern. Trump does stupid things, democrats say he is unfit to be president. Republicans act like it didn't happen or explain it away. Repeated over and over.

                  Comment


                  • It sounds like the whistleblower is following the correct protocol that protects them. It's the IG that is holding back the information from congress that's at issue. I have no idea what would be the appropriate protocol.

                    The obstruction games cannot continue ad infinitum. There comes a time when the house holds persons in contempt and the DOJ starts charging people. Barr can't continue being Trump's shield without putting himself in trouble legally.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bern View Post
                      It sounds like the whistleblower is following the correct protocol that protects them. It's the IG that is holding back the information from congress that's at issue. I have no idea what would be the appropriate protocol.

                      The obstruction games cannot continue ad infinitum. There comes a time when the house holds persons in contempt and the DOJ starts charging people. Barr can't continue being Trump's shield without putting himself in trouble legally.
                      Here's a quick overview of the ICWPA from The Brennan Center (with lots of links to other info). You may be surprised that protections IC workers have and do not have.
                      Contrary to popular belief, existing legal protections for whistleblowers are limited and generally do not extend to leaks of classified information. This fact sheet summarizes key laws affecting whistleblowers and their prosecution.
                      https://www.torontogolfnuts.com/TGNFantasy

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bern View Post
                        It sounds like the whistleblower is following the correct protocol that protects them. It's the IG that is holding back the information from congress that's at issue. I have no idea what would be the appropriate protocol.

                        The obstruction games cannot continue ad infinitum. There comes a time when the house holds persons in contempt and the DOJ starts charging people. Barr can't continue being Trump's shield without putting himself in trouble legally.
                        DOJ will not charge Barr or Wilbur in their contempt cases. The fight usually goes to court and they have to defend withholding information on legal grounds. This is what happen in the Holder case and it appears both the Barr and Wilbur cases will as well. The DOJ will delay the court cases as long as possible. They certainly don't want the Commerce Case against Wilbur decided before an election. That will look bad. Barr's case is in regards to the full Mueller report and I'm not clear who actually has the legal standing on that one.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WWFS View Post

                          Here's a quick overview of the ICWPA from The Brennan Center (with lots of links to other info). You may be surprised that protections IC workers have and do not have.
                          The whistleblower in this case did not leak anything so they are not in jeopardy in any way. The classified information was communicated in the right way to the right people. Had they gone straight to congress that would be another story.

                          Comment


                          • Giuliani just auditioned for A Few Good Men Part 2.

                            https://twitter.com/axios/status/1174855025048375296

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bellyhungry View Post
                              Giuliani just auditioned for A Few Good Men Part 2.

                              https://twitter.com/axios/status/1174855025048375296
                              Oh my, that is too funny. The comments are hilarious . . .
                              If you think it's hard to meet new people, try picking up the wrong golf ball.

                              Comment


                              • Related to Rudy, several outlets now report the whistleblower info is in regards to a call to Ukraine. It has appears various Trump admin officials have pushed for investigations into Biden's son and the company he worked with. Apparently much of the foreign aid Trump promised Ukraine (including weapons to fight Russian insurgents) has been held off while the Trump admin decides if Ukraine is doing enough to fight corruption.
                                If Trump mentioned the Biden investigation in a phone call to Ukraine's president, it wrong, really really wrong. Pressuring a gov't to investigate your political enemies is not going to go we'll with much of the electorate. It also seems to me that it would be an "urgent matter" the intelligence committee is legally required to be informed about.
                                A few "ifs" here but considering the few details we do know, the timeline makes sense. If Trump is withholding foreign aid to pressure a country to investigate his opponents, that's not going to be let go by the Dems.

                                Comment


                                Join The TGN Email List

                                Collapse

                                Recently Joined

                                Collapse

                                Topics: 172,447   Posts: 1,801,122   Members: 46,957   Active Members: 256
                                Welcome to our newest member, bossjmc.

                                Today's Birthdays

                                Collapse

                                PGA Leaderboard

                                Collapse


                                TGN Sponsors

                                Working...
                                X