So does this mean there’s somebody else in the administration who’s authorized by law to declassify any damn thing he wants for no good reason at all? I thought not.
Late last night I read Pelosi wanted to hold Cory Lewandowski in contempt. That changed my attitude from yesterday - why didn’t we I wonder? Fine that bastard daily.
6 Likes
any Trump response that relies on assumptions of his intelligence, discretion, and character is automatically prebutted.
3 Likes
So our would be dictator who is head of everything and has unlimited power really isn’t a dictator who is head of everything and has unlimited power? Why keep this from both intelligence committees?
I’m confused.
edit
If the rules don’t apply why all the secrecy? Why ignore subpoenas? Why is the DNI avoiding giving testimony if there’s nothing to keep secret?
5 Likes
So, ultimately, Schiff may be pushing a rope uphill on this one. SCOTUS sure as hell isn’t going to bail him out and find for Congress on this one if the law provides the slimmest crack to slip through.
2 Likes
That one annoyed me. She needs to come clearly out on this. They didn’t do that, I’m sure, because she’s been pushing back on holding Trump’s feet to the fire.
So for her to keep saying no to impeachment, but then complain that Nadler didn’t move on contempt just feels inconsistent.
5 Likes
Did he say it in some way that makes any sense at all? Because that doesn’t. The whole idea of whistleblower protection is to keep your superiors from retaliating for the whistle-blowing. Trump is position-wise superior to everyone. This is the kind of response where an actual plausible defense is out of the question and it’s supposed to look good that you at least have the presence of mind to make words come out of your mouth instead of bursting out crying and running out of the room.
3 Likes
Pretty much. Our system was designed to keep traitors out of the Whitehouse, there were no contingencies planned if one ever made it in.
3 Likes
I agree with all of that for sure - she needs to be clear. I didn’t know she was complaining so that does change it again. hahahahaha goddamn hahahaha
1 Like
There was one. You just need to have a majority of the House and 67 Senators willing to employ it.
4 Likes
The intel whistle-blower stuff normally would be about misconduct within the agency. It’s not designed to cover if an analyst hears a recorded call from Billy-Bob to Jack in Russia.
Which is what happened here…
Like everything, it’s a Bullshit claim, but I can see the gap they’re trying to exploit.
Oh come on, people! Give him a break! You act like he’s got a well-documented public history of mishandling classified information and releasing it to the public!
< /sarcasm>
5 Likes
yeah. its called “classified materials” and “protecting sources and methods”.
Lets say this is about a conversation with Putin. Coates (and Gordon) are briefed on the content of the phone call, and are alarmed. Coates knows that he can’t brief Trump about what they know, because Trump would demand that he reveal sources and methods (and then try to dismantle them).
He also knows that as DNI, he is required to tell Trump. So Coates, whose resignation was already announced effecticw Aug 15, tells Gordon on Aug 8 that she needs to resign as well.
And Coates and/or Gordon blows the whistle on Aug 12.
ETA (edited to fix coates resignation timeline)
3 Likes
It looks to me like one did make it in … with foreign help. And partial payback was that meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak in the Oval Office with only Russian media recording it. In that meeting trump outed a CIA agent in Syria or Iraq (not sure which) who then had to flee to Israel for some sort of safety, In my world that is betraying one’s country. And yes, I mean treason
6 Likes
Is there a pool yet on which foreign leader? If not, why not?
P.S. I know everyone is betting on Putin, but I want the long odds on Ukrainian President Zelensky. I imagine the telecon with Trump playing the customary protection racket angle, a la:
“Nice little country you got there, Mr. Zelensky. Sure would be a shame if the US aid you’re due to get at the end of this month got lost in the mail, wouldn’t it? Hey, here’s an idea how we can make sure that doesn’t happen! I’ll have Rudy Giuliani deliver it personally the next time he’s in Kiev looking for oppo research on Biden.”
2 Likes
Had been thinking of that possibility. It’s certainly on the list, and possible with timing.
Regarding the betting pools, I’ve been trying to get Josh to start that on the site, so many possibilities, would be good for revenue
2 Likes
“Is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on such a potentially ‘heavily populated’ call”
So is the treasonous motherfucker saying that he would have said something inappropriate to that foreign leader in private?
5 Likes
Yes.
1 Like
Whomever the foreign leader may be who accepted a ‘promise’ from Trump to do anything should first talk to the current and former Mrs Trumps to see how promises made by Trump worked out for them.
1 Like
It makes no sense within the context of the law as written. The law includes anything that is within the DNI’s “responsibility or authority”. Team Trump is arguing that means only stuff over which the DNI has (direct) supervisory authority.
But the DNI is responsible for protecting classified materials, including source and methods – including preventing unintentional disclosures, or intentional disclosures based on bad assumptions. It doesn’t matter if Trump has the authority to disclose materials – it remains the DNI’s responsibility to ensure that its not done in a manner that could unintentionally or unknowingly damage US national security.